25/7/2006 1

PO Box CP443, Condell Park, NSW. Australia. 2200

Aviation – There is a viable & safe future Global influences will have a huge impact on the future of aviation in this country and will bring about a more diverse industry than it was in the past. Before new government regulations are created there needs to be an understanding and a vision of what aviation is and what it may end up in the future.

What is the government’s vision for aviation, both private and commercial operations? The government vision and domestic and international policy is documented on the DFAT website (http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/aviation.html). This demonstrates that the Federal Government already has a whole-of-government approach to meeting their treaty obligations.

Federal Aviation Policy: A viable and safe aviation industry is of vital importance to Australia's economy. The broad goals for the Australian Government's aviation policies are:

• a safe, secure and sustainable aviation sector • price and service competition for consumers

• reasonable access to services for regional communities.

To achieve these objectives, the Australian Government is focusing its efforts on: • reducing barriers to entry • encouraging fair competition • avoiding interventions that favour one business over another

• supporting industry and regional communities as they adjust to changes in the market.

Does CASA Policy support the Government’s policy? • Safe system but is it secure and sustainable? • Where is the price and service competition to CASA’s monopoly? • Many regional services no longer exist – not just CASA • CASA creates barriers to entry – we propose reduction in barriers • CASA authorisation process restricts competition • Non – standardisation of authorisations prevents even competition • Not applicable – CASA

Aviation will only grow when CASA reduces barriers to entry to meet Government policy. The first barrier that needs to be removed is pilot training so that pilot’s holding a flight instructor rating can provide pilot training, either individually, employed by an Australian business or whilst working for a proposed CASR Part 141 training school.

AMROBA is dedicated to a new regulatory system where participants are responsible for their actions and have the independence to participate in aviation without CASA imposed restrictions. Autonomy and flexibility is the essence for aviation’s future.

This can be achieved if CASA provides authorisations only where they are needed taking into consideration the multitude of legislative requirements that have been created over the last few decades by governments that have negated the need for CASA to approve each and everyone that participates in aviation.

If a whole-of-government approach is adopted then the aviation policies that have been followed for over 50 years can be archived and government’s modern business, competition, consumer and industrial legislative requirements can be applied to this industry so that a viable and safe aviation industry will continue to exist.

AMROBA waits for government to implement their policies – CASA must propose a legislative system that applies the government policies whilst being consistent with the Chicago Convention. We discuss these issues in this issue.

25/7/2006 2

PO Box CP443, Condell Park, NSW. Australia. 2200

Table of Contents Aviation – There is a viable & safe future ........................................................................................................ 1

Issues:..................................................................................................................................2 1. Self Administration Bodies – A Parallel Alternative ..................................................2 2. So when does CASA need to issue authorisations ......................................................4 4. Building Blocks – Still Missing ..................................................................................5 5. Parallel Paths – Reducing Barriers to Entry................................................................6

Issues:

The following are some issues that need to be addressed if a safer aviation environment is to be provided for aviators and the Australian public. The discussion in this issue is about when and where CASA needs to supplement Australian legislative requirements that you and I have to participate in life. Employer and employees already have to meet many legislative requirements and aviation requirements should only supplement these requirements NOT replace them.

“The Australian Government's policy for Australian aviation is one of liberalisation and market-based outcomes. It is important for operators/organisations to have the opportunity and flexibility to react to changes quickly. Experience continues to show that government interventions distort the market, retard industry innovation, and are detrimental to more efficient operators.”

1. Self Administration Bodies – A Parallel Alternative Self administration organisations are the centre of attention at this moment as CASA endeavours to come to grips with aviation outside the commercial air transport segment. The problem for CASA is that various self-interest groups are all lobbying for a segmental approach to regulatory development without looking at the BIG PICTURE. The same mistake continues to be made ever since CASA and its predecessors moved to Canberra because the BIG PICTURE is not understood by many in CASA and the lobbyists who are very segmental driven.

Self administration is not self regulation – administration of regulatory functions can be beneficial to consumers, government and the industry.

There is a place for self administration organisations IF the BIG PICTURE is understood and supported by a proper regulatory framework applicable to all. Self administration of some regulatory services can be achieved as long as they administer the same regulatory requirements that CASA administers. They provide a parallel path to CASA and therefore provide competition to CASA.

AMROBA sees self administration organisations can be responsible for registering aircraft, flight training, and issuing pilot certificates for specified kinds of aircraft.

If private aviation and small commercial operators are to flourish in the future then a regulatory framework must be developed that keeps bureaucracy, including self administration bodies, to a minimum and making the appropriate person, individual or business, responsible for their role in aviation.

Self administration organisations can, and do, administer certain elements of the following aircraft/operational elements to lessen the load on CASA. Foundation legislation such as Parts 45, Aircraft Markings, and Part 47, Aircraft Registration, therefore need to be amended to allow approved alternative aircraft markings and aircraft registration by self administration organisations.

25/7/2006

3

Aviation is about aircraft, the people that fly them and the people that maintain them. There has, up till now, been a failure to create a regulatory framework that actually clearly specifies all kinds and types of aircraft that are in existence in Australia. Why didn’t CASR Part 21 include ultralight aircraft? Aircraft exempted from CASRs are already listed in Part 47. They should only appear in airspace operational regulations.

When CASRs were made in 1998 they did not include the important ultra-light aircraft industry that continues to thrive in this country. Instead of exempting certain segments, the legislation should recognise each and every segment of the aviation industry from general aviation micro-light aircraft through to large transport aircraft operating in airline operations.

So that self-administration organisations can administer certain types of aircraft or certain operational segments then CASR Parts 21-38 must be amended and/or developed to identify all types of aircraft and the certificates, if any, that each kind of aircraft and the people that fly and maintain them need.

Regulations specifying all aircraft types are foundation blocks of the BIG PICTURE. Once aircraft are specified in the regulatory framework, the operational and maintenance regulatory framework can be correctly developed.

Irrespective of who administers aviation requirements, there should be no difference in the competency standards of pilots and maintenance personnel – nor should there be any difference to aircraft standards just because it is registered by CASA. Maintenance personnel competencies have become easier as they should only have to hold appropriate national educational academic qualifications.

Even owner/pilot maintenance standards should be the same. Even an owner maintainer should hold a basic TAFE aircraft maintainer certificate that should be able to be attained within 6 months. This limited training would not address structural inspection, major repairs or modification but would allow maintenance within the competency of the individual. As the complexity of aircraft increases the type of work that requires specialised training and equipment, so should the training and qualifications.

CASA and those segmental lobbyists for self administration organisations have to come to the conclusion that the BIG PICTURE is to have a growing aviation industry with the same standards (aircraft/pilot/maintainer) no matter whether CASA or the self administration organisation is providing regulatory services to the industry. There must be freedom for an owner to opt for administration by CASA or a self administration organisation.

25/7/2006

4

2. So when does CASA need to issue authorisations One of the misconceptions is that CASA needs to be responsible for the implementation of all the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). In reality, it is the responsibility of the Australian government to meet their obligations under Conventions and that is usually achieved by a whole-of-government approach to ratifying conventions/agreements.

When CASA comes to terms with the whole-of-government approach that must be taken then the duplication of requirements for businesses can be drastically reduced. ICAO Annex 6, Parts 1, 2 & 3 address the various operational levels:

1. International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes (applied domestically) 2. International General Aviation — Aeroplanes (this is also applied domestically); 3. International Operations — Helicopters (this is also applied domestically)

The reason that ICAO only applies their standards to international airspace is that it is the prerogative of each sovereign state to adopt the ICAO SARPS and the CASRs must be consistent with the ICAO SARPs. (refer Civil Aviation Act)

Australia, in ratifying the Convention and, iaw Article 37 of the Convention, has committed itself to collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and organisation in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation.

For instance, in Annex 6, Part 1, Chapter 8.7 the SARPs clearly identify that Commercial Air Transport requires approved maintenance organisations, personnel authorised to sign the maintenance release (return to service) and for the person signing the maintenance release to be qualified iaw Annex 1. However, the same Annex also places the responsibility on Government to establish the competence of maintenance personnel iaw a procedure and to a level acceptable to the Government. The Government complies with this obligation under the National Aerospace Industry Competency Standards that are continually being modified to meet industry needs.

However, in Annex 6, Part 2, General Aviation Aeroplanes, Chapter 8.1.3 states when the maintenance release is not issued by an approved maintenance organisation iaw Annex 6, Part I, 8.7, the person signing the maintenance release shall be licensed in accordance with Annex 1. This clearly identifies that the maintenance organisation does not have to be approved for GA operations as long as the qualified person signing the maintenance release is a LAME. In other words, an Australian Registered Business (ARB), not approved by CASA, would need to employ a LAME to sign the maintenance release. This can apply to all but Commercial Air Transport operations

In addition, Annex 6, Part 3, Helicopters, has both options built within its system. Although the Part provides for an approved maintenance organisation in the same manner as Part 1, it also provides for the use of the independent LAME to sign the maintenance release. If the helicopter is being used in Commercial Air Transport operations then it should be maintained by an approved maintenance organisation; however, if it is not used in Commercial Air Transport then an ARB employing a LAME to sign the maintenance release should be used.

Applying these ICAO SARPs as other countries have would see a large reduction of CASA-issued organisation authorisations as GA could adopt a whole-of-government approach by using ARBs employing a LAME to issue the maintenance release. There would be no safety reduction because the work would still be signed for by the LAME.

With ARBs already complying with the multitude of Federal and State regulations, especially O H & S legislation, which requires the ARB to have qualified and competent employees etc., the only aviation aspect that is missing is the option for CASA to licence these qualified competent tradespersons to sign the maintenance release.

A (ICAO) maintenance release is a maintenance certification made by a qualified person that the work has been completed and the aircraft or component is released to

25/7/2006

5

service. In the case of an aircraft, this is released by a LAME, and it is not a document that replicates the current CASA Maintenance Release.

Maintenance personnel standards are provided by the Australian trainee & apprenticeship system that produces these qualified persons. Like every other Australian industry, aviation product manufacturers’ (aircraft and equipment) training courses and on-going training under OH&S and other legislation, ensures Australian businesses continue to have a competent workforce.

Other Australian legislation does not address global industry standards for an ICAO AME licence holder to sign the maintenance release and to certify airworthy after a modification or repair has been carried out. ICAO has both systems where it can be a LAME or an ARB employee having similar qualifications to sign the maintenance release, etc.

From a maintenance perspective, CASA needs to licence appropriately academically qualified persons to sign the maintenance re lease and to certify aircraft as airworthy after modifications and repairs. All of the rest of the aircraft or aircraft component maintenance tasks can be signed by tradespersons who are appropriately and academically skilled and qualified.

If an ARB sets up an aircraft fixed base and employs a LAME to sign the maintenance release and to certify the aircraft as airworthy after modifications and repairs, then the ARB would not need any other approval from CASA. (This is the same as many FBO in the United States.)

In the same manner, if we had the non FAA approved FBO system in Australia, the ARB could expand its business by employing Flight Instructors to train student pilots. This requires CASA to issue Flight Instructor ratings. This kind of ARB could operate in all segments except for Commercial Air Transport operations.

It is interesting to note the breakdown in who provides pilot training in the US: Part 141 training schools: 30% Registered businesses employing flight instructors: 40% Private flight instructors: 30%

AMROBA recommends and are lobbying for CASA authorisations to be used in the Commercial Air Transport segment of aviation only and the other areas be left to Australian Registered Businesses employing appropriately licensed/rated pilots and LAMEs. Similar to the US FBOs and A&P shops not approved by the FAA.

4. Building Blocks – Still Missing To make the above proposals work the building blocks have to be laid so that aviation can grow. One of the fundamental problems with creating a regulatory framework is the need for a regulatory framework that simply recognises responsibilities of individuals and organisations. The basic requirements start with the aircraft, the registration of the aircraft and the “markings” of the aircraft to comply with government obligations.

VH only has to be applied if the Australian registered aircraft is operated in international airspace or another country. If there is no other reason then it should be optional if the aircraft is operated in Australian airspace only. CASA aircraft register has 3 letter whereas other registers are approved to use alternative numbers/letters.

The basis of getting it right is for Parts 45 and 47 to be amended to permit this to happen. Once that is done CASR Parts 21-38 should be created/amended to include all kinds of aircraft types and what certificates, if any, they need to be able to fly within Australia and internationally.

Once this is done, pilot and maintainers competencies can be determined that provide a true parallel path administered by CASA and self administration organisations.

25/7/2006 Authorised by Ken Cannane Executive Director

AMROBA 061 (0)2 9759 2715

061 (0)2 9759 2025 (fax) 0408 029 329

ken@amroba.org.au

6

PO Box CP443, Condell Park, NSW. Australia. 2200

5. Parallel Paths – Reducing Barriers to Entry So what are parallel paths? Does it mean that another body can perform some of CASA functions under the Civil Aviation Act or does it mean that another body can perform some of CASA’s regulatory functions? How can parallel paths reduce the barrier to entry?

AMROBA strongly believes that no other body can perform CASA functions under the Act but they can perform regulatory services under the Regulations. CASA is the Regulator and aviation does not need pseudo Regulators masquerading as self administration organisations.

Parallel paths should mean that both CASA and a self administration organisation can provide the same regulatory service to the aviation industry. Applied properly, parallel paths will be good for aviation as it provides competition to CASA who would be a monopoly otherwise. However, the success of self administration organisations providing that competition means that there has to be regulatory services that both CASA and the self-administration organisation can provide.

Currently when parallel paths are mentioned the focus immediately goes to the recreational aviation industry and the current exemption process specified in the CAO 95 series. However, what should be the focus is the multitude of regulatory services that could be provided by a self administration organisation.

Aircraft registration is something that can, and is done by self administration organisations but instead of being a parallel path it is an exemption process. To provide a parallel path then CASR Parts, 21, 45, 47 and a new Part [22-38] needs to be amended and/or created so ALL kinds of aircraft that are to be registered are regulatory described. Part 45 needs to be amended to state that aircraft that operate wholly within Australian airspace do not need to carry the nationality mark (VH). Part 47 needs amending to permit recognised self administration organisations to register certain kinds of aircraft. Part 21 needs amending to permit certificates to be issued, if applicable, to all kinds of aircraft that need to be registered. One of the unused Parts between Part 22 & 38 has to be created to list standards in the CAO 95 series.

For example, ultralight aircraft standards are currently in CAO 95.55 but not in CASR Parts 21 to 38. Therefore there is no parallel path. CASA’s first responsibility is to transfer current standards from CAOs to CASRs.

The current Minister, and his predecessors, has directed that there has to be a parallel path so there should be limited discussions to make these changes. Besides aircraft standards and registration providing a parallel path the most important parallel path that has to be developed must alleviate barriers to pilot training.

If a person wants to learn to drive a motor car or a boat they are not compelled to obtain that training from a government approved training facility. In the US, you are not compelled to go to a FAA approved Part 141 training school to obtain a PPL – an appropriately rated flight instructor can provide this training privately or whilst working for a FBO that does not hold an FAA approval.

Adoption of this approach means that the current barriers are removed and MORE people will want to obtain their PPL. The parallel path to a CASA approved pilot training school is an Australian Registered Business employing an appropriately rated flight instructor to provide this training. It is time for CASA and Government to support this approach to remove the barriers to entry – i.e. implement government policy.