CASA Briefing Newsletter - June 2012

[Admin]

From the Director of Aviation Safety

 

John McCormick

 

I was very pleased recently to approve a major addition to the way we manage pilot medicals in Australia. After wide consultation and detailed analysis of the safety issues, CASA has put in place a new simplified and streamlined medical certificate system for pilots who operate aircraft for private purposes. It means pilots who qualify to use the new system can obtain their medical certificate from any general practitioner, instead of having to visit a designated aviation medical examiner and apply for a class 2 medical. For many pilots this will reduce the time and cost of obtaining a medical certificate. The new system is open to all CASA licensed pilots who operate aircraft in a private or recreational capacity, subject to a number of important safety restrictions.

 

The new medical standards for private and recreational operations are based on the Austroads Inc unconditional motor vehicle driving licence standard, with a range of aviation specific additional requirements. These additional medical requirements cover areas such as cancer, heart failure, head injuries, epilepsy and musculoskeletal disorders that can pose a safety risk in aviation. The new medical certificate restricts CASA licensed pilots to flying single piston engine aircraft weighing less than 1500 kg maximum take-off weight. Pilots must operate at less than 10,000 feet above sea level in visual metrological conditions, with only one informed and consenting passenger on board. If a control seat is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate these restrictions do not apply. Pilots using the new medical will have access to controlled airspace.

 

Once a pilot successfully obtains a drivers licence (DL) medical certificate (aviation) from a general practitioner they must e-register it at CASA’s web site, agree to be bound by the conditions and limitations of the CASA instrument and receive an electronic acknowledgement from CASA. Pilots under 65 years must renew and re-register their certificate every two years, while those over 65 will need to do this every 12 months. There is no fee attached to the registration of the certificate. Pilots are required to carry the medical certificate and the CASA acknowledgement of registration when flying and produce them to CASA inspectors as if they were a class 2 medical certificate.

 

I hope many pilots find the new DL medical certificate (aviation) an easier way to obtain and maintain their medical clearance to fly. Having robust medical standards is a key element of aviation safety and this initiative ensures safety standards remain high while making the system simpler.

 

More information will be available on the CASA web site once this initiative goes through the necessary machinery-of-government processes.

 

In this month's newsletter you will see an item about a short survey of readers we are currently running to make sure this newsletter serves your needs in the best possible way. Please take a minute to click on the link and complete the survey as we do need your views to make improvements.

 

Go to the CASA Briefing reader's survey.

 

Best regards

 

John F McCormick

 

Making it easier to comply with drug and alcohol rules

 

Small aviation organisations are now able to use a new simplified and streamlined process to comply with drug and alcohol management requirements. CASA has introduced the new processes for aviation organisations with seven or fewer employees engaged in safety sensitive activities. The new simplified processes do not apply to any aviation organisation engaged in or providing services to regular public transport operations. Aviation organisations eligible to take up the new drug and alcohol compliance processes will use a standard drug and alcohol management plan provided by CASA. Organisations will also use a CASA e-learning package to educate and train their employees on drug and alcohol responsibilities. CASA's Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, says the new drug and alcohol compliance processes for small organisations recognises that existing requirements can be unnecessarily onerous. Mr McCormick says: "We are making life easier for small aviation organisations by streamlining the process of drug and alcohol management while maintaining high safety standards. Small aviation organisations will no longer have to develop their own drug and alcohol management plans. By using CASA's new drug and alcohol management plan and new on-line training small aviation organisations will save time and resources and still be confident they are meeting all the regulatory requirements. CASA has listened to the concerns of the aviation industry about the impact of drug and alcohol management plans on small organisations and found a solution that is simpler, while protecting safety."

 

Find out more about the new drug and alcohol management processes.

 

We have the tools to fight fatigue

 

A wealth of information on fatigue management is now available for both individuals and aviation organisations. CASA has published an online fatigue management tool kit to assist education and training in this vital area of aviation safety. The took kit is made up of a training and development workbook for aviation workers, a handbook for people running courses on fatigue management, an assessment tool and a power point presentation. There is also a report which looks at factors to consider when aviation organisations select and use a biomathematical fatigue model. This report examines the capabilities of six fatigue models and is a good starting point for organisations setting up a fatigue management system.

 

The workbook for aviation workers covers a wide range of topics including the causes of fatigue, sleep needs, napping, food, hydration, caffeine and other stimulants, exercise and well being, social and family life, jet lag and the design of work schedules. The aim of the workbook is to give individuals the knowledge to develop skills to best manage fatigue. There are both theoretical and practical strategies set out in the workbook, with exercises to allow people to apply the information to their own situation. The handbook for people delivering fatigue management training provides tools and strategies for the preparation and delivery of face-to-face training of employees. A slideshow presentation is included.

 

Go to the fatigue management tool kit and learn more now.

 

New simulator rules will save lives

 

New requirements to conduct a range of pilot training and checking exercises in simulators will reduce the risk of aircraft training accidents, improve pilot training and lower aircraft wear and tear. That is the conclusion reached by CASA after analysing the impact of changes to the Civil Aviation Orders in relation to mandatory simulator training. Changes to the simulator requirements will come into effect on 1 April 2013, with air operators needing to get ready now for the new rules. The move to increase the use of simulators for pilot training and checking was driven by a serious incident and a fatal accident which took place during training exercises. A discussion paper on the issues relating to simulator training was issued in 2009 and a notice of proposed rule making in 2010. CASA has now published a notice of final ruling making, setting out comments made by the aviation industry on the 2010 proposals, as well as the final rules.

 

Under the new requirements conversion command training for pilots, as well as training and checking for pilots working for an air operator required to have a training and checking organisation, must be carried out in a simulator in clearly defined circumstances. Where training is being carried out for a multi-engine aeroplane with between 10 and 19 seats it must be conducted in an appropriate simulator if one is available in Australia. For training for aircraft with more than 20 passenger seats the training must be done in a simulator if one is available in Australia or a recognised foreign state. This same requirement applies to aeroplanes with a maximum take off weight of more than 8618 kilograms. The simulator provisions also apply to relevant helicopter operations.

 

Find out more about the new simulator training requirements.

 

Your chance to learn more about safety

 

Five special aviation information forums are being held during the second half of 2012. The forums are being run jointly by CASA, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Bureau of Meteorology and the RAAF. These safety education forums are a chance to access a wide range of important information across a wide range of topics, with a special focus on human factors issues. The forums are being held in conjunction with major universities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. With presentations from each aviation body involved, the forums will be all day events and a light lunch and refreshments will be provided. There is no charge and forums are open to everyone involved in aviation – not just university students and staff. The first forum is being held on Saturday 28 July at the Griffith University in Brisbane.

 

Please book your place for the Brisbane Access All Information Areas forum now.

 

In July 2012 there will be eight AvSafety seminars for pilots. The seminars will be held in NSW, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. The topics at each location will be human factors in aviation and aviation resources on the internet. CASA is urging all pilots to attend an AvSafety seminar in their area as it is a great chance to learn, discuss safety with colleagues and talk with CASA's aviation safety advisers. The seminars are free but everyone is asked to book online at the CASA web site.

 

Find the location of the July AvSafety seminars and book your place.

 

Retire your cables before they fail!

 

Advice on the replacement of stainless steel flight control cables more than 15 years old has been updated. CASA strongly recommends control cables with terminal fittings manufactured from stainless steel SAE-AISI 303Se be replaced before reaching 15 years time in service. This is because reports of breaks in the terminals due to stress corrosion cracking continue to be received in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. A failure of a flight control cable terminal can result in loss of control of an aircraft. The cracking which causes the terminal failures may not provide clear visual clues to the extent of the problem and can start from within the terminal. One formal investigation by the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority found cracking originated from inside a terminal. Even very small corrosion pits, cracks or rust deposits may indicate a terminal is close to failure. Periodic inspections to monitor pitting or rust are not adequate as the evidence is hard to detect and the rate of crack propagation difficult to predict. Aircraft owners, operators and maintainers are urged to review aircraft log books to establish which flight control cables have been replaced in the last 15 years and to retire all cables before they reach 15 years old.

 

Read the airworthiness bulletin on the retirement of flight control cables.

 

Keeping small kids safe in the air

 

The safety of infants and small children in aircraft is under review, with CASA setting up a project to explore the best ways of protecting these passengers. A discussion paper will be published to generate debate on current regulatory requirements, as well as developments in passenger safety. In addition, advisory material on infant and child safety will be updated and improved to provide guidance on child safety best practices and newly available restraints. In announcing the project CASA said the method of carrying infants and small children in aircraft has not changed substantially since the early years of aviation. However, there have been great advances in child safety in other forms of transport such as motor vehicles. Evidence from accidents and research says children who are carried on the lap of an adult passenger are likely to be more severely injured in an accident than other passengers. Other research says seating small children individually on an aircraft seat may not be appropriate. CASA has been working with Standards Australia on a revision that is being made to standards for motor vehicle child restraint systems to include provisions allowing for restraints to be used in aircraft. New standards would include testing of seats in an aircraft-like environment, restrictions on dimensions and instructions on how to fit seats in aircraft. This would allow restraints to be marked as acceptable for aircraft use.

 

Find out more about the infant and child safety project.

 

Albury steps an airspace hot spot

 

A review of airspace across south and south-eastern Australia found a large number of airspace infringements associated with the Albury control area steps. The review, conducted for CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation, covered enroute, departure and arrival airspace from south of Sydney to Tasmania and west to Adelaide. It did not include the terminal airspace of eight aerodromes within the review area. The review found a high number of infringements relating to aircraft entering restricted areas such East Sale in Victoria and Marrangaroo in NSW. In total, during a two year period from July 2009, there were 197 airspace infringements in the airspace studied logged via Aviation Safety Incident Reports. The next highest number of incident reports (99) was for a failure to comply with air traffic instructions or procedures. The majority of these involve aircraft climbing or descending through cleared level (36), pilots not complying with route clearance (27), incorrect holding direction (9) and pilots not adhering to an ATC clearance requirement (5). An analysis of the data, as well as feedback from airspace users and other stakeholders, concluded the airspace classifications within the area reviewed are suitable. The analysis did find a concentration of airspace infringements related to the Albury control steps and the report recommends the findings be further reviewed by a proposed Airspace Infringement Task Force.

 

Read the south and south-east airspace review report.

 

We want your views on us now!

 

There is still time to have your say about this newsletter. We’re asking our readers to complete a small online survey to gather information about what you like or don’t like about the CASA Briefing newsletter. There are only five questions in the survey – so it will take less than a minute to complete. We’re asking how you rate the newsletter, the relevance of information, if you like the layout and if stories are too long, too short or just right. The survey was launched in the May edition of the CASA Briefing and closes on June 30, so please give us your views now. Results so far show 83 per cent of respondents rate the newsletter as excellent or good and 78 per cent say the information is very relevant or relevant.

 

Please fill in the CASA Briefing survey now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This all sounds very positive and a step forward.

 

 

[damkia]

Seems to me that there will be an exodus from RA-Aus given the access to controlled airspace and increased weights allowed in this new decree. I'm guessing it will cost less to be a part of than RA-Aus.

 

Flying, minus the BS.

 

In all honesty it sounds like CASA have been looking on and have had enough of the mismanagement that has apparently been going on.

 

I can see a lot of VH reg 2 seat Cougars with decent (130-150hp) engines and decent load (700kg AUW) carrying capacity. Happy days Garry Morgan.....

 

 

[Yenn]

To make use of the new medical availability you will still have to hold a PPL or more, so it is not going to denude RAAus of those who do not have a PPL, nor will it reduce the cost for those who have to hire a plane. It will be better for me, but I might still retain my RAAus membership, so that I can fly RAAus rego planes as well as GA.

 

I really don't think it was brought about by CASA wanting to attack RAAus for bad management. It still seems to me that RAAus provides what it sets out to do, despite what some knockers still keep spouting on about.

 

 

[damkia]

A lot of RA-Aus pilots are here for medical reasons (fail level 2 medicals). Those reasons no longer exist, meaning they can get their GA licence back under the limited provisions above. It also opens up the use of hired GA if needed with only 2 seats occupied for more cargo

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

This has just made my day ... :)

 

 

[David Isaac]

This is a good step forward, however, I am some what surprised on two counts:

 

1. Allowed in CTA ...

 

2. Only one PAX ...

 

Not sure I understand the logic of that argument. If you are allowed in CTA, why with only one passenger.

 

The real aircraft costs wont lower at all in terms of GA flying, the only cost that will drop is the cost of the Class 2 and the CASA medical fee, in all other respects the aircraft must still be VH and LAME maintained.

 

I agree with Yenn, I doubt it will have any dramatic effects on RA Aus as Plastic fantastics are faster than your typical small GA planes and have more gadgets and an RA Aus Pilot Cert is a lot easier to obtain than a PPL.

 

Three years ago my medical issue grounded me and under these provisions I could have still kept flying. I am OK now, but in the future if I lose my Class 2 again and can still maintain the lesser standards, I will still be able to fly the old Auster ... now that is pretty good as far as I am concerned.

 

I feel sorry for Nev (Facthunter) he sold his nice old Citabria years ago and now he could have flown her ... 'thems the breaks' ... as they say.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Firstly, what were you doing up at 12:06 am

 

Only one PAX - agree with you, after all the pilot will be healthy, if not quite meeting the criteria established in Florence Nightingale's time, and not being inspected by a dame.

 

CTA - why not - look at the photo of Moorabbin, named after Harry Hawker who used to go rabbiting there.

 

• You can land on the runway you landed at last week (they don't mind)
   
   
  
• You can land on a runway which looks cute
   
   
  
• You can land on a north south runway if you like crosswinds
   
   
  
• You can even use 04 and try an EFATO between the factories built by someone who got a 99 year lease
   
   
  

 

 

Plastic fantastics might have more gadgets than the old Austins we've seen lately, but most people have now bitterly found out that there's glass and there's GLASS, and GLASS costs more than their aircraft, so they put up with over reading/underreading/delayed response and the occasional blank screen.

 

Take a look at a Cherokee Arrow and it's a different story with wall to wall instruments which work, Constant speed prop, retractable, 130 kts cruise. (Mind you I might by 5 Nm behind the aircraft at all times including taxying)

 

The hire cost of an Arrow is around 39% more than a Jab 170, but it's a true touring aircraft, ideal for the odd holiday. (Cost per pass per Nm)

 

Personally, I'm staying with the PPL for as long as I can, because this made me realise that the attraction of those high speed tourers is not as good with only two people. With four people, the Arrow costs 30% less than the Jab per person.

 

Facthunter is just going to have to stick to throwing his leg over the old Indian

 

 

 

[David Isaac]

Firstly, what were you doing up at 12:06 amOnly one PAX - agree with you, after all the pilot will be healthy, if not quite meeting the criteria established in Florence Nightingale's time, and not being inspected by a dame.

 

CTA - why not - look at the photo of Moorabbin, named after Harry Hawker who used to go rabbiting there.

 

Facthunter is just going to have to stick to throwing his leg over the old Indian

Jees ... was it that late .. LOL ... still working at midnight, it is the only time you get peace and no interrupting phone calls.

 

I don't object to CTA, I think that is a nice concession, I just don't understand the risk assessment they have used in allowing CTA access and yet limiting you to one PAX, when you still have to meet a reasonable medical standard.

 

I will be sticking to my PPL as well but will also be sticking with my RA Aus certificate as I simply love flying ultralights and always have. I don't consider plastic fantastics as ultralights, they are just low cost light weight aircraft.

 

Talking about our 'old mate', imagine his latest feat of throwing his leg over an antique motorbike all the way from Perth to Sydney with a bunch of his old mates ... bloody good effort I reckon. P.S. I'd still rather do it in my antique Auster though ... LOL

 

 

[turboplanner]

Perth to Sydney? They'll need three garbage compactors to pick up the cans

 

 

[old man emu]

"Small aviation organisations will no longer have to develop their own drug and alcohol management plans"

 

Crap!

 

When you read the criteria for a small organisation to use the CASA DAMP, you will find that to be able to use it, an organisation must have less than seven SSAA employees. That's fine, we have four (five if you include the parts storeman). However, in determining the number of SSAA employees, you have to include any organisations that do contract work for you. If we just look at the people who do our instruments, electrics, avionics, welding, upholstery etc, we get up towards 50 people. That means our organisation with 4/5 employees on the books still has to develop its own DAMP.

 

If you are in this situation, I can supply an DAMP for you that is readily accepted by the CASA AOD people. (For a reasonable fee, of course.)

 

Old Man Emu

 

PS: I'm happy with the change in medical requirements.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The 2 pax rule is a puzzle. I would love to hear the CASA explanation for this. They'd never give one of course because there would be no logic attached.

 

As for Plastic Fantastics, I don't consider them Ultralights either just as I don't consider my all metal PF killer, the Sierra an ultralight either. They are Light Sports Aircraft in my opinion. Yes the term LSA has been around for a while but not in the public gaze. The changed name of the magazine to Sport Pilot that caused so much controversy is a reflection of the evolution of recreational flying.

 

There is some comfort now in the knowledge that it will be easier to maintain my PPL with advancing years.

 

 

[68volksy]

So it begins! CASA's been very aware for a long time of the exodus of "mature" gentlemen from GA to RA-Aus due to concerns about medicals. This will help keep guys flying the aircraft that they're used to and comfortable in. The 1 pax rule is pretty simple I would have thought - same reason RA-Aus was limited - to minimise the "collateral" damage should something go wrong.

 

I think there will definitely be an impact felt on RA-Aus over the next few years (good or bad will be dependent on the individual standpoint). A good deal of the market for the super-fast/super-light RA-Aus aircraft has just been lost. The guys who would have looked for medical reasons alone now have no reason to look.

 

On the flip side this should provide a welcome boost to the lighter end of the GA spectrum!

 

 

[Admin]

I didn't bother continuing on with my PPL as being blind in one eye it was costing me a mint in having to go to a DAME and then referred to an Eye Specialist, who then conducts extra tests as well, and then back to the DAME again...the stupid thing is I have been blind in that eye for the last 45 years so I know no different but they still want to get specialist opinion in case anything has changed since the last check

 

 

[winsor68]

I guess if given the choice of RA or GA rego and requirements for the Aircraft... many of the generation that fly the "Plastic Fantastic" ""Ultralights"" may well find it more advantageous to go the PPL route...

 

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for Ra-Aus to reposition itself back where it should be IMO... regulating sub 550kg Ultralights that fly at less than 90knots...

 

 

[winsor68]

On a lighter note... those of us who like our sport aeroplanes to really perform may well be able to finally live their dream of owning a Pitts Special?

 

 

[robinsm]

Cool, gives me another option for learning if I want to.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

If you can pass an aviation medical then there's really nothing in these new rules for you.

 

I read this as, not a new weight limit and opening CTA to RA pilots and their planes (not that I'm after that anyway). Instead It's a good win for the average PPL holding, VH aircraft operating person who can't pass the medical.

 

Those people may account for a fair portion of the current RAA membership but lets face it, these folks where never really satisfied while begrudgingly flying jabs around on an RA licence when they just wanted to get back in the cessna/piper that they'd been flying for years.

 

In my mind these pilots belong under the GA banner where they can now go back to.

 

If RA looses all the "medical reason" members then it won't really be the end of the world and I think it may actually be a good thing for the rest of the members who are flying RA because they genuinely like the idea of light weight/basic/minimum aircraft, kit building or the low cost and low hassle that RA pilots have enjoyed in the past.

 

These new rules might just give the swell of "medical reason" RA members an opening to return to GA so that in future RA won't be pushed as much to become the "medically ousted GA club".

 

 

[storchy neil]

licensed pilots to flying single piston engine aircraft weighing less than 1500 kg maximum take-off weight. :peepwall:neil

 

 

[poteroo]

One unknown in all of this RPL euphoria is whether all,many or few GP's will be prepared to issue the DL(aviation) medical. Becoming a DAME is not high on every GP's professional wishlist, (I'm told), due paperwork and potential risk. The DL(aviation) might be even less attractive to them. If the pilot can't meet a Class 2, and the GP offering the DL(aviation) must assume this - then just how thorough must the examination be? I'd think any prudent GP would be apprehensive about this.

 

One other worry that I have about the RPL is that there will likely be a high non-compliance with the 1 pax rule. It's in the nature of pilots to look at this rule as being a non-safety one. I wonder how CASA is going to approach this - will it conduct more extensive compliance audits, with some hefty administrative penalties handed out? Non-observance will surely invalidate insurance policies too?

 

happy days,

 

 

[damkia]

One unknown in all of this RPL euphoria is whether all,many or few GP's will be prepared to issue the DL(aviation) medical. Becoming a DAME is not high on every GP's professional wishlist, (I'm told), due paperwork and potential risk. The DL(aviation) might be even less attractive to them. If the pilot can't meet a Class 2, and the GP offering the DL(aviation) must assume this - then just how thorough must the examination be? I'd think any prudent GP would be apprehensive about this.One other worry that I have about the RPL is that there will likely be a high non-compliance with the 1 pax rule. It's in the nature of pilots to look at this rule as being a non-safety one. I wonder how CASA is going to approach this - will it conduct more extensive compliance audits, with some hefty administrative penalties handed out? Non-observance will surely invalidate insurance policies too?

 

happy days,

I would think it is no different to other types of "restricted" or other licenses they are giving out now. More a clearance of anything medical that should preclude them from having a drivers license, rather than screening for an entirely new license category. Some states do this already as a matter of course for mature drivers.

As for the overloading problem, a Piper Tomahawk or C150/152 is going to be obvious, but I would agree that compliance with the rules in a 172/182/Archer/Warrior is going to be a tough one, especially in remote areas. May be that CASA takes a lenient view due to the sparseness of population compared to USA/Europe. That in some ways would be a minor win for common sense.

 

Looking at the stats for car accidents for all population (and "medical" causes included), how many car accidents are DIRECTLY attributable to an acute medical condition occurring behind the wheel? Quite honestly I can only think of a hand full or so in the last 10 years or so, scale this down to the number of people with pilots licenses and it may well be statistically insignificant. The other thing is an aircraft usually has part to fully duplicated controls (unlike a car) and this, even in the hands of an amateur, should give a better survival prospect. Surely it is time to look realistically about the likelihood and consequences of an incident actually occurring mid air (using the same medical criteria for safety of operation of equipment), that may cause more than "local" damage (ie, immediate occupants of aircraft)? A single pilot alone is always going to die, a pilot with passenger(s) has a chance of survival for all occupants.

 

I also note that the US is having similar questions regarding the possibility of a "Level 3" medical, similar to our new model.

 

 

[turboplanner]

When you look at the appalling behaviour on all sides coming out of the Hempel story you make a very good point poteroo.

 

Introducing a change without an explanation where pilot after pilot is publicly scratching his head about the shortage of logic is almost inviting infringement.

 

 

[djpacro]

CPL here needs a Class 1 medical - in the USA a Class 2 medical. PPL here needs a Class 2 medical - in the USA a Class 3 medical.

 

USA's Sport Pilot Certificate can go with a Drivers Licence medical (and fly aerobatics in those types approved for aerobatics).

 

 

[kgwilson]

licensed pilots to flying single piston engine aircraft weighing less than 1500 kg maximum take-off weight. :peepwall:neil

That'd be one mother of a piston to get 1499 kgs off the ground. It would sound interesting though, like one of the old single banger bikes that fired about once every second power pole.

 

 

[storchy neil]

That'd be one mother of a piston to get 1499 kgs off the ground. It would sound interesting though, like one of the old single banger bikes that fired about once every second power pole.

thanks kg my days of them bikes are gone if it chucked the leg out now that would be interesting:gaah: neil