Australian Aviation — December 2017

74 AUSTRALIAN AVIATION DECEMBER 2017

PHIL HURST

Fire & Ag CEO - Aerial Application Association of Australia

I

n 2007, AAAA and CASA joined

together on a joint roadshow to

educate the aerial application

industry on the introduction of

the new Civil Aviation Safety

Regulation Part 137 – Aerial

Application. Ten years later and

Part 137 is still the hallmark of safe,

practical regulation.

The development of Part 137 was

characterised by cooperation and

mutual respect. CASA provided senior

management oversight so that even

the ongoing parade of CASA project

officers (some eight individuals during

the development of the Part) did not

completely derail progress.

While it started as a vehicle to

bring together a lot of disparate

regulations, exemptions and orders,

it was underpinned by a strong

commitment to ‘simple rules for

simple operations’ which took account

of risk, the capacity of the industry

and international harmonisation,

especially with the US FAA Part 137

(13 pages) and the NZ CAA Part 137

(about 25 pages).

Use of the term ‘aerial application’

was an intentional strategy to remove

decades of CASA hair-splitting in the

classification of operations, where

the same aircraft, the same pilot,

similar equipment and techniques

could do spraying or fertiliser, but

not firebombing, oilspill or mosquito

control. Part 137 fixed that overnight.

Another underpinning aim was to

provide a ‘one-stop shop’ for aerial

application operations, so that Part 137

would be well placed to inform both

pilots and business owners how to

operate in this environment, including

flight and duty times and a range of

provisions that were intended to act as

sector-specific ‘exemptions’ against the

anticipated CASR Part 91.

It was considered a significant

advantage to keep the regulation as

short as possible and expressed in

terms that were relatively easy to

understand. The later nonsensical

drafting style adopted by CASA in

dysfunctional Parts such as 61 was yet

to come into vogue, and consequently

Part 137 is both intelligent and

intelligible.

While there is always a need for

refinement, improvement and review

or any regulation, Part 137 certainly

passed the 80:20 rule of being mostly

right.

The Part 137 Post Implementation

Review was never conducted and in

many ways that has been positive for

the sector – allowing people to get a

sound understanding of the regulation

over the years. Some tinkering

undertaken in recent years due to the

knock-on effects of Part 61 and done

without consultation with the sector

led to ‘unforeseen consequences’ that

resulted in further exemptions.

There are certainly some very

positive initiatives that could be

included in a revised Part 137, not the

least being the inclusion of rotary-wing

aerial application operations. This

would provide massive relief from the

confused mess of bad classification of

operations, rules strewn throughout

the orders, regulations and exemptions

that is the current system – where

significant and inexplicable differences

exist between fixed-wing and rotary

aerial application operations.

For example, someone in CASA

simply took the decision in Form 1214

Part B – with no obvious head of

power, consultation or reason – to

reclassify aerial work operations from

the eight categories in CAR 206 to 43

separate categories – each requiring

specific details in ops manuals and

CASA permissions.

If CASA had pathways into their

organisation to encourage discussions

with industry on sensible rules and

an engaged middle management that

oversaw decisions to get an agreed

strategic outcome, it would be possible

to both improve clarity and safety and

reduce red tape.

The development of Part 137, while

sound, could be improved upon. The

use of the CASA/AAAA sector risk

profile for aerial application would

be a good starting point, especially

if combined with the DAS Directive

relating to risk management and cost

considerations.

However, the basics are still

missing. The operational and standards

silo of CASA still struggles with the

concept of cooperation and ‘win-win’.

It is still rooted in the culture of ‘we

know better than you’ and the ‘Big R

regulator’. This must change to drive

safety.

CASA’s biggest challenge in the

long term remains recruitment. Yes,

induction and training are important

(see the previous ICAO audit result),

but getting people with the right

outlook and the right attitude in the first

place will be critical to turning CASA

around.

The lessons of the success of

Part 137 are strong if regulatory reform

is to be completed by the end of 2018

as DAS Shane Carmody hopes.

Genuine engagement and discussion

around risk and its management,

recognition that industry does actually

understand and want safe operations,

and an acceptance that safety is

generated every day in the field would

be a good start.

As would a restructure of CASA

that puts people with that underpinning

culture into the regulatory reform

control seat.

Win-wins do exist

Ten years of practical Part 137 regulations

AERIAL

APPLICATION

ASSOCIATION OF

AUSTRALIA LTD.

Development

of Part 137 was

characterised

by cooperation

and mutual

respect.

Significant and inexplicable

differences exist between

fixed-wing and rotary aerial

application operations.

LOCHIE CRAIG