2.1
This chapter explores the issue of safety within the general aviation (GA) sector, as well as the impact of those Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations that were implemented with the aim of improving safety in general aviation.
2.2
All stakeholders agree on the importance of safety in aviation. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) submitted that minimum and genuine safety standards are extremely important and ‘[s]afety must remain the genuine primary concern and consideration’ within the industry. However, AFAP also argued that it was necessary to make a distinction between unnecessary red tape and the need to introduce appropriate changes to the system of aviation safety.
GA accidents and fatalities
2.3
In the period from 2010 to 2019, most GA accidents and fatalities occurred in pleasure and personal transport activities (45 per cent) with aerial work accounting for 37 per cent of accidents and 33 per cent of fatal accidents. There was, however, an increase in the number of GA remote pilot aircraft (RPA) accidents per year. This was mainly due to an increase in the number of survey and photographic accidents. In 2019, there were 17 fatalities in GA. (See Table 2.1).
2.4
When looking at the accident rate per million hours flown from 2014 to 2019, test/ferry activities had the highest rate followed by all Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), and pleasure and personal flying (See Table 2.2).
Table 2.1: Number of fatal accidents and fatalities by general aviation and sport/recreational activity, 2010 to 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aerial work
|
Agricultural spreading/spraying
|
13
|
13
|
|
|
Agricultural mustering
|
10
|
11
|
|
|
Other agricultural
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
Survey/photographic
|
5
|
10
|
|
|
Search and rescue
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
Other aerial work
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
Firefighting
|
2
|
2
|
|
Instructional flying
|
|
11
|
19
|
|
Own business travel
|
|
3
|
5
|
|
Sport and pleasure flying
|
Parachuting dropping
|
1
|
5
|
|
|
Aerobatics
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
Pleasure and personal transport
|
45
|
77
|
|
|
Community services flights
|
2
|
6
|
|
|
Other sport and pleasure flying
|
2
|
3
|
|
|
Unknown sport and pleasure flying
|
1
|
1
|
|
Other general aviation flying
|
|
11
|
12
|
Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Aviation occurrence statistics, 2010 to 2019
Table 2.2: Accident and fatality accident rate per million departures and million hours flown by activity, 2014-2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural mustering
|
5.9
|
70.3
|
4.3
|
52.2
|
|
Agricultural spreading/spraying
|
4.0
|
57.4
|
10.5
|
149.2
|
|
Other agriculture
|
9.5
|
94.9
|
|
|
|
Construction
|
0
|
72.5
|
0
|
125.0
|
|
Search and Rescue
|
0
|
38.6
|
0
|
52.8
|
|
Observation and Patrol
|
0
|
17.0
|
0
|
7.2
|
|
Firefighting
|
4.1
|
32.4
|
4.4
|
35.6
|
|
Policing
|
0
|
52.2
|
0
|
54.8
|
|
Survey/Photographic
|
7.6
|
22.9
|
5.7
|
17.0
|
|
Other aerial work
|
3.4
|
24.1
|
4.6
|
32.1
|
|
Instructional flying
|
1.6
|
31.6
|
2.8
|
56.2
|
|
Own business travel
|
0
|
18.9
|
0
|
17.6
|
|
Test/Ferry
|
66.5
|
451.9
|
65.7
|
447.0
|
|
Community service flights
|
108.5
|
108.5
|
91.8
|
91.8
|
|
Pleasure and personal transport
|
26.8
|
222.8
|
30.5
|
254.1
|
|
Aerobatics
|
24.4
|
48.7
|
46.5
|
93.1
|
|
Glider towing
|
0
|
15.8
|
0
|
118.5
|
|
Parachute dropping
|
3.6
|
28.7
|
8.2
|
65.8
|
|
Other sport and pleasure flying
|
8.1
|
32.3
|
11.6
|
46.3
|
|
All RA-Aus
|
|
|
36.5
|
335.1
|
|
All SAFA
|
|
|
22.9
|
90.1
|
|
All glider
|
|
|
13.1
|
120.3
|
|
All ASRA
|
|
|
36.1
|
156.5
|
Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Aviation Occurrence Statistics, 2010 to 2019
2.5
The family of a pilot killed in a GA accident made a submission and quoted from the ATSB accident report, published on 30 April 2020:
The ATSB sought information from CASA regarding the circumstances under which the incorrect procedure was approved for use by the operator. Despite this request, no information was provided by CASA. Consequently, the ATSB was unable to determine whether the approval of incorrect information was an isolated human error or symptomatic of a systemic deficiency with the approval process.
2.6
To improve safety and access to airspace in GA, the Australia Government plans to provide $30 million in rebates to eligible aircraft operators for up to $5,000, or 50 per cent of the cost of installing Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) transponder technology. This will enable aircraft to be accurately tracked by air traffic controllers without having to rely on conventional radar as well as supporting pilots in seeing and avoiding other aircraft. It will also assist in search and rescue operations.
GA risk profile
2.7
There are varying views about the risk profile of GA. For example, according to Mr Peter Cromarty, a former Executive Manager at CASA, the ATSB’s figures show that:
[T]he total accident rate, per hours flown, for GA operations are nine times as likely to have an accident compared to commercial air transport operations… Recreational Aviation operations are twice as likely to have an accident as GA... The fatality rate, per hours flown, indicates general aviation operation are around fifteen times more likely to experience a fatal accident than commercial air transport operations. Again, Recreational Aviation is double GA.
2.8
Conversely, according to a report by Anjum Naweed and Kyriakos Kourousis, the GA sector has a lower risk profile, as measured by the impact of an accident, compared to the commercial sector:
…[if] risk is a combination of the likelihood of the hazard and the risk consequences of an ensuring accident, then, although the probability of having [an] air accident in GA is higher than in commercial aviation, the lower severity of such accidents results in a lower risk profile.
2.9
Professionals Australia observed the challenges for CASA administering two sections of aviation with different risk profiles:
While commercial aviation is the area where the consequences of critical failures are significant, the likelihood of such failures occurring are lower due to the resources of operators to maintain operational safety and the high level of public scrutiny. In general aviation, the consequences of critical safety failures are lower than with commercial airlines, however the likelihood and frequency of these failures are high, particularly when payment has been received by the operator for the carriage of passengers…
2.10
Mr Mark Newton, a pilot and aircraft owner, submitted, ‘it is undeniable that private pilots have greater control over their risk appetite than commercial pilots’. Mr Newton explained that his risk awareness, and that of his passengers was distinct from charter and airline customers and that everyone ‘involved has opted in following a detailed briefing’. Mr Newton continued:
No amount of oversight from a safety regulator can prevent me from making decisions about running out of fuel or crashing into a mountain or running off the side of a runway or operating an airplane with a faulty engine, or from setting up any of the preconditions that make those things happen … A safety regulator is only worthwhile to the extent that it promotes and supports my safety culture.
2.11
Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd (AAAA), drew attention to the lack of safety data, suggesting that this was indicative of CASA’s lack of engagement with those who operate the aircraft:
… the lack of focus on safety/accident data to inform the current regulatory development process is in stark contrast to the development of Sector Risk Profiles where CASA engages with industry to learn more about risks and controls from highly experienced operators and pilots.
2.12
According to Mr Phillip Hurst, CEO, AAAA, their members are extremely safety conscious, for obvious reasons:
We're very keen on safety as well, especially with my members being at the pointy end of any accident. We take safety very seriously, which is why we do a lot of offline training that’s not required by law. We do well above what the minimum legal requirement is.
2.13
AAAA recommend CASA work cooperatively with industry to develop Sector Risk Profiles (SRP), relevant safety KPIs and other useful metrics to focus on safety outcomes rather than regulatory process. The AAAA went on to explain that:
Critically, the SRP process must be based on data – accident trends based on ATSB and BITRE data, identified opportunities for improvement – and very differently to other CASA approaches – recognition that industry can play a leading role in improving safety through various programs.
2.14
Several issues were raised by submitters about Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO) and the potential for ‘blind spots’ in regulations as well as what is an acceptable risk for ASAOs.
2.15
For example, Mrs Susan Woods from Jabiru Aircraft commented that there is ‘no consideration of the cost of safety or differentiation between acceptable risk of commercial airline travel and acceptable risk of sport aviation’. According to Jabiru Aircraft, their customers must sign an acknowledgement of the risks of flying in aircrafts with their engines due to CASA’s concern about the risk of litigation concerning past approvals.
2.16
Professionals Australia was concerned about CASA’s responsibility being subcontracted to non-government organisations operating as ASAO and believed that it was necessary for CASA to have ‘the skills and resources to oversight these organisations, otherwise blind spots in the regulation of general aviation could emerge’.
Community service flights
2.17
A community services flight (CSF) transports people to and from a destination to receive non-emergency medical treatment or services free of charge. It is coordinated, arranged, and facilitated by an organisation for charitable or community service purposes. No medical treatment is provided on board, but passengers can receive medication and treatment for an unexpected medical emergency.
2.18
There were two community benefit flight accidents in 2011 and 2017, resulting in the death of six people. These flights had been organised by Angel Flight, a charity organisation that provides non-emergency medical transport for people living in rural and regional areas.
2.19
As a consequence of these accidents, CASA introduced Legislative Instrument CASA 09/19 for CSFs. Restrictions included:
private pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 400 hours total time with at least 250 hours in command;
multi-engine aircraft cannot be used on CSFs unless the pilot has 25 hours time on type;
private pilots cannot fly CSFs if they hold a CASA Basic Class 2 medical only;
VFR [visual flight rule] pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 10 hours on type;
IFR [instrument flight rule] pilots cannot fly CSFs unless they have 20 hours time on type;
no pilot can fly as CSF unless they have made at least one landing in the type of aircraft in the previous 30 days;
the CSF flight must submit a flight plan and pilots must mark the flight in their logbooks as a CSF.
2.20
The CSF instrument defines CSFs as a flight:
transporting people to a destination to receive non-emergency medical treatment or services (and back to a place from which the patient departed for a treatment destination);
coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an organisation for charitable or community service purpose;
where no medical treatment is provided on board, but passengers can receive medication and treatment for an unexpected medical emergency; and
that is free of charge to the patient(s) and the person(s) providing them support.
2.21
In 2019, a Senate inquiry was conducted into the performance of the ATSB, and in particular, its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. The inquiry received ten submissions and a public hearing was conducted in Sydney on 4 September 2019. The committee made two recommendations:
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority amend the Civil Aviation (Commercial Service Flights – Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements, which are beyond those required for airworthiness in the general aviation sector.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority amend the Civil Aviation (Commercial Service Flights – Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 to clarify what constitutes the ‘operating crew’ for a community service flight, particularly as this relates to additional pilots and mentoring arrangements.
2.22
CASA introduced the Civil Aviation (Community Services Flights- Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, effective from 19 March 2019, partly based on the ATSB findings and after a six-week consultation period.
2.23
Angel Flight was concerned about the statistical analysis conducted by ATSB. It was also concerned that ATSB did not make any safety recommendations for pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather, which was a key factor in the 2017 accident.
2.24
According to Mr Angus Mitchell, Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, ATSB, the data used by CASA to develop the Instrument for community service flights was not provided by the ATSB:
Quite often in an investigation we issue what’s called a section 32, which is a coercive power. That is very protected under the TSI Act 2003. We do not provide data to other sources, including regulators. That data that brought in the instrument that CASA relied on was their own independently collected data; that is my understanding.
2.25
Angel Flight Australia took CASA to the Federal Court of Australia seeking to quash the instrument but was unsuccessful. The Federal Court found ‘that all of the evidence presented by CASA was credible and supportive of CASA’s decision to make the instrument’. CASA maintained that the basis for the instrument being introduced was informed by a number of documents and was based on safety grounds.
2.26
However, CASA have subsequently amended Legislative Instrument CASA 09/19 following ‘feedback from the CSF sector, including Angel Flight, Little Wings and […] online public consultation’.
2.27
CASA outlined some of the key differences between the CASA 09/19 Instrument, and the new CASA 19/22 Instrument, which they claim is designed to be ‘less onerous for volunteers and give the [CSF] sector more flexibility to achieve safety outcomes’:
The old CSF rules had additional 100-hourly maintenance requirements for aircraft conducting CSF flights. This requirement has been removed and aircraft are subject to the same aircraft maintenance requirements as private flying.
The requirement for a pilot to have completed a landing within the previous 30 days in an aircraft of the type being used for the CSF has been clarified. The original intent that a landing can be done on the same day as the CSF has been incorporated.
The old rules required CSF pilots to hold either a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. This requirement has changed to also allow pilots that hold a medical exemption for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.
There’s a new condition for commercial pilot licence holders who are not also air transport pilot licence holders. They need 150 hours as pilot in command (PIC) of an aeroplane or helicopter.
Flight notifications need to be in a ‘written’ form, for example, the internet or an electronic form. This is to ensure all required data is captured.
Pilots may be able to comply with approved alternative requirements developed by a CSF organisation instead of the rules in the new instrument. CASA is currently working with CSF organisations on this option.
2.28
While broadly welcoming some of the changes, Angel Flight is continuing to negotiate with CASA ‘for an exemption to the instrument and a lot of progress has been made’.
Other matters raised
2.29
Whilst the primary purpose of this inquiry was to examine the operation of CASA and GA’s legislative and regulatory framework, other related matters were discussed. These matters ranged from:
Aviation Rescue and Firefighting services at regional airports;
alternative fuels and fuel costs;
emerging aviation technologies, such as electronic aeroplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles; and
CASA’s preparation of a roadmap for safety regulation development for emerging aviation technologies.
2.30
Whilst outside of the inquiry’s primary focus, the committee will monitor the relevant policy developments for their impact on the GA industry and aviation sector more broadly.
Committee view and recommendations
2.31
The committee acknowledges that the risk involved in GA may be higher for individuals rather than commercial operators. However, as is repeated throughout this report, the risks overall for GA need to be managed in a way that promotes both safety and the ongoing viability of the industry.
2.32
The committee cautiously welcomes the recent developments in relation to the regulation of community service flight operators. The amendment of Legislative Instrument CASA 09/19 is welcome, especially as it indicates a willingness on behalf of all the parties to engage constructively in managing both safety and the regulatory burden in the aviation sector.