Operators of small aeroplane charter companies have begun expressing concerns for their future as the industry comes to grips with new regulations that will see airline-like safety standards imposed on their businesses.
Charter companies fly ad-hoc operations tailored to specific customers and don't offer the regular public transport (RPT) services that are currently subject to increased levels of safety regulation.
CASRs Part 119 (Air Operator's Certificate - Commercial Air Transport) and 135 (Australian Air Transport Operations - Smaller Aeroplanes) are giving the charter industry the most concern, and several operators believe if the proposal are implemented as they are now, the industry is unlikely to be sustainable.
Some estimate that of the approximately 800 charter operators affected, as low as 100 would still be viable businesses if the regulations were adopted as they are.
Chief among the concerns is that the new rules will not improve safety, but will impose significant increases in costs and divert company resources away from the day-to-day operations of the company.
There is also a strong belief that imposing regulations designed for airlines and aircraft such as an Airbus A380 on smaller aircraft will remove the flexibility that defines the market charter companies service.
According to some operators, Parts 119 and 135 have eroded trust between the industry and the regulator, with many believing that CASA intends to impose the regulations regardless of industry input. Other charter advocates said that the proposals reveal a lack of technical competence in CASA.
"This is complete madness, confounded by absolute stupidity, locked up in a bureaucratic nightmare," one operator stated. "[It's] so very sad to see such a simple process locked up with the irresponsible and incompetent regulator."
Charter companies are also up in arms over CASA's reclassification of charter out of the definition of general aviation and into the passenger-carrying category. The effect has been to exclude small aeroplane charter operations from reformed regulation such as the new GA-specific maintenance regulations that will be based on the US FARs.
"The reason we have GA is [so] the same C172 can be a private aircraft and a charter aircraft and a survey aircraft and a mustering aircraft," another operator said. "For this versatility of use we need to have a consistent, uniform set of rules for registration, maintenance, and operation. We could refer to this as 'lateral consistency'.
"The same pilots and engineers use the same tools, qualifications and skills to fly everything from a Foxbat to U206 to a Chieftain to a B1900D. Our pilots and engineers need a consistent, uniform set of rules from the bottom of GA to the top - 'longditudinal consistency'.
"The term GA may not be useful to CASA, but it is who we are and what we do. In a heavily regulated sector, words do matter and if they re-define the words they will re-define us out of existence."
CASA closed consultation on both Part 119 and 135 on 2 September, and is targetting December this year for construction of the new rules.