– Steve Hitchen
Whilst I was among the first to stand to applaud CASA appointing Andrew Andersen as the new chair of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), my thoughts turned quickly to the seat he vacates: chair of the General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN). Andersen will bring depth of aviation experience and passion, as well as significant industry respect, to the ASAP role; the same attributes he bought to GAAN when he took over in December 2019, and the same attributes his replacement will also need to bring. And that's what is occupying so much of my brain space (which is admittedly somewhat limited): who would be the perfect replacement? One of Andersen's chief advantages that would have been a key factor in him getting the GAAN call-up was that he wasn't a member or executive of any of the groups he was asked to wrangle. Impartiality coupled with expertise is very hard to find; they often are not compatible with each other. I assembled my own short-list of people who might fit the bill, but slowly drew a red line through every one of them: can't be expected to be impartial, too busy, known to not want the job, doesn't have broad respect appeal. In the end there are no uncrossed names on my list. Whilst ASAP will flourish under Andersen, for GAAN to do the same, the minister needs to come up with an inspired appointment.
I suppose it had to come to this. In the six years since CASR Part 43 was first announced, the GA community has gone from broad smiles to furrowed brows; from amorance to animosity. The key cost-killer promised in the regulation was that GA aircraft would no longer need to be maintained using regimes designed for airlines. It was even supposed to be based on the much-hailed FAR 43. But slowly, things began to unravel like a marriage based on one passionate weekend alone. Now, there is little support behind the regulation. The reason for such an aggressive volte-face is at the same time obvious and confusing. Obvious because the connection to FAR 43 has become tenuous, and confusing because arguments based on intimate knowledge of complex rules are lacking clear explanation. Part 43 was going to mean that private and airwork aircraft could be maintained under an alternative system to continuous airworthiness management. That means no MRs, aircraft maintenance technicians rather than LAMEs, standards based on CASR Part 21 and, importantly, the owner takes responsibility for airworthiness. There's a lot of other intricate changes as well, but there are a couple of glaring negatives. An aircraft maintained under CASR Part 43 will probably have to stay there for life. This means, for example, a flying school couldn't use an aircraft for charter work if they bought it from an owner who had kept it in Part 43. Not easily, anyway, which is the experience that is coming out of the USA. Another problem (unverified) is that insurance companies may not be happy covering hulls kept in Part 43. The good news, which seems not to mollify anyone, is that this legislation is optional. If you don't like it, you don't have to have it. Despite that, this is taking a lot of skin off the noses of people in the GA MRO business. Such is life.
If you, as an alien, had stridden confidently down the ramp of your flying saucer and into RotorTech (don't forget to register!) this week, your report back to your bosses on Planet X would probably say that the helicopter industry in Australia has only one serious problem: a lack of engineers. From poaching engineers from each other, enticing internationals, trying to attract apprentices, confusing career paths, Part 66 problems, theory courses, misleading outcomes, attitudes of the younger generation and why the hell is CASA implementing Part 43 anyway?, everything got a hearing that resulted in some very strident bashing of regulators, educators and the government in general. But I loved something that Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) CEO Julian Fraser said, possibly with his tongue in his cheek, but so relevant: amidst all this gloom the industry in Australia is booming anyway. If you needed confirmation of that then you hadn't spent much time in the exhibition hall; energy and optimism ruled the roost and there were very few unhappy faces. That you can attribute to the commitment of the industry and a desire for RotorTech to become a major aviation event not just in Australia, but internationally as well. There was no expo space unaccounted for, and having helicopters on the grass outside just topped-off the whole event. So, bouquets to AHIA, the Australian Association for Uncrewed Systems (AAUS) and AMDA Foundation for conspiring to pull off a great show.
Minister King, where is our White Paper? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. Is it sitting on your desk in completed form waiting for a politically-profitable time for you to make it public? So predictable. My issue is that I don't know whether to berate you for holding onto it or suggest you slide it off your desk into the rubbish bin on the floor. I am going to go with the former, because even if this paper turns out to be as junk-worthy as the last one, it is better for the aviation community to know that than be constantly roadblocked the way it is now. Virtually all approaches are being greeted with the response "wait for the white paper". Information is power, and withholding information is even more powerful, but it also creates damage. The sooner this white paper is out in the sun the better off the aviation community will be, even if we don't like what's in the Executive Summary.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch