CASA last week published consultation feedback on two new operational classifications that would not require an Air Operators Certificate despite being closely associated with revenue flights.
The proposed new categories–Business Transport and Owner Transport–would cover operations that have been captured as Air Transport Operations under the current regulations despite not being open to the general public and resembling private operations rather than commercial.
"Some owner-related and business-related flights can involve an element of hire and reward," CASA stated in the consultation paper. "Following the introduction of the flight operations regulations, these flights may be classified as air transport operations under the current regulatory framework, even when they are not offered to the public and are conducted in circumstances that more closely resemble private operations.
"This issue has been managed by a temporary exemption instrument [CASA EX68/24].
"Industry stakeholders have advised that, in some cases, the resulting regulatory requirements may not be proportionate to the level of operational risk."
CASA cites a mining company operating its own aircraft to fly employees to remote locations and an aircraft owner engaging a third-party operator to fly family members to a holiday destination as examples of the types of flights the new classifications will cover.
The definitions CASA put forward for the proposed new classifications are:
Business Transport: flights conducted in support of a business's primary activities where transporting passengers or cargo is incidental to the business purpose and is not the purpose of the business itself.
Owner Transport: flights conducted for an aircraft owner's private, personal or recreational purposes, where the aircraft is managed and operated by another operator on the owner's behalf. Passengers will need to have personal relationships with the aircraft owner.
Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) CEO Rob Walker said in response to CASA consultation conducted in August-September of this year that his organisation supported the proposal.
"Industry has raised concerns for a number of years that the Flight Operations Regulations (FOR) captured genuinely low-risk business and owner-related flying within the air transport framework, requiring an AOC in circumstances that do not reflect the actual risk profile of the operation," he said.
"This has imposed disproportionate cost and complexity on aircraft owners and businesses using aircraft incidentally to their core activities, without a commensurate improvement in safety outcomes.
"We support the proposal's key objectives of removing unnecessary regulatory burden, maintaining safety outcomes proportionate to risk, and improving regulatory clarity and consistency."
CASA noted that not all the consultation feedback was in favour of the change, with some respondents saying the proposal would reduce regulatory oversight of air transport operations, and that passenger would assume the operation was subject to the same level of safety as flights conducted under a CASR Part 119 AOC.
Shane McCarthy, General President of AgForce Queensland, a peak organisation representing Queensland’s cane, cattle, grain and sheep, wool and goat producers, said the proposal was a step in the right direction.
"Permanent classification provides greater regulatory certainty for businesses making decisions about aircraft ownership, crewing and operating arrangements," he said. "AgForce also supports the principle that regulatory requirements should reflect operational risk.
"Flights that are not offered to the public and do not resemble commercial passenger services should not automatically attract the same requirements as commercial air transport operations."
CASA has said it will consider the consultation feedback in detail before taking further action, which includes considering whether any changes to the proposal are needed in response to issues raised during the consultation.