Part 133 consultation

General stuff that gets thrown about when Helicopter Pilots shoot the Breeze.
ozloadie
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 194
Joined: Oct 2010

Part 133 consultation

Postby ozloadie » Wed Aug 1 2018, 01:33

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regula ... /cd1804os/

Has anyone had a chance to peruse this?
I attended a safety forum last week, not even mentioned.
Steve
Keep it flying, don't quit!
angrywasp
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 53
Joined: Apr 2011

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby angrywasp » Thu Aug 2 2018, 06:45

At a glance it is coming into line with ICAO and the FAA Part 133.
User avatar
Little Bird
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 2007

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Little Bird » Thu Aug 2 2018, 13:45

FAA Part 133 is external load. Looks like CASA is differentiating between fixed wing and rotorcraft FAA Part 135 for their respective Parts 133 and 135.
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Capt Hollywood » Sat Aug 4 2018, 08:15

You’ll need to do more than peruse it! There are quite a few changes that will affect all Air Transport operators. You’ve got until 2021 to comply, there’s no transition period as such though, the new regulations will just come into effect in 2021 and you will need to be compliant on that date. Download the Draft Part 133 MOS and have a read. I can see a lot of smaller operators struggling with implementing and even understanding some of new requirements. There will be a lot of operators that will have to bring in consultants to assist with understanding/implementing the new rules pertaining to checking & training, flight planning, fuel monitoring and recording, safety management systems, etc.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby hand in pants » Sun Aug 5 2018, 00:31

I just deleted my rant prior to posting it.

Just so, so disappointed with the controlling body of our industry these days.

So disappointed.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
Simplex
New Member
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Nov 2012

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Simplex » Sun Aug 5 2018, 07:26

119.325
Maximum 60 days for foreign registered aircraft operating in Australia, some operators and discreet AOC holders will be squealing over this one.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1300
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby havick » Sun Aug 5 2018, 17:20

Simplex wrote:119.325
Maximum 60 days for foreign registered aircraft operating in Australia, some operators and discreet AOC holders will be squealing over this one.


When they realize that they will have no heavies (excluding the Aussie reg Blackhawks) on fires, then they’ll quickly write an exemption.

Just look at Part 61 with the mountain of exemptions out there.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
UnObvious
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 203
Joined: Sep 2009

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby UnObvious » Sun Aug 5 2018, 21:25

I had a bit of trouble finding the MOS, but I might be special. Eventually got there.

Link: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regula ... 080652850/
Fill-level
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 181
Joined: Dec 2017

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Fill-level » Sun Aug 5 2018, 21:52

If your operating Air transport category now, this should not come as a shock.
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Capt Hollywood » Mon Aug 6 2018, 03:07

Except that CASR Part 133 - Air transport and aerial work operations - rotorcraft affects...

operators of helicopters, gyroplanes or powered-lift aircraft who currently undertake charter passenger or cargo operations under subregulation 206 (1) (b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) and who intend to undertake these operations under the CASR.


So it's not just your traditional 'Air Transport' category aircraft, the same general rules will apply to everyone from the lone R22 operator up to Bristow/Babcock/CHC, etc. It's designed to be a scalable system instead of differentiating between RPT, GA, etc.
Last edited by Twistgrip on Mon Aug 6 2018, 03:17, edited 1 time in total.
_chopper
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Feb 2014

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby _chopper » Mon Aug 6 2018, 06:34

From Division 4 of the proposed part 133 MOS.

22 Requirements generally
(1) The external load operation must meet the following requirements:
(a) for an external load operation, other than a medical transport operation that must be carried out urgently — the rotorcraft must be capable of hovering out of ground effect with 1 engine inoperative during the operation;


Does this exclude singles from being used for external load operations? A single is obviously incapable of maintaining OGE with 1 inop.
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Capt Hollywood » Mon Aug 6 2018, 07:48

Only if your winching a person.

At the beginning of Division 4 it states...

This Division prescribes the requirements for paragraph 133.317 (1) (b) of CASR.

Note: Regulation 133.317 of CASR deals with an external load operation involving winching a person.


As far as I can tell the rule 'flow' goes like this...

Part 133 > Subpart 133.D—Operational procedures > Division 133.D.9-Miscellaneous > CASR 133.317-External load operations involving winching a person.

To comply with CASR 133.317 you must meet the requirements prescribed by the Part 133 Manual of Standards.

In the Part 133 MOS under Chapter 3-Operational Procedures > Division 4-External Load Operations > Section 22-Requirements Generally it states...

the rotorcraft must be capable of hovering out of ground effect with 1 engine inoperative during the operation;


Simple eh!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
_chopper
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Feb 2014

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby _chopper » Mon Aug 6 2018, 22:42

Thanks Capt
Super simple....

So external load operations other than winching of people don't require compliance with the MOS...?
I clearly need to spend more time reading through this crap.

:cry: )c/
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby hand in pants » Mon Aug 6 2018, 22:55

Clear as mud. Looks like the same group of retards that wrote part 61 are writing 133. Bet there isn't an actual pilot among the lot of them.

This will impact the industry in a big way, not in a good way. Surely there must be a way of stopping these clowns.

And my ranting isn't just on here. Copied and pasted onto caa facebook page as well.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Capt Hollywood » Tue Aug 7 2018, 02:44

So external load operations other than winching of people don't require compliance with the MOS...?


As far as I can tell CAO 29.6 will still govern helicopter sling load operations.

As I see it, one of the biggest issues with these new rules is that small operators, who can least afford to be burdened with yet more red tape and complexity, will be the ones most affected by these new regulations. Larger companies will have teams of people in the background working to decipher, integrate and implement new procedures, policies, systems so that their front line people have the tools available to ensure compliance. I spoke to a bloke yesterday who was refuelling his R44 and we got talking about Part 133. Not only had he not heard of Part 133, but when I mentioned operators will have to conduct a gap analysis he asked what that was!

I watched the CASA webinar the other night on the subject of Part 133 and it just sounded like two lawyers talking. Much like politicians, CASA seems so far removed from the people that their decisions affect. The ever-changing set of rules we are required to comply with is being made so overly complex that the average pilot, without significant retraining in Air Law, hasn't got a hope in hell of being across. If pilots wanted to be aviation lawyers then they would have chosen that profession!

There will be a lot of money to be made by consultants with the ability to assist small operators with the transition to Part 133.
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Capt Hollywood » Tue Aug 7 2018, 05:57

Does this exclude singles from being used for external load operations?


And of course, external load operations are considered Aerial Work and as such would fall under Part 138 anyway, not Part 133. Silly me! :roll:

However, Air Ambulance operations will move to the Air Transport category and will no longer be considered Aerial Work, hence the comment about the winching of persons in Part 133 which would previously have been considered Aerial Work under Part 138. :cry:
chocolate
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 85
Joined: Jul 2011

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby chocolate » Tue Aug 7 2018, 08:02

Here is an example to affect a small operation. What is the safety case for imposing this cost of installation of a second vhf radio and upkeep on small operators?. All modern radios have a monitor function so you can be on ctaf multicom etc and monitoring ATC freq or whatever. What other possible reason is there to have two radios?
Why not specify two altimeters, two slip and turn, two watches, wtf.
p 59 of MOS if you can be bothered.

Item Operation
Column 1
Class of airspace
Column 2
Requirements'
Column 3
2 V.F.R. flight by day Any Class (Classes A,
B, C, D, E or G)

1. The rotorcraft must be fitted
with:
(a) 2 VHF radio communication
systems; or

(b) 1 VHF radio communication
system and 1 HF radio
communication system.
2. A HF radio communication
system fitted to the rotorcraft must
only be used for communication
with ATS when beyond the range
of VHF communication.
Geoff Williams
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mar 2013

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Geoff Williams » Tue Aug 7 2018, 08:37

Be aware, dual watch radios can have limitations. They are not dual receivers but operate like a scanner with a priority function.

Here's what the Icom A220 manual says;

"The Dualwatch operation monitors the active frequency at certain intervals, even when receiving a signal on the standby frequency. When a signal is received on the active frequency, the transceiver switches to the active frequency and stays on it until the signal disappears, irrespective of the standby frequency status."

The receiver continually switches between the frequencies. If there is radio traffic on the Active frequency, you will not hear a transmission on the Sby frequency until the Active is released to allow scanning of the Sby to resume. These can be a better option than just a single VHF as long as you realise that it's not the same as having two individual receivers that can be both switched to be heard together.

Geoff
Gonsky
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 330
Joined: May 2016

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby Gonsky » Tue Aug 7 2018, 10:41

Interest rates going up,

Currency is falling,

Property prices going down,

Commodity prices heading south,

Aust as a whole is going down a negative path,

The least worry is part 133;

Regards,
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1300
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: Part 133 consultation

Postby havick » Tue Aug 7 2018, 19:21

Gonsky wrote:Interest rates going up,

Currency is falling,

Property prices going down,

Commodity prices heading south,

Aust as a whole is going down a negative path,

The least worry is part 133;

Regards,


Says the person unaffected by part 133.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."

Return to “On the Job”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests