Recent enforcement actions

• The authorisation holder was on notice of pressurisation maintenance defect issues, but continued to allow the aircraft to fly missions at altitudes where it was clear that the defective pressurisation system of the aircraft was a serious safety issue.
• The authorisation holder oversaw a culture of systemic failure to record defects and allowed aircraft to continue to fly with non-permissible defects that should have grounded the aircraft. This inculcated a poor safety culture within the company and compromised aviation safety.

• AGAIR failed to ensure maintenance was carried out as required, in contravention of regulation 41(1) of the CAR;
• AGAIR contravened regulation 41(1) of the CAR by failing to ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule;
• AGAIR and/or relevant flight crew members contravened regulation 50(2)(a) of the CAR by failing to endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, by setting out the particulars of the defect or damage and signing the endorsement;
• AGAIR contravened CASR 138.055 since it contravened a condition of its aerial work certificate that the operator must comply with each other provision of the civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s aerial work operations mentioned in the certificate, each of the operator’s key personnel must comply with: each other provision of the civil aviation legislation that applies to the operator’s aerial work operations mentioned in the certificate;
• AGAIR contravened CASR 138.157 (1) since it did not meet the following requirements of the operator’s operations manual:
  • the plan, process, procedure, program and system required to be implemented by the operator to safely conduct and manage their aerial work operations in compliance with the civil aviation legislation.
  • the arrangements in the operations manual for managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft used by the operator under its aerial work certificate.
• Several defects were not recorded on the aircraft maintenance release. Having regard to the AOM at section 2E1.3, members of AGAIR’s personnel contravened CASR 138.160 (1). Therefore, AGAIR was also in contravention of CASR 138.160 (2);
• The operation by AGAIR of aircraft VH-HPY on the date of an accident flight was contrary to section 20AA(4) of the CAA;
• AGAIR and/or its pilots contravened section 20AA (4) of the CAA due to various instances of pilots not recording aircraft defects on the maintenance release, pilots operating aircraft with scheduled maintenance tasks on the MR overdue, pilots operating aircraft with non-permissible defects recorded on the MR and pilots carrying out non-permitted aircraft maintenance.

• Operation of aircraft with overdue maintenance in contravention of regulation of 41(1) of the CAR
• Operating aircraft without valid class 1 and class 2 medical certificates
• Conducting flights without having undertaken a required flight review as pilot on command in contravention of section 20AB(1) of the CAA and regulations 61.745(1) and 61.800(1) of the CASR (being listed offences under regulation 61.065(1) of the CASR
• While holding key personnel role, failed to satisfy responsibilities as managing director, chief pilot (in contravention of CAR 215(9)), CEO and Head of Operations (in contravention of CASR 138.070(2)), to ensure that persons who operated aircraft under the AOC, AWC and Low Flying permission, did so in accordance with the requirements of the operations manual and the civil aviation legislation.

Failure to demonstrate an acceptable level of safety for the actions in CAR 42A, and at the calendar time period mentioned in Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1009BE had not been provided.

Failure to comply with the requirements, including completing required flight tests, for such approval, including as set out by CASR 61.040.

CASA found that the pilot who held a position of responsibility in an aviation organisation failed to carry out their duties to ensure the safe operations and navigation of aircraft under their control.

The pilot engaged in conduct that included flight operations that were reckless in their nature, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, making false statements in maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating.

It was identified that:

• the operator failed to adequately record pilot flight and duty times;
• the operator’s personnel engaged in fraudulent conduct that involved the falsification of maintenance records of aircraft;
• the operator allowed aircraft to be operated while the time in service was not being recorded;
• the operator allowed the reckless operation of aircraft during tourist and filming operations;
• the operator allowed unqualified personnel to pilot or operate aircraft;
• the operator failed to adequately induct personnel involved in flight operations;
• the operator failed to comply with a CASA Instrument of approval for Human External Cargo operations; and
• the operator carried dangerous goods when not authorised to do so.

CASA had reason to believe that the pilot had engaged and may engage in conduct that constituted, contributed to or result in a serious and imminent risk to air safety. Find out more about CASA’s power to immediately suspend an authorisation for serious and imminent risk to safety.

Applicant failed to achieve the required 200 hours of flight time conducting Part 61 initial flight training in an aircraft of the specified category.

CASA found that the pilot engaged in conduct that included the unlawful carriage of dangerous goods, unlawful conduct of maintenance, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, the fraudulent submission of maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating.

CASA found that the pilot engaged in conduct that included flight operations that the pilot was not authorised to carry out, unlawful conduct of maintenance, the failure to record aircraft maintenance faults, the fraudulent submission of maintenance documentation and the failure to record the time in service of aircraft that the pilot was operating.

Between 19-21 July 2022, a CASA surveillance event was conducted. A total of 20 safety findings were made by the audit team.

Safety findings are required to be correctively actioned by the organisation in a timely fashion. In this case, 17 of the 20 safety findings were not acquitted. The company committed to an Action Plan to address the unacquitted findings, but did not adequately fulfill its commitment to do so.

Due to failures in the organisation's maintenance record keeping obligations, quality control and, among other things, the use of unqualified personnel, The company was found by CASA to have contravened CAR 30(3A), CAR 42ZE(1) and CAR 42ZP(1). On this basis, CASA found that the authorisation holder failed in its duty as the holder of a Certificate of Approval; and no longer satisfied the requirements for the issue of a Certificate of Approval. On 9 May 2024, CASA decided to cancel the company’s Certificate of Approval.