Part 135 - Consultation

Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 135. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.

Background to the Rules

In April 1988 the Swedavia-McGregor Report on civil aviation regulation in New Zealand was completed. Following the recommendations contained in that report, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (formerly the Air Transport Division of the Ministry of Transport) commenced a complete review of all existing civil aviation legislation. The existing legislation that is still appropriate is being rewritten into the new Rules format. New legislation is being generated where necessary for the areas not presently covered.

Considerable research was carried out to determine the format for the new legislation. It was decided that the legislative framework should incorporate the advantages of the regulatory system of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of United States of America and the system being developed by the European Joint Aviation Authorities and published as Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).

The new rules are structured in a manner similar to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) of the FAA, and aim to achieve maximum harmonisation whilst allowing for national variations. Close co-operation is also being maintained with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia to ensure maximum harmonisation with their regulatory code.

New Zealand’s revised legislation is published as Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) which is divided into Parts. Each Part contains a series of individual rules which relate to a particular aviation activity.

Accompanying most Parts will be at least one associated Advisory Circular (AC) which will expand, in an informative way, specific requirements of the Part and acceptable means of compliance. For instance an AC may contain examples of acceptable practices or procedures which would meet the requirements of a particular rule.

The CAR numbering system is based on the FAR system. As a general principle the subject matter of a rule Part will be the same or similar to the FAR although the title may differ to suit New Zealand terminology. Where a CAR Part does not readily equate with a FAR number code, a number has been selected that does not conflict with any existing FAR Part.

The objective of the new rules system is to strike a balance of responsibility between the State authority and those who provide services and exercise privileges in the civil aviation system. This balance must enable the State authority to set standards for, and monitor performance of, aviation participants whilst providing the maximum flexibility for the participants to develop their own means of compliance.

Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 requires participants in the aviation system to carry out their activities safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices. Section 28 of the Act allows the Minister to make ordinary rules.

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

To provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on the proposed new rules, the Authority issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 95-8 under Docket Number 1100, and Docket Number 1116 for maintenance, on 13 December 1995. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 135 to provide a regulatory safety boundary for Air Transport Operations — Helicopters and Small Aeroplanes. The Authority issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 96-6 under Docket Number 1101. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 135 Subpart D – Performance.

Supplementary Information

All comments made on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are available in the rules docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarising each substantive contact with the Civil Aviation Authority contact person concerning this rule making has been filed in the docket.

Availability of the Document

Any person may view a copy of these rules at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140. Copies may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, PO Box 3555, Wellington 6140.

Summary of Comments on Docket Numbers 1100 and 1116 NPRM

General comments on the NPRM

From the 37 submissions received, a number of general comments were made in respect to the NPRM.

One commenter noted that most of the concerns he raised on the informal draft have been answered.

One commenter wrote that "the contention that the consultation process is largely regarded as a joke is grossly offensive to all the participants in the process and also an unwarranted attack on the people within CAA who are involved in the rule rewrite process…..Significant changes have occurred as a result of consultation meetings between industry and CAA personnel…..I have not seen my submissions ignored and I do not regard the consultation process as a joke".

One commenter stated that "I would also like to congratulate the rule writing team on bringing together the many comments already received, in what must seem like an endless task."

One commenter commented that the rule as proposed appears to be a reasonable and workable document.

One commenter noted that "objective comment on the above rule parts is impossible without the accompanying advisory circulars (AC). We understand that each rule write group has a different technical study group. There is no apparent co-ordination between the groups. We are unhappy that this structure is apparently accepted by CAA….The rules (Part 121, 135, 119, 91) as they are proposed will in some cases undermine the economic survivability of operators, for no apparent gain in safety."

CAA response: All the acceptable methods of compliance which are to be expanded via an AC already exist in current documents. ACs may be desirable but are not necessary for an understanding of the rules. Where a rule requires additional equipment (flight data recorders for example) or there are significant changes between current practice and a rule a suitable compliance period will be stated in the rule.

One commenter cannot support the progress of Part 135, 119, or 104 through to the final rule stage until a mechanism to cater for commercial gliding activities has been proposed in a NPRM format.

CAA response: That the proposal to develop Part 115 Adventure Aviation will address commercial gliding activities.

One commenter asked CAA to keep in mind their concern that the rule must support a high level of safety especially carriage of the general public.

One commenter was very pleased, and appreciative that the majority of the concerns held, and expressed in the earlier draft had been addressed. "The rule as it now stands should ensure good standards and we would congratulate you all on the work done."

One commenter supports the direction of the proposed rules Part 91 and 135. They recommend that the cost benefit analysis be reviewed.

One commenter commented that as a general rule he found Parts 91, 133 and 135 acceptable.

One commenter believes that the economic analysis of the above proposed rules (91, 119, 121. 135) is flawed…."In some cases the NPRMs are incomplete and there are no advisory circulars to show what method of compliance will be acceptable to the Director…There are significant implications in the overall comments and specific issues identified in this submission which would seem to justify some further consultation prior to release of the final rules."

CAA response: In practice there are very few ways to actually measure what the improvements in safety will be from a safety requirement. It is impossible to say exactly what will happen in New Zealand following the introduction of these rules without actually implementing the requirements. The best approach open was to take a benchmark reflecting a system with a similar level of requirements (the USA) and expect that we would move in that general direction - that is, our accident record would improve.

The issue then becomes judging whether the potential benefits (even if they go only part of the way towards the US safety record) do outweigh any expected costs. This can only be done at a broad level and the US data is the best available for this analysis. The analyses did not rely on the New Zealand system being the same as the US system in terms of actual operational characteristics.

One commenter noted that it is pleasing that there have been significant changes from the draft of this rule in response to industry submissions.

Two commenters suggested improved wording and other corrections to general errors in the NPRM document.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has incorporated all the recommended changes.

One commenter suggested that design standard should not be referred to in the operating rules.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The design standards stated in the appendices to the operating rules relate to equipment that the operator may elect to fit to fulfil a certain task and are, therefore, directly relevant to the operating rules.

One commenter suggested that the requirements of Part 121, Subpart F should be applied to some Part 135 aircraft, particularly those over a MCTOW of 5 700 Kgs.

CAA response: The issue of standards of operation for the larger aircraft in Part 135 is being addressed in a project to examine the one level of safety proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration. If adopted this proposal will require aircraft with ten or more passenger seats to meet Part 121 standards of operation.

Specific comments on the NPRM

The main specific comments received from the submissions are discussed as follows:

135.3 Definitions

One commenter considered that Final reserve fuel should be "planned" to be remaining on board, on completion of a flight because "normally required" is not easily defined.

CAA response: Agrees and has reworded the definition to clarify the meaning intended.

135.5 Laws, regulations, and procedures

One commenter believed that this was too wide ranging.

CAA response: That the requirement only refers to those documents or parts there-of that are appropriate to the certificate holders operation.

7. Compliance with procedures

One commenter suggests that operation in foreign states be covered.

CAA response: The requirements for operations in foreign States is covered in section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990.

135.55 Common language

One commenter believed that all crew should be able to communicate in the same language and in NZ that language should be English.

CAA response: The CAA does not agree and believes that it is adequate that at least one flight crew member, proficient in the English language, is sufficient provided all crew members can communicate in a common language.

57. Flight preparation

Four commenters argued that the requirement of 135.57(a) was not necessary or practical for on demand operations.

CAA response: The preparation of an operational flight plan was an essential part of the safe preparation of a flight and need only cover the essentials for a particular flight.

Seven commenters either wanted the elimination of the requirement to file a flight plan as required under 135.57(c) or limit it to operations beyond a particular distance.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and believes the requirement provides an essential monitoring function for SAR purposes.

Three commenters wanted an increase of the 25 nm exemption for non-stop VFR operations as required by 135.57(d).

CAA response: The 25 nm is regarded as the minimum safe distance without utilising monitoring facilities provided by an ATS unit.

59. Information on emergency and survival equipment

One commenter queried whether as per 135.59(a) it was necessary for the operator to have available, for immediate communication to rescue co-ordination centres, information on the emergency and survival equipment carried on board each of its aircraft.

CAA response: While much of the information on emergency and survival equipment is contained in the flight plan this is not the case for flights where a flight plan is not required under 135.57(d) nor are the details necessarily as comprehensive as held by the operator.

61. Fuel

One commenter questioned the need for inclusion of 135.61(b)(2)(v) – geographic location of the destination aerodrome – in the rule.

CAA response: The geographic location of the destination aerodrome needs to be factored in the fuel calculation if factors such as altitude or surrounding terrain need to be considered.

63. Carriage of passengers [Final rule 135.65]

One commenter wanted the decision as to whether or not to carry a passenger to be restricted to the pilot-in-command or senior flight attendant.

CAA response: It is the responsibility of the operator as well as those persons whose duties include this requirement.

65. Admission to flight compartment [Final rule 135.67]

Five commenters sought clarification of admission to the flight compartment.

CAA response: The rule allows full flexibility for the operator to decide to include or exclude carriage of passengers to occupy a pilot seat. The operator sets the policy.

The change in title from flight deck to flight compartment was made to better reflect the subject matter.

67. Manipulation of controls [Final rule 135.69]

One commenter queried the qualification of the pilot manipulating the controls.

CAA response: The operator is constrained by Part 61 and 135.503 to using only those pilots who meet both licence type and other criteria including experience level, currency and aircraft type rating.

69. Use of flight recorders [Final rule 135.71]

One commenter considered the wording in 135.69(2) precluded the use of hand mikes for public address purposes.

CAA response: The wording does not preclude the use of hand mikes provided the cockpit-voice recorder (CVR) can pick up all communication in the cockpit. However if this is not the case and the CVR is equipped to record audio signals received by a boom or a mask microphone then such a boom or mask microphone must be used below 10,000 feet altitude.

71. Refuelling and defuelling operations [Final rule 135.73]

Five commenters requested a change to (d) to allow the operator to ensure safe fuelling procedures with respect to third parties.

CAA response: Agrees with this view.

One commenter considered this rule too complex.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and believes the rule retains the minimum safety standards for the classes of fuel involved.

73. Fuel spillage [Final rule 135.75]

One commenter believed the rule was too complex and detailed.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and notes that the rule, as per 135.71 above, prescribes the minimum actions to be taken to ensure safety. Operators can develop their own procedures which ensures compliance with this rule.

135.75 Use of aerodromes including heliports [Final rule 135.77]

One commenter believed it is not relevant to hold an aerodrome register.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and believes it is necessary to maintain a register of aerodromes not promulgated in the AIP. Information and data must be gathered prior to the commencement of a flight conducted under this Part.

Final rule 135.77(d),(e),(f) and Appendix C are transferred from a previously existing Advisory Circular 139-01 Aerodrome Design.

77. Night operations [Final rule 135.79]

Eight commenters argued variously from requesting no restriction for VFR night operations to seeking a ban on all VFR night operations.

CAA response: Disagrees that the restriction for night VFR operations with aircraft with one engine should also apply to those with two or more engines.

CAA believes that night VFR operations with a single engine aircraft poses more of a safety risk than during the day and consequently that regardless of the aircraft`s powerplant the 5 nm distance limitation should apply.

135.79 Operations of single-engine aircraft [Final rule 135.81]

Four commenters disagreed with the provision of 135.79(a) in respect to ensuring a safe forced landing in the event of engine failure.

CAA response: Does not accept that an air transport operation be carried out over terrain which is not conducive to a safe forced landing in the event of engine failure. Nor does CAA believe that such a rule will be unnecessarily restrictive for operators to comply with. It will however require planning and at times additional cost to ensure compliance with this rule.

Five commenters believed, in respect to 135.79(b), that either ditching was incompatible with this rule or that conversely properly equipped or configured, there should be little or no restriction to the over water distance permitted.

CAA response: Neither of these views is acceptable. CAA believes that 10 nm is the minimum necessary to enable most if not all over water flights to continue as at present but restricting such flights to conditions that meet the requirements of 135.79(c) for a safe forced landing.

83. Minimum altitudes for VFR flights [Final rule 135.85]

CAA notes that the minimum altitude above the surface, for a flight under this Part, remains at 500 feet and 135.85 in the final rule merely applies this condition. In other words all but 91.311(c) will apply.

85. Flights over water – multi-engined aircraft [Final rule 135.87]

CAA notes that in the final rule multi-engined aircraft that are not capable of maintaining a height of 1000 feet with one engine inoperative are restricted to operating no more than 10 nm greater than the gliding distance from land.

CAA also notes in the final rule that all operations to a point more than 100 nm from land shall be conducted under IFR.

87. VFR en-route – multi-engined aeroplanes [Final rule 135.89]

CAA notes in the final rule that aeroplanes with two or more engines which cannot comply with the provisions of 135.217 shall be operated to comply with the provisions of 135.79(a) and(c) i.e. carry out a safe forced landing in the event of engine failure.

153. Meteorological information

Four commenters requested flexibility in obtaining meteorological information.

CAA response: The rule provides for the use of alternative sources to an organisation certificated under Part 174, to provide a basic weather report for the purpose of approach and landing.

155. Meteorological conditions – VFR flight

Seven commenters provided a variety of inputs with no clear consensus emerging.

CAA response: It was accepted that the night minima for helicopter operations in 135.155(d) should be increased. While this aspect of the rule has been amended, CAA notes that it is still less restrictive than the current regulations.

159. Aerodrome operating minima – IFR flight

CAA agrees to add the requirement restricting a pilot-in-command continuing beyond the final approach fix, if current meteorological information indicates the visibility at the aerodrome is less than the visibility minima prescribed for that procedure.

161. IFR departure limitations

CAA agrees to widen the applicability to include aircraft with more than two engines.

163. IFR procedures [Final rule 135.165]

CAA believes the rule as it stands makes provision for IFR flight outside routes defined in the AIP.

This Subpart Summarises Comments on Docket Number 1042 NPRM

General comments on the NPRM

From the nine submissions received, three commenters indicated agreement and made no specific comments. From the remaining three commenters one general issues was raised and is discussed as follows:

One commenter asked if the NPRM addresses such aircraft as the DC3 and those certificated to FAR Part 135 Appendix A standards.

One commenter stated that there is a need to include aircraft performance certification other than the FARs. It will be necessary to include CAR-3 issued by the Canadian MOT and ANO 20.7.4 issued by the Australian CAA as it is not possible to schedule the aircraft performance to the proposed rules with the aeroplane flight manual data.

CAA response: CAA agrees with the two commenters that the rule needs to include FAR Part 135 Appendix A standards and to address certain aircraft that cannot, due to their airworthiness standards, comply in full with the performance requirements. 135.201 Applicability now includes aeroplanes certificated to FAR Part 135 Appendix A standards and a further provision has been added for the operation of aeroplanes that cannot fully comply with the performance requirements.

A number of the commenters commented on the values of net take-off flight path, take-off flight path, take-off distance, and take-off run in this subpart.

CAA response: CAA reviewed the use of these terms in the equivalent FAR Part 135 and found that those rules state that these terms have the same meaning as prescribed in the rules under which the aeroplane is certificated. FAR Part 23 Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category aeroplanes and the other airworthiness standards listed in 135.201 Applicability specify the likes of take-off distance and net take-off flight path in detail. Consequently, in prescribing the operational performance requirements in Part 135, there is no further specification in terms of the likes that take-off distance is to 35 feet or 50 feet as the case may be, or that the net take-off flight path extends to a certain height above the aerodrome surface. As CAR Part 21 incorporates CAR Part 23 by reference, CAA concludes that this subpart should adopt the FAR system and has deleted the values associated with these terms in this subpart and has adopted the FAR 135 definition for these terms.

Specific comments on the NPRM

Specific comments received from the 9 submissions are discussed as follows:

2.1 135.203 Definitions

One commenter asked that if it is necessary to define clearway, is it appropriate to define stopway?

CAA response: The definition of clearway is included as the term is used in this Subpart whereas he term stopway is not used in the Subpart and therefore not defined.

One commenter stated that the definition of threshold is unclear as to what the runway surface includes (clearways etc.). The old CASO 4 definition refers to that portion of the runway declared usable for landing.

CAA response: The definition of threshold is applicable to this CAR only and should not be confused with the definition of threshold in terms of aerodrome design. The threshold as defined in this CAR originates in the airworthiness standards in Far Part 23 requiring landing performance data to be established using this threshold.

One commenter considered that the definition of V1 and V2 is unsatisfactory for large aircraft and should be altered in this rule and in Part 121.

CAA response: CAA does not agree as these definitions are the same as those used in the airworthiness standards FAR Part 23 and 25 incorporated by reference under CAR Part 21. The use of these definitions in this Part is essential for compatibility with the performance data contained in the aeroplane flight manual which is produced in compliance with the airworthiness standards.

135.209 Take-off distance

One commenter considered that pressure altitude should be accounted for in this rule. There may be doubt as to whether 135.209 or 135.227 which include pressure altitude must be complied with.

CAA response: CAA agrees and has amended the rule to include pressure altitude.

One commenter suggested that the word certificated should be inserted between maximum and take-off in (a)(1).

CAA response: Use of the word certificated would be superfluous in this instance as the rule refers to specified in the flight manual which in essence means certificated.

One commenter stated that while supporting the use of factors to the all-engine take-off distance the use of a factor of 1.3 is too penalising given that the FARs do not impose any factors. It is in excess of the current factors in CASO 4 for daylight operations and would be severely limiting for some operations. The commenter recommends the use of the standard 1.15 factor in common use for all engines take-off.

CAA response: CAA reviewed the factor in response to this comment and concluded that a factor of 1.18 was appropriate as a median factor derived from CASO 4 and a study of overseas requirements for these types of aeroplanes. FAR Part 135 does not prescribe a factor but in discussion with a number of the commenters, they considered that a factor was required as the flight manual data was produced following flight tests with a brand new aeroplane flown by an experienced test pilot in ideal conditions which in effect provides little margin for the aeroplane type in service. For consistency with other performance requirements which express % or runway rather than a factor, the rule will refer to 85% of the take-off run available which is equivalent to a factor of 1.18.

One commenter asked if the term take-off run available in paragraph (a) (2) should be take-off distance available?

CAA response: CAA does not agree as the term take-off distance available includes the length of a clearway which is not allowed to be used by the type of aircraft required to comply with this rule. The use of the term take-off run available is therefore correct in the context of this rule.

135.211 Runway surface and slope correction factors

One commenter stated that the rule does not provide a means for the Director to approve values for other runway surface correction factors. The commenter suggested the table should be in an AC as an acceptable means of compliance to a basic rule which requires allowance to be made for surfaces other than paved.

CAA response: CAA does not agree as these factors were developed for CASO 4 corrections by flight test and study of overseas factors. CAA considers that the factors are still valid and therefore properly in the rule. CAA is not able to identify any other runway surfaces which might require correction factors as suggested by this commenter. If an operator encounters a different runway surface, it can be equated to one of the surfaces in this rule and that factor applied.

One commenter pointed out that paragraph (2) is not correct for landing which are opposite in terms of correction to take-off.

CAA response: CAA agrees that this is an error and has corrected this paragraph by addressing the correction factors for take-off and landings separately.

135.213 Net take-off flight path – aeroplanes under IFR

One commenter considered that the requirements could be expanded to require operators to consider the net flight path requirements of PANS OPS doc 8168 Part II IFR departure fans and the associated SIDS published in the AIP.

CAA response: CAA does not agree as the PANS OPS doc 8168 Part II IFR procedures are based on a standard 2.5% net flight path and does not consider aeroplane performance with the critical engine inoperative. While the practice of declaring the instrument departure procedure net flight path at some aerodromes is useful, the aeroplane operator must comply with this rule to ensure obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure.

One commenter asked, with reference to paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2), what the required navigational accuracy is.

CAA response: In response to this question, the rule is amended by replacing this requirement with a requirement for the certificate holder to establish visual or radio navigation track guidance for use of the reduced distance.

135.215 Engine inoperative – gradient and stall corrections

Two commenters said they had difficulty understanding the table. One commenter suggested that the bank angle figures are not restrictive enough and the angles of bank should be stated as the range of angles within which the corrections are required.

CAA response: CAA agrees with the suggestion of restructuring the table in terms of bank angle limitations and this should simplify the interpretation of the rule.

135.217 En route – aeroplanes with two or more engines

One commenter assumes that the 5% gross-net gradient in paragraph (b)(2) should be 0.5% though it is not too clear where this 0.5% has come from. Whatever number is used it must stand scrutiny against cost benefit criteria in absolute terms, and not just on the basis it may be less than what we have under CASO 4. Thus if FAR Part 135, for example, does not have an equivalent gross-net reduction then neither should the proposed rule unless it can be justified in a proper cost benefit analysis.

One commenter stated that the net factor of 5% is excessive. The current CASO 4 factor of 0.5% is appropriate for four engine aircraft and 0.3% for three engine aircraft with two engines inoperative. The factor for multi engine aircraft with single engine failure is significantly less than CASO 4 but the FAR values should apply.

One commenter stated that the 5% reduction is incorrect as the FAR requires 1.1% for two engine aircraft.

CAA response: The net factor of 5% was an error and the rule is corrected by changing to a factor of 0.5%. CAA considers that this factor is a valid requirement for Part 135 aircraft on the basis that it is less than the current requirement and originates from the European JAR requirements. Unlike FAR Part 135 a minimal factor is considered necessary as a protection against the degradation in performance of aircraft in service. The CAA does not agree with the factors suggested by the second commenter as these are the factors applied to aircraft certificated under FAR Part 25 and are excessive for aircraft with less than 20 passenger seats operating under this Part.

One commenter considered that in paragraph (b)(1), the term "or less" should be added after the clause "equals 300 feet per minute" for clarity purposes.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule accordingly.

One commenter stated that the combination of aircraft with two engines and with more than two engines in (c)(1) makes for difficulty in understanding as the later requirements are based on two engines failed. The commenter suggested redrafting for clarity.

One commenter suggested that perhaps a similar format to 121.215 and 121.217 would clarify what is intended by this rule.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has restructured these requirements into two separate rules as they are in Part 121. One rule prescribes the en-route engine inoperative requirements and the other rule prescribes the en-route 90 minute limitation for aeroplanes with two or more engines inoperative.

135.221 Landing distance – wet and contaminated runways

One commenter stated that the factor of 115% appears to be "new" for Part 135.

CAA response: While this factor was not a requirement under CASO 4, it is a requirement under FAR Part 135 for landing distances on wet and contaminated runways and no contrary comments were received to the inclusion of the requirement in this rule..

One commenter considered that the meaning of paragraph (2)(ii) is unclear. Doubt exists as to whether the 115% factor refers to the dry case or the contaminated landing distance data. Contaminated landing distance data is normally presented with the extra distance requirement incorporated.

Another commenter stated that (2)(ii) is incorrect as the aeroplane flight manual contaminated distance data does not require addition of a factor. The factor of 115% is applicable only when there is no data in the flight manual.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule with the corrections identified in these comments.

One commenter stated that the term at least is used in this rule and believes that the term the greater of is what is actually meant.

CAA response: This comment was valid for the rule as presented in the NPRM but in the rule as amended, the use of the term at least is correct.

One commenter noted that in paragraph (2)(ii) the words or other data approved by the Director is missing.

CAA response: This was removed from this rule as the data to be used throughout this subpart is now addressed in 135.207 General performance.

135.223 Steep approach and short landing techniques

One commenter stated that the references to glide path systems, weather minima and missed approach criteria are superfluous as compliance with the aeroplane flight manual is all that is required. The aeroplane flight manual will specify limitations and equipment required and the rule should not impose limitations that may or may not be appropriate to a specific aeroplane. Delete (2), (3), (4)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)(vii).

CAA response: The CAA does not agree as the aeroplane flight manual does not specify the operational limitations or specify the required ground based equipment. This rule is based on the requirements prescribed by other States and the CAA has no justification to require a lesser standard for New Zealand operations.

135.225 Special conditions – Wellington International Airport

One commenter considered that this requires a cost benefit analysis to continue the use of a nil head-wind credit to 11 600 m from runway 34 threshold.

One commenter considered that this rules should be deleted as the procedure was developed for the use of one specific operator. The rule does not address all the factors that need to be taken into consideration and as its application by other operators could be hazardous. The procedure at Wellington, and any other aerodrome with obstacles in the departure flight path, should be based on the net take-off flight path specified in this Subpart. This requires each operator to establish a procedure for each aeroplane type being operated at such an aerodrome.

CAA response: The CAA agrees that this rule should be deleted for the reasons given by the commenter. In circumstances such as those addressed in the special conditions Wellington International Airport, operators must establish procedures for compliance with obstacle clearance in the take-off climb flight path. The procedures required are dependant on each aircraft type’s performance capabilities and may require establishing alternate flight paths or a visual departure procedures. An Advisory Circular will be available providing guidance for the construction of procedures for compliance with the performance requirements and will include circumstances such as those at Wellington International Airport.

135.227 Take-off distance

One commenter stated that aircraft that are not certificated in the commuter category will be unable to comply with this rule and other rules. Some wording will be required to allow operation to the standards of the aeroplane flight manual.

CAA response: CAA agrees and in response to an earlier general comment that some aeroplanes would not be able to fully comply with the requirements, advised that a further provision has been added for the operation of aeroplanes that cannot fully comply with the performance requirements.

One commenter said that in paragraph (a) the aerodrome elevation and ambient temperature could be deleted as the requirements are specified in paragraph (c).

CAA response: CAA agrees and they are removed from paragraph (a).

135.231 Landing distance dry runway

One commenter considered that the percentage factor in (a)(2) is too limiting particularly for all aircraft covered by this rule. The commenter recommends that either the CASO 4 factors are retained or if rationalisation is desired that 60% be retained for SFAR 41 aircraft if this is determined as necessary for safety and a factor of 75% apply for all the FAR 23 commuter aircraft.

CAA response: CAA agrees and having reviewed the requirements has determined that a single factor of 70% is a rationalisation that is consistent with the requirements of overseas countries in providing an adequate margin for safety. The rule is therefore amended to prescribe a factor of 70%.

303. Passenger and baggage weights

Two commenters expressed concern about the requirement to either weigh each passenger or carry out a survey to ensure that a realistic passenger weight is used. The reasons expressed included: weighing is not an option because time is limited; the public would resist weighing; modern weighing systems are not designed to allow passenger access.

CAA response: The CAA agrees that promulgation of standard weights is useful to those operators who do not have a programme in place and is an alternative to accounting for actual passenger weights under prescribed conditions. Thus standard weights have been included in the rule as an option for operators.

However it is proposed to put out a NPRM showing revised weights in line with international practice which has shown that higher weights are warranted.

135.307 Load manifest

Three commenters argued that load manifests are either unnecessary or overly bureaucratic.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and believes a safety issue is involved and that the calculation and preparation prior to each flight of a load manifest is an integral step in the overall establishment of a safe flying environment.

135.355 Location of instruments and equipment

CAA comment: This requirement has been moved to Part 91.

135.357 Seating and restraints [Final rule 135.355]

One commenter suggested that some occasions require crew to be seated in passenger seats and these seats do not meet the requirement to have a shoulder harness for each crew seat.

CAA response: The CAA points out that the requirement for a shoulder harness applies to crew seats and not passenger seats. Crew seats are required for all crew required by the type of operation being conducted.

One commenter suggested that the requirements for a shoulder harness in crew seats only apply to aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. FAR Part 91 requires aircraft with 9 or less seats to have shoulder harnesses. This requirement is not in CAR Part 91 but is considered appropriate for all aircraft engaged on air transport operations.

135.359 Additional equipment [Final rule 135.357]

One commenter suggested that these requirements should be removed as they are not required in the FAR and are not safety related.

CAA response: The CAA notes that the requirements are in Appendix A to FAR Part 135. The CAA accepts that the requirements seem unusual and has clarified them by referring to the appropriate airworthiness design standard. Aircraft certificated to the appropriate design standards in Appendix C to Part 21 will meet the requirements.

One commenter suggested that the requirements should be expanded to include all aircraft, not just turbine powered.

CAA response: The CAA has amended the rule to reflect the appropriate certification standards.

135.361 Engine air induction system ice prevention

CAA comment: This requirement has been removed as it forms part of the aircraft design requirements.

135.365 Instrument flight rules [Final rule 135.361]

One commenter suggested that the requirement for additional altimeters and ASIs be deleted for smaller aircraft.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees and considers the requirement appropriate for IFR air transport operations.

One commenter suggested that the requirement for additional instruments should state a total of two.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The requirement builds upon that required by Part 91 and this is considered appropriate.

One commenter suggested that the additional instruments required in this rule added nothing to safety.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees and considers the requirement appropriate for IFR air transport operations.

Two commenters suggested that a second attitude indicator would be more appropriate.

CAA response: The CAA agrees with the ability of an operator to meet the requirement with an attitude indicator and has amended the rule.

135.367 Emergency equipment [Final rule 135.363]

One commenter suggested that this rule be removed in its entirety as Part 91 should contain all the requirements.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule. A reference to the equipment in Part 91 has been retained.

Two commenters suggested that the requirement to carry an axe be removed from smaller aircraft.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees and considers the axe to be required for all air transport aircraft.

One commenter suggested that there was no way to indicate the method of operation for an axe or a first aid kit.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

One commenter suggested that the sizes of fire extinguishers able to be carried on small aircraft are not effective for putting out fires.

CAA response: The CAA has no statistical information as to the appropriateness of the size of fire extinguishers in the types of accidents referred to by the commenter. The CAA considers that fire extinguishers are important emergency equipment and should be carried on all air transport operations.

135.369 Public address and crew-member interphone systems [Final rule 135.365]

One commenter suggested that this only apply to aircraft with greater than 19 passenger seats.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees and considers the 10 seat break to be appropriate.

135.371 Cockpit voice recorder [Final rule 135.367]

Two commenters suggested that a cockpit voice recorder not be required for aircraft certificated for one pilot operations.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

One commenter suggested that the cockpit voice recorders should be applied only to aircraft with greater than 20 passenger seats or with a MCTOW greater than 5700 Kg.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees and considers the relative cost for aircraft with a certificated seating capacity greater than 9 passengers to be outweighed by the advantages to aviation safety.

Two commenters suggested that the requirement should apply to piston aircraft also.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

One commenter suggested that the requirement should apply to all sizes of aircraft.

CAA response: The CAA considers the proposed seat break to be appropriate.

One commenter suggested that the cockpit voice recorder was an accident investigation tool only and did not affect aircraft safety.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The recorder is important for investigation and the associated results of these investigations are applied directly to improve aviation safety.

135.373 Flight data recorder [Final rule 135.369]

One commenter suggested that the flight data recorders should be applied only to aircraft with greater than 20 passenger seats or with a MCTOW greater than 5 700 Kg.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. Although a high cost item the CAA considers that a flight data recorder fitted to an aircraft with a certificated seating capacity greater than 9 passengers provides an investigation tool that will ultimately improve aviation safety.

Two commenters suggested that the requirement should apply to piston aircraft also.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees as the proposed aircraft types are invariably more complex and this complexity contributes to the justification for requiring the flight data recorder installation.

One commenter suggested that the requirement for a flight data recorder should be based upon the number of pilots required by the aircraft certification.

CAA response: The CAA considers that flight crew members are not a basis to apply the requirements for a flight data recorder.

One commenter suggested that the flight data recorder requirements should be independent of the number of crew.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

One commenter suggested that the requirement should apply to all sizes of aircraft.

CAA response: The CAA considers the proposed seat break to be appropriate.

One commenter suggested that the flight data recorder was an accident investigation tool only and did not affect aircraft safety. The commenter suggested that transponder plots provided effective information.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The recorder is important for investigation and the associated results of these investigations are applied directly to improve aviation safety. The CAA does not consider transponder plots to adequately provide the information required to ascertain the causes of aircraft accidents.

One commenter suggested that the flight data recorder requirement was too expensive for industry to adopt.

CAA response: The CAA agrees that the expense may be high but considers the advantages to aviation safety far outweigh the initial costs. This view is supported internationally where more stringent requirements are being examined.

CAA comment: The CAA is examining the latest Federal Aviation Administration proposal for a revision of the flight data recorder requirements. The proposed revision will be published as an NPRM in due course.

135.375 Additional attitude indicator [Final rule 135.371]

One commenter suggested that the requirement should also apply to other than turbo-jet aircraft.

CAA response: The CAA considers the requirement to be appropriate and in line with the USA Federal Aviation Administration requirements.

135.463 Persons certifying maintenance [Final rule 135.413]

One commenter suggested that Subpart E should be stated instead of just Part 91.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

One commenter suggested that the pilot may be the holder of the air operator certificate and as such the wording needs clarifying as they are not employed by the air operator certificate holder.

CAA response: The CAA considers the wording to be appropriate. If the pilot is the holder of the air operator certificate they are employed by themselves.

One commenter suggested that the rule should require the pilot to record the information in the technical log.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule but has not stipulated the technical log. The release to service is required to be made in accordance with Part 43.

One commenter suggested that the exemption for helicopters should apply to fixed wing also.

CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the rule.

CAA comment: The CAA has reworded the rule to better reflect what inspections were being permitted. The rule is intended to address those inspections that have been required by an airworthiness directive. These inspections generally occur when the air operator certificate holder has not otherwise been able to plan their completion.

135.465 Supervising personnel [Final rule 135.415]

One commenter suggested that if this was the maintenance controller, the requirement was opposed.

CAA response: The rule is not intended to refer to the maintenance controller or the senior person for the control and direction of maintenance.

135.467 Maintenance personnel duty times [Final rule 135.417]

Two commenters stated that the requirement did not make sense as written.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees but has clarified the requirement by adding a daily duty time limit.

One commenter agreed with the requirement and suggested improvements to better reflect the intent. The commenter suggested that the time should be stated on a daily basis such as 16 hours maximum duty time and 9 hours minimum rest time.

CAA response: The CAA agrees. The NPRM wording is the same as the FAR requirements but the CAA considers that the daily limits proposed by the commenter are also appropriate. The rule has been amended and is closely based on FAR requirements for personnel such as dispatchers.

One commenter suggested it should be deleted as it would cause significant problems to those smaller firms carrying out work seven days a week.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The relief from duty requirements are applicable regardless of the size or work programme of the organisation.

Two commenters suggested it should be deleted as it was an employment issue.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The rule addresses the rest periods required to assure the ability of maintenance personnel to safely and effectively carry out their tasks. The requirements are strictly safety related.

One commenter suggested that the requirement should be deleted until more liaison has been carried out with representative engineering groups. The commenter also suggested that the requirements would be better in Part 145 or Part 43.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The requirement was taken from the FAR and has been published for public comment during the rule development process in the informal draft stage, the NPRM stage, and in numerous discussions with various industry members. The requirement has been amended as a result of the rules development consultation.

135.469 Maintenance review [Final rule 135.419]

One commenter suggested this was unnecessary as it was covered in Part 43.

CAA response: The CAA disagrees. The maintenance review is not the same as the annual review of airworthiness.

135.503 Assignment of flight crew duties

One commenter believed that 135.503(e) [paragraph (d) in the final rule] would preclude public address announcements during taxi or holding i.e. delay information or passing next sector fuel load requirements etc.

CAA response: That only duties required for the safe operation of the aircraft should be undertaken during these phases. This restriction applies only to flight crew.

505.
506. Pilot-in-command type experience requirements

Eight commenters sought, in respect to 135.505(a)(1), either a reduction in the hours stipulated or eliminated entirely and left to individual operators to determine.

CAA response: That a reduction in the number of hours would be inappropriate and considers the requirement the minimum necessary for pilot-in-command experience on a specific make and basic model aircraft. As a matter of information the number of hours are considerably less than required by the FAA.

CAA agrees that in respect to 135.505(b)(2) that no limit need be placed on the use of a flight simulator for gaining the experience required.

135.507 Pilot-in-command VFR experience requirements

Two commenters believed the hour requirements are either too high or the limits should be left to the individual operator to determine.

CAA response: The hour requirements are considered the minimum necessary for pilot-in-command on VFR operations in an aircraft, excluding pilot seats, of ten seats or more. This is broadly in line with FAA requirements.

CAA agrees that 135.507(3), the requirement to hold a current instrument rating, is not relevant for VFR only operations and has deleted this requirement from the rule.

509. Pilot-in-command IFR experience requirements

Three commenters either wanted the hour specifications reduced or left to operators to determine.

CAA response: Disagrees and believes minimum hour requirements should be set and does not accept they are excessive for the type of operation and seating capacity involved. The FAA has similar requirements.

135.511 Single pilot operations – IFR

One commenter wanted the seating restriction to be removed i.e. it should apply irrespective of seating capacity while another commenter requested an increase in the seating capacity to twenty.

CAA response: Does not accept the view that single pilot IFR operations should be allowed above the limit set of fourteen seats, excluding any pilot seat. This compares to the FAA limit of nine seats and is considered an acceptable maximum limit for air transport operations.

513. Category 11 or 111 approaches

CAA notes that this rule has been transferred to Part 91.

553. General

Provision has been made in 135.553(d) to give operators the flexibility of providing or undertaking required training.

565. Flight crew training programme

One commenter disagreed with the need for a qualified instructor to carry-out the required training.

CAA response: Disagrees with this view and believes that an operator must use a qualified instructor when undertaking any flight crew training under this Part.

567. Flight crew member instructor qualifications

One commenter proposed the use of experienced C category instructors in addition to an A, B, or D, flight instructor.

CAA response : Disagrees with this proposal. The C category instructor regardless of the experience gained, remains under supervision, and should be encouraged to gain a higher qualification in order to participate in a training role under this Part.

603. General

One commenter requested flexibility to use offshore training establishments for simulator checks.

CAA response: The intent of 135.603(b) is to enable operators to establish an operational competency assessment programme which does not preclude the use of simulator checks being carried out by another organisation as part or the operators programme.

605. Flight examiner qualifications

One commenter queried the status of a flight examiner qualification.

CAA response: The flight examiner qualification is being developed under the revision of Part 61.

135.607 Flight crew competency checks

One commenter requested alternative methods to actually carrying out a route check e.g. flight in tandem.

CAA response: Does not accept that such an option is an adequate alternative but has added in the option of utilising a flight simulator approved for this purpose. CAA notes that under 135.607(4) the test may be written or oral or a combination of both and does not preclude a flight examiner emphasising what the pilot is least current or competent at to ensure maintenance of the required standard.

853. Operating information

CAA confirms that it is the certificate holder`s responsibility as the holder of the exposition to maintain the currency of this document.