BRM Aero Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

This matter concerned an application by BRM Aero Ltd for review of a decision made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to impose operating limitations on a light sports aircraft. The applicant sought to have these limitations reviewed by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether CASA's decision to impose operating limitations constituted a "reviewable decision" within the meaning of section 31(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if the decision fell within the categories of refusal to grant, cancellation, suspension, variation of a certificate, permission, permit, licence, or the imposition or variation of a condition or cancellation, suspension, or variation of an authorisation contained within such instruments.

The Tribunal applied a three-question approach to characterise CASA's decision. It found that the decision to impose operating limitations under regulation 262APA of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 did not relate to a certificate, permission, permit, or licence granted or issued under the Civil Aviation Act or its regulations. Instead, the Tribunal characterised the decision as a prohibition on certain conduct, similar to maintenance directions previously considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reasoned that the Special Certificate of Airworthiness (SCOA) itself was not affected by the decision; rather, it was the permitted operations and the associated Airworthiness Operational Instructions (AOI) that were prohibited from certain activities.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the decision was not a "reviewable decision" under section 31(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision made by CASA.