Clarke and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to refuse to grant him certain civil aviation authorisations. The Applicant sought to rely on his extensive qualifications and experience gained while serving in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to demonstrate that these ADF qualifications were at least equivalent to the civilian authorisations sought, as required by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant's ADF flight crew qualifications and experience were sufficiently equivalent to the specific civilian aviation authorisations he was seeking. This required an assessment of the nature and extent of the activities authorised by each type of qualification, rather than merely comparing flight hours or general experience. The court had to determine if the ADF qualifications met the threshold of being "at least equivalent" to the civilian authorisations under CASR 61.285.

In reaching its decision, the court drew guidance from the Federal Court's approach in *Victorian Building Authority v Cau*, which interpreted the concept of equivalence under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This involved focusing on the "activities authorised to be carried out under each registration" and identifying whether these professional activities were substantially the same. The court found that ADF qualifications are generally type-specific, whereas the civilian authorisations sought, such as the Flight Instructor Rating Multi-engine aeroplane class rating instructor training endorsement (FIR-MEAI), were class-specific. The court concluded that the Applicant's ADF instructor qualification on the F/A-18, while involving a multi-engine aircraft, was not a qualification to train instructors, nor did the ADF possess a qualification equivalent to the multi-engine class rating.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the Applicant's ADF qualifications were at least equivalent to the authorisations sought. Accordingly, the decision of CASA to refuse the four specific authorisations was affirmed.