CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998
ISSUE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
Under section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, CASA may issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. Subregulation 39.001(5) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 provides that an AD is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an AD is a legislative instrument.
Under Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the State of Design has overall responsibility for continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type, and must provide any information necessary to ensure the continuing airworthiness of a type to appropriate States of Registry. ADs (and their equivalents) are the most common form of continuing airworthiness information, and are issued by most ICAO Contracting States.
The State of Registry of an individual aircraft is responsible for its continuing airworthiness. Under Annex 8, the State of Registry must develop or adopt requirements to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aircraft. When a State of Design issues an AD against a type of aircraft on the Australian Register, CASA, as Australia’s national airworthiness authority, must assess that information and, if appropriate, issue an Australian AD to mandate the requirements of the State of Design.
CASA issued AD/DHC-1/12 Amendment 6 in 1986 to correct an unsafe situation on DHC-1 aircraft. UK CAA AD G-2012-0001 was issued in 2012 and supersedes the requirements of AD/DHC-1/12 Amendment 6 for British and Portuguese built DHC-1 aircraft. AD/DHC-1/12 Amendment 7 has been issued to support the Canadian built DHC-1 aircraft. The State of Design for DHC-1, Canada, has not yet taken action to correct this unsafe condition. As there are 5 examples of Canadian DHC-1 aircraft on the Australian register, CASA has issued AD/DHC-1/12 Amdt 7 to address the unsafe condition on Australian registered Canadian built DHC-1 aircraft. AD/DHC-1/12 Amdt 7 will become effective on 14 May 2012. This AD cancels and replaces the previous issue.
CASA has not consulted with the Australian industry and public as the requirements for the Canadian built design remains unchanged. The Office of Regulatory Review has determined that ADs do not require a Regulatory Impact Statement.
Compatibility with human rights and freedoms
This instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Human Rights Implications
The instrument sets out technical requirements as detailed above. The instrument does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms.
Conclusion
The instrument is compatible with human rights and freedoms.
The AD has been made by the Manager Continuing Airworthiness on behalf of CASA, in accordance with subsection 94 (1) of the Act.
Overview
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 was enacted to regulate civil aviation activities in Australia, with a primary focus on ensuring the safety of air navigation. The Act empowers the Governor-General to make regulations that serve this purpose, with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 detailing specific requirements. One such regulation allows the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for particular types of aircraft or aeronautical products. These ADs serve as a legislative instrument and are crucial for maintaining the continuing airworthiness of aircraft, as mandated by Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The State of Design, which in this case is Canada for the DHC-1 aircraft, has the responsibility to provide necessary information to ensure airworthiness, while the State of Registry must implement these requirements. CASA has issued AD/DHC-1/12 Amendment 7 to address an unsafe condition on Canadian-built DHC-1 aircraft registered in Australia, reflecting their duty to mandate the requirements of the State of Design and ensure the safety of air navigation.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, particularly under regulation 39.001, empower the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for specific types of aircraft or aeronautical products. These directives are legislative instruments under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. ADs are essential for ensuring the continuing airworthiness of aircraft types and are issued by states in accordance with Annex 8 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The State of Design, which is responsible for the initial airworthiness of a particular aircraft type, must provide necessary information to the State of Registry, which is obligated to ensure the ongoing airworthiness of aircraft registered within its jurisdiction. CASA, as Australia's national airworthiness authority, must evaluate this information and issue corresponding Australian ADs when necessary. For instance, AD/DHC-1/12 Amendment 7 was issued to address an unsafe condition on Canadian-built DHC-1 aircraft registered in Australia, as the State of Design had not yet taken corrective action. This AD cancels and replaces previous directives and becomes effective on 14 May 2012. CASA did not consult with the Australian industry or the public as the requirements for the Canadian-built design remained unchanged. Additionally, the Office of Regulatory Review determined that ADs do not require a Regulatory Impact Statement. The instrument is compatible with human rights and freedoms as it does not engage any applicable rights or freedoms, as recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Key Provisions
The key provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 concerning the issue of airworthiness directives (ADs) are set out in sections 98 and 39.001 of the Act and Regulations respectively. Under section 98, the Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of the Act, including for the safety of air navigation. Regulation 39.001 provides that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may issue ADs for kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. An AD is considered a legislative instrument under section 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
The ADs are intended to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and are issued by most ICAO Contracting States. The State of Design has overall responsibility for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type and must provide information to States of Registry to ensure airworthiness. The State of Registry must develop or adopt requirements to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aircraft within its registry. When a State of Design issues an AD, CASA must assess the information and, if appropriate, issue an Australian AD to mandate the requirements of the State of Design.
The ADs impose obligations on aircraft owners, operators and manufacturers to ensure that aircraft comply with the requirements specified in the ADs. Failure to comply with an AD may result in an aircraft being deemed unairworthy and prohibited from flight until the requirements of the AD are met. The ADs also impose obligations on CASA to issue ADs when required and to monitor compliance with the ADs.
Breaching the requirements of an AD may result in civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The maximum penalties vary depending on the nature and severity of the breach. For example, under section 86 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, a person who contravenes a requirement of an AD relating to the maintenance of an aircraft may be fined up to $22,200 or imprisoned for up to 2 years, or both. In more serious cases, such as where a breach results in an accident or incident, the penalties may be higher.