Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Direction — number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft (Qantas Airways Limited)
Legislation
Subsection 98 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) provides that the Governor‑General may make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
Under regulation 208 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988), CASA may give directions as to the operating crew required to be carried on an aircraft having regard to the safety of air navigation. Subparagraph 6.1 (b) of Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 (CAO 20.16.3) was made under regulation 208 and provides that aircraft carrying more than 36 and not more than 216 passengers must carry a cabin attendant for each unit of 36 passengers or part of that number.
Instrument
The requirements in subparagraph 6.1 (b) of CAO 20.16.3 have remained in the same form since 1960 and as such represent a 55 year gap since a reassessment of cabin attendant numbers against a criterion of allowable seating rather than passenger numbers. CASA in a report, Review of policies and practices for first-of-type certification of imported aircraft, recommended the recognition of the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States of America (the FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency certification standards. The recommendation was adopted.
Instrument CASA 158/14, which expired at the end of 31 July 2015, allowed Qantas Airways Limited (the operator) to operate an Australian registered Boeing 737-800 series aircraft engaged in regular public transport, or charter, operations if it carried 1 cabin attendant for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number. This instrument continues the directions given in instrument CASA 158/14.
The type certificate data sheet relates to the design of the floor plan and the seating configuration in relation to the location of exits. CASA does not call for a re-evaluation of the aircraft design, instead, CASA accepts the design criterion. CASA does require operators to demonstrate the safety procedures that are specific to the operator, which are evaluated, thus there is a distinction between the certification criterion and an operator‑imposed safety procedure which may, or may not, enhance the evacuation of the aircraft in an emergency evacuation.
Safety improvements in redesign of the “Self-Help” Type III exits by the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, and safety recommendations from Cranfield University on briefing passengers seated in exit row seating are cause to reassess the emergency evacuation procedures in conjunction with the aircraft certification requirements of the FAA. This seating is referred to as self-help exit rows. The operator has incorporated procedures for the briefing of passengers seated at self-help exit rows as part of the pre-departure passenger safety briefing, taking into account the conclusions of the Cranfield University research. The operator has incorporated pre-warned emergency briefings for passengers seated in Type I and III exit rows based on the verbal briefing criteria specified in the Cranfield University research. The revised briefings are acceptable to CASA and are seen as a safety enhancement.
CASA is satisfied the evacuation of a full complement of passengers for the Boeing 737‑800 is able to be achieved in a time of 90 seconds. CASA is satisfied that the evacuation procedures adopted by the operator to support their application to operate with the certification criterion of 4 cabin attendants have been demonstrated successfully. The maximum permitted time of 90 seconds is set out as a condition in Schedules 1 and 2 of the instrument. CASA does not consider that safety would be compromised if a Boeing 737-800 carried cabin attendants during operations with a complement of 1 cabin attendant to each 50 seats, or part of that number, fitted to the aircraft.
The instrument also contains conditions which include a requirement that the briefing of passengers in overwing emergency exit rows must be as approved by CASA and in the manner set out in the operator’s operations manual, as well as the requirement that the evacuation must be completed in not more than 90 seconds.
The question of cabin attendant ratios under CAO 20.16.3 is subject to ongoing discussion and the current instrument will only be in force up to the end of July 2016. Instruments of this type are being issued for limited periods only. It is hoped that there will be a resolution of the issues involved, making the issue of individual directions to operators unnecessary.
Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the LIA)
Under section 5 of the LIA, subject to sections 6, 7 and 9 of the LIA, a legislative instrument is an instrument in writing that is of a legislative character, and that is or was made in the exercise of a power delegated by the Parliament.
Under subparagraph 6 (d) (i) of the LIA, an instrument is a legislative instrument for section 5 of the LIA if it is declared to be a disallowable instrument under legislation in force before the commencement of the LIA. Under regulation 5A of CAR 1988, if CASA has issued a CAO, and CASA later issues a direction that affects the operation of the CAO, the later document is declared to be a disallowable instrument. The instrument affects the operation of subparagraph 6.1 (b) of CAO 20.16.3. As a legislative instrument, it is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA.
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA was undertaken following the issue of the CASA report that recommended the recognition of the FAA certification standards in relation to setting the ratio of cabin attendants to passenger seats.
The operator has requested this instrument. This instrument continues the directions given in instrument CASA 158/14. CASA consulted with the operator before issuing earlier instruments to the operator that had the same effect.
The instrument is similar to instruments issued to other operators that have been the subject of consultation with other bodies. Consequently, CASA considers that no further consultation is necessary or appropriate.
Senate Committee concerns
This direction provides for the operator to meet a new standard for cabin crew numbers. The new standard differs from that currently promulgated in CAO 20.16.3, but it is considered to be a standard consistent with international safety standards and practice.
The development and preparation of suitable standards with appropriate conditions is also continuing in conjunction with the preparation of new regulations applicable to all air transport operators.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR)
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required because the instrument is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OBPR under which a RIS is not required (OBPR id: 14507).
Making and commencement
The direction has been issued by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
The instrument commences on 1 August 2015. It expires at the end of July 2016, as if it had been repealed by another instrument.
[Instrument number CASA 109/15]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Direction — number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft
(Qantas Airways Limited)
This legislative 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.
Overview of the legislative instrument
This instrument allows Qantas Airways Limited to operate an Australian registered Boeing 737-800 series aircraft engaged in regular public transport, or charter, operations if it carries 1 cabin attendant for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number.
The direction is subject to conditions imposed by CASA in the interest of air safety.
Human rights implications
This legislative instrument does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms.
Conclusion
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority