Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Direction — number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways)
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, among other things, 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.
The requirements in subparagraph 6.1 (b) of CAO 20.16.3 have remained in the same form since 1960. The direction changes the required number of cabin attendants to 1 for every 50 passenger seats or part thereof in accordance with the Airbus certification of the aircraft.
Airbus certification of the aircraft 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. CASA has increased passenger awareness and capability for passengers seated at self-help exit rows in a manner equivalent to, or better than, that achieved when the Airbus A320 satisfied the Joint Aviation Authorities (Europe), now European Aviation Safety Agency, standards.
CASA is satisfied that the evacuation of a full complement of passengers for the Airbus A320 aircraft is able to be achieved in a time of 90 seconds. CASA is satisfied that the evacuation procedures adopted by Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited (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 Schedule 1 of the instrument.
The other conditions include a requirement that the briefing of passengers in self-help exit rows must be as approved by CASA and in the manner set out in the operator’s operations manual. 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 research conducted by Cranfield University. 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.
A requirement is included relating to the filling of emergency exit rows if there are low passenger numbers.
Legislative Instruments Act
Under subparagraph 6 (d) (i) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (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.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
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 amendments of the Regulations or CAOs to avoid the need for individual directions and set a suitable standard for cabin crew numbers is also continuing.
Consultation
Consultation has taken place on the increase in the number of passengers to cabin attendants in relation to many instruments applying the same ratio. CASA is satisfied that it can safely continue to issue directions under regulation 208 on the basis of the criteria previously mentioned in the statement.
This instrument replaces instrument CASA 121/13, which expires at the end of 30 June 2014. The operator applied for the renewal of the direction. In these circumstances, it is CASA’s view that it is not necessary or appropriate to undertake any further consultation under section 17 of the LIA.
Making and commencement
The direction has been made 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 July 2014. It expires at the end of June 2015, as if it had been repealed by another instrument.
[Instrument number CASA 131/14]
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 (Tiger Airways)
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
The legislative instrument allows Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited to operate an Australian registered Airbus A320 series aircraft if there is 1 cabin attendant for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number.
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