Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Direction under regulation 209 — conduct of parachute training operations
Legislation
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and the safety of air navigation.
Under subregulation 209 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988), the operator and the pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a private operation must comply with the provisions of CAR 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) and with such additional conditions as CASA from time to time directs in the interest of safety (a CAR 209 direction).
Regulation 2 of CAR 1988 defines an approved system of maintenance, for an Australian aircraft, to mean a system of maintenance for the aircraft that has been approved under regulation 42M of CAR 1988, including any changes to the program that have been approved under regulation 42R. Approvals under regulations 42M and 42R are made by CASA or a person appointed by CASA.
Under subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character (including rules, regulations or by-laws), the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.
Background
The dropping of parachutists engaged in training operations is regarded by CASA as a private operation. These operations are regarded by CASA as being in a separate category from those operations involving parachuting as a sporting activity carried out by established clubs. The second category is carried out in accordance with authorisations and specifications, issued under regulation 152 of CAR 1988.
Since the first category of parachute operations was regarded as private, the aircraft involved were maintained to private operations status and only required to be inspected annually, with engines being operated on condition, meaning that they could be operated until a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer refused to sign off on the annual inspection for that aircraft with that engine in it. Additionally, pilots on those operations only required a private pilot licence.
In 2006, at Willowbank in Queensland, 5 occupants died when an aircraft engaged in a parachute training operation crashed on take-off. The subsequent Queensland coroner’s report was critical of CASA’s policy of classifying such operations as private operations.
Enhanced maintenance standards for parachute aircraft
In response to the investigation findings of the Willowbank accident and CASA’s analysis of the appropriate maintenance standards for aircraft engaged in parachute operations, CASA required aircraft engaged in parachute training operations and all tandem descents to be maintained to charter aircraft standards rather than private aircraft standards. Other requirements have also been imposed. The conduct of those operations is subject to supervision by the Australian Parachute Federation Incorporated (APF), with CASA exercising overarching control.
This instrument contains directions relating to aircraft engaged in parachute training operations by organisations that are members of the APF. This instrument revokes and replaces a previous direction (CASA 244/12) to address issues raised in relation to sections 3, 6, 7 and 11 of the previous direction.
The definition of parachute training operation in subsection 3 (1) has been amended to clarify that it means an aircraft operation involving a descent by a student parachutist or a novice parachutist from the aircraft, and includes any aircraft operation involving a tandem descent by parachutists from the aircraft.
Section 6 has been amended to address a concern that maintenance release inspections were required to be carried out every 100 flight hours. Operators of turbine powered aircraft that are maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s system of maintenance have found this requirement onerous as most turbine powered aircraft are maintained on a 150 hour or 200 hour maintenance release cycle. Section 6 now allows operators to maintain the jump aircraft in accordance with an approved system of maintenance instead of requiring maintenance release inspections to be carried out every 100 flight hours.
Subsection 7 (2) has been amended to replace the requirement for the operations to be conducted in accordance with a training operations manual approved by the APF and acceptable to CASA. Instead, the operations must now be conducted in accordance with the APF Operational Regulations as approved by CASA from time to time. This change reflects CASA’s recognition of the APF’s subject matter expertise in approving its members’ training operations manuals. Rather than accepting those manuals, CASA instead approves the APF Operational Regulations.
Subsection 11 (1) has been amended to allow flexibility in the form of clearance provided by air traffic control before parachutists may exit a jump aircraft. The clearance is no longer restricted to the words “[Aircraft call-sign] clear to drop”, and may be in some other form.
Legislative Instruments Act
The direction is considered to be a legislative instrument for section 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the LIA). It is, therefore, subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA.
Consultation
Consultation has been undertaken with the APF on this instrument. The APF represents organisations and operators engaged in parachute training operations that are affected by this instrument. For this reason, it is CASA’s view that it was not necessary or appropriate to undertake any further consultation under section 17 of the LIA.
Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR)
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required because the direction is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OBPR under which a RIS is not required for a direction (OBPR id: 14507).
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
Making and commencement
The instrument has been made by the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as a delegate of CASA under subregulation 11.260 (1) of CASR 1998.
The instrument commences on the day after registration and expires at the end of 30 November 2016, as if it had been repealed by another instrument.
[Instrument number CASA 239/13]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Direction under regulation 209 — conduct of parachute training operations
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 legislative instrument contains directions relating to aircraft engaged in parachute training operations by organisations that are members of the Australian Parachute Federation Incorporated.
The purpose of this legislative instrument is to replace an earlier instrument to update conditions relating to maintenance of aircraft, conduct of operations in accordance with an approved document, and air traffic control clearance.
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