CASA 272/09 – Revocation of Direction – number of cabin attendants in ATR 42-500 aircraft

Overview

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) were enacted to provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of civil aviation in Australia, ensuring safety and efficiency in air navigation. In particular, the CAR 1988 was introduced to address the need for clear guidelines and regulatory oversight in the operation of aircraft, especially in terms of safety requirements and crew configurations. The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 are administered by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), an agency established under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and are intended to uphold the highest standards of aviation safety in line with international best practices. The policy objective of these regulations is to protect the public and enhance the safety of air navigation by prescribing necessary operational standards and requirements for aircraft and their crews.

Scope and Application

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, as amended, and specifically the revocation of Direction number CASA 51/09, applies to the regulation of cabin crew requirements for ATR 42-500 aircraft operating within Australia. This revocation is pertinent to any airline or aircraft operator that previously operated under the conditions stipulated in Direction CASA 51/09, which was issued to Macair Airlines Pty Ltd. As the operator is now defunct, the revocation of the direction is rendered moot. However, the regulatory framework under which the direction was issued remains in effect for any other operators of ATR 42-500 aircraft. The geographic scope of the regulation is national, applying to all air carriers operating within Australia, in accordance with the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The revocation of the direction does not alter the existing requirements for cabin crew in other operational contexts. Any new directions or regulations affecting the operation of Civil Aviation Orders would still be subject to disallowance by the Parliament under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The revocation is effective immediately upon registration, indicating the dynamic nature of civil aviation regulations in response to changes in operational realities.

Key Provisions

The main operative sections of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) are pertinent to ensuring the safety of air navigation. Specifically, subsection 98(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 empowers the Governor-General to enact regulations, with safety being the paramount consideration. Regulation 208 further enables the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue directions regarding the operating crew required on aircraft, ensuring that safety requirements are met. Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3, made under this regulation, stipulates that aircraft carrying more than 36 and up to 216 passengers must have a cabin attendant for each unit of 36 passengers or part thereof. This order was initially subject to a direction CASA 51/09, which has now been revoked. The obligations imposed by these provisions on the parties concerned, particularly the operators of aircraft, are stringent. Operators must comply with CASA's directions and orders concerning crew requirements to maintain safety standards. The requirement for a specific number of cabin attendants, as outlined in CAO 20.16.3, ensures that the aircraft's safety is not compromised, regardless of the number of passengers on board. Operators are expected to adhere to these regulations strictly, as non-compliance could lead to severe safety issues during flights. Should any party fail to comply with these provisions, several consequences may follow. Under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (LIA), instruments such as CASA 51/09, which affect the operation of Civil Aviation Orders, are considered disallowable instruments. Such instruments are subject to tabling and potential disallowance in Parliament, as outlined in sections 38 and 42 of the LIA. In cases of non-compliance, operators could face civil or criminal penalties, although specific penalties are not detailed in the text provided. The revocation of CASA 51/09 was issued because the operator is no longer in operation, thus eliminating the need for consultation and ensuring that the safety directives remain applicable to active operators.