Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Part 133 Manual of Standards
CASA 38/22 — Prescription and Approval of Singapore as a Recognised Foreign State Instrument 2022
Purpose
The purpose of CASA 38/22 — Prescription and Approval of Singapore as a Recognised Foreign State Instrument 2022 (the instrument) is to approve and prescribe Singapore as a recognised foreign State for the purposes of the Part 133 Manual of Standards (Part 133 MOS) and Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), so that Australian operators can apply to use flight simulation training devices located in Singapore. Other similar flight simulation training devices located in recognised foreign States in Europe may be unavailable due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Legislation
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Relevantly, the Governor-General has made CASR. Paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act provides that CASR may empower the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue instruments in relation to matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft.
Part 61 of CASR sets out the licensing scheme for pilots of registered aircraft. The scheme includes provisions for pilots to gain aeronautical experience and conduct proficiency checks using an approved flight simulation training device. Under subregulation 61.880 (6), instrument proficiency checks must be conducted in a relevant aircraft or an approved flight simulation training device.
Under regulation 61.010 of CASR, approved flight simulation training device is defined to include a flight simulation training device that is qualified and approved for a purpose by the national authority of a recognised foreign State. Recognised foreign State is defined to include a list of named States, which does not list Singapore, and any other foreign country prescribed by a legislative instrument under regulation 61.047 of CASR. Under regulation 61.047, CASA may, by legislative instrument, prescribe foreign countries as recognised foreign States for paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act.
The Part 133 MOS contains provisions for when an operator must use a qualified synthetic training device for the purpose of its training and checking obligations under regulation 133.370 of CASR. Under section 1.04 of the Part 133 MOS, a recognised foreign State is defined by reference to a list of named foreign States, which does not include Singapore, and “another foreign State approved for this instrument”.
Section 10.18 of the Part 133 MOS sets out the information that must be included in an application by a rotorcraft’s operator for an approval to conduct certain flights with the rotorcraft. The information listed in subparagraph 10.18 (2) (b) (ii) includes an approval from a national aviation authority of a recognised foreign State. Singapore is currently not recognised as a foreign State for the purposes of that section.
Section 12.13 of the Part 133 MOS sets out various requirements to use an approved flight simulator for training, if such a device exists in Australia or a recognised foreign State.
Background
Several aircraft operators have indicated their need to have access to flight simulation training devices for B737-8 and A380 aircraft between now and July 2025.
The operators had previously used European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) state‑qualified flight simulation training devices located in Australia and Europe. These (and all other off-shore devices) have been unavailable or impracticable due to logistical issues arising from COVID-19. There are suitable devices located in Singapore. However, Singapore is not recognised under CASR or the Part 133 MOS for the purposes of flight simulation training device qualification.
Overview of instrument
The instrument prescribes Singapore as a recognised foreign State for regulation 61.047 of CASR and approves Singapore as a recognised foreign State for section 12.13 of the Part 133 MOS.
CASA has assessed the operators’ submission for the prescription and approval of Singapore as a recognised foreign State and is satisfied this has no impact on the safety of the operators’ operations.
Content of instrument
Section 1 sets out the name of the instrument.
Section 2 sets out the duration of the instrument, which commences on the day after it is registered, and is repealed at the end of 31 July 2025.
Section 3 provides that the instrument applies in relation to flight simulators and flight training devices located in Singapore.
Section 4 prescribes Singapore as a recognised foreign State for regulation 61.047 of CASR.
Section 5 approves Singapore as a recognised foreign State for section 12.13 of the Part 133 MOS. It does not approve Singapore as a recognised foreign State for section 10.18 of the Part 133 MOS.
Legislation Act 2003 (the LA)
Regulation 61.047 of CASR provides that, for paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, CASA may, by legislative instrument, prescribe foreign countries as recognised foreign States.
The instrument is, therefore, a legislative instrument and is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA.
As the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under CASR, Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the sunsetting provisions) does not apply to the instrument (as per item 15 of the table in section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015).
However, this instrument will be repealed at the end of 31 July 2025, which will occur before the sunsetting provisions would have repealed the instrument if they had applied. Any renewal of the instrument will be subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA. Therefore, the exemption from sunsetting does not affect parliamentary oversight of this instrument.
Consultation
CASA consulted with affected operators in relation to flight simulation training devices for B737-8 and A380 aircraft regarding the prescription of Singapore as a recognised foreign State.
CASA is satisfied that no further consultation is appropriate or reasonably practicable for this instrument for section 17 of the LA.
Sector risk, economic and cost impact
Subsection 9A (1) of the Act states that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. Subsection 9A (3) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9 (1) (c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
The cost impact of a standard refers to the direct cost (in the sense of price or expense) which a standard would cause individuals, businesses and the community to incur. The economic impact of a standard refers to the impact a standard would have on the production, distribution and use of wealth across the economy, at the level of the individual, relevant businesses in the aviation sector, and the community more broadly. The economic impact of a standard could also include the general financial impact of that standard on different industry sectors.
The instrument enables operators to access flight simulation training devices for B737-8 and A380 aircraft that they could not otherwise access. By providing more choice of devices that may be used for training and checking, there may be a reduction in costs incurred by pilots and aircraft operators using those devices.
Impact on categories of operations
The instrument is likely to have a beneficial effect on Australian aircraft operators and pilots by enabling them to use flight simulation training devices located in Singapore to continue training in circumstances where other devices are not available.
Impact on regional and remote communities
The instrument is likely to have a beneficial effect on regional and remote communities, because the aircraft to which the flight simulation training devices in Singapore relate are used by Australian operators to service regional and remote communities.
Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR)
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required in this case as the instrument is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OBPR under which a RIS is not required for approvals (OBPR id: 14507).
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The instrument does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms, and is compatible with human rights, as it does not raise any human rights issues.
Making and commencement
The instrument has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of CASR.
The instrument commences on the day after it is registered and is repealed at the end of 31 July 2025.
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
CASA 38/22 — Prescription and Approval of Singapore as a Recognised Foreign State Instrument 2022
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 instrument prescribes Singapore as a recognised foreign State for regulation 61.047 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and approves Singapore as a recognised foreign State for section 12.13 of the Part 133 Manual of Standards.
The effect of the instrument is to include Singapore as a recognised foreign State for the purposes of enabling operators to have access to flight simulation training devices, including for B737-8 and A380 aircraft, between now and 31 July 2025.
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