Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Direction — number of cabin attendants
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 (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.
CAO 20.16.3 has remained in the same form since 1960 and as such represents a 51 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) certification standards. The recommendation was adopted.
The previous instrument, CASA 268/11, which ceases to exist at the end of 1 October 2011, allowed Virgin Australia Airlines Pty 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. The cabin attendant ratio applies only to aircraft with maximum seating capacity of 189 passengers and with a type certificate data sheet that permits that ratio to be used.
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 prewarned 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 Schedule 1 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 revised conditions which include a requirement that the briefing of passengers in 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.
Legislative Instruments Act
Under subparagraph 6 (d) (i) of the Legislative Instrument 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.
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 has been undertaken in the issue of similar instruments. The operator requested the issue of the new instrument. Previous agreements and undertakings entered into between CASA and the operator continue to apply. The instrument is issued for a short period pending the outcome of the current parliamentary enquiry.
The instrument commences on 2 October 2011. It stops having effect at the end of 31 December 2011.
The direction has been issued by a delegate of CASA under subregulation 11.260 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
[Instrument number CASA 412/11]