Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Repeal of authorisation, permission and exemption — helicopter winching operations (Esso Australia)
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 subregulation 151 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR), it is an offence for the pilot in command of an aircraft to allow persons or objects to be picked up by the aircraft. However, under subregulation 151 (3), it is a defence if CASA gives prior written authority and conditions mentioned in the authority are complied with.
Under paragraphs 250 (1) (c) and 250 (1A) (c) of CAR, it is an offence for the operator or the pilot in command to permit a person to be carried on anything attached to the aircraft. However, under subregulation 250 (2), CASA may give permission for a person to be carried in this way, subject to compliance with conditions specified under subregulation 250 (3).
Under paragraph 251 (1) (c) of CAR, it is an offence if crew members and passengers on an aircraft do not wear seat belts when the aircraft is flying below 1 000 feet.
These provisions have the effect of preventing helicopter winching operations. However, by means of Civil Aviation Order 29.11 (CAO 29.11), CASA has given authority and permission under subregulations 151 (3) and 250 (2) of CAR, therefore, allowing helicopters to conduct winching operations, subject to various conditions mentioned in CAO 29.11.
Under subregulation 11.160 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), for subsection 98 (5A) of the Act, CASA may grant an exemption from a provision of a Civil Aviation Order in relation to matters affecting the safe navigation and operation of aircraft.
Under subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (AIA), 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
From time to time, helicopters malfunction or require maintenance while servicing sites with helidecks. Helicopter winching to land and take off maintenance personnel and spares may be required. Most helidecks would not comply with the dimensional requirements for an operating area in paragraph 5.1 of CAO 29.11. Also, the operation may not comply with the helicopter performance requirements of paragraph 7.1 of CAO 29.11.
By instrument CASA 20/16, CASA granted Esso Australia Pty Ltd (the operator) an authority, permission and exemption under subregulations 151 (3) and 250 (2) of CAR and regulation 11.160 of CASR to enable its helicopter pilots to winch maintenance personnel and spares to and from sites without compliance with paragraphs 5.1 and 7.1 of CAO 29.11, subject to a series of safety conditions.
Instrument
This instrument repeals instrument CASA 20/16 relying on subsection 33 (3) of the AIA.
The operator has changed the aircraft used for the operations and has requested the reissue of CASA 20/16. A new non-legislative instrument, CASA EX70/17, has been issued to the operator for those purposes.
Consequently, CASA 20/16 is no longer required and is being repealed by this instrument.
Legislation Act 2003 (the LA)
Under subsection 8 (5) and paragraph 10 (1) (c) of the LA, an instrument is a legislative instrument if it includes a provision that repeals another legislative instrument. This instrument repeals CASA 20/16, which is a legislative instrument.
Therefore, this instrument is also a legislative instrument within the meaning of the LA, and is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA.
Consultation
The operator has requested a change to the authorisation in CASA 20/16. CASA has issued a new instrument in accordance with the operator’s request and CASA 20/16 is no longer required. 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 LA.
Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR)
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required because the instrument is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OBPR under which a RIS is not required for this type of instrument (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 a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of CASR.
The instrument commences on the day after registration. Under section 48A of the LA, the instrument is repealed on the day after the day it commences.
[Instrument number CASA 58/17]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Repeal of authorisation, permission and exemption — helicopter winching operations (Esso Australia)
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 repeals instrument CASA 20/16, which enabled the conduct of certain helicopter winching operations conducted by Esso Australia Pty Ltd. The instrument allowed maintenance personnel and equipment to be winched by helicopter to or from an offshore platform or vessel, subject to conditions imposed by CASA in the interests of air safety.
The operator has changed the aircraft used for the operations and has requested the reissue of CASA 20/16. A new non-legislative instrument, CASA EX70/17, has been issued to the operator for those purposes.
Consequently, CASA 20/16 is no longer required and is being repealed.
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