Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
CASA ADCX 014/13 — Revocation of Airworthiness Directives
Legislation
Under section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), the Governor-General may make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998), CASA may issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. Under subsections 98 (5B) and (5BA) of the Act, an AD is a legislative instrument unless it is expressed to apply in relation to a particular person, a particular aircraft or a particular aeronautical product.
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.
Under Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the State of Design has overall responsibility for continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type and must provide any information necessary to ensure the continuing airworthiness of a type to appropriate States of Registry. ADs (and their equivalents) are the most common form of continuing airworthiness information and are issued by most International Civil Aviation Organization Contracting States.
The State of Registry of an individual aircraft is responsible for its continuing airworthiness. Under Annex 8, the State of Registry must develop or adopt requirements to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aircraft. State of Design ADs issued on or after 1 October 2009 are defined as ADs under regulation 39.001A of CASR 1998. When a State of Design issues an AD against a type of aircraft on the Australian Register, CASA, as Australia’s national airworthiness authority, must accept that AD. However, CASA may grant an exclusion from the AD or approve an acceptable means of compliance other than that set out in the AD.
Revocation
This instrument revokes 7 ADs for the following reasons.
AD/INST/8 Amdt 4, AD/INST/9 Amdt 6, and AD/RAD/43 Amdt 6 are revoked because the requirements of those ADs have been transitioned to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 100.5.
AD/TBM 700/5 Amdt 2, AD/A330/80 and AD/GBK 117/23 are revoked as the requirements of those ADs have been superseded by ADs issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The requirements of AD/TBM 700/5 Amdt 2 have been superseded by EASA AD 2013-0157 issued on 19 July 2013. The requirements of AD/A330/80 have been superseded by EASA AD 2013-0158 issued on 22 July 2013. The requirements of AD/GBK 117/23 have been superseded by EASA AD 2013-0159 issued on 22 July 2013.
AD/JBK 117/24 is revoked as the requirements of that AD have been superseded by AD TCD-6850A-2013 issued by Japan Civil Aviation Bureau on 23 July 2013.
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA for the revocation of AD/INST/8 Amdt 4, AD/INST/9 Amdt 6 and AD/RAD/43 Amdt 6 was undertaken as follows.
CASA published Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 1101CS for the proposals on its website and by broadcast email, on 7 September 2011, inviting comments from the public and aviation industry generally up until 4 November 2011. The NPRM set out proposals for the testing and ongoing maintenance of certain aircraft instrument systems, and the revocation of the previously relevant ADs.
CASA considered that responses received to the NPRM were from a representative cross-section of the aviation industry, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Gliding Federation of Australia and the Australian Ballooning Federation. Qantas, Virgin Australia and Skywest, together with other individuals contributed to the final total of 140 responses.
Some respondents expressed concern about CASA revoking the ADs and embodying the revised maintenance requirements in a CAO. However, CASA considers that a CAO is a more appropriate, effective and enforceable vehicle for the revised requirements to be broadcast and implemented. Some respondents also urged CASA to retain the previous system of dual maintenance standards for altimeters. However, CASA considers that retention of 2 standards would continue to give rise to greater aviation safety risks, particularly for aircraft separation.
CASA responded to the comments made by some respondents by clarifying its proposals regarding the applicability of the revised standards to aircraft fitted with modern computer-based systems. Overall, the majority of respondents to the NPRM consultation (approximately 60%) indicated support for the proposals either unchanged or with minor amendments which CASA took into account.
No consultation with the Australian public has taken place on the revocation of AD/TBM 700/5 Amdt 2, AD/A330/80, AD/GBK 117/23 and AD/JBK 117/24. Those instruments applied foreign State of Design ADs that were no longer in force in the State of Design and their retention would have been purposeless. The revocations result in a reduction of the regulatory burden. For these reasons, CASA’s view is that no consultation is appropriate or necessary.
The Office of Best Practice Regulation has determined that ADs do not require a Regulatory Impact Statement.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
Commencement and making
The instrument commences on 1 August 2013, which is the day that Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) commences and makes related amendments to CAO 100.5.
The instrument has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of CASR 1998 and subsection 94 (1) of the Act.
[Instrument number CASA ADCX 014/13]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
CASA ADCX 014/13 — Revocation of Airworthiness Directives
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 purpose of this legislative instrument is to revoke airworthiness directives (ADs) that have been superseded.
AD/INST/8 Amdt 4, AD/INST/9 Amdt 6, and AD/RAD/43 Amdt 6 are revoked because the requirements of those ADs have been transitioned to Civil Aviation Order 100.5.
AD/TBM 700/5 Amdt 2, AD/A330/80, and AD/GBK 117/23 are revoked because the requirements of those ADs have been superseded by ADs issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency that apply to Australian aircraft.
AD/JBK 117/24 is revoked because the requirements of that AD have been superseded by an AD issued by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau that applies to Australian aircraft.
Those ADs related to inspection and rectification or maintenance of specified aeronautical products.
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