CASA EX48/06 - Exemption – training and checking organisation, flight check system

Administered by Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts

Legislation au F2006L03283 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

Explanatory Statement

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

Exemption — training and checking organisation, flight check system

 

Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and the safety of air navigation.

Legislation

Under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) CASA may exempt aircraft, or persons in, on, or otherwise associated with the operation of, the aircraft, from compliance with specified provisions of CAR 1988.

Under subregulation 308 (2), before making an exemption, CASA must take into account any relevant considerations relating to the interests of safety. Under subregulation 308 (3) of CAR 1988, CASA may make an exemption subject to conditions specified in the exemption as being necessary in the interests of safety.

Under subregulation 217 (1) of CAR 1988, the operator of an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5 700 kg must provide a training and checking organisation (a TCO) to ensure that the crew maintain competency. Under subregulation 217 (2) of CAR 1988, the TCO must provide each crew member with 2 annual competency checks. Under subregulation 217 (3) of CAR 1988, the TCO, and its tests and checks, must be approved by CASA.

Under subregulation 232 (1) of CAR 1988, the operator of an aircraft must establish a flight check system (FCS) for each type of aircraft, setting out the procedures to be followed by the pilot in command and other crew members before and on take-off, on landing, and in emergency situations. Under subregulation 232 (2) of CAR 1988, a FCS is subject to prior approval of CASA and CASA may, at any time, require the system to be revised in a manner specified by CASA.

Under subregulation 232 (3) of CAR 1988, the pilot in command of the aircraft must ensure that the procedure checklists are located where they are immediately available to the flight crew. Under subregulation 232 (4) of CAR 1988, the pilot in command must ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.

Under subregulation 232 (5) of CAR 1988, the operator of an aircraft must not allow it to be flown if the flight check system has not been approved by CASA or, if CASA has required the system to be revised, has not been revised in a manner required.

Sikorsky CH-54B

Under a lease agreement with Helicopter Transport Services Inc. (HTS), Sydney Helicopters Pty Ltd (the operator) uses 2 multi-engine, Sikorsky CH-54B Skycrane helicopters in the aerial work category for firefighting purposes during the 2006-2007 firefighting season i.e. from 1 October 2006 until 30 April 2007.

Under instrument CASA EX44/05, CASA has exempted certain single engine aircraft from the requirement to have a TCO. However, this does not apply to multi-engine aircraft. Under instrument CASA EX38/2004, CASA has exempted certain multi-engine aircraft, not above 5 700 kg maximum take-off weight (MTOW), from the requirement to have an approved FCS. However, the MTOW of the Sikorsky CH-54B Skycrane (the aircraft) exceeds 5 700 kg.

Exemption

Both for itself and its pilots in command, the operator has requested exemption from the requirements to have a TCO and an approved FCS in respect of its operation of the aircraft.

CASA has no flying operations inspector (FOI) endorsed on the aircraft who could approve a TCO or the FCS, and in the time frame available it is not practical for CASA to train and endorse an FOI for this purpose.

However, for TCO requirements, an equivalent level of safety may be obtained by ensuring that the aircraft’s pilots, licensed by the US Federal Aviation Administration (the FAA), meet the competency requirements of the check and training organisation stipulated by the FAA and HTS.

For FCS requirements, an equivalent level of safety may be obtained by ensuring that the operator and the aircraft’s pilots comply with the FCS requirements of the FAA.

Conditions

A number of other safety conditions support these safeguards. The operator must hold a discrete air operator’s certificate for the aircraft and comply with any conditions mentioned in it. Further, the aircraft may only be operated for firefighting purposes and may only carry crew members.

The aircraft may be flown in Australia only by a pilot who meets FAA and HTS check and training proficiency requirements.

The operator’s chief pilot must sight, and verify the currency of, each operating crew member’s licence, aircraft endorsement, medical certificate and most recent proficiency check on the aircraft.

The aircraft must have a FCS that complies with FAA standards. The operator and the pilot in command must ensure that the normal and emergency checklists are immediately available to the crew in flight. The pilot in command must ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.

If the aircraft’s checklist information, procedures and instructions are contained in the aircraft’s flight manual, the flight manual may be taken to be the flight check system and it must be immediately available to the crew in flight.

Legislative Instruments Act

Subregulation 308 (4) of CAR 1988 declares an exemption to be a disallowable instrument. Under subparagraph 6 (d) (i) of the Legislative Instruments 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. The exemption is, therefore, a legislative instrument and it is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA.

Consultation

Consultation under section 17 of the LIA has not been undertaken in this case. The instrument is a temporary operational exemption required by the operator to facilitate firefighting operations. It would be issued to any operator who requested it and could meet the same safety conditions.

The instrument commences on 1 October 2006 after registration. It stops having effect at the end of 30 April 2007.

The exemption has been made by the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer, a delegate of CASA, in accordance with subregulation 7 (1) of CAR 1988.

[Instrument number CASA EX48/06]

Overview

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were amended to address the need for a temporary operational exemption for the specific requirements of training and checking organisations (TCO) and flight check systems (FCS) for certain aircraft used in firefighting operations. Enacted by the Parliament of Australia under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the policy objective of these regulations is to ensure the safety of air navigation while providing flexibility to address unique operational challenges faced by aircraft operators. In this instance, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) granted an exemption to Sydney Helicopters Pty Ltd, the operator of Sikorsky CH-54B Skycrane helicopters used for firefighting during the 2006-2007 season. The exemption allowed the operator to bypass the standard requirements for a TCO and an approved FCS, provided that equivalent safety measures were in place. This included ensuring that the aircraft's pilots met the competency requirements set by the US Federal Aviation Administration and Helicopter Transport Services Inc., and that the flight check system complied with FAA standards. The exemption was subject to specific conditions, such as the aircraft being used only for firefighting purposes and the operator holding a discrete air operator’s certificate. The exemption was also subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Scope and Application

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, as amended, govern the safety and operation of aircraft within Australia, providing a comprehensive regulatory framework that includes provisions for exemptions from certain requirements under specific circumstances. This particular regulation pertains to the exemption of Sydney Helicopters Pty Ltd from the requirements to have a training and checking organisation (TCO) and an approved flight check system (FCS) for its operation of two multi-engine Sikorsky CH-54B Skycrane helicopters leased from Helicopter Transport Services Inc. for firefighting purposes from 1 October 2006 to 30 April 2007. The exemption acknowledges the practical difficulties in meeting these requirements within the short timeframe of the firefighting season and the absence of a flying operations inspector endorsed on these aircraft. The exemption conditions ensure an equivalent level of safety by requiring compliance with FAA and HTS competency and FCS requirements, and other specified safety conditions, including the use of a flight manual as the FCS and the availability of checklists to the crew in flight. This exemption is subject to disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and is intended to facilitate the specific operational needs of the firefighting operations during the specified period.

Key Provisions

The primary operative sections of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) relevant to this exemption are subregulations 217 and 232 (subregulation 308 also features prominently as it pertains to the exemption process itself). Subregulation 217(1) mandates that operators of aircraft with a maximum take-off weight exceeding 5,700 kg must provide a training and checking organisation (TCO) to ensure crew competency, while subregulation 217(2) stipulates that each crew member must undergo two annual competency checks. Furthermore, subregulation 217(3) requires CASA approval of the TCO and its tests and checks. Subregulation 232(1) requires operators to establish a flight check system (FCS) for each aircraft type, detailing procedures for pre-take-off, landing, and emergency situations. Subregulation 232(2) mandates CASA approval of the FCS, and subregulation 232(3) and (4) require the pilot in command to ensure that procedure checklists are immediately available and that the FCS is carried out in detail. Subregulation 308 allows CASA to exempt aircraft or associated persons from compliance with specified provisions of the CAR 1988, subject to safety considerations and potentially specific conditions. The obligations imposed on the parties governed by this Act, particularly the operator and the pilots, are stringent and focus on maintaining a high level of safety. The operator must ensure that the Sikorsky CH-54B Skycrane helicopters are operated by pilots who meet FAA and HTS proficiency requirements. The operator’s chief pilot must verify the currency of each crew member’s licence, aircraft endorsement, medical certificate, and most recent proficiency check. Additionally, the operator must hold a discrete air operator’s certificate and comply with its conditions. The operator is also required to ensure that the FCS complies with FAA standards and that normal and emergency checklists are immediately available to the crew during flight. If the checklist information, procedures, and instructions are contained in the aircraft’s flight manual, the manual itself may be considered the FCS and must be readily accessible during flight. Failure to comply with the conditions of this exemption can result in significant civil and criminal consequences. Subregulation 308(4) of the CAR 1988 declares the exemption to be a disallowable instrument under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (LIA). This means that the exemption is subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA. In addition to these legislative consequences, operational non-compliance with the safety conditions could lead to CASA taking enforcement action against the operator, potentially including fines and suspension of the operator’s certificate. The specific penalties for breaches of safety regulations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 can include substantial fines and, in severe cases, imprisonment. The exact penalties depend on the nature and severity of the breach, but they are designed to ensure strict adherence to safety standards.

Legal classification tags

Area of Law
Aviation Law
Instrument
Regulation
Concepts
Definitions & Interpretation
Regulatory Standards
Enforcement Powers

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at 26 August 2026. For the latest information on Australian Government law please go to https://www.legislation.gov.au.