Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Exemption — recent experience requirements
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.
Under subregulation 5.18 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988), CASA may give directions in Civil Aviation Orders (the CAOs) setting out the authority given by a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, and the limitations on that authority and the flight tests that must be passed, or any requirement that must be satisfied, before the authority may be exercised.
CASA has issued a direction in Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 (CAO 40.2.1). Paragraph 11.4 of CAO 40.2.1 provides that the holder of a command instrument rating must not carry out an ILS or LLZ approach in I.M.C. as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, within the preceding 35 days, he or she has not performed in flight, or in an approved synthetic trainer, either 1 of those approaches.
The ILS recency requirements have been in place for many years. It has not taken into consideration technological advancements and aircraft design. Modern aircraft design has simplified ILS approaches.
The instrument exempts the holder of a command instrument rating from the requirement of paragraph 11.4 of CAO 40.2.1, in relation to having performed in flight, or in a synthetic trainer, either an ILS or LLZ approach in I.M.C. within the preceding 35 days. The exemption is subject to conditions which include the holder participating in the cyclic training and proficiency program of Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas).
Legislative Instruments Act
Under regulation 5A of CAR 1988, if CASA has issued a CAO that is not an Airworthiness Directive and a prescribed direction or exemption is issued, given or granted, and the prescribed direction or exemption has the effect of repealing, amending or otherwise affecting the operation of anything in the CAO, the prescribed direction or exemption is a disallowable instrument. Because the exemption affects the operation of paragraph 11.4 of CAO 40.2.1, it is declared to be a disallowable instrument under regulation 5A of CAR 1988.
For subsection 98 (5A) of the Act, CASA may, by instrument, grant an exemption from compliance with a provision of the regulations or the CAOs. An instrument issued under paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act is a legislative instrument if the instrument is expressed to apply to a class of persons. The exemption applies to a class of persons. The exemption is, therefore, a legislative instrument and is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA.
Consultation
Consultation has not been undertaken. This instrument has been requested by Qantas and renews a previous instrument, CASA EX67/09. Any operator who meets the requirements will be able to be issued with a similar instrument.
The exemption commences on 1 August 2011. It stops having effect at the end of 31 July 2014.
The exemption has been made by the Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, under subsection 73 (2) of the Act.
[Instrument number CASA EX74/11]
Overview
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 were amended by the Civil Aviation (Recent Experience Requirements) Exemption 2011 (F2011L01579) to address a specific gap in the recent experience requirements for pilots conducting Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance (LLZ) approaches in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). This exemption was introduced to account for the technological advancements and modern aircraft design, which have simplified ILS approaches, making the existing requirements potentially outdated. The exemption was enacted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under the authority granted by section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The policy objective is to ensure that pilot proficiency requirements are aligned with current aviation technologies while maintaining safety standards. This exemption is a legislative instrument, subject to disallowance by Parliament under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, and applies to a class of persons, specifically holders of a command instrument rating who meet the conditions set by Qantas's cyclic training and proficiency program.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1988, under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, have been amended to provide an exemption concerning the recent experience requirements for holders of a command instrument rating, specifically regarding Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). This exemption applies to individuals who hold a command instrument rating and are employed by Qantas Airways Limited, subject to their participation in the airline’s cyclic training and proficiency program. The exemption effectively relieves these pilots from the requirement to perform an ILS or LPV approach in IMC within the preceding 35 days, provided they meet the outlined conditions. This regulatory change acknowledges the advancements in aircraft design and technology, which have streamlined the execution of such approaches. The exemption, declared as a disallowable instrument under regulation 5A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, is a legislative instrument and is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament as per the Legislative Instruments Act. Notably, the exemption is set to be in effect from 1 August 2011 until 31 July 2014, and it was made on behalf of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by the Director of Aviation Safety.
Key Provisions
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 allows the Governor-General to create regulations that promote air navigation safety. This includes the ability to issue directions through Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs), as detailed in subregulation 5.18(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988). A specific direction under this framework is found in Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 (CAO 40.2.1), which mandates that a pilot in command holding a command instrument rating must perform an ILS or LLZ approach in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (I.M.C.) within the previous 35 days to conduct such an approach. This requirement is intended to ensure that pilots maintain their skills and familiarity with these approaches.
The new exemption modifies the existing requirements set out in paragraph 11.4 of CAO 40.2.1. Specifically, it relieves the holder of a command instrument rating from the obligation to perform an ILS or LLZ approach in flight or in a synthetic trainer within the preceding 35 days, provided they meet certain conditions. These conditions include participation in the cyclic training and proficiency program offered by Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas). This exemption acknowledges the advancements in modern aircraft design and technology that have simplified ILS approaches, thereby reducing the frequency with which pilots need to demonstrate their proficiency in these procedures.
Under regulation 5A of CAR 1988, the exemption issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is classified as a disallowable instrument because it affects the operation of CAO 40.2.1. According to subsection 98(5A) of the Act, CASA can grant such exemptions from regulatory or CAO compliance, and this particular exemption applies to a class of persons, making it a legislative instrument. Consequently, it must be tabled and can be disallowed by Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act (LIA). The exemption is effective from 1 August 2011 until 31 July 2014.
In terms of penalties and consequences, the Act does not specify particular offences or penalties related to this exemption. However, failure to comply with the conditions set out in the exemption, or any other regulatory requirements, could lead to enforcement actions by CASA. These actions may include the suspension or revocation of the pilot's licence, administrative fines, or other regulatory sanctions. The precise nature and extent of these consequences would depend on the specific circumstances of any non-compliance and the discretion exercised by CASA.