Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Orders 100.23 and 100.24 Amendment Instrument 2026
Purpose
The purpose of Civil Aviation Orders 100.23 and 100.24 Amendment Instrument 2026 (the instrument) is to make the issue of airworthiness authorities to carry out maintenance on large remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) more efficient by removing from Civil Aviation Order 100.24 (CAO 100.24) the requirement that applicants for airworthiness authorities to carry out maintenance on RPA must hold an Australian aircraft engineer licence (AEL), unless approved by the Director of Aviation Safety (the Director).
The amendments will not change the arrangements for the issue of airworthiness authorities for maintenance of conventional piloted aircraft. An applicant for an airworthiness authority to carry out maintenance on aircraft other than RPA must still hold an AEL unless the Director approves otherwise.
The instrument also modernises CAO 100.24 and related Civil Aviation Order 100.23 (CAO 100.23) so that each Civil Aviation Order (CAO) has a name, gender-neutral language and relevant definitions. CAO 100.23 has also been updated so it does not refer to an obsolete class of airworthiness authority and related application form and reflects current administrative processes for the making of airworthiness authority applications.
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. Relevantly, the Governor-General has made the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).
Under subsection 98(5) of the Act, the regulations may provide that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may issue a CAO containing a direction, instruction, notification, permission, approval or authority.
Under subsection 98(5AAA) of the Act, a CAO issued under a regulation made under subsection (5) is a legislative instrument.
Regulation 2 of CAR defines airworthiness authority as meaning an authority under regulation 33B of CAR.
Under subregulation 33B(1) of CAR, CASA may, in writing and in accordance with the CAOs, issue authorities of the following kinds:
(a) authorities to carry out maintenance on aircraft;
(b) authorities to conduct non-destructive testing of aircraft and aircraft components;
(c) authorities to weigh aircraft and determine the centre of gravity of each aircraft for the purpose of determining requirements to control the centre of gravity during operation.
Under subregulation 33B(2), an airworthiness authority may be issued subject to conditions specified in the airworthiness authority, in the CAOs or in both.
Under subregulation 33B(3), if an airworthiness authority is issued subject to a condition in the CAOs, CASA must, in writing, notify the holder of the authority of the relevant Part or section of the CAOs in which the condition is specified.
Under subregulation 33B(4), it is an offence of strict liability for a person to contravene a condition to which an airworthiness authority is subject.
Regulation 101.021 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) defines RPA as meaning a remotely piloted aircraft, other than a balloon, a kite or a model aircraft.
Regulation 101.022 of CASR defines the types of RPA. Large RPA is defined to mean:
(a) a remotely piloted aeroplane with a gross weight of more than 150 kg; or
(b) a remotely piloted powered parachute with a gross weight of more than 150 kg; or
(c) a remotely piloted rotorcraft with a gross weight of more than 150 kg; or
(d) a remotely piloted powered-lift aircraft with a gross weight of more than 150 kg; or
(e) a remotely piloted airship with an envelope capacity of more than 100 m3.
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 subsection 13(1) of the Legislation Act 2003 (the LA), subsection 33(3) applies to legislative instruments as if each provision of the instrument were a section of an Act.
Background
The amendment to CAO 100.24 relating to the issue of an airworthiness authority to carry out maintenance on aircraft (a maintenance authority) responds to initiative AA5 of CASA’s Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Strategic Regulatory Roadmap (the Roadmap). The Roadmap was a commitment under the National Emerging Aviation Technologies Policy Statement released in May 2021.
Under Initiative AA5 of the Roadmap, titled “Progress the development of a fit for purpose continuing airworthiness policy for higher-risk RPAS”, CASA is to “review and update maintenance and continuing airworthiness policies for RPAS so they are appropriate as platforms increase in size and complexity. This includes consideration of maintenance personnel authorisations and continuing airworthiness management policies.”
The amendment will have the effect of removing the requirement for the Director to have to approve the issue of maintenance authorities for maintenance on large RPA to persons who do not hold an AEL. Although the relevant amendment to CAO 100.24 applies to applicants for maintenance authorities for maintenance on “RPA”, in practice currently persons only apply to CASA for maintenance authorities for maintenance on large RPA. This is because large RPA is the only type of RPA for which a maintenance authority is required under CASR. Under regulation 101.265 of CASR, a person may carry out maintenance on a large RPA that is an Australian aircraft, or an aircraft component or material for such a large RPA, only if they hold an airworthiness authority that authorises the maintenance or carry out the maintenance under the supervision of a person who holds such an authority.
The amendments made by the instrument will benefit the growing large RPA sector of the aviation industry by reducing the additional administration and time associated with obtaining case-by-case Director approvals of maintenance authorities without changing the competency standards required.
A maintenance authority may be issued for maintenance on more than one aircraft, by reference to aircraft identified by registration, serial number or type. Under paragraph 1.2 of CAO 100.24, an applicant for a maintenance authority must submit satisfactory evidence that the applicant has been adequately trained for the purpose, has adequate practical experience of the duties to be performed in relation to the authority and has passed such examinations in relation to the authority as are required or approved for the purpose.
All applicants for a maintenance authority must demonstrate to CASA that they have the appropriate competencies to maintain the type of aircraft on which maintenance is to be carried out under the maintenance authority. For large RPA, CASA may accept an AEL or alternative means of establishing competencies, for example, completion of an RPA-specific manufacturer training course combined with relevant industry experience. Shortly after this instrument is made, CASA will publish updated guidance material to support industry in making applications in accordance with the amended CAOs. This guidance material includes information regarding appropriate competencies, which are not proposed to change from the current arrangements.
The decision whether to issue a maintenance authority will continue to be made under section 33B of CAR by CASA officers with knowledge of the appropriate competencies required for maintainers of the type of aircraft on which the maintenance is to be carried out. The only difference will be that the Director must no longer approve that a maintenance authority for maintenance on large RPAs may be issued (by a delegate) to an applicant who does not hold an AEL. Such applicants must still hold appropriate competencies. An applicant for a maintenance authority for aircraft other than RPA must still hold an AEL unless the Director approves otherwise.
Overview of instrument
In accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the instrument amends CAO 100.23 and CAO 100.24.
The main amendment made by the instrument is to remove the requirement from CAO 100.24 that, unless otherwise approved by the Director, an applicant for a maintenance authority that is for maintenance on RPA must hold an AEL. The instrument also modernises both CAO 100.23 and CAO 100.24, which have been in force since 2007, to include a naming provision and to use gender-neutral language. Some requirements have also been clarified by the inclusion of some definitions of terms used.
Amendments are also made to CAO 100.23 to reflect current processes for the submission of applications for airworthiness authorities, including the removal of application form numbers. This is because CASA is transitioning away from using numbers to identify application forms and applicants may now choose to submit applications for airworthiness authorities using the online portal myCASA.
CASA has assessed the impact the instrument will have on aviation safety and considers that the amendments made by the instrument would not adversely affect aviation safety.
Documents incorporated by reference
The instrument does not incorporate any documents by reference into CAO 100.23 or CAO 100.24.
Content of instrument
Section 1 names the instrument.
Section 2 provides that the instrument commences on the day after it is registered.
Section 3 provides that each CAO mentioned in the title of a Schedule to the instrument is amended in accordance with the Schedule.
The following references to items are to items in Schedule 1, which amends CAO 100.23.
Item 1 inserts a naming provision and a definition section for CAO 100.23.
The provision also makes clear that a reference in a CASA instrument (being an instrument issued by CASA under a statutory power to issue the instrument) to Section 100.23 of the Civil Aviation Orders is a reference to this instrument. This is because individual CAOs are sometimes referred to as CAO Sections.
Definitions of authority and relevant Order have been included.
Item 2 omits the reference to an application form for an aircraft maintenance engineer examiner authority as CAO 100.26 that provided for applications for such authorities was repealed in 2013.
Item 3 substitutes paragraph 2.1 of CAO 100.23 with new paragraphs 2.1 and 2.1A because previous paragraph 2.1 comprised two sentences.
Paragraph 2.1 still provides for how applications for airworthiness authorities are made but no longer specifies how application forms are to be submitted to CASA (previously it required an application form to be submitted to a CASA “field office”, but CASA no longer has “field offices”). Also, paragraph 2.1 no longer references application form numbers. New paragraph 2.1A continues to require an applicant to provide with the application form details of any particular experience or qualifications required.
Item 4 omits the reference to “applicable Civil Aviation Order” (which was undefined) and substitutes it with the term “relevant Order”.
Item 5 substitutes paragraph 4.3 with a new paragraph 4.3. Unlike the previous paragraph 4.3, new paragraph 4.3 does not require an authority holder, during the validity of the authority, to notify “the appropriate field office” of any change of address to which communications under CAR or the CAOs, may be sent. Instead, it requires the holder of an authority to notify CASA, in writing, of any change of address so CASA may communicate with the holder in relation to the authority if required.
Item 6 sets out further amendments. These amendments are to update some gendered language used in CAO 101.23 to gender-neutral language.
The following references to items are to items in Schedule 2, which amends CAO 100.24.
Item 1 inserts a naming provision and a definition section for CAO 100.24.
The provision also makes clear that a reference in a CASA instrument (being an instrument issued by CASA under a statutory power to issue the instrument) to Section 100.24 of the Civil Aviation Orders is a reference to this instrument. This is because individual CAOs are sometimes referred to as CAO Sections.
A definition of maintenance authority has been included to make clearer that CAO 100.24 only deals with these kinds of airworthiness authorities. The term is defined to mean an airworthiness authority to carry out maintenance on aircraft. A note is included below the definition that states that airworthiness authority is defined in regulation 2 of CAR as meaning an authority under regulation 33B of CAR.
Item 2 substitutes paragraph 1.1 with new paragraphs 1.1 and 1.1A. The new paragraph 1.1 provides that, subject to paragraph 1.1A, unless otherwise approved by the Director, an applicant for a maintenance authority must hold an aircraft engineer licence. New paragraph 1.1A makes clear that paragraph 1.1 does not apply to an applicant for a maintenance authority that is for maintenance on RPA.
Item 3 amends subsection 2. The amendment removes the reference to “Form 350” and updates the title of the section to refer to a “maintenance authority” (not an “authority”). The amendment does not change the remaining requirement of the subsection relating to endorsement of the form by the applicant’s employer.
Item 4 amends paragraph 3.1 to use gender-neutral language.
Item 5 sets out further amendments. These amendments are to update some gendered language used in another provision of CAO 100.24 and to update references to an “authority” to refer to a “maintenance authority”.
Legislation Act 2003
Under subsection 98(5) of the Act, the regulations may provide that CASA may issue a CAO containing a direction, instruction, notification, permission, approval or authority. Under subsection 98(5AAA) of the Act, a CAO issued under a regulation made under subsection (5) is a legislative instrument. This instrument is made under section 33B of CAR and is, therefore, a legislative instrument.
In addition, paragraph 10(1)(d) of the LA provides that an instrument will be a legislative instrument if it includes a provision that amends or repeals another legislative instrument. This instrument amends CAO 100.23 and CAO 100.24 which were registered as legislative instruments and is, therefore, also a legislative instrument, subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA.
Sunsetting
Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the sunsetting provisions) does not apply to the instrument because the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under CAR (item 15 of the table in section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015).
In this case, the instrument is an amending instrument and is almost immediately spent and repealed in accordance with the automatic repeal provisions in section 48A of the LA. Thus, in practice, no sunsetting avoidance issues arise and there is no impact on parliamentary oversight.
Consultation
CASA undertook public consultation on the instrument from 21 October 2025 to 18 November 2025. Three responses were received from relevant industry stakeholders, all of which supported the key change made to CAO 100.24 by the instrument.
CASA is satisfied that no further consultation is appropriate or reasonably practicable for this instrument for section 17 of the LA.
Sector risk, economic and cost impact
Subsection 9A(1) of the Act states that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. Subsection 9A(3) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
The cost impact of a standard refers to the direct cost (in the sense of price or expense) which a standard would cause individuals, businesses and the community to incur. The economic impact of a standard refers to the impact a standard would have on the production, distribution and use of wealth across the economy, at the level of the individual, relevant businesses in the aviation sector, and the community more broadly. The economic impact of a standard could also include the general financial impact of that standard on different industry sectors.
The instrument makes minor or machinery changes to existing instruments and there will be no change to the economic or cost impact on individuals, businesses or the community. The Office of Impact Analysis (OIA) also made an assessment that an Impact Analysis (IA) was not required.
The economic and cost impact of the instrument has been determined by:
(a) the identification of individuals and businesses affected by the instrument; and
(b) consideration of how the requirements to be imposed on individuals and businesses under the instrument will be different compared to existing requirements; and
(c) a valuation of the impact, in terms of direct costs on individuals and businesses affected by the instrument to comply with the different requirements. This valuation is consistent with the principles of best practice regulation of the Australian Government; and
(d) a valuation of the impact the different requirements would have on the production, distribution and use of wealth across the economy, at the level of the individual, relevant businesses in the aviation sector, and the community more broadly; and
(e) consideration of community impacts, beyond those direct impacts on individuals and businesses affected by the instrument, that are relevant if the instrument were to result in flow-on effects to other aviation businesses, or local non-aviation businesses that experience a change in their activity due to the instrument.
The amendments made to CAO 100.24 by the instrument apply to applicants for maintenance authorities but will not require them to meet new requirements. The other amendments are minor amendments to update and modernise CAO 100.23 and CAO 100.24.
CASA has assessed that the economic and cost impact of the instrument is not significant. The OIA has also made the assessment that the expected impacts are minor and that an IA is not required. As there is no significant economic or cost impact on individuals or businesses, there will be no community impacts.
Impact on categories of operations
The instrument is likely to have a beneficial effect on large RPA operations and related businesses by reducing the additional administration and wait time associated with obtaining case-by-case Director approvals of applications made for maintenance authorities for RPAs by applicants who do not hold AELs.
Impact on regional and remote communities
The instrument will have the same beneficial effect on large RPA operations in regional and remote communities as it will have on such operations in other communities.
Office of Impact Analysis
The OIA has made the assessment that the expected impacts of the instrument are minor and that an IA is not required (OIA25-10694).
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Making and commencement
The instrument has been made by the Director, on behalf of CASA, in accordance with subsection 73(2) of the Act.
The instrument commences on the day after it is registered and is automatically repealed in accordance with section 48A of the LA.
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Civil Aviation Orders 100.23 and 100.24 Amendment Instrument 2026
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 main purpose of Civil Aviation Orders 100.23 and 100.24 Amendment Instrument 2026 (the instrument) is to make the issue of airworthiness authorities to carry out maintenance on remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) more efficient by removing from Civil Aviation Order 100.24 (CAO 100.24) the requirement that applicants for such airworthiness authorities must hold an Australian aircraft engineer licence (AEL) unless approved by the Director of Aviation Safety (the Director).
An applicant for an airworthiness authority to carry out maintenance on aircraft other than RPA will still be required to hold an AEL unless the Director approves otherwise. As the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 currently only require persons who wish to carry out maintenance on large RPAs to have airworthiness authorities for such maintenance, the amendment will in practice benefit applicants for maintenance authorities for large RPA only.
No changes will be made to the eligibility requirements, including competency requirements, for the issue of airworthiness authorities to carry out maintenance on aircraft, including RPA.
The instrument also modernises CAO 100.24 and related Civil Aviation Order 100.23 (CAO 100.23) so that each Civil Aviation Order has a name, uses gender-neutral language, and includes relevant definitions. CAO 100.23 has also been updated to no longer refer to an obsolete class of airworthiness authority and application form and to reflect current administrative processes for applications for airworthiness authorities, including the removal of application form numbers.
Human rights implications
This legislative instrument engages positively with the right to work by easing the administrative burden on applicants for airworthiness authorities for maintenance of large RPA who do not hold AELs.
Conclusion
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights because it promotes the protection of human rights.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority