{"id":"F2005B00725","name":"CASA 104/98 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","slug":"casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32188,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00725-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"CASA 104/98 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","content":"INSTRUMENT NUMBER: CASA 104/98\n\nCIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS\n\nAPPROVAL UNDER SUBREGULATION 207 (2)\n\nI, FRANK RICHARD HAMILTON GRIMSHAW, General Manager, Airworthiness Branch, CASA, a delegate of CASA, under subregulation 207 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations approve the operation of the 3 aircraft bearing the nationality and registration marks VH-LAF, VH-LAG or VH-LHG, respectively:\n\n(a) with an approved flight data recorder system that retains its last 5 hours of recording; and\n\n(b) with an approved cockpit voice recorder system that retains its last 60 minutes of recording and complies with the requirements of subsection 2 of section 103.20 of the Civil Aviation Orders except for recording simultaneously on only 3 channels.\n\nThis approval is subject to both recorder systems being operated in accordance with paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18 of the Civil Aviation Orders.\n\n\\[Signed Frank Richard Hamilton Grimshaw\\]\n\nFRANK RICHARD HAMILTON GRIMSHAW\n\nGeneral Manager\n\nAirworthiness Branch\n\n27 April 1998","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a specific delegated approval instrument issued under subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations. It has not grown beyond its original purpose — it was always intended to be a narrow, aircraft-specific approval, and that is exactly what it remains. The scope is deliberately limited to three specific aircraft with identified registration marks."},"complexity_factors":["Single-purpose instrument: grants one specific approval for three named aircraft only","Minimal conditional logic: only two substantive conditions (the recorder specifications) plus standard operational conditions","No defined terms section: relies entirely on external references to the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders","Short length: approximately 200 words","Simple structure: declaration of approval, list of approved specifications, conditions, signature"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a specific approval issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in 1998 allowing three particular aircraft (registration numbers VH-LAF, VH-LAG, and VH-LHG) to operate with **less stringent flight recorder requirements** than normally required.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Normally, aircraft must meet strict standards for \"black box\" recorders — specifically **flight data recorders** (devices that record technical flight information) and **cockpit voice recorders** (devices that record conversations and sounds in the cockpit).\n- This approval grants an **exemption** for these three specific aircraft, allowing them to use recorder systems with **reduced capabilities**:\n  - Flight data recorders only need to keep the **last 5 hours** of data (rather than potentially longer periods)\n  - Cockpit voice recorders only need to keep the **last 60 minutes** of audio and can record on **only 3 channels simultaneously** (instead of the usual requirement for more channels)\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- The operators of the three specific aircraft listed (VH-LAF, VH-LAG, VH-LHG)\n- CASA itself, as the regulator monitoring compliance\n\n**Why it matters:**\n- This is a **tailored safety approval** — it recognises that these specific aircraft might be older or have technical limitations, and allows them to keep flying with modified safety equipment rather than being grounded or requiring expensive upgrades.\n- The approval comes with **conditions**: the operators must follow specific maintenance and operational rules set out in the Civil Aviation Orders (sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18).\n- It demonstrates how aviation safety regulation works in practice — through specific delegated approvals rather than one-size-fits-all rules."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument changes the application of the standard regulatory requirements for the three named aircraft by approving alternative recorder specifications: an FDR that retains the last 5 hours of data and a CVR that retains the last 60 minutes and records on only 3 channels (with the remainder of subsection 2 of section 103.20 of the Civil Aviation Orders still to be met). The approval is conditional on operation of the recorders in accordance with paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18 of the Civil Aviation Orders. The instrument itself does not state the reasons for granting these specific departures from the general requirements; it records only the delegated approval and its technical and operational conditions."},"complexity_factors":["Very narrow, specific subject-matter: approval applies only to three aircraft registrations (VH-LAF, VH-LAG, VH-LHG).","Cross-references to other instruments: relies on subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations and multiple provisions of the Civil Aviation Orders (section 103.20 subsection 2; section 20.18 paragraphs 6.3, 6.4, 6.6), requiring readers to consult those texts for full effect.","Technical detail: recorder retention durations and channel-count limitation are technical specifications that require understanding of aviation recording systems.","Delegated discretionary act: the instrument is an exercise of delegated authority, which requires attention to administrative law context if challenged or reviewed."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does\n\n- This is an approval, signed by the General Manager of CASA's Airworthiness Branch, that lets three specific Australian-registered aircraft (VH-LAF, VH-LAG and VH-LHG) operate with particular flight and cockpit voice recorder capabilities. The legal basis cited is subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations (instrument: CASA 104/98).\n\nWhat the approval permits, mechanically\n\n- Flight data recorder (FDR): the aircraft may use an approved FDR that keeps its last 5 hours of recorded data.\n- Cockpit voice recorder (CVR): the aircraft may use an approved CVR that keeps its last 60 minutes of recording and otherwise meets subsection 2 of section 103.20 of the Civil Aviation Orders except that it need only record simultaneously on 3 channels.\n- Operating conditions: both recorders must be operated in accordance with paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18 of the Civil Aviation Orders.\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Directly affected: the owners/operators of the three listed aircraft (registrations VH-LAF, VH-LAG and VH-LHG). Those operators must install and operate the specified recorders and follow the CAO paragraphs named as conditions.\n- Indirectly affected: CASA as the regulator monitors compliance and enforces conditions; accident investigators rely on recorder output and may receive shorter-duration or reduced-channel data from these aircraft.\n\nWhy it matters (stated function and practical trade-offs)\n\n- Stated function: the instrument formally authorises operation of the three aircraft with the described recorder capabilities under CASA's delegated power (no explanatory statement of policy is included in the instrument).\n\n- Practical trade-offs and incentives (mechanisms):\n  - Cost and compliance: by approving recorders with the stated retention limits and a 3-channel CVR, the approval changes the technical compliance requirements that the three operators must meet. Operators pay for purchase, installation, maintenance and operation of whatever approved recorders they use; the instrument conditions the form of that expenditure (see CAO paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6, cited in the instrument).\n  - Data availability: the permitted retention limits (5 hours for FDR; 60 minutes for CVR) and the 3-channel CVR configuration determine how much recorded data will be available to investigators if an incident occurs. That is a concrete effect on post-incident information flows.\n  - Concentrated benefits and diffuse effects: the immediate benefit of the approval accrues to the operators of the three named aircraft who may avoid installing or operating devices with different specifications. Any costs from reduced recorder capacity (for example, less data for investigations) are borne diffusely by regulators, investigators and the flying public insofar as investigation quality may be affected.\n  - Regulatory discretion and precedent: the approval uses delegated discretion under subregulation 207(2) (the instrument records that authority). That discretion lets CASA specify alternative technical arrangements for particular aircraft; the instrument thus creates a one-off regulatory outcome for the listed registrations.\n\nImplementation and compliance mechanics\n\n- The approval is conditional: both recorder systems must be operated according to paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18 of the Civil Aviation Orders (these paragraphs are referenced as operating conditions in the instrument).\n- Enforcement/decision-maker: the approval is signed by Frank Richard Hamilton Grimshaw, General Manager, Airworthiness Branch, CASA, acting as CASA's delegate; CASA is the enforcing authority for the conditions of this approval.\n\nRisks, opportunity costs and substitution effects (mechanisms, not verdicts)\n\n- Reduced recording duration or fewer recording channels reduces the volume and types of data available after an occurrence; that is a concrete substitution of data richness for the particular operational flexibility granted to the aircraft operators.\n- The instrument does not state the operational or economic reasons for granting the approval, so the balancing of costs and benefits that underlies the delegate's decision is not expressed in the text.\n\nKey textual citations\n\n- Legal basis: approval given under subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations (instrument heading and opening line).\n- Specific permissions: recording retention times and channel exception appear in the instrument text (FDR: last 5 hours; CVR: last 60 minutes; exception to subsection 2 of section 103.20 regarding simultaneous recording on only 3 channels).\n- Conditions: operation required in accordance with paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of section 20.18 of the Civil Aviation Orders (instrument text).\n- Signatory: FRANK RICHARD HAMILTON GRIMSHAW, General Manager, Airworthiness Branch, CASA (signed 27 April 1998)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","history":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-104-98-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/documents"}}