{"id":"F2005B01685","name":"CASA 17/1997 - Requirement under subregulation 222(1)","slug":"casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":112094,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B01685-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"CASA 17/1997 - Requirement under subregulation 222(1)","content":"EXEMPTION NUMBER: CASA 17/1997\n\nCIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS\n\nREQUIREMENT UNDER SUBREGULATION 222 (1)\n\nI, GARY FREDERICK STEWART REINKE, a delegate of CASA, under subregulation 222 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations, require the proving test set out in the Schedule to be conducted in relation to the Boeing B737-400 (4L7) aircraft operated by Nauru Air Corporation (ACN 076 259 811) in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule 1.\n\nParagraph 15.1 of section 20.11 of the Civil Aviation Orders does not have effect in relation to the Boeing B737-400 (4L7) aircraft.\n\nSCHEDULE 1\n\nPROVING TEST\n\n1. A demonstration of crew competency in emergency evacuation procedures is to be carried out using 2 discrete crews.\n\n2. The demonstration shall be in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Appendix I of section 20.11 of the Civil Aviation Orders.\n\n3. The demonstration is to be continued to the point where the last required door is open within the time determined by the original type certification data.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n\\[Signed Gary Reinke\\]\n\nGARY FREDERICK STEWART REINKE\n\nDistrict Flight Operations Manager\n\nMelbourne District Office\n\n1st October 1997","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a specific individual instrument issued under existing regulatory powers (subregulation 222(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations). It applies to one aircraft operated by one airline and does not represent an expansion of regulatory scope. The original intent of subregulation 222(1) was to allow CASA to impose specific requirements on particular aircraft or operations, which is exactly what this instrument does."},"complexity_factors":["Very short document (under 300 words)","Only 3 operative paragraphs in the Schedule","Single defined entity (the specific Boeing 737-400 aircraft)","No nested conditional logic or cross-references beyond pointing to external Civil Aviation Orders provisions","Straightforward command structure: requirement → exemption → test details","No exceptions or carve-outs within the test requirements themselves"],"plain_english_summary":"This CASA directive orders Nauru Air Corporation to run a special evacuation \"proving test\" on its Boeing 737-400 (4L7), requiring two separate crews to demonstrate they can open the required emergency exits within the aircraft's original certification time using the Civil Aviation Orders' procedures.  \n\nIt’s a one-off, aircraft-specific safety measure affecting the airline and its crews, temporarily overriding a routine rule to confirm evacuation competency and protect passenger survival in ground emergencies."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Alters the application of the general Civil Aviation Orders by disapplying paragraph 15.1 of section 20.11 for the named Boeing B737‑400 (4L7) and imposing a bespoke proving test (Schedule 1). In effect, the general requirement's scope is narrowed for that specific aircraft/operator and replaced with a specific compliance procedure under subregulation 222(1)."},"complexity_factors":["Targeted, single-aircraft and single-operator application reduces breadth and legal complexity.","Cross-references to other instruments (subregulation 222(1); Appendix I of section 20.11; paragraph 15.1) require consult of external materials.","Reliance on original type‑certification data for timing introduces technical dependency and potential for interpretive variation.","Operational detail (two discrete crews; continuation until last required door open) creates measurable compliance steps but limited legal ambiguity.","Decision made by a CASA delegate (delegated administrative action) concentrates authority in a single instrument rather than broad rulemaking."],"plain_english_summary":"Requires Nauru Air Corporation's Boeing B737‑400 (4L7) to undergo a specified proving test for emergency evacuation and removes the effect of paragraph 15.1 of section 20.11 for that aircraft. The requirement is made by a CASA delegate under subregulation 222(1).\n\nThe test defines how crew competency is shown (using two discrete crews and selected Appendix I procedures) and must reach the evacuation timing set by the aircraft's original type‑certification data. The operator bears the compliance and operational costs."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1","history":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-17-1997-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/documents"}}