{"id":"F2005B00576","name":"CASA 193/00 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","slug":"casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32019,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00576-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"CASA 193/00 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","content":"INSTRUMENT NUMBER: CASA 193/00\n\nCIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988\n\nAPPROVAL UNDER SUBREGULATION 207 (2)\n\nI, EUGENE HOLZAPFEL, Acting Section Head Systems, Certification Standards Branch, CASA, a delegate of CASA, under subregulation 207 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 approve the operation of the aircraft bearing the nationality and registration marks VH-OAK with nasal cannula type individual oxygen dispensing units manufactured under the name “Oxymizer”, providing that:\n\n(a) the units have a flow rate of not less than 03 litre per minute at 10,000 feet altitude, increasing by 0.1 litre per minute for every 2,000 feet up to 18,000 feet altitude; and\n\n(b) other individual oxygen dispensing units for use in the aircraft, that are designed to cover the nose and mouth, meet the requirements of paragraph 6.1 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders and are provided in accordance with paragraph 5.1.2 of that section.\n\n\\[Signed E. Holzapfel\\]\n\nEugene Holzapfel\n\nActing Section Head Systems\n\nCertification Standards Branch\n\n12 May 2000","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument does not change the general scope of the Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders. It grants a specific, conditional approval for the operation of a single registered aircraft (VH‑OAK) with a named type of nasal‑cannula oxygen unit and requires compliance with specific flow rates and referenced Civil Aviation Orders provisions. In other words, it authorises a narrow exception/permission under existing regulatory authority rather than altering the substantive scope of the underlying regulations."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow, aircraft‑specific approval (applies only to VH‑OAK) which reduces regulatory breadth","Conditional technical requirement with an altitude‑indexed flow‑rate schedule (requires some technical verification)","References to external provisions (paragraph 6.1 and 5.1.2 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders) that must be consulted for full compliance","Delegated decision‑maker named (shows administrative discretion but no general rulemaking)","Short, plain text with no multi‑part operational regimes or complex compliance timelines"],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- This is a written approval, made under subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, that allows the aircraft with registration VH‑OAK to operate while fitted with a specific type of nasal‑cannula individual oxygen dispensing unit sold as “Oxymizer”. (instrument heading; subregulation 207(2))\n\n- The approval is conditional. Two specific conditions are set in the instrument:\n  - Condition (a): the Oxymizer units used in VH‑OAK must provide a minimum flow rate of 0.3 litres per minute at 10,000 feet altitude, and the required flow must increase by 0.1 litres per minute for every additional 2,000 feet up to 18,000 feet. (condition (a))\n  - Condition (b): any other individual oxygen dispensing units used on the aircraft that are designed to cover the nose and mouth must meet paragraph 6.1 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders and must be provided in accordance with paragraph 5.1.2 of that same section. (condition (b))\n\nWho this affects and who decides\n\n- The immediate obligation falls on the operator of the aircraft bearing registration VH‑OAK: they must ensure the Oxymizer units meet the altitude‑indexed flow‑rate condition and that any nose‑and‑mouth oxygen units carried meet the cited Civil Aviation Orders requirements and are provided as required. (conditions (a) and (b))\n\n- The approval was signed and issued by a CASA delegate (Eugene Holzapfel) acting under the specified subregulation. That shows the statutory power to give this kind of specific approval is exercised by a CASA delegate under subregulation 207(2). (instrument heading; signature block)\n\nWhy this matters (practical, mechanical consequences)\n\n- By expressly approving Oxymizer use on VH‑OAK subject to the specified flow rates, the instrument changes which oxygen delivery devices the operator may lawfully use on that aircraft and under what technical condition. (entire instrument)\n\n- The operator must supply and maintain equipment that demonstrably meets the flow‑rate schedule at relevant altitudes, and must also ensure compliance with the cited Civil Aviation Orders for other oxygen units. Meeting those requirements is a compliance cost borne by the operator and potentially requires testing, documentation or procurement of compliant units. (conditions (a) and (b))\n\n- The approval is aircraft‑specific (applies to VH‑OAK only) and device‑specific (names “Oxymizer”), so its practical effect is to permit that narrow combination where the prescribed conditions are met and to require adherence to CAO standards for other device types. (instrument text)\n\nImplementation, incentives and trade‑offs (source‑grounded observations)\n\n- Who pays: the aircraft operator must procure, install, maintain and, where necessary, test oxygen units to meet the conditions. (conditions (a) and (b))\n\n- Incentives created: the operator is able to use the named nasal‑cannula device provided it meets the flow‑rate condition; therefore procurement choices are constrained to devices that meet those technical requirements or to carrying other units that meet the CAO requirements. (conditions (a) and (b))\n\n- Compliance burden and implementation risk: the operator must demonstrate that the Oxymizer achieves the specified flow rates at the relevant altitudes and must keep other units that comply with the cited paragraphs of section 108.26 available and provided as required. That implies administrative tasks (records, equipment checks) and technical tasks (flow verification) though the instrument itself does not specify testing methods. (conditions (a) and (b))\n\n- Bureaucratic discretion: the approval was granted by a named CASA delegate under statutory authority (subregulation 207(2)), showing that such targeted approvals are within delegated administrative power. The instrument does not state procedural conditions for future approvals or revocation. (instrument heading; signature)\n\nSource limitations\n\n- The instrument sets the approval and the two conditions but does not state an explicit policy rationale or describe the evidentiary basis for the flow‑rate figures. It also refers to provisions of the Civil Aviation Orders (section 108.26 paragraphs 5.1.2 and 6.1) for additional technical and provisioning requirements; those cited provisions are not reproduced here, so full compliance steps depend on consulting that section of the Civil Aviation Orders. (entire instrument)"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a standard, narrow delegated approval instrument issued under the Civil Aviation Regulations. It has not expanded beyond its original purpose of approving a specific oxygen equipment configuration for a single aircraft. The scope remains tightly constrained to the specific technical approval requested."},"complexity_factors":["Single, specific approval applying to one aircraft only (VH-OAK)","Only two substantive conditions (flow rates and backup equipment)","No defined terms section - relies on external references to Civil Aviation Orders","Minimal cross-referencing (only to Civil Aviation Regulations subregulation 207(2) and Civil Aviation Orders section 108.26)","Straightforward conditional logic with no nested exceptions","Very short document (approximately 150 words of operative text)"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a specific approval issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) allowing a particular aircraft (registration VH-OAK) to use a specific type of oxygen delivery device called an \"Oxymizer\" for passengers or crew.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Permits the use of \"nasal cannula\" oxygen units (small tubes that sit in the nose) instead of the usual full face masks that cover nose and mouth\n- Sets strict technical requirements: the oxygen flow must be at least 0.3 litres per minute at 10,000 feet, increasing by 0.1 litres per minute for every 2,000 feet of altitude up to 18,000 feet\n- Requires backup: the aircraft must still carry standard full face mask oxygen units that meet normal aviation safety rules\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- The operator of aircraft VH-OAK (likely an airline or charter company)\n- Passengers and crew on that specific aircraft who might need supplemental oxygen\n\n**Why it matters:**\nNasal cannulas are more comfortable than full masks and allow passengers to talk, eat, or drink while receiving oxygen. However, they're less efficient at high altitudes, so CASA imposed strict flow rate requirements and mandated backup full masks to ensure safety isn't compromised."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","history":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-193-00-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/documents"}}