{"id":"F2005B00976","name":"CASA 269/97 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","slug":"casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32382,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00976-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"CASA 269/97 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","content":"INSTRUMENT NUMBER: CASA 269/97\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 aircraft bearing the nationality and registration marks VH-BLS 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 3 litre per minute at 10,000 feet altitude, increasing by .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 Frank Richard Hamilton Grimshaw\\]\n\nFRANK RICHARD HAMILTON GRIMSHAW\n\nGeneral Manager\n\nAirworthiness Branch\n\n28 October 1997","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument changes operational scope for the specific aircraft VH‑BLS by authorising use of Oxymizer nasal‑cannula individual oxygen dispensing units under specified technical conditions (paragraph (a)) and by requiring that any other individual dispensing units covering nose and mouth meet the cited Civil Aviation Orders provisions (paragraph (b)). In effect, it permits a particular oxygen delivery technology for that aircraft subject to the stated flow‑rate profile and CAO compliance, rather than strictly limiting the aircraft to the otherwise applicable equipment set absent this approval (approval issued under subregulation 207(2))."},"complexity_factors":["Very narrow, aircraft‑specific approval (single registration VH‑BLS) reduces breadth of legal issues.","Technical, altitude‑dependent flow‑rate specification (0.3 L/min at 10,000 ft, +0.1 L/min per 2,000 ft to 18,000 ft) requires measurement and verification procedures.","Cross‑reference to Civil Aviation Orders (section 108.26, paragraphs 6.1 and 5.1.2) creates dependency on external instrument text not reproduced here.","Exercise of delegated administrative discretion (approval under subregulation 207(2)) concentrates decision‑making in CASA delegate, with limited statutory detail on verification/enforcement in the instrument itself.","Operational compliance and maintenance obligations fall on the operator, creating practical implementation considerations (testing, recordkeeping) beyond the short instrument."],"plain_english_summary":"This is a case‑specific CASA Airworthiness Branch approval allowing aircraft VH‑BLS to operate with Oxymizer nasal‑cannula oxygen units, provided they meet the instrument’s altitude‑dependent flow‑rate profile and any other individual units comply with the referenced CAO provisions.  \n\nIt matters because the operator alone bears costs and compliance/testing responsibility; the approval permits use of this device type for that registration only, affecting procurement choices and ongoing verification burdens."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a standard individual approval instrument issued under subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations. It performs exactly the function intended by that provision: granting a specific exemption/approval for a particular aircraft to use non-standard equipment subject to conditions. There is no scope creep — the instrument is tightly constrained to its original regulatory purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Single-purpose instrument: grants one specific approval for one aircraft (VH-BLS) and one device type (Oxymizer)","Only two operative conditions, both clearly expressed with specific numerical thresholds","Minimal cross-referencing: references only subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations and two paragraphs of Civil Aviation Orders section 108.26","No defined terms section — all terms used are either common aviation terminology or proper names","No nested exceptions or conditional logic beyond the two straightforward requirements","Length: 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-BLS) to use a specific type of oxygen delivery device called an \"Oxymizer\" — a nasal cannula that delivers oxygen through small tubes inserted into the nostrils.\n\nNormally, aviation rules require oxygen masks that cover both nose and mouth for safety reasons. This approval creates an exception for VH-BLS, but with strict conditions:\n\n- **The Oxymizer units must deliver minimum oxygen flow rates** that increase with altitude — starting at 0.3 litres per minute at 10,000 feet, and increasing by 0.1 litres per minute for every 2,000 feet climbed, up to 18,000 feet.\n- **Backup protection required**: The aircraft must still carry traditional oxygen masks (the kind covering nose and mouth) that meet specific technical standards set out in the Civil Aviation Orders, and these must be available for use as required by those rules.\n\n**Why this matters**: This approval allows more flexible (and likely more comfortable) oxygen equipment for passengers on this specific aircraft, while ensuring safety by mandating backup equipment and minimum performance standards. It shows how aviation safety regulators can grant tailored approvals for specific aircraft when alternative equipment meets equivalent safety outcomes."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","history":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-269-97-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/documents"}}