{"id":"F2005B00666","name":"CASA 297/99 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","slug":"casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32137,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00666-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"CASA 297/99 - Approval under subregulation 207(2)","content":"INSTRUMENT NUMBER: CASA 297/99\n\nCIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988\n\nAPPROVAL UNDER SUBREGULATION 207 (2)\n\nI, DAVID ALAN VILLIERS, Acting General Manager, Airworthiness 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-HCS 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 D.A. Villiers\\]\n\nDavid Alan Villiers\n\nActing General Manager\n\nAirworthiness\n\n23 June 1999","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument grants a specific approval under subregulation 207(2) authorising the use of Oxymizer nasal-cannula oxygen units on the aircraft VH-HCS subject to stated flow-rate and conformity conditions (conditions (a) and (b)). Functionally, it modifies the equipment-authorisation position for that particular aircraft by permitting a named alternative dispensing device where the baseline regulatory regime would otherwise control oxygen equipment through the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders. The change is narrowly focused and applies only to the named registration, with compliance tied to the specified flow-rate profile and referenced CAO paragraphs."},"complexity_factors":["Very narrow, single-aircraft scope (applies only to VH-HCS).","Simple, numeric technical condition for oxygen flow rate (0.3 L/min at 10,000 ft, +0.1 L/min per 2,000 ft up to 18,000 ft).","Cross-reference to external technical requirements (paragraph 6.1 and paragraph 5.1.2 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders) increases practical compliance complexity.","Decision is an exercise of delegated administrative authority under subregulation 207(2), requiring recognition of delegation mechanics.","Limited number of operative clauses and no layered procedural steps or appeal mechanics within the instrument itself."],"plain_english_summary":"### What this instrument does (mechanical effect)\n\n- A delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), David Alan Villiers, Acting General Manager, Airworthiness, uses authority under subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 to approve the operation of a single aircraft, registration VH-HCS, with a particular type of nasal-cannula oxygen device sold as “Oxymizer” (Approval under subregulation 207(2); signed 23 June 1999).\n\n- The approval is conditional. Condition (a) requires that the Oxymizer units deliver at least 0.3 litres per minute at 10,000 feet and that the flow rate increase by 0.1 litre per minute for every 2,000 feet of altitude up to 18,000 feet. Condition (b) requires that any other individual oxygen units carried in the aircraft that are designed to cover the nose and mouth must satisfy paragraph 6.1 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders and be provided in accordance with paragraph 5.1.2 of that section.\n\n### Who decides\n\n- The decision-maker named in the instrument is David Alan Villiers in his capacity as a CASA delegate (Acting General Manager, Airworthiness). The legal basis for that delegation is subregulation 207(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (instrument header and signature block).\n\n### Who is affected and who pays\n\n- The approval applies specifically to the aircraft with registration VH-HCS. The aircraft operator or owner of VH-HCS is responsible for complying with the conditions: procuring and installing Oxymizer devices that meet the flow-rate profile and providing any alternative individual oxygen units that must meet the cited Civil Aviation Orders requirements. Those are direct compliance costs for the operator/owner.\n\n### What behaviour changes\n\n- The operator of VH-HCS may operate the aircraft using Oxymizer nasal-cannula oxygen dispensing units, provided the devices meet the specified flow-rate profile (condition (a)).\n- The operator must also ensure any other individual oxygen dispensers intended to cover nose and mouth meet the referenced Civil Aviation Orders requirements (condition (b)).\n\n### Compliance burden, discretion and verification\n\n- Compliance requires measuring or otherwise demonstrating that Oxymizer units meet the specified flow-rate at the stated altitudes (condition (a)).\n- Compliance with condition (b) requires reference to and adherence to paragraph 6.1 and paragraph 5.1.2 of section 108.26 of the Civil Aviation Orders; the instrument does not itself reproduce those technical requirements and relies on the operator to apply them.\n- The instrument is an exercise of delegated administrative discretion under subregulation 207(2); it grants an approval tailored to one registration rather than issuing a broad technical standard.\n\n### Trade-offs, incentives and concentrated effects\n\n- The immediate benefit of the approval (the ability to use Oxymizer on VH-HCS) is concentrated on the operator/owner of that specific aircraft. The direct compliance costs (buying, fitting, testing devices; supplying compliant alternatives) fall on the same party.\n- The instrument cross-references external technical requirements in the Civil Aviation Orders, which shifts part of the verification burden to whoever must show compliance with those orders (condition (b)).\n\n(References: approval text under subregulation 207(2); condition (a) and condition (b) as quoted in the instrument; signed by D.A. Villiers, 23 June 1999.)"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a standard, narrow delegated legislative instrument granting a specific approval for a single aircraft. It has not expanded beyond its original purpose of permitting alternative oxygen equipment under specified conditions."},"complexity_factors":["Single, specific approval applying to one aircraft only (VH-HCS)","Only two operational conditions with clear numerical thresholds","No defined terms section","Minimal cross-referencing (only to Civil Aviation Orders section 108.26)","Straightforward conditional logic (simple 'and' structure between two requirements)","Length: approximately 150 words"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a specific approval from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) allowing a particular aircraft (registration VH-HCS) to use a specific type of oxygen delivery device called an \"Oxymizer\" nasal cannula.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Permits the aircraft to use nasal cannula oxygen units instead of the standard full face masks that cover both nose and mouth\n- Sets strict technical requirements for how these units must perform at different altitudes\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- The operator of aircraft VH-HCS\n- Passengers and crew who might need supplemental oxygen during flight\n\n**The conditions:**\n- The Oxymizer units must deliver at least 0.3 litres of oxygen per minute at 10,000 feet, with increasing flow rates at higher altitudes (up to 18,000 feet)\n- The aircraft must still carry standard full face mask oxygen units as backup/emergency equipment, meeting specific technical standards in the Civil Aviation Orders\n\n**Why it matters:**\nNasal cannulas are generally more comfortable for passengers than full face masks, but they have different safety characteristics. This approval allows the operator to use the more comfortable devices while ensuring safety through strict performance standards and backup equipment requirements."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2","history":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-297-99-approval-under-subregulation-207-2/documents"}}