{"id":"F2005B00530","name":"CASA EX26/2002 - Exemption from the requirements of paragraphs 218(1)(a) and (b)","slug":"casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":31959,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00530-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988","sectionType":"part","heading":"CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988","content":"# CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988","sectionType":"division","heading":"CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988","content":"### CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988\n\nEXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPHS 218 (1) (a) AND (b)\n\nI, ARTHUR JOHN WHITE, General Manager, Airline Operations, a delegate of CASA, under subregulation 218 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988), exempt\n\nAustralian Airlines Limited, Aviation Reference Number 582843,\n\nfrom the requirements of paragraphs 218 (1) (a) and (b), subject to the conditions specified in Schedule 1.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"SCHEDULE 1","sectionType":"part","heading":null,"content":"## SCHEDULE 1","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"CONDITIONS","sectionType":"division","heading":"CONDITIONS","content":"### CONDITIONS\n\n1.  Australian Airlines Limited (the operator) must include in its operations manual:\n\n(a) criteria to assess the complexity of routes used by it in regular public transport operations; and\n\n(b) the methods that are to be used to instruct operating crews to qualify to fly on those routes (the route qualification process); and\n\n(c) the level of knowledge and understanding required for route qualification.\n\n2. The route qualification process must include a scheme for the categorisation of aerodromes that:\n\n(a) defines each category by reference to its level of complexity; and\n\n(b) specifies the level of knowledge and understanding required for each category when carrying out the route qualification process.\n\n3. The required knowledge and understanding for a category of aerodrome must include:\n\n(a) in the case of the least complex category:\n\n(i) knowledge of generally available aeronautical information and documentation; and\n\n(ii) completion of instruction on the information and documentation that is sufficient to gain understanding of the requirements for operation to an aerodrome in that category; and\n\n(b) in the case of more complex categories — the knowledge and understanding referred to in paragraph (a), together with any additional information, documentation and instruction, including training, where necessary, in an aircraft or a synthetic flight trainer, that is required for operation to an aerodrome in that category.\n\n4. A pilot must not act as pilot in command of any of the operator’s aircraft engaged in a regular public transport operation on a route unless the pilot:\n\n(a) is considered by the operator to have successfully undergone the route qualification process for the route to be flown; and\n\n(b) has an adequate knowledge of those matters referred to in clauses 6 and 7; and\n\n(c) in accordance with clause 8, holds a current route qualification.\n\n5. The operator must maintain records for each route that it uses for regular public transport operations, showing how any pilot that it intends to use as pilot in command on those operations satisfies the requirements of clause 4.\n\n6. For the purposes of paragraph 4 (b), the pilot in command must have an adequate knowledge and understanding, in relation to the route to be used, of the following matters:\n\n(a) the terrain;\n\n(b) the seasonal meteorological conditions;\n\n(c) the meteorological, communication and air traffic facilities, the airspace structure and air traffic services and procedures;\n\n(d) the search and rescue procedures;\n\n(e) the navigational facilities and procedures, including long-range navigation procedures, associated with the route.\n\n7. For the purposes of paragraph 4 (b), the pilot in command must have an adequate knowledge and understanding, in relation to each aerodrome along the route at which it is planned to land during that operation, of the following matters:\n\n(a) its physical characteristics;\n\n(b) its layout;\n\n(c) the aerodrome lighting;\n\n(d) the obstacles;\n\n(e) the approach aids;\n\n(f) the arrival, departure, holding and instrument approach procedures;\n\n(g) the applicable operating minima.\n\n8. For a pilot to keep a route qualification current, he or she must, every 12 months after the initial route qualification:\n\n(a) make at least one trip between the terminal points of the route as a member of the flight crew, or as a check pilot, or as an observer on the flight deck; or\n\n(b) if paragraph (a) is not complied with, successfully undergo the route qualification process.\n\n9. For a route qualification to be current, a trip for the purposes of paragraph 8 (a) must include at least one approach into, or departure from, each aerodrome intended to be used on an operation as pilot in command.\n\n\\[Signed Arthur J. White\\]\n\nArthur J White\n\nGeneral Manager\n\nAirline Operations\n\n14 October 2002","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument is a narrowly tailored, operator-specific exemption that substitutes an operator-run route qualification and record-keeping regime for the regulatory paragraphs it exempts. It does not expand the overall regulatory domain or add new categories of regulation beyond replacing prescriptive requirements with operator-defined procedures. In other words, it redirects how compliance is achieved for one operator rather than enlarging the law's substantive scope."},"complexity_factors":["Single-operator, single-exemption instrument (limited scope)","9 substantive conditions in Schedule 1 (clauses 1–9)","Operator-determined content required (manual-based rules) — introduces discretionary specification rather than many cross‑references","Some conditional logic (different requirements for least complex vs more complex aerodromes in clause 3)","Annual recency rule with two alternative paths (actual trip or requalification) (clauses 8–9)","Cross-reference to Civil Aviation Regulations 218(2) (basis for exemption) but no dense web of external statutory cross-references"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)**\n\n- The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), by delegation, exempts Australian Airlines Limited from specific requirements in the Civil Aviation Regulations (paragraphs 218(1)(a) and (b)). Instead of those regulatory text requirements, the airline must follow a set of specific conditions in Schedule 1.\n\n- Those conditions require the airline to put a route qualification regime into its operations manual and to use that regime to control who may act as pilot in command on regular public transport flights. The conditions set out what must be in that regime, what pilots must know, how recency (ongoing currency) is maintained, and what records must be kept.\n\n**Who is affected**\n\n- Directly: Australian Airlines Limited (the operator) and its pilots who act as pilot in command on regular public transport routes.\n- Indirectly: CASA, which retains oversight of the exemption, and potentially other airlines if they seek similar exemptions.\n\n**Key operational requirements placed on the operator (Schedule 1)**\n\n- Include in the operations manual:\n  - criteria to assess route complexity and a method to train/instruct crews for those routes (clauses 1(a)–(c));\n  - the level of knowledge and understanding required for route qualification (clause 1(c)).\n\n- Categorise aerodromes by complexity and specify required knowledge for each category (clause 2).\n\n- Define minimum knowledge/understanding for each category:\n  - least complex: familiarity with generally available aeronautical information plus instruction sufficient to understand operating requirements (clause 3(a));\n  - more complex: the above plus any additional documentation, instruction and training (including in-aircraft or synthetic flight trainer where needed) (clause 3(b)).\n\n- A pilot may only act as pilot in command on a regular public transport route if the operator considers the pilot to have successfully completed the route qualification process, the pilot has adequate knowledge of specified route and aerodrome matters (clauses 4–7), and holds a current route qualification (clauses 4(c), 8, 9).\n\n- The operator must keep records showing how each intended pilot meets the requirements (clause 5).\n\n- Recency: to keep a qualification current, within each 12-month period the pilot must either:\n  - make at least one trip between the route terminals as flight crew, check pilot or observer on the flight deck that includes at least one approach into or departure from each aerodrome the pilot will use as PIC; or\n  - if that trip does not occur, successfully re‑undergo the route qualification process (clauses 8–9).\n\n**Why this matters (claimed purpose and mechanical trade-offs)**\n\n- Claimed purpose (as presented in the exemption): to allow this airline to comply with alternative, operator-specific route qualification arrangements rather than the prescriptive paragraphs 218(1)(a) and (b).\n\n- Costs and incentives created by the instrument:\n  - Who pays: Australian Airlines bears the direct cost of designing and implementing the route qualification scheme, delivering training (including use of aircraft or flight simulators where required), and maintaining records. Pilots bear time and possibly opportunity-costs associated with training and recency trips.\n  - Who decides day-to-day: the operator decides the complexity categories, required knowledge levels and the methods for qualification, because those items are placed in the operator’s manual (clauses 1–3). CASA retains authority only through the exemption framework and standard regulatory oversight.\n  - Behaviour change: pilots must undergo the operator’s route qualification and maintain currency either by actual trips or by requalification. The operator will likely schedule crewing and training to ensure pilots meet these requirements.\n\n- Trade-offs and risks to note (mechanisms, not judgments):\n  - Substitution of prescriptive rules with operator-designed processes increases the operator’s discretion (clauses 1–3). That can lower regulatory frictions if the operator’s process is well-tailored, but it places the burden on the operator to design effective procedures and on CASA to monitor compliance.\n  - Concentrated benefit: the exemption is directed at a single operator, so any competitive advantage (operational flexibility or cost saving) is concentrated rather than broadly distributed.\n  - Implementation burden: the operator must create a categorisation scheme, training materials, simulator or aircraft training arrangements where required, and persistent records (clauses 2–5). These are ongoing administrative and operational costs.\n  - Compliance risk: effectiveness depends on the operator’s governance, the quality of training, and CASA’s oversight; poor implementation would reduce the safety value of the substituted regime.\n\n**Concrete behavioural effects (who pays, who decides, what changes)**\n\n- The operator pays to design and run the route qualification and training program; pilots invest time in achieving and maintaining qualifications.\n- The operator decides the detailed content of the qualification scheme (subject to the condition that certain topics must be covered — clauses 6–7).\n- The net operational change: pilots’ route eligibility is determined by the operator’s internal qualification and recency regime rather than strict compliance with the replaced regulatory paragraphs.\n\n**Relevant clauses cited**: the exemption instrument itself and Schedule 1 (clauses 1–9).\n"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, single-operator exemption instrument that remains tightly scoped to its original purpose. It grants specific relief from regulation 218 for Australian Airlines Limited in exchange for alternative compliance conditions. There is no evidence of scope creep; the instrument does not purport to apply beyond this airline or expand into unrelated regulatory areas."},"complexity_factors":["Moderate cross-referencing to Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (specifically regulation 218 and subregulation 218(2))","9 detailed conditional clauses with nested sub-paragraphs (e.g., clause 3 has sub-clauses (a)(i) and (a)(ii))","Requires integration with airline's existing operations manual and record-keeping systems","Contains performance-based standards ('adequate knowledge', 'sufficient to gain understanding') rather than prescriptive rules, requiring interpretive judgment","Temporal conditions (12-month currency requirements) with alternative compliance pathways (clause 8)","Specific to one operator (Australian Airlines Limited) with unique aviation reference number, limiting general applicability"],"plain_english_summary":"This document is a **specific exemption** granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to **Australian Airlines Limited** (the former government-owned airline, not to be confused with Qantas's later low-cost carrier).\n\n**What it does:**\nNormally, aviation regulations require airlines to follow strict rules about how pilots become qualified to fly specific routes (rules found in paragraphs 218(1)(a) and (b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988). This exemption **lets Australian Airlines use its own customised system** instead of the standard regulatory requirements.\n\n**The trade-off:**\nIn exchange for this flexibility, the airline must meet **strict conditions**:\n- Create a detailed **operations manual** with criteria for assessing how complex different routes are\n- Set up a **route qualification process** that categorises airports by complexity and specifies what pilots must learn for each category\n- Ensure pilots know about terrain, weather, navigation facilities, emergency procedures, and airport characteristics before flying a route\n- Keep **records** proving pilots are qualified\n- Require pilots to either fly the route at least once every 12 months or requalify, to keep their certification current\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Australian Airlines Limited** (the specific operator named)\n- **Pilots** flying for this airline on regular public transport (scheduled passenger) operations\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis is an example of **regulatory flexibility** — CASA allowing an experienced airline to use its own internal training and qualification systems rather than one-size-fits-all rules. It recognises that major airlines can manage safety through their own robust procedures, while still ensuring pilots have proper knowledge of routes and airports before carrying passengers."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b","history":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-ex26-2002-exemption-from-the-requirements-of-paragraphs-218-1-a-and-b/documents"}}