{"id":"F2005B00902","name":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R69) 2004 - Civil Aviation Order 95.19 - Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - F/A 18 aircraft (12/12/2004)","slug":"civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32304,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00902-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R69) 2004 - Civil Aviation Order 95.19 - Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - F/A 18 aircraft (12/12/2004)","content":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order\n\n(No. R69) 2004\n\nI, WILLIAM BRUCE BYRON, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, issue the following Civil Aviation Order under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.\n\n\\[Signed Bruce Byron\\]\n\nBruce Byron\n\nDirector of Aviation Safety and\n\nChief Executive Officer\n\n12 December 2004\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n1 Name of Order\n\nThis Order is the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R69) 2004.\n\n2 Commencement\n\nThis Order commences on gazettal.\n\n3 Replacement of section 95.19 of the Civil Aviation Orders\n\nSection 95.19 of the Civil Aviation Orders is omitted and a new section substituted as set out in Schedule 1.\n\nSchedule 1 Substitution of section 95.19 of the Civil Aviation Orders\n\nSECTION 95.19\n\nEXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 — F/A 18 AIRCRAFT\n\n1 APPLICATION\n\nThis section applies to the F/A-18 aircraft while it is undergoing production and acceptance testing in Australia.\n\n2 DEFINITIONS\n\nTerms used in this section shall have the following meanings:\n\nproduction test flying means flying performed on behalf of the contractor for the purpose of establishing that the aircraft meets USN requirements.\n\nacceptance test flying means flying performed on behalf of the USN or RAAF for the purpose of confirming that the aircraft meets USN and RAAF requirements.\n\n3 EXEMPTIONS\n\n3.1 Under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and subject to compliance with subsection 4, F/A-18 aircraft are exempt from compliance with Parts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 (other than regulation 93), 10 (other than regulation 100), 11, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of those Regulations.\n\n3A LICENCE NOT REQUIRED\n\n3A.1 For the purposes of paragraph 20AB (1) (b) of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aircraft to which this section applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4.\n\n4 CONDITIONS\n\n4.1 The authorisation and control of all flight testing of F/A-18 aircraft to the extent necessary to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy and the aircrew have appropriate ratings, medical classification and flying experience shall be exercised by the RAAF in accordance with military standards.\n\n4.2 Prior to all test flights, DQA-AF personnel shall conduct an inspection of the aircraft to determine its compliance or otherwise with defined USN/RAAF standards. DQA-AF staff shall issue a Certificate of Safety for Flight prior to all test flights.\n\n4.3 Prior to commencement of test flying, the RAAF is to ensure that all RAAF pilots conducting production or acceptance test flights are subject to the provisions of DI(AF)OPS 6-10 and that the provisions of DI(AF) AAP 7001.008-1 are complied with.\n\n4.4 Prior to commencement of production test flying McDonnell Douglas Corporation shall provide details required by DI(AF) AAP 7001.008-1 in respect of McDonnell Douglas test pilots conducting production test flights.\n\n4.5 Prior to commencement of acceptance test flying, USN shall provide details of USN test pilots conducting acceptance test flying.\n\n4.6 Flying operations conducted outside military controlled airspace shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Joint Aviation Standards and Procedures (JASAP).","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"On the face of the instrument, the scope remains narrowly focused on F/A-18 production and acceptance test flying in Australia. The order substitutes an existing section and provides detailed operational conditions (inspections, Certificates of Safety for Flight, specified military procedural documents and pilot details). There is no clear evidence in the text that the subject matter has been broadened beyond its original, narrow purpose; rather, it clarifies and conditions the delegated oversight regime and cross-references external military standards."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose instrument but replaces an existing section (substitution)","2 defined terms (production test flying, acceptance test flying) plus standard legislative references","Exemption lists many Civil Aviation Regulations Parts (Parts 3,4,5,7,8,9 (except reg 93),10 (except reg 100),11,14,16,17,18,19): broad enumerated exemptions increase applied complexity","Conditional structure with several interlocking conditions (clauses 3A.1 and subsections 4.1–4.6)","Multiple cross-references to external standards and documents (regulation 308 of CAR 1988; paragraph 20AB(1)(b) of the Act; DI(AF) OPS 6-10; DI(AF) AAP 7001.008-1; JASAP)","Operational delegation of regulatory control to RAAF/DQA-AF — requires consulting military procedures to assess compliance and implementation","Specific carve-outs (retain regs 93 and 100) create exceptions within the exemption"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)**\n\n- Replaces section 95.19 of the Civil Aviation Orders with a new rule that applies only to F/A-18 aircraft while they are undergoing production and acceptance testing in Australia (Schedule 1, SECTION 95.19, application).\n- Grants a broad, conditional exemption from many Parts of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 for those F/A-18 test flights (section 3.1). The exemptions are subject to a set of conditions in subsection 4.\n- Explicitly authorises certain people to perform duties essential to the operation of those test flights without holding a civilian flight crew licence, provided they meet the conditions in subsection 4 (clause 3A.1).\n- Places primary responsibility for authorising and controlling flight testing on the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and requires RAAF/DQA-AF (Defence Quality Assurance — Air Force) inspections and Certificates of Safety for Flight before test flights (clauses 4.1–4.2).\n- Requires McDonnell Douglas (the contractor) and the US Navy (USN) to supply details of their test pilots before production or acceptance test flying begins (clauses 4.4–4.5).\n- Requires any flying outside military controlled airspace to be conducted under the Joint Aviation Standards and Procedures (JASAP) (clause 4.6).\n\n**Who it affects**\n\n- Directly: McDonnell Douglas (the contractor), USN and RAAF test pilots and their support personnel, DQA-AF inspectors, and the RAAF as the decision-maker for test authorisation and control.\n- Indirectly: CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority), because it concedes certain regulatory powers for these activities to the RAAF and DQA-AF while the exemptions operate.\n- Not affected in general: unrelated civilian operators and the public at large, except insofar as safety oversight is exercised under a different regime for these specific flights.\n\n**Why it matters (claimed purpose and the mechanics by which it achieves that purpose)**\n\n- The stated practical effect is to allow F/A-18 production and acceptance test flying in Australia to proceed under military standards and procedures rather than the full suite of civil aviation regulatory requirements (see section 1, 3.1 and 4.1–4.6).\n- Mechanism: CASA issues an exemption (under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations) and conditions that shift day-to-day responsibility for safety assurance to the RAAF and DQA-AF, subject to specified documentation, inspections and procedural standards.\n\n**Costs, incentives and trade-offs (concrete mechanisms, not judgement)**\n\n- Who pays: the contractor (McDonnell Douglas), and the military (USN/RAAF) carry the compliance costs of meeting military standards, providing pilot details, and arranging DQA-AF inspections and Certificates of Safety for Flight (clauses 4.2, 4.4–4.5). CASA reduces the regulatory tasks it would otherwise perform for these flights.\n- Who decides: the RAAF exercises authorisation and control of testing to the extent necessary to ensure airworthiness and appropriate aircrew qualifications (clause 4.1). DQA-AF inspects and issues Certificates of Safety for Flight (clause 4.2). CASA remains the issuer of the exemption but delegates operational control under the conditions.\n- Behavioural change required: RAAF oversight replaces (for these flights) some CASA regulatory processes; contractors must provide pilot information and submit to DQA-AF inspection; pilots may operate without a civilian flight crew licence only if they meet the conditions in subsection 4 (clause 3A.1 and 4.1–4.6).\n- Compliance burden: shifted from civil regulator (CASA) to military authorities and the contractor; additional administrative steps are required (inspections, certificates, documentation). There is potentially increased administrative work for defence entities and the contractor compared with standard civil certification processes.\n- Implementation risk and bureaucratic discretion: the exemption relies heavily on military standards and DQA-AF processes (clause 4.1–4.3). That shifts supervisory discretion to defence organisations and requires effective coordination between CASA, RAAF, DQA-AF and the contractor. If coordination, recordkeeping or standards alignment are inadequate, there is a risk of safety gaps or dispute about which rules apply in particular circumstances.\n- Effects on private choice and competition: negligible for ordinary civilian aviation because the exemption is narrowly targeted at F/A-18 production and acceptance testing. The direct beneficiaries are specific contractors and military operators.\n- Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs: benefits (reduced civil regulatory friction during test flying) are concentrated on McDonnell Douglas/USN/RAAF; any change to the locus of safety oversight represents a diffuse potential cost to regulators or members of the public if the substituted oversight regime differs materially from civil standards.\n\n**Other operational details to note**\n\n- The exemption does not remove compliance with regulation 93 (Part 9) or regulation 100 (Part 10) (see clause 3.1). Those specific civil requirements remain in effect.\n- Test flying outside military controlled airspace must follow JASAP (clause 4.6), creating a cross-over point where joint civil–military procedures apply.\n- The order links civilian regulatory status directly to military procedural documents (DI(AF) OPS 6-10; DI(AF) AAP 7001.008-1), so a reader must consult those documents to understand the precise operational standards and pilot qualification criteria required (clauses 4.3–4.5).\n\n**Bottom line**\n\nThis order creates a narrow, conditional carve-out from many civil aviation rules so that F/A-18 production and acceptance test flying in Australia can be carried out under military control and standards (RAAF/DQA-AF) rather than under the full set of civil regulations. The legal effect is to shift certain compliance responsibilities from CASA to military authorities and the contractor, subject to specified inspections, documentation and procedural cross-references."},"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"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment maintains the original narrow scope of CAO 95.19. The order has always been specifically targeted at F/A-18 aircraft during production and acceptance testing. The 2004 version updates the regulatory framework but does not expand the scope beyond its original purpose of providing exemptions for military test flying operations."},"complexity_factors":["Only 2 defined terms ('production test flying' and 'acceptance test flying')","Single purpose legislation with narrow scope (F/A-18 test flights only)","Straightforward structure: application, definitions, exemptions, conditions","Minimal cross-referencing—only references to specific Parts of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and a few military directives (DI(AF)OPS 6-10, DI(AF) AAP 7001.008-1, JASAP)","No nested exceptions or conditional logic beyond the basic 'if testing, then exempt' framework","Short length (approximately 500 words)"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a technical aviation order that gives special permission for F/A-18 fighter jets (the same ones used by the RAAF) to skip most normal Australian civilian flying rules—but only in very specific circumstances.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Exempts F/A-18 aircraft** from following most of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (the standard rules that govern all civilian aircraft in Australia). This includes rules about pilot licensing, aircraft maintenance, airworthiness standards, and operational procedures.\n- **Allows pilots without civilian licences** to fly these aircraft, provided they meet military standards instead.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)** – they oversee all the test flying\n- **McDonnell Douglas Corporation** – the manufacturer (now part of Boeing) doing production testing\n- **The United States Navy (USN)** – involved in acceptance testing\n- **Defence Quality Assurance-Air Force (DQA-AF)** personnel – they inspect the aircraft and issue safety certificates before each flight\n\n**When it applies:**\nOnly during **production testing** (checking newly built aircraft meet US Navy standards) and **acceptance testing** (confirming aircraft meet both US Navy and RAAF requirements) conducted in Australia.\n\n**The safeguards:**\nDespite the broad exemptions, strict military standards apply:\n- RAAF controls all flight testing and ensures pilots are properly qualified under military rules\n- DQA-AF must inspect every aircraft and issue a Certificate of Safety for Flight before each test\n- When flying outside military airspace, operations must follow Joint Aviation Standards and Procedures (JASAP)\n- McDonnell Douglas and USN must provide details of their test pilots to the RAAF\n\n**Why it matters:**\nMilitary aircraft manufacturing and testing involves different risks and procedures than civilian aviation. This order creates a legal pathway for foreign military contractors and allied forces to test fighter jets in Australia without needing to comply with civilian rules designed for passenger airlines and private aircraft—while still maintaining safety through military oversight."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-","history":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-/history","analysis":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r69-2004-civil-aviation-order-95-19-exemption-from-the-provisions-/documents"}}