{"id":"F2005B01732","name":"Exemption Number 05/1994 - Requirement under subregulation 222(1)","slug":"exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":112158,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B01732-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exemption Number 05/1994 - Requirement under subregulation 222(1)","content":"EXEMPTION NUMBER 05/1994\n\nCivil Aviation Act 1988\n\nCivil Aviation Regulations\n\nRequirement under subregulation 222 (1)\n\nI, GARY FREDERICK STEWART REINKE, District Flying Operations Manager, Melbourne District Office, Civil Aviation Authority, a delegate of the Authority, under subregulation 222 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations, require the proving test set out in the Schedule to be conducted in relation to the Boeing 747–312 type of aircraft in accordance with the requirements set out in the Schedule.\n\nSubsection 15 of section 20.11 of the Civil Aviation Orders does not have effect in relation to the Boeing 747–312 type of aircraft.\n\nSCHEDULE\n\nProving test\n\nDemonstrate ability to open half of the aircraft’s exit doors within the time that half of the exit doors of the Boeing 747–100 type of aircraft were opened during the original demonstration for certification of that type of aircraft under Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America.\n\nRequirements\n\nThe proving test must be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Appendix I of section 20.11 of the Civil Aviation Orders and must not be rehersed.\n\n\\[Signed Gary Reinke\\]\n\nGARY FREDERICK STEWART REINKE\n\nDistrict Flying Operations Manager\n\nMelbourne District Office\n\n3 August 1994","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Narrowed the default application of section 20.11 by excluding subsection 15 for the Boeing 747–312 and replacing it with a bespoke proving test tied to the Boeing 747–100 certification timing; obliges operators to run an unrehearsed test following specified Appendix I paragraphs (Schedule)."},"complexity_factors":["Cross-reference to an external certification benchmark (the Boeing 747–100 original demonstration under FAR Part 25) increases interpretive reliance on historical test data.","Disapplication of subsection 15 of section 20.11 for a specific aircraft type creates a targeted carve-out from existing Civil Aviation Orders.","Prescriptive tie to multiple specific paragraphs of Appendix I of section 20.11 (paragraphs 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10,11,14,15,17,18,19) requires checking and applying those particulars.","Operational constraint that the proving test 'must not be rehearsed' imposes an execution rule affecting test planning and compliance.","Delegee-issued instrument under subregulation 222(1) concentrates decision authority in a named District Flying Operations Manager (delegated enforcement and administrative discretion)."],"plain_english_summary":"This exemption requires a proving test for the Boeing 747–312: personnel must open half the aircraft’s exit doors within the same time half the doors of the Boeing 747–100 took in its original FAR Part 25 certification. It disapplies subsection 15 of section 20.11 for the 747–312 and requires the test to follow specified paragraphs of Appendix I and to be conducted unrehearsed."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, single-purpose exemption instrument issued under specific regulatory powers. It has not expanded beyond its original intent; it applies precisely to the Boeing 747-312 type aircraft and the specific regulatory requirement mentioned."},"complexity_factors":["Single-purpose administrative instrument with narrow scope (one aircraft type)","Multiple cross-references to Civil Aviation Orders and US Federal Aviation Regulations, but these are clearly identified","One conditional requirement (the alternative proving test) with specific procedural constraints","No nested exceptions or complex defined terms","Straightforward structure: delegation power → exemption granted → replacement requirement → schedule of specific rules"],"plain_english_summary":"This 1994 exemption lets the Boeing 747-312 skip one prescribed emergency-evacuation test in the Civil Aviation Orders and instead prove that half its exit doors can be opened as fast as half the doors did on the earlier Boeing 747-100 US certification test. \n\nIt binds operators of the 747-312 to specified CAO Appendix I procedures, requires a non-rehearsed (“cold”) trial, and shows how rules can be tailored to specific aircraft variants."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1","history":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/history","analysis":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/exemption-number-05-1994-requirement-under-subregulation-222-1/documents"}}