{"id":"F2005B01725","name":"Exemption Number 2/95 - Exemption under regulation 308","slug":"exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":112143,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B01725-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exemption Number 2/95 - Exemption under regulation 308","content":"EXEMPTION NUMBER: 2/95\n\nCIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS\n\nEXEMPTION UNDER REGULATION 308\n\nI, JOHN EDWIN INNES PIKE, a delegate of CASA, under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (the Regulations), exempt the pilot in command of a floatplane operated by either of the following companies:\n\n(a) Aquatic Air Pty Ltd, trading as South Pacific Seaplanes;\n\n(b) Sydney Harbour Seaplanes Pty Ltd;\n\nfrom compliance with the provisions of paragraphs 166 (1) (d), (f) and (g) of the Regulations while the pilot is in, on, or otherwise associated with the operation of, the floatplane on condition that:\n\n(c) when taking-off or landing, the floatplane turns in a direction that will enable the floatplane to make a water landing in the event of engine failure; and\n\n(d) despite paragraph (c), the pilot complies with the directions (if any) given by Air Traffic Control; and\n\n(e) the company’s operations manual sets out details of the procedures necessary to give effect to paragraphs (c) and (d).\n\n\\[Signed John Pike\\]\n\nJOHN PIKE\n\nDeputy Director (Operations)\n\n7 August 1995","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument changes the scope of application of paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f) and (g) of the Civil Aviation Regulations for a specific, narrow set of operations: it exempts pilots in command of floatplanes operated by Aquatic Air Pty Ltd (South Pacific Seaplanes) and Sydney Harbour Seaplanes Pty Ltd from those paragraphs while the pilot is in, on, or otherwise associated with the operation of the floatplane (see exemption text and paragraphs (a)–(b)). The exemption replaces the direct application of those regulatory paragraphs with three specified conditions (turning behaviour on take-off/landing, compliance with Air Traffic Control, and operations-manual procedures) (see conditions (c)–(e)), thereby narrowing or altering the regulatory reach for those named operations."},"complexity_factors":["Cross-reference to other regulatory text (paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f) and (g)) without reproducing that text, requiring look-up to understand the full legal effect.","Conditional nature of the exemption (applies only while the pilot is in/on/or associated with operation of the floatplane).","Specific, narrow beneficiary list (two named companies) which concentrates the instrument's effect and requires identifying the relevant operators.","Operational conditions that split authority between pilot judgment (turning direction) and external control (Air Traffic Control directions) creating potential in-flight decision interactions (conditions (c) and (d)).","Requirement that the companies incorporate procedures into their operations manuals, creating a documentation and compliance burden (condition (e)).","Use of delegated administrative power (regulation 308) rather than primary legislation, which can complicate tracing the scope and limits of the exemption.","Age and format of the instrument (short dated instrument with signature block) mean further instruments or amendments might modify its current applicability, requiring historical or regulatory context checks."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- A delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) used regulation 308 to grant a specific exemption (Exemption Number 2/95) dated 7 August 1995 (signed by John Pike). The exemption applies only to the pilot in command of a floatplane operated by either Aquatic Air Pty Ltd (trading as South Pacific Seaplanes) or Sydney Harbour Seaplanes Pty Ltd (see paragraphs (a)–(b) and the signature block).\n\n- The exemption removes the obligation for those pilots to comply with paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f) and (g) of the Civil Aviation Regulations while the pilot is in, on, or otherwise associated with the operation of the floatplane (see the main exemption text). The text of paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f) and (g) is not reproduced in this instrument.\n\nConditions attached to the exemption\n\n- The exemption is subject to three conditions set out in the instrument:\n  - During take-off or landing the floatplane must turn in a direction that would allow a water landing if the engine failed (condition (c)).\n  - Notwithstanding that turning requirement, the pilot must follow any directions given by Air Traffic Control (condition (d)).\n  - Each company must include in its operations manual the procedures necessary to implement the turning requirement and the obligation to comply with Air Traffic Control directions (condition (e)).\n\nWho it affects and who decides\n\n- Affected parties: pilots in command of floatplanes operated by the two named companies, and those two companies (because they must document procedures in their operations manuals) (see (a)–(b) and (e)).\n- Decision-maker: a CASA delegate (John Edwin Innes Pike) exercised delegated authority under regulation 308 to grant the exemption (see signature and header).\n\nPractical incentives, costs and compliance implications (source-grounded)\n\n- Incentives and operational effect: The named pilots are relieved from complying with the specified paragraphs of regulation 166 while operating the floatplane, which changes the immediate regulatory obligations that apply to those flights (exemption clause). That change gives those pilots and operators a degree of operational flexibility relative to full compliance with the cited paragraphs.\n\n- Compliance costs and who pays: The two companies must prepare and maintain procedural material in their operations manuals to put the exemption conditions into effect; preparing and implementing those procedures is a direct compliance cost borne by the companies (condition (e)). Pilots must follow the documented procedures and an in-flight turning requirement during take-off and landing (condition (c)), and must follow Air Traffic Control directions in flight (condition (d)).\n\n- Authority and discretion: The instrument is a targeted delegated exemption under regulation 308, so its scope and duration are determined by the delegated decision (signature block). The exemption’s continued effect depends on the operators’ documented procedures and pilot compliance.\n\nTrade-offs and implementation risks (concrete mechanisms)\n\n- The instrument substitutes specified regulatory obligations from paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f) and (g) (not reproduced) with three concrete requirements: a prescribed turning behaviour on take-off/landing, deference to Air Traffic Control, and procedures in the operations manual (conditions (c)–(e)). The trade-off is therefore from unspecified regulatory text to explicit operational steps and documentation.\n\n- Because the exemption names only two companies, the regulatory relief is narrowly concentrated (see (a)–(b)). The effectiveness of the exemption in practice depends on the quality and enforcement of each company’s operations manual procedures and on pilot compliance with both those procedures and Air Traffic Control directions.\n\nRationale reported in the instrument\n\n- The instrument itself contains no statement of broader policy rationale or objectives beyond the formal grant of exemption and the conditions listed. Any claims about safety, economic efficiency, or other policy goals would be external to the text and are not stated here."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, time-bound exemption instrument that does exactly what it purports to do—grant a specific operational exemption to two named operators. There is no evidence of scope creep; it remains tightly focused on the original purpose of allowing modified turning procedures for seaplane operations."},"complexity_factors":["Single, specific exemption applying to only two named companies","No defined terms section—relies on external Civil Aviation Regulations definitions","Simple conditional structure: exemption granted IF three conditions (c, d, e) are met","No cross-referencing beyond citing regulation 308 and regulation paragraphs 166(1)(d), (f), (g)","Total length: approximately 200 words","Straightforward administrative instrument with clear operative provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a **specific safety exemption** granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in 1995 that allows two seaplane companies—South Pacific Seaplanes and Sydney Harbour Seaplanes—to operate under slightly different rules than normal.\n\n**What it does:**\nNormally, pilots must follow strict rules about flight paths and turning procedures. This exemption lets these seaplane pilots **ignore three specific rules** (about turning requirements) **but only if** they follow special safety conditions instead.\n\n**The trade-off (conditions):**\n- When taking off or landing, pilots must turn in a direction that allows them to land safely on water if the engine fails\n- They must still follow any directions from Air Traffic Control (which can override the above)\n- The company must have written procedures in their operations manual explaining how pilots will follow these rules\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Pilots flying floatplanes for these two specific Sydney-based seaplane companies\n- Passengers on those flights\n- Air traffic controllers working with these aircraft\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis shows how aviation safety regulators can grant **flexibility for specific operations** without compromising safety. Seaplanes have unique needs—they can land on water, unlike regular planes—so the normal \"turn away from obstacles\" rules don't make sense for them. The exemption swaps one safety rule for a more appropriate one, tailored to water-based operations."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308","history":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308/history","analysis":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/exemption-number-2-95-exemption-under-regulation-308/documents"}}