{"id":"F2006B00075","name":"Exemption Number 8/1992 - Exemption","slug":"exemption-number-8-1992-exemption","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":113855,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B00075-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exemption Number 8/1992 - Exemption","content":"EXEMPTION NUMBER 8/1992\n\nCIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS\n\nEXEMPTION\n\nI, RONALD STANLEY COOPER, General Manager, Safety Regulation and Standards Division, Civil Aviation Authority, a delegate of the Authority, under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, exempt:\n\nLloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd\n\n45 Green Hill Road\n\nWAYVILLE SOUTH AUSTRALIA\n\nfrom compliance with paragraph 24(2)(b) of the Regulations in relation to the following aircraft:\n\n(a) SIKORSKY S-76A HELICOPTER, SERIAL NUMBER 760105, REGISTRA\\-TION NUMBER VH-LHY;\n\n(b) SIKORSKY S-76A HELICOPTER, SERIAL NUMBER 760113, REGISTRA\\-TION NUMBER VH-LHZ.\n\nThis exemption is subject to the condition that Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd must provide the Manager, Airworthiness and Operations Branch, Civil Aviation Authority, Canberra, with evidence to satisfy the Manager that the aircraft referred to above conform to the type certificate for that type of aircraft and that the aircraft are airworthy.\n\n\\[Signed Ron Cooper\\]\n\nRon Cooper\n\nGeneral Manager\n\nSafety Regulation and Standards\n\nand Delegate of the Authority\n\n10 December 1992","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not change the overall scope of the Civil Aviation Regulations; it creates a targeted, delegated exemption for two specific aircraft under regulation 308. Mechanically, it removes the obligation to comply with paragraph 24(2)(b) for those aircraft while imposing an evidentiary condition subject to the Manager's satisfaction. The exemption therefore narrows the application of paragraph 24(2)(b) in respect of the listed aircraft only; it does not amend or expand the statutory scheme beyond granting that specific exemption."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow, specific scope limited to two identified aircraft and one operator (reduces complexity of substantive reach).","Relies on and displaces an external rule: the exemption refers to \"paragraph 24(2)(b)\" without reproducing it, requiring cross-reference to understand full legal effect.","Imposes an evidentiary condition that vests subjective satisfaction in the Manager (introduces administrative discretion and potential variability in application).","Delegated decision under regulation 308 requires understanding of delegation mechanics and administrative law principles for full legal context.","Absence of procedural detail (standards, time limits, appeal rights) increases interpretive work for implementers and affected parties."],"plain_english_summary":"This delegated exemption (dated 10 Dec 1992) relieves Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd from complying with paragraph 24(2)(b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations for two specified Sikorsky S‑76A helicopters (VH‑LHY, VH‑LHZ). Its effect is conditional: Lloyd must supply evidence that each aircraft conforms to its type certificate and is airworthy, and the Manager, Airworthiness and Operations Branch must be satisfied."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, one-off administrative exemption instrument. It has not grown beyond its original purpose — it was created to exempt specific aircraft from a specific regulation, and that is exactly what it does. The scope is tightly constrained to the two identified helicopters and the single regulatory paragraph mentioned."},"complexity_factors":["Single, specific exemption applying to exactly one company and two identified aircraft","Only one condition attached to the exemption","No defined terms requiring interpretation","No cross-references to other legislation beyond the single cited regulation (regulation 308 and paragraph 24(2)(b))","Straightforward administrative document format with clear parties, scope, and limitations","No nested exceptions or conditional logic"],"plain_english_summary":"This document is an official exemption granted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) that allows a specific helicopter company to bypass a normal safety rule.\n\n**What it does:**\nNormally, all aircraft in Australia must follow strict safety regulations. This exemption lets **Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd** ignore one specific rule — paragraph 24(2)(b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations — for two of their Sikorsky S-76A helicopters (registration numbers VH-LHY and VH-LHZ).\n\n**The catch:**\nThe exemption comes with a strict condition. Lloyd Helicopters must prove to the CAA's Manager of Airworthiness and Operations that these two helicopters:\n- Match their official design specifications (called a \"type certificate\" — basically the manufacturer's blueprint approved by aviation authorities)\n- Are actually safe to fly (\"airworthy\")\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd** — the company that gets the exemption\n- **The Civil Aviation Authority** — the safety regulator granting the exemption\n- **Passengers and crew** on these specific helicopters — who rely on the condition that the aircraft are proven safe despite not following the usual rule\n\n**Why it matters:**\nAviation exemptions like this are common in technical areas where strict rules might not fit specific situations. The regulator is essentially saying: \"You don't have to follow the letter of this particular rule, but you must prove the aircraft are safe another way.\" This allows flexibility while maintaining safety through alternative compliance paths."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption","history":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption/history","analysis":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/exemption-number-8-1992-exemption/documents"}}