CASA 32/22 — Use of Class A Airspace by Sailplanes Instrument 2022

The instrument relies on a small set of interlocking concepts and documents to authorise sailplane use of Class A airspace.

• LOA (Letter of Agreement). An LOA is a written agreement signed by AA and the GFA, or AA and a GFA affiliate, that must be in effect on the day of the operation and must describe the area within Class A airspace where sailplane operations may occur and specify the limitations and conditions on which AA agrees to those operations (definition of LOA). The LOA is therefore the primary geographical and operational boundary for this instrument.

• CFI directions. These are written requirements issued by the chief flying instructor of a GFA affiliate, or by a delegate of that person, that govern the flight of a sailplane for a specific sailplane operation. The instrument requires compliance with the CFI directions as they "exist at the time of the flight" (definition of CFI directions; s 6(a)).

• AA clearance. The LOA does not by itself operate as an ad hoc clearance for every sortie. The instrument requires the pilot to have "confirmed with the CFI or duty instructor that the sailplane operation in the class A airspace is covered by an LOA and has been cleared by AA" before flying (s 4(2)(b)(i)). AA, as the ATS provider, signs LOAs and is the entity that provides clearance for operations under the LOA (definitions and s 4(2)(b)(i)).

• Relevant sailplane. The instrument applies to sailplanes used in private operations. The instrument notes that certain terms have the same meaning as in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations; the instrument does not redefine "sailplane" (s 3 Note).

• Role of the CFI and duty instructor. The instrument establishes an allocation of operational authority within the GFA affiliate. The CFI is the person appointed in writing by the relevant Regional Manager, Operations (RM/O) of the GFA to be the chief flying instructor for the affiliate, or a delegate (definition of CFI). A duty instructor is a person authorised in writing by that CFI and is responsible for the safe and efficient conduct of a sailplane operation held in Class A airspace covered by an LOA (definition of duty instructor). Section 7 imposes an express duty on the CFI to ensure that pilots receive the required briefings and documents.

• Approval and conditions. The instrument implements the approval contemplated by paragraph 91.285(1)(b) of CASR via regulation 91.045 (s 5(1)). The approval is constrained by the conditions in s 6, which require compliance with CFI directions, LOA conditions and any additional requirements communicated at the briefing. The instrument also points users to CAO 95.4 and Part 91 MOS for additional flight conditions and procedures (s 6 notes).

• Temporal and territorial limits. The LOA must be in effect on the day of the flight (definition of LOA). Class A airspace boundaries are set by a separate legislative instrument (note to s 3). The instrument itself is time-limited, ending by 31 May 2024 unless replaced earlier by the Part 103 MOS (s 2).

These concepts create a layered permission structure: AA and the GFA/GFA affiliate define where and on what terms sailplanes may operate in Class A airspace via LOA; CFIs implement and operationalise those terms through written directions and day-of-flight briefings; pilots in command of relevant sailplanes may rely on the instrument's approval to fly VFR in that Class A airspace only if they satisfy the membership, confirmation and briefing preconditions (s 4(2)) and then observe the conditions in s 6.

The instrument identifies a narrow set of affected persons and organisations and prescribes who must perform which actions.

• Pilots in command of relevant sailplanes. The primary regulated individuals are pilots in command of sailplanes engaged in private operations and flown in Class A airspace that is covered by an LOA (s 4(1) and definitions). For the approval to apply to a pilot, the pilot must be a GFA member and must have confirmed LOA coverage and AA clearance with the CFI or duty instructor prior to flight, and must have received a day-of-flight briefing from the CFI or duty instructor covering specified matters (s 4(2)). The instrument therefore conditions the approval on membership and pre-flight confirmations and briefings.

• GFA affiliates coordinating sailplane operations. Any GFA affiliate coordinating a sailplane operation in Class A airspace covered by an LOA is directly within the instrument's application (s 4(1)). The instrument imposes duties on the affiliate's CFI to ensure pilots receive briefings and copies of the CFI directions and the LOA (s 7). The GFA affiliates named in the definitions are Western Australian Gliding Association Incorporated; Canberra Gliding Club Inc; and Grampians Soaring Club Incorporated, but the definition of "GFA affiliate" applies to those club or association entities that are affiliated with the GFA (definitions).

• The Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). The GFA as an incorporated body is a defined actor, and LOAs may be signed by AA and the GFA. The instrument references the GFA for the appointment chain (the relevant RM/O who appoints CFIs for affiliates) and as a party to LOAs (definitions).

• Chief Flying Instructors and duty instructors. CFIs are the persons appointed in writing by the relevant RM/O to be chief flying instructors for a GFA affiliate, or their delegates (definition of CFI). CFIs must ensure pilots receive the mandatory briefings and documents before flight (s 7). Duty instructors are persons authorised in writing by the CFI and are responsible for the safe and efficient conduct of operations in Class A airspace covered by an LOA (definition of duty instructor; s 7). The instrument therefore places operational and administrative responsibilities on these roles.

• Airservices Australia (AA). AA is defined and functions as the ATS provider that signs LOAs and provides clearance for operations under LOAs (definition of AA; s 4(2)(b)(i)). AA is the party that must agree to the limitations and conditions under which sailplane operations in Class A airspace will be permitted (definition of LOA).

• Regulatory/administrative bodies insofar as they interact with the instrument. The instrument is made under specified CASR regulations and references other CASA instruments and manuals of standards (s 3 note; s 6 notes). These bodies and instruments are relevant because the instrument's approval and conditions are to be read together with CAO 95.4 and the Part 91 Manual of Standards, which the instrument cites as prescribing additional flight conditions and procedures (s 6 notes).

Who pays, who administers, who decides. The instrument does not impose explicit fees. Administrative effort will fall on GFA affiliates and CFIs to prepare and deliver pre-flight briefings, to hold and provide LOA copies, and to authorise duty instructors in writing. AA decides whether and on what limitations it will sign an LOA, and whether a particular operation has been cleared under the LOA prior to flight (definition of LOA; s 4(2)(b)(i)). The CFI decides what written CFI directions will apply and who will be authorised as a duty instructor (definitions; s 7). The pilot bears the practical compliance obligations at the sortie level: membership, confirmation with the CFI/duty instructor, receipt of briefing, and compliance with CFI directions and LOA limitations (s 4(2); s 6).

The instrument therefore concentrates decision authority for operational permission in two places: AA's decision to sign and clear under an LOA, and the CFI's operational direction and authorisations. The instrument places the execution and day-to-day compliance burdens onto pilots, CFIs and duty instructors at the club/affiliate level.

The instrument sets out a compact set of duties and a single targeted regulatory right.

Rights

• Conditional right to conduct a VFR flight in Class A airspace covered by an LOA. Section 5(1) expressly approves, for the purposes of paragraph 91.285(1)(b) of CASR, the pilot in command of a relevant sailplane to conduct a VFR flight in Class A airspace covered by an LOA. This is the instrument's core positive grant of permission. The approval is explicitly subject to the conditions in s 6 (s 5(2)).

Duties placed on pilots in command

• Membership and pre-flight confirmations. For the instrument to apply to a pilot, the pilot must be a member of the GFA and must, before flying, confirm with the CFI or duty instructor that the sailplane operation is covered by an LOA and has been cleared by AA (s 4(2)(a), (b)(i)). The pilot must also receive a day-of-flight briefing from the CFI or duty instructor covering the matters in s 7(a) (s 4(2)(b)(ii)).

• Compliance with CFI directions, LOA conditions, and briefing requirements. The pilot must conduct the VFR flight in accordance with the CFI directions issued for the operation, the conditions and limitations specified in the LOA that covers the Class A airspace, and any other safety requirements communicated during the day-of-flight briefing (s 6(a)-(c)).

Duties placed on CFIs

• Pre-flight briefings and provision of documentation. For the purposes of regulation 11.245 of CASR, the CFI of any GFA affiliate coordinating a sailplane operation in Class A airspace must ensure that, before flight, each pilot in command receives a briefing from the CFI or duty instructor about the CFI directions, the LOA conditions and limitations, and other safety requirements; and is provided with a copy of the CFI directions and the LOA that covers sailplane operations in the Class A airspace (s 7(a)-(b)).

Duties placed on duty instructors

• Authorisation and operational responsibility. A duty instructor must be authorised in writing by the CFI (definition of duty instructor, para (a)) and is responsible for the safe and efficient conduct of the operation (definition of duty instructor, para (b)). The instrument does not prescribe the form of the written authorisation beyond requiring it.

Duties/responsibilities of AA and the LOA parties

• Define area, limitations and conditions. LOAs must describe the area within which sailplane operations may be conducted in Class A airspace and must specify the limitations and conditions on which AA agrees to the conduct of those operations (definition of LOA). AA therefore controls the airspace envelope and the operational constraints that attach to an LOA. AA also signs LOAs (definition of LOA).

Interlocking compliance structure

• The approval is conditional. Even though s 5 grants approval, the approval only authorises the VFR flight if the pilot complies with the pre-flight confirmation and briefing requirements and conducts the flight in accordance with CFI directions and LOA conditions (s 4(2); s 6). The instrument therefore creates a chain of duties that, if not met, remove or nullify the benefit of the approval.

Reference to other requirements

• The instrument explicitly notes that CAO 95.4 contains additional flight conditions that apply to a relevant sailplane, as well as Part 91 MOS provisions on use and procedures in controlled airspace (s 6 notes). Those external requirements operate in parallel and impose additional duties on pilots and operators, including VMC/daylight limits and radiocommunications equipment and qualifications as described in CAO 95.4 (s 6 Note 1), and procedures such as those that apply if radiocommunication systems are not functioning correctly (s 6 Note 2).

Administrative duties and evidence

• Written authorisations and written directions. The instrument requires CFI directions to be in writing (definition of CFI directions) and requires duty instructor authorisation to be in writing (definition of duty instructor). It requires that the CFI provide the pilot with copies of the CFI directions and the LOA prior to flight (s 7(b)(i)-(ii)). The instrument therefore creates a record-focused compliance regime at the operational level.

In short, the instrument confers a limited right to fly VFR in specified Class A airspace but only if a set of preconditions and written duties (membership, LOA/AA clearance confirmation, day-of-flight briefings, written CFI directions, written duty authorisations) are satisfied and the flight is conducted in accordance with CFI directions and LOA constraints.

The instrument itself does not create express penalties or specify enforcement mechanisms. It is an approving instrument and a direction under specified regulations, but it contains no provisions that impose fines, criminal offences, administrative sanctions or a bespoke enforcement regime within its text. The absence of penalty provisions means that any non-compliance with the instrument’s duties or conditions would not give rise to penalties set out in this instrument itself.

That said, the instrument operates within the broader CASR and Civil Aviation Act framework. It is made under regulations 11.056, 11.245 and 91.045 of CASR (instrument header) and refers directly to paragraph 91.285(1)(b) of CASR (s 5(1)). Enforcement action or sanctions for breaches of CASR provisions, CAO 95.4 or other regulatory obligations would arise from those parent instruments and statutes rather than from CASA 32/22 itself. The instrument’s duties are framed as requirements for the approval to apply and as directions for CFIs under regulation 11.245 (s 7), but the instrument does not specify the consequences of failing to comply with those requirements.

Practical enforcement pathways likely to be engaged, though not specified by the instrument, include:

• Regulatory action under CASR or the Civil Aviation Act. Because the instrument cross-references CASR provisions and is made under CASR powers, any contravention of CASR obligations to which the instrument connects may be actionable under CASR enforcement mechanisms. The instrument does not detail those mechanisms.

• Operational refusal of the approval. A pilot who fails to meet preconditions (for example, by not confirming LOA coverage and AA clearance, or not receiving the required briefing) would not meet the instrument’s conditions, and therefore would not be covered by the approval in s 5. The instrument does not itself state the consequence but functionally withdraws the specific approval if conditions are unmet.

• ATS/AA refusal to clear the flight. The instrument requires confirmation that AA has cleared the operation under the LOA before flight (s 4(2)(b)(i)). AA retains operational discretion to refuse clearance for a given operation and would thereby prevent the flight authorised by the instrument.

• Loss of insurance or liability exposure. The instrument does not address insurance or civil liability. However, failure to comply with the instrument’s duties and the referenced CAO 95.4 and Part 91 MOS requirements could have commercial or civil liability implications under separate contractual or tort regimes. Those implications are not addressed in the instrument.

Because the instrument is silent on penalties, practitioners should not rely on this instrument alone for an understanding of enforcement. Compliance and enforcement consequences must be sought in the CASR, Civil Aviation Act 1988, CAO 95.4 and other applicable instruments and law. The instrument’s lack of an internal enforcement clause means its practical force rests on its interaction with the broader regulatory regime and on AA and CASA operational practices.

CASA 32/22 is expressly made under CASR powers and explicitly references other aviation instruments and manuals. Its text limits and frames how a sailplane operation in Class A airspace may lawfully proceed, while relying on other instruments for additional operational detail.

Primary statutory and regulatory interaction

• CASR and Civil Aviation Act 1988. The instrument notes that certain terms have the same meaning as in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations (s 3 Note). It is made under specified CASR regulations (11.056, 11.245 and 91.045) (instrument header). Section 5 explicitly ties the instrument to paragraph 91.285(1)(b) of CASR and confirms that the approval is given under regulation 91.045 (s 5(1)). Section 7 cites regulation 11.245 as the regulatory hook for the CFI’s direction duties. These cross-references indicate that CASA 32/22 functions as a targeted approval and a direction that sits within the CASR regulatory architecture.

• CAO 95.4 (Exemptions from CAR and CASR , Sailplanes and Towing Aircraft) Instrument 2021. The instrument points readers to CAO 95.4 for flight conditions applicable to relevant sailplanes and gives examples drawn from that instrument, such as that paragraph 9.1 of CAO 95.4 requires VMC, VFR and daylight operations and requires radiocommunications equipment and pilot qualifications at specified heights and VMC criteria (s 6 Note 1). The instrument therefore does not displace CAO 95.4; rather it operates in tandem with it.

• Part 91 Manual of Standards (Part 91 MOS). The instrument refers to Division 11.1 of the Part 91 MOS as prescribing requirements for the use of a class of airspace, and gives as an example paragraph 11.10(2)(b) concerning procedures if radiocommunications systems are not functioning correctly (s 6 Note 2). This positions the instrument as contingent upon operational procedures set out in the MOS.

• Determination of Class A airspace. The instrument notes that Class A airspace is determined in a separate legislative instrument made under regulation 5 of the Airspace Regulations 2007 and specifically references CASA OAR 046/22 as the instrument in force at commencement (s 3 Note). Thus the territorial limits of the LOA and the applicability of the instrument depend on that external determination.

• Part 103 Manual of Standards. Section 2(b)(ii) makes the instrument repealed upon commencement of the Part 103 MOS. This establishes a clear transitional relationship whereby the instrument is intended as an interim arrangement pending the Part 103 MOS.

Operational interactions and division of responsibilities

• LOAs as bilateral operational agreements. The LOA is the mechanism through which AA and the GFA or a GFA affiliate set the permitted operational area and conditions (definition of LOA). That means AA’s operational or ATS requirements, which may be derived from or required by other regulatory texts, will be embedded in the LOA’s conditions.

• CFI directions and regulatory duties. The instrument requires compliance with written CFI directions and places duties on CFIs under regulation 11.245 (s 7). CFIs must therefore craft directions that are consistent with both the LOA and with CAO 95.4 and the Part 91 MOS as applicable.

Legal effect and hierarchy

• No displacement of parent law. The instrument functions as an approval and direction within CASR’s framework; it does not purport to override CAO 95.4 or Part 91 MOS. Its notes point users to those instruments for additional mandatory requirements (s 6 notes). Accordingly, a pilot or operator must comply with the instrument and with those other instruments.

• Temporal substitution by Part 103 MOS. The instrument’s repeal upon the commencement of the Part 103 MOS (s 2) indicates an intended handover of regulatory content from this instrument into the MOS framework. The exact effect of that handover depends on the content of the Part 103 MOS, which the instrument does not reproduce.

What the instrument does not do

• It does not redefine Class A airspace boundaries, and it defers to the external legislative instrument for that territorial definition (s 3 Note).

• It does not specify enforcement provisions, penalties, or explicit administrative sanctions; those remain matters for the parent statutory and regulatory framework (see Penalties and enforcement section above).

• It does not alter CAO 95.4 or the Part 91 MOS; it references them for additional conditions and procedures (s 6 notes).

In short, CASA 32/22 is an interim, tightly scoped instrument that sits within and depends upon the existing CASR/Civil Aviation Act legal architecture and upon specific operational instruments such as CAO 95.4, the Part 91 MOS, and the (future) Part 103 MOS. Practitioners must therefore read the instrument together with those materials to form a complete picture of legal obligations and operational procedures.

The instrument contains a defined and limited life and a clear signatory and commencement profile. The instrument itself shows no recorded amendments within the text provided.

Key dates and procedural facts recorded in the instrument

• Instrument maker and signature. The instrument was made and signed by Anthony Alfred Stanton, Branch Manager, Sport & Recreation Aviation, Stakeholder Engagement Division, a delegate of CASA (instrument header and signature block). The instrument bears a signature date of 14 July 2022.

• Commencement. Section 2(a) states that the instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

• Repeal / sunset. Section 2(b) sets out the instrument’s expiry. The instrument is repealed at the earlier of the end of 31 May 2024 or the commencement of the Part 103 Manual of Standards (s 2(b)(i)-(ii)). Thus the instrument has a legislated sunset and a conditional earlier repeal linked to the Part 103 MOS commencement.

• No internal amendments recorded. The instrument text contains no schedules or amendment clauses and does not record any prior versions or amendments. There is no provision within the instrument allowing the maker to vary its terms within its lifetime; any variation would presumably require a fresh instrument or amendment under the same statutory powers.

• Transitional note. Section 7 includes a note referencing regulation 11.250 of CASR stating that the direction in section 7 ceases to be in force on the day the instrument is repealed under section 2. That confirms an intended temporality and provides a simple transitional indicator for the CFI direction obligations.

What is not in the amendment history

• There are no recorded changes, revocations or partial repeals within the text provided. No schedules, amendments, or legislative notes suggest subsequent changes.

• The instrument does not record any consultation outcomes, parliamentary scrutiny notes or executive decisions beyond the signature and the legal basis. Any future amendment history would need to be traced in the official legislative register or through CASA records.

For practitioners, the operative consequence is that this instrument is an explicitly temporary measure, with a clear end date or earlier cessation point, and that any continuity of the arrangements described will depend upon the content and commencement of the Part 103 MOS. There is no internal amendment trail to consult in the instrument as provided.

The instrument contains no litigation history and does not reference case law. The text supplies no judicial determinations, no administrative appeals, and no recorded disputes concerning its validity or application.

Practical implications of the absence of litigation history

• Lack of judicial interpretation. Because the instrument is not accompanied by any reported cases in the text, there is no judicial interpretation of its provisions available within the instrument. Practitioners will therefore have to apply its text directly and, where legal questions arise, expect such questions to be resolved through standard administrative or judicial processes under the Civil Aviation Act and CASR.

• Limited precedent for operational disputes. Operational disputes that may arise between pilots, CFIs, GFA affiliates, AA, or CASA concerning LOA scope, CFI directions, or whether a flight was "cleared by AA" would not have pre-existing judicial guidance recorded in the instrument. Any such disputes would be resolved under the broader legal framework and could produce new case law, but none is cited here.

• Administrative resolution routes. The instrument embeds decision authority in AA (for LOA and clearance) and in the CFI (for written directions and duty instructor authorisations). Disputes about compliance or interpretation would likely first follow administrative channels within those organisations and within CASA enforcement mechanisms, none of which are elaborated in the instrument.

• Transitional risk. Given the instrument’s temporal limit, any litigation initiated while the instrument is in force may be overtaken by the commencement of the Part 103 MOS, which could alter the legal landscape for ongoing disputes. The instrument itself does not describe how ongoing litigation will be affected by repeal.

Because the instrument does not supply any litigation history, readers must rely on the statutory and regulatory framework for dispute-resolution mechanisms. Any precedent or interpretative guidance must be sought from court or tribunal decisions outside the instrument, or from CASA administrative determinations, none of which are included in the text provided.

The instrument contains several specific conditions and structural features that create practical compliance traps if overlooked. The following items are drawn from the instrument’s text and notes.

• Membership precondition. The instrument’s application to a pilot depends on the pilot being a member of the GFA (s 4(2)(a)). A pilot who is not a GFA member is not covered by the pre-flight approval mechanism in s 5 via s 4(2) and therefore may not lawfully rely on this instrument to operate in Class A airspace. The instrument does not specify acceptable proof of membership or whether exceptions exist.

• Day-of-flight confirmation and briefing. The instrument requires the pilot to confirm with the CFI or duty instructor that the operation is covered by an LOA and has been cleared by AA, and to receive a briefing on the day of flight (s 4(2)(b)(i)-(ii)). This creates a narrow temporal compliance window: the briefings must occur on the day of flight. Pilots and CFIs must ensure the briefing occurs on that same day. The instrument does not define the form of the confirmation or briefing, whether written or oral, or whether electronic confirmations suffice.

• LOA must be in effect on the day of flight. The LOA must be "in effect on the day of" the flight to provide coverage (definition of LOA). If an LOA is expired, not ratified, or not applicable to the area of intended operations on the day of flight, the instrument’s approval will not apply.

• AA clearance is required. The pilot must confirm that the operation "has been cleared by AA" (s 4(2)(b)(i)). An LOA without a contemporaneous AA clearance for that operation does not satisfy the instrument’s preconditions. AA retains operational discretion, so a plan that relies on assumed or implied clearance could be frustrated at short notice.

• Written CFI directions as they exist at time of flight. CFI directions must be followed "as the CFI directions exist at the time of the flight" (definition of CFI directions; s 6(a)). If CFI directions change between briefing and take-off, the pilot must comply with the directions as they exist at time of flight. The instrument does not specify whether an updated briefing is required when a direction changes after the day-of-flight briefing.

• Duty instructor authorisation must be in writing. The definition of duty instructor requires written authorisation by the CFI. There is potential operational exposure if a duty instructor has only informal authorisation or if written evidence is not produced. The instrument obliges the CFI to provide a copy of CFI directions and the LOA to the pilot (s 7(b)), but it does not require the CFI to provide the written duty-instructor authorisation to anyone; the written authorisation requirement nevertheless exists.

• Interaction with CAO 95.4 and Part 91 MOS. The instrument refers pilots to CAO 95.4 for mandatory flight conditions such as VMC, daylight hours, and radiocommunications requirements, and to the Part 91 MOS for procedures in controlled airspace (s 6 notes). Failure to comply with those external requirements would breach obligations that operate alongside the instrument. Practitioners must therefore consider those instruments as part of the compliance package.

• Territorial uncertainty. The instrument does not itself define Class A airspace boundaries. It points to a separate legislative instrument for that (s 3 Note). Pilots and CFIs must ensure the LOA’s described area matches the current statutory delineation of Class A airspace. Operating in an area mistakenly thought to be covered by an LOA or by an outdated map could remove the instrument’s protection.

• Temporary duration and transitional risk. The instrument expires by 31 May 2024 or upon commencement of the Part 103 MOS, whichever is earlier (s 2). Operations planned beyond that timeframe must be reassessed against the Part 103 MOS when it commences. There is a risk that procedures and permissions available under this instrument may change or be withdrawn when the Part 103 MOS takes effect.

• No express enforcement regime in this instrument. Because the instrument contains no penalty clauses, practitioners may be tempted to under-appreciate enforcement risks. However, non-compliance will be judged under CASR, the Civil Aviation Act and other applicable instruments. The instrument’s silence on penalties does not create immunity from regulatory action.

• Reliance on CFI and AA administrative competence. The instrument places operational gatekeeping functions on CFIs and AA (LOA clearance). If a CFI, duty instructor or AA fails to act, or if record-keeping is inadequate, pilots may inadvertently fly without the instrument’s approval applying. The instrument prescribes written materials but leaves procedural detail to CFIs and LOAs, creating a risk of inconsistent practice across affiliates.

These are not novel legal defects; they are specific operational and administrative compliance points that flow directly from the instrument’s text. Practitioners should ensure membership status, LOA currency, AA clearance, written CFI directions and duty-instructor authorisations, and day-of-flight briefings and copies are all obtained and documented before a sortie is flown under this instrument.

Compliance under this instrument is a matter of satisfying the preconditions, following the written directions and LOA conditions, and observing the referenced external instruments. The following steps are a practical translation of the instrument’s requirements; each step cites the controlling provisions.

1. Confirm pilot eligibility (s 4(2)(a))

• Ensure the pilot in command is a member of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). The instrument requires membership for the instrument’s approval to apply to a pilot.

2. Verify LOA coverage and AA clearance before flight (s 4(2)(b)(i); LOA definition)

• Prior to flight, confirm with the CFI or duty instructor that the sailplane operation is covered by an LOA that is in effect on the day of the flight.
• Confirm that AA has cleared the specific sailplane operation under that LOA. The instrument requires that the pilot has confirmed both LOA coverage and AA clearance with the CFI or duty instructor before flying.

3. Receive and document the day-of-flight briefing (s 4(2)(b)(ii); s 7(a))

• Obtain a briefing on the day of the flight from the CFI or duty instructor that addresses: the written CFI directions for the operation, the LOA conditions and limitations, and any other safety requirements for the flight (s 7(a)(i)-(iii)).
• Ensure the briefing actually occurs on the day of flight, as required by s 4(2)(b)(ii). The instrument does not prescribe a format; a reasonable compliance practice is to maintain a written record or electronic log that records the briefing, its content and who delivered it.

4. Obtain and retain copies of the CFI directions and the LOA (s 7(b))

• The CFI must provide the pilot with a copy of the written CFI directions and a copy of the LOA that covers sailplane operations in the Class A airspace (s 7(b)(i)-(ii)). Keep these copies on file for the sortie and for post-flight records.

5. Comply with written CFI directions and LOA conditions at time of flight (s 6(a)-(b))

• At the time of the flight, the pilot must conduct the VFR flight in accordance with the CFI directions as they exist at the time of the flight and in accordance with the LOA’s conditions and limitations. If directions or LOA conditions are updated after the briefing, ensure those updates are made known to the pilot before take-off.

6. Observe additional requirements in CAO 95.4 and Part 91 MOS (s 6 notes)

• Ensure the sailplane and pilot meet the flight conditions cited in CAO 95.4, for example VMC, daylight requirements and radiocommunications equipment and pilot qualifications where required (s 6 Note 1).
• Be familiar with Part 91 MOS procedures for controlled airspace, such as procedures if radiocommunication systems malfunction (s 6 Note 2). Ensure the aircraft is equipped and the crew qualified as required by those instruments.

7. Ensure duty instructor authorisation is in writing (definition of duty instructor)

• CFIs must authorise any duty instructor in writing. The instrument requires written authorisation as a condition of a person being a duty instructor. Maintain the written authorisation on file for the operation.

8. Maintain contemporaneous records and evidence

• While the instrument does not prescribe a record-keeping format, the combination of written CFI directions, written duty-instructor authorisation, a copy of the LOA, a record of AA clearance, and a dated briefing record constitute practical evidence that the instrument’s preconditions and duties have been met.

9. Coordinate with AA and monitor LOA currency

• Ensure AA has signed the LOA and has provided clearance for the operation in question. Confirm that the LOA is in effect on the day of operation; any lapse in LOA currency removes the instrument’s coverage.

10. Plan for the instrument’s temporal limits (s 2)

• The instrument expires at the earlier of 31 May 2024 or the commencement of the Part 103 MOS. Plan operations, training and compliance processes so that they are aligned with whatever regime replaces this instrument upon repeal. Obtain updated guidance from CASA and the GFA when the Part 103 MOS is promulgated.

11. CFI operational responsibilities (s 7)

• CFIs should establish and document a standard procedure for pre-flight briefings that covers the required items in s 7(a)(i)-(iii). They must provide copies of the CFI directions and LOA to each pilot (s 7(b)). CFIs should also ensure duty instructors are authorised in writing and that those authorisations are current and accessible for inspection if required.

12. Engage legal/regulatory advice for edge cases

• For non-standard operations, ambiguous LOA scope, disputes over AA clearance, or questions about interaction with CAO 95.4 or Part 91 MOS, seek specific regulatory advice from CASA or legal counsel. The instrument does not provide an internal dispute-resolution clause.

Following these steps will align pilots, CFIs and GFA affiliates with the instrument’s explicit requirements. Maintaining contemporaneous, written records of LOA currency, AA clearance and day-of-flight briefings is the practical risk mitigation strategy implicit in the instrument’s emphasis on written CFI directions and written duty-instructor authorisation.