CASA EX35/25 — Cessna Aircraft (Supplemental Inspection Documents’ Requirements) Exemption 2025

The instrument directly affects three categories of persons: registered operators of relevant aircraft; persons carrying out maintenance on relevant aircraft; and persons certifying maintenance carried out on relevant aircraft. Each category receives a separate exemption directed at a specific CAR provision. For registered operators, the exemption is from subregulation 41(1) of CAR, which requires an operator to ensure that the maintenance specified in that subregulation is carried out in accordance with the maintenance data applicable to the aircraft. To the extent that maintenance data includes a relevant document (SID or listed bulletin), the operator is excused from that requirement. For persons carrying out maintenance, the exemption is from subregulation 42V(1) of CAR, which requires that maintenance be performed in accordance with the applicable maintenance data. For persons certifying maintenance, the exemption is from subregulation 42ZP(1) of CAR, which prohibits certifying completion of maintenance if it was not carried out in accordance with the applicable maintenance data. The instrument therefore affects maintenance organisations, licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, and other certifying staff who work on Cessna aircraft that fall within the definition of relevant aircraft and are used in the listed operations. It also affects aircraft owners and operators who are registered operators. The instrument does not affect operators or maintainers of Cessna aircraft that are used for purposes outside the application list - for example, aircraft used in regular public transport operations (scheduled air services) other than non-scheduled air transport with single-engine aeroplanes, or aircraft used for charter operations that are not within the single-engine non-scheduled category. It also does not affect aircraft that are not manufactured by Cessna or not covered by a Cessna foreign type certificate, or aircraft whose maintenance schedule is neither the manufacturer’s schedule nor the CASA schedule. The instrument’s application is further limited by the condition in section 4(2): if a current airworthiness directive requires that the maintenance be done in accordance with a relevant document, the exemption does not apply to that person in respect of that maintenance. This means that operators and maintainers must still check the AD register to see whether the SID or bulletin has been mandated by an AD. If it has, the exemption is unavailable and the usual obligations under CAR apply. The instrument also indirectly affects persons who choose not to rely on the exemption but continue to follow SIDs - the note to section 7 makes clear that an operator may “choose to continue to ensure its maintenance is carried out in accordance with a relevant document” to ensure continued airworthiness. The instrument therefore creates a permissive regime, not a mandatory one.

The instrument does not create new duties; it grants exemptions from existing duties. The key duty that is removed is the duty under CAR 41(1) for a registered operator to ensure that applicable maintenance data is used. The exemption means the operator is not required to ensure maintenance is carried out in accordance with a relevant document. However, the operator retains all other maintenance obligations under CAR 41(1) - the exemption is only “to the extent that the subregulation requires that the operator must ensure that the maintenance mentioned in the subregulation is required to be carried out on the aircraft in accordance with a relevant document”. Other maintenance data (aircraft maintenance manuals, service bulletins not covered, airworthiness directives, etc.) must still be followed. Similarly, the person carrying out maintenance is exempt only from the requirement to use a relevant document as maintenance data; they must still comply with other maintenance data. The person certifying maintenance is exempt only from the prohibition on certification where maintenance was not done in accordance with a relevant document; they must still ensure compliance with all other applicable maintenance data. The instrument thus preserves the structure of the CAR maintenance framework while carving out one subset of data. The right conferred is the right to omit compliance with SIDs and the listed bulletins for qualifying aircraft, subject to the AD condition. This is a significant practical right, because SIDs can impose costly and detailed inspections. The instrument does not impose any reporting obligation or notification requirement on operators who rely on the exemption. It also does not require any record-keeping specific to the exemption, though general record-keeping under CAR and CASR would still apply. Importantly, the instrument does not give anyone the right to operate an unsafe aircraft. The note to section 7 explicitly references paragraph 20AA(4)(d) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which creates an obligation not to commence or permit a flight in an aircraft that is unsafe. The note states that despite the exemption, the operator may choose to continue to ensure maintenance is carried out in accordance with a relevant document, to ensure continued airworthiness. This indicates that CASA expects operators to exercise judgment: the exemption is a concession but does not relieve the operator of the ultimate duty to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition. The operator retains a duty to ensure the aircraft is safe for flight, and departing from SID requirements - which were designed to address known fatigue or corrosion issues - may in some circumstances put the aircraft at risk. The operator who relies on the exemption must therefore still manage that risk through other means, such as alternative inspection programs or engineering assessments.

The instrument itself imposes no penalties. It is an exemption instrument, not a prohibition or a mandatory standard. Enforcement of the underlying law continues unaffected except to the extent the exemption operates. The relevant CAR provisions (41, 42V, 42ZP) are backed by penalty provisions in the Civil Aviation Regulations, and potentially by the Civil Aviation Act 1988. A person who relies on the exemption must ensure they meet all its conditions. If a person claims the exemption but the aircraft does not satisfy the definition of relevant aircraft, or if a current airworthiness directive mandates compliance with a relevant document, the exemption does not apply and the original CAR obligation remains in full force. In that case, a failure to follow a SID or listed bulletin could result in an enforcement action, including infringement notices, directions from CASA, suspension or cancellation of authorisations, or prosecution. The instrument also references the general safety obligation under paragraph 20AA(4)(d) of the Act, which is itself enforceable. CASA could take action against an operator who, despite the exemption, operates an aircraft that is unsafe because required inspections (even if not mandated by regulation) have been omitted. The instrument does not create a defence to a prosecution under section 20AA; it simply notes the existence of that obligation. The enforcement regime also includes the possibility of airworthiness directives. If CASA issues an AD requiring compliance with a particular SID for a Cessna model, the exemption becomes unavailable for that aircraft in relation to that maintenance (per section 4(2)). Regulation 39.003 of CASR provides that an Australian aircraft covered by an airworthiness directive must not be operated unless the AD is complied with. An operator who fails to comply with such an AD, even if they would otherwise have been covered by the exemption, would be in breach. The instrument therefore creates a dynamic boundary: the exemption is only as broad as the absence of ADs allows. CASA can effectively withdraw the exemption for specific aircraft or issues by issuing an AD. The instrument also refers to CASA Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 02-048 Issue 8 for further information, which may provide guidance on CASA’s expectations, though that bulletin is not itself legally binding. Enforcement practices would likely focus on operators who misuse the exemption - for example, by operating an aircraft outside the permitted operation types, or by not having the correct maintenance schedule, or by ignoring an AD.

The instrument interacts primarily with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. It exempts compliance with subregulation 41(1) (duty of registered operator to ensure maintenance per maintenance data), subregulation 42V(1) (duty of person carrying out maintenance to use applicable maintenance data), and subregulation 42ZP(1) (duty of certifier not to certify if maintenance not per maintenance data). These are the only provisions from which exemption is granted. Other CAR provisions, including those dealing with maintenance records, defect reporting, and continuing airworthiness management, remain in full force. The instrument also interacts with the Civil Aviation Act 1988, specifically paragraph 20AA(4)(d), which is referenced in the note. That provision creates an offence for operating or permitting operation of an aircraft that is unsafe. The exemption does not override that duty. The interaction with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) is also important. The instrument uses definitions from CASR, including aerial application operation (regulation 137.010), Part 141 flight training (subregulation 141.015(1)), Part 142 activity (subregulation 142.015(1)), and airworthiness directive (regulation 39.001A). It also cross-references Part 105 of CASR (parachute descents). The exemption does not affect obligations under CASR, such as Part 42 (continuing airworthiness) or Part 145 (maintenance organisations), except indirectly through the CAR provisions that remain the applicable law for the aircraft covered. Many Cessna aircraft in the categories listed (private, aerial work, flight training) are still subject to the CAR maintenance framework rather than the CASR Part 42 framework. The instrument preserves that structure but removes the requirement to follow SIDs. The interaction with airworthiness directives is critical. Regulation 39.003 of CASR prohibits operation of an aircraft covered by an AD unless the AD is complied with. The instrument preserves that prohibition via section 4(2). If an AD mandates a SID, the exemption is inoperative for that aircraft and that maintenance. The instrument also interacts with the concept of “maintenance data” defined in CAR and CASR. By exempting the use of relevant documents as maintenance data, the instrument effectively removes those documents from the set of mandatory data for the relevant aircraft. Other manufacturer data, such as the basic maintenance manual and service bulletins not listed in the definition of relevant document, remain mandatory where applicable. The instrument also references CASA Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 02-048 Issue 8, which is a non-legislative guidance document. That bulletin may provide CASA’s view on the risks of not following SIDs, but it is not enforceable as law. Finally, the instrument operates in the context of the foreign type certificate system. The definition of relevant aircraft includes aeroplanes “for which a foreign type certificate was issued to Cessna Aircraft Company”. This means the instrument covers Cessna models that hold a foreign type certificate (likely from FAA) but does not cover models that were never type-certificated to Cessna or that have been significantly modified such that the foreign type certificate no longer applies.

As at the date the instrument was made (28 March 2025), there is no amendment history. The instrument is in its original form. It was made as a legislative instrument under regulation 11.160 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, by a delegate of CASA. It has a fixed duration of three years, commencing 1 April 2025 and being repealed at the end of 31 March 2028. This means it is a sunsetting exemption. Unless it is remade or extended before repeal, it will lapse automatically. The instrument does not purport to amend or repeal any other instrument, nor does it reference any predecessor exemption. It is possible that similar exemptions for Cessna SIDs existed previously (such as CASA EX60/20 or similar), but the source text does not mention any. The instrument is self-contained. Any future amendment would require a new instrument or a variation under regulation 11.160. The exposition refers to documents “as the document exists from time to time”, meaning that if Cessna revises a SID or service bulletin, the exemption applies to the revised version without needing to amend the instrument. This is a dynamic reference. However, if Cessna issues a new SID or bulletin that is not listed in the definition of relevant document for single-engine non-scheduled transport aircraft, it would not be covered and would remain mandatory. The instrument’s definitions are static as to which documents are covered for that category. For the broader category in section 4(1)(a) and (b), “any SID” is covered, so new SIDs issued during the life of the instrument would automatically be exempt. This asymmetry is deliberate: single-engine non-scheduled transport aircraft only get exemption for the listed bulletins and landing gear SIDs. The instrument is not subject to any parliamentary disallowance process beyond that applicable to legislative instruments under the Legislation Act 2003, but that is not mentioned in the text.

The instrument text makes no reference to any litigation. There is no indication that this particular exemption has been challenged or judicially considered. Because it is a new instrument commencing on 1 April 2025, there is no litigation history associated with it. However, the broader context of CASA exemption instruments and maintenance requirements may have been considered in past cases. The instrument’s note references CASA’s own Airworthiness Bulletin, not any court decision. There is no case law cited in the source. Any litigation would likely arise from enforcement actions where a person relies on the exemption but is alleged not to have met its conditions. For example, a dispute could arise over whether an aircraft is a “relevant aircraft” because its maintenance schedule is not the manufacturer’s schedule or CASA schedule, or whether a particular SID falls within the definition. The instrument’s definitions are reasonably clear, but questions of fact could arise. The condition in section 4(2) regarding airworthiness directives could also be litigated if an operator claims no current AD exists but CASA argues otherwise. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (or the ART) would have jurisdiction to review CASA decisions relating to airworthiness directives or enforcement actions that rely on the interpretation of this exemption. The instrument itself is a legislative instrument, not a reviewable decision, but its application in a specific case could be reviewed. As at the date of this response, no such cases are known, and the source does not indicate any.

Several practical traps arise from the instrument’s structure. First, the exemption is not automatic or universal. It only applies if no current airworthiness directive requires maintenance in accordance with a relevant document. ADs can be issued at any time by CASA or by the state of design (FAA). An operator who stops following a SID because of the exemption may later discover that an AD has been issued that mandates compliance with that same SID. The exemption ceases to apply at that point, and the operator must then ensure the SID is complied with. The operator must monitor the AD register actively. Second, the instrument only exempts from three specific CAR provisions. Other regulatory obligations remain. For example, the operator may still be required under CAR to follow airworthiness directives, defect reporting, and modification approvals. The certifier must still comply with all other maintenance data. If a SID contains information that is also contained in the basic maintenance manual or an airworthiness directive, the exemption does not relieve compliance with that other data. Third, the definition of “relevant aircraft” requires that the aircraft’s maintenance schedule be the manufacturer’s schedule or the CASA schedule. If the operator has an approved alternative maintenance schedule (such as an operator’s own schedule approved under CASR Part 42), the aircraft may not be a relevant aircraft and the exemption does not apply. Fourth, for single-engine aeroplanes used for non-scheduled air transport, only the listed bulletins and landing gear SIDs are exempt. Other SIDs - for example SIDs relating to the wing or empennage - remain mandatory. Operators and maintainers must carefully check which SID numbers are covered. The definition for that category references supplemental inspection numbers beginning with “32-” (landing gear) and four specific service bulletins. Any other SID must continue to be followed. Fifth, the instrument exempts compliance “to the extent that” the CAR provision requires compliance with a relevant document. If a CAR provision also requires compliance with other maintenance data, the exemption does not remove that requirement. For example, if the maintenance data includes both a SID and a mandatory modification, the mod must still be done. Sixth, the instrument is time-limited. It expires on 31 March 2028. After that date, the original CAR obligations will apply in full unless the instrument is remade. Operators who have stopped performing SID inspections for years may face a backlog or be unable to demonstrate continued airworthiness when the exemption lapses. Seventh, the note reminds operators that they may choose to continue following SIDs despite the exemption. This is not a legal requirement, but an operator who ignores known structural inspection issues may be in breach of the duty under the Civil Aviation Act to ensure the aircraft is safe. A CASA audit could find that the operator’s safety management or continuing airworthiness program is inadequate if no equivalent inspections are performed. The exemption is not a licence to ignore fatigue or corrosion risks.

Compliance with the instrument itself is not required - it grants relief, not obligations. However, to take advantage of the exemption lawfully, an operator or maintainer must ensure they meet all the conditions. The first step is to confirm that the aeroplane is a “relevant aircraft”. Check that it was manufactured by Cessna or has a Cessna foreign type certificate. Confirm that a SID or one of the listed bulletins actually applies to that aircraft serial number and model. Many SIDs are model-specific; an aircraft may have no SIDs applicable to it, in which case the exemption provides no practical benefit. Second, verify that the aircraft is used only for the purposes listed in section 4(1)(a) or (c). If it is ever used for regular public transport (other than non-scheduled in a single-engine), or for any operation not listed, the exemption does not apply. Third, confirm that the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule or the CASA maintenance schedule. If the operator uses an approved alternative schedule, the aircraft may not qualify. Fourth, at the time of each maintenance event, check whether a current airworthiness directive requires that the maintenance be carried out in accordance with a relevant document. This search should include CASA ADs and any ADs adopted by CASA from the FAA or other authorities. If an AD exists that references the SID or bulletin, the exemption cannot be relied upon for that maintenance. Fifth, document the basis for reliance on the exemption. While the instrument does not require a formal record, it is prudent to keep a file for each aircraft showing that the conditions were met, including a list of applicable SIDs and the AD check. This will assist in the event of a CASA audit or enforcement action. Sixth, consider the airworthiness implications of not following SIDs. The note to section 7 points to the general safety duty under the Act. An operator should conduct a risk assessment or engineering evaluation to determine whether alternative inspections are needed to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition. Some SIDs address known cracking or corrosion issues; omitting them without replacement may make the aircraft unsafe. The operator may decide to continue performing the SID inspections voluntarily, even though not required by regulation. Seventh, ensure that all other maintenance requirements under CAR and CASR are still met. The exemption does not affect obligations to follow the basic maintenance manual, airworthiness directives that do not reference a relevant document, regulations covering defect reporting, modification approvals, and maintenance records. Eighth, when the end of the exemption period approaches (31 March 2028), prepare to transition back to full compliance with SIDs unless the instrument is extended or replaced. This may require planning inspection schedules and parts procurement to avoid grounding aircraft. Finally, consult CASA Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 02-048 Issue 8 for guidance specific to Cessna SIDs. Though not legally binding, the bulletin likely explains CASA’s position on the risks and may suggest acceptable alternative means of compliance for operators who wish to depart from SIDs while managing safety.