CASA EX47/25 — Flight Training and Test (Low-Fidelity Simulators) Exemption 2025

The instrument introduces and relies on several defined terms that are essential to understanding its operation.

Low‑fidelity simulator is defined restrictively to mean only two physical devices: the Embraer EMB‑120 Flight Simulator and the Fairchild Metro III Flight Simulator, both located at 50 Garden Drive, Tullamarine, Victoria. A further requirement is that the operator of the simulator must hold a current flight simulator qualification certificate (issued under reg 60.015 of CASR) for that device. If the certificate lapses or is revoked, the simulator ceases to be a low‑fidelity simulator for the purposes of this instrument, and the exemptions cannot be relied upon.

Affected type rating covers only the pilot type ratings for Swearingen SA226/227 and Embraer EMB120 aircraft. The instrument does not extend to any other aircraft type, even if those types share similar cockpit configurations or are operated by the same training providers.

Approved training provider is a person (including a Part 141 or Part 142 operator) authorised under the civil aviation legislation to conduct training for an affected type rating. The definition captures three sub‑categories: providers authorised to conduct training only in a flight simulator; providers authorised only in an aircraft; and providers authorised to use both. This matters because the conditions on the exemption draw a sharp line between sim‑only training and aircraft training. A provider that only offers sim training cannot, under the instrument, perform the aircraft training; it must issue a certificate to another provider that does the aircraft training (s 7(1)(b)).

Approved flight tester for an affected type rating means a flight examiner or a person approved under reg 61.040 of CASR who is authorised under Part 61 to conduct flight tests for the rating. The instrument treats these two categories differently in some respects: s 8(1) applies to flight examiners; s 8(2) and (3) apply to reg 61.040‑approved persons, who receive an extra exemption from conditions imposed on their approval under reg 11.077.

Certificate under s 7(2) is the key document that unlocks the exemptions. It must be issued by the sim‑training provider (or provided by another provider that did the sim training), and must state four things: (a) that the sim training was conducted per the provider’s syllabus and included all training permitted by the simulator’s qualification certificate; (b) that an approved flight tester assessed the applicant in the sim against the units of competency covered in that training, in accordance with the Manual of Standards for the flight test; (c) that the applicant was assessed as competent in each such unit; and (d) that the certificate is signed by the head of operations of the provider that conducted the sim training.

Normal flight is a critical concept for aircraft training. Section 7(3) provides that aircraft training may only include activities that occur in normal flight. The note to s 7 clarifies that this excludes simulated failures of an engine or other aircraft system; those must have been conducted in the low‑fidelity simulator. This divides the syllabus into two parts: non‑normal and emergency procedures are done in the sim; normal flight manoeuvres are done in the aircraft.

Understanding these concepts is necessary for any training provider or pilot planning to use the instrument. The definitions are narrow and the conditions are precise; each element must be satisfied for the exemptions to apply.

The instrument directly affects three categories of persons: applicants for the affected type ratings, pilot instructors, and approved flight testers. Each category gains exemptions but also bears conditions.

Applicants are individuals seeking a Swearingen SA226/227 or Embraer EMB120 type rating. Without this instrument, they would need to meet the full CASR training and testing requirements, which likely necessitate access to a full‑flight simulator or a greater number of aircraft flight hours. The instrument allows them to complete part of their training and an initial competency assessment in a low‑fidelity simulator, then undertake aircraft training limited to normal flight, and then sit a flight test. The applicant does not need to comply with regs 61.195(2)(d), 61.205, 61.240, 61.250, etc., but must use an approved training provider that follows the certificate process. The applicant also remains subject to other prerequisites such as reg 61.195(2)(c) (which requires a recent flight review or similar currency) , the flight tester must be satisfied of this before conducting the test (s 9(b)). So the instrument reduces one set of barriers but does not waive all requirements.

Pilot instructors employed by an approved training provider that is authorised to conduct aircraft training for an affected type rating are exempt from reg 61.1215. That regulation likely imposes additional qualifications or approvals on instructors conducting training in an aircraft when prior simulator training has not been done under certain conditions. The exemption is conditional on the provider having the s 7(2) certificate in place. Instructors must also ensure aircraft training is limited to normal flight activities (s 7(3)(a)). This means instructors cannot, under this instrument, conduct simulated failure training in the aircraft; that must already have been covered in the sim. The instrument does not affect instructors who conduct only sim training; they remain subject to their usual obligations under Part 61.

Approved flight testers , both flight examiners and reg 61.040‑approved testers , receive exemptions from several provisions. For flight examiners, the key exemption from reg 61.1295(1)(b)(i) means they do not need to be nominated by the provider that gave the sim training; instead they must be nominated by the provider that conducted the aircraft training (s 9(c)). For reg 61.040‑approved testers, the instrument also exempts them from conditions on their approval that would otherwise require compliance with the provisions listed in s 8(3). The tester must have been provided with the s 7(2) certificate and must be satisfied that the applicant meets reg 61.195(2)(c).

Indirectly, the instrument affects the operators of the two Tullamarine simulators (the entities holding the flight simulator qualification certificates), the training providers (Part 141 and Part 142 operators) who must develop syllabuses that align with the sim certificates, and the employers of pilots (regional airlines, charter operators, freight operators) who rely on a steady supply of type‑rated pilots. If the instrument reduces training costs and throughput time, those employers benefit. Conversely, if the certificate requirements or the limited scope of aircraft training create practical bottlenecks (e.g., only a few qualified assessors, or only one simulator location), the benefits may be unevenly distributed.

The instrument does not affect the general public, air passengers, or aircraft maintenance personnel. It is a targeted regulatory relief measure for a narrow segment of the aviation training industry.

The instrument creates rights in the form of exemptions from compliance with specified CASR provisions, and duties in the form of conditions that must be satisfied for those exemptions to apply. The duties fall primarily on training providers and flight testers, though applicants also have responsibilities.

Rights:

• An applicant for an affected type rating is not required to comply with regs 61.195(2)(d), 61.205, 61.235(4)(a)(ii), 61.245(2), 61.240 (to the extent it mandates all training in a simulator for eligibility), and 61.250 (to the extent it requires assessment against competency standards covered by the certificate). This means the applicant can use low‑fidelity sim training as a substitute for some aircraft or full‑simulator training.
• A pilot instructor of an approved training provider that conducts aircraft training is not required to comply with reg 61.1215, provided the provider has the s 7(2) certificate.
• An approved flight tester (flight examiner) is not required to comply with regs 61.245(2), 61.1295(1)(b)(i) (nomination by sim provider), 61.1295(3)(b) (test standards for sim‑covered competencies), and 61.1300(4)(b)(ii) (applicant compliance with certain regs). A reg 61.040‑approved tester has similar exemptions plus exemption from conditions on their approval that would require compliance with those provisions.

Duties:

• The pilot instructor must not conduct aircraft training unless the provider has issued or received a certificate complying with s 7(2) (s 7(1)). This duty is enforceable because if the instructor proceeds without the certificate, the exemption from reg 61.1215 does not apply, and the instructor could be in breach of that regulation.
• The aircraft training must only include activities in normal flight (s 7(3)(a)). This imposes a substantive limit on the scope of training. The instructor must also ensure that the aircraft training covers all units of competency not covered by the certificate (s 7(3)(b)). This ensures the certificate and aircraft training together cover the full syllabus.
• The approved flight tester must have been provided with the certificate (s 9(a)), be satisfied the applicant meets reg 61.195(2)(c) (s 9(b)), and be nominated by the provider that conducted the aircraft training (s 9(c)). The nomination condition prevents a sim‑only provider from controlling the flight test.
• For sim training providers, the duty to issue a certificate (or to have provided it to the aircraft training provider) is not explicit as a duty in the instrument, but without it the whole scheme fails. The certificate must be signed by the head of operations and contain the specific statements. This is a compliance burden: the signatory must verify the training and assessment were conducted correctly.

Practical implications: The duties are tightly defined. A training provider that conducts both sim and aircraft training must issue a certificate for the sim portion before aircraft training begins. A provider that only does aircraft training must obtain the certificate from the sim provider. The flight tester must check the certificate before conducting the test. There is no duty on the applicant to keep a copy of the certificate, but practically they need it to present to the tester.

The rights are conditional and cannot be severed from the duties. If any condition is not met, the exemptions do not apply, and the default CASR requirements revive.

The instrument itself does not create any new offences or penalties. Its legal effect is to provide a defence or dispensation from existing CASR obligations. Enforcement therefore operates through two channels: (1) if a person fails to meet a condition of the exemption, they lose the exemption and become subject to the original CASR provisions, which carry their own penalty provisions; and (2) in the case of reg 61.040‑approved flight testers, there is an explicit cross‑reference to reg 11.077, which makes it an offence to breach a condition on an authorisation.

Loss of exemption: If a pilot instructor conducts aircraft training without the s 7(2) certificate, the exemption from reg 61.1215 does not apply. CASA could then take enforcement action under reg 61.1215 for conducting training without the required qualifications or approvals. Similarly, if a flight tester conducts a test without being satisfied of the applicant’s compliance with reg 61.195(2)(c), the exemptions in s 8 are not available, and the tester may have breached reg 61.245(2) or the relevant testing provisions. The ordinary civil penalty provisions of CASR would apply, which can include infringement notices (fines) or proceedings in the Federal Court for civil penalties (up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for individuals, more for corporations). There is also the possibility of suspension or variation of authorisations under Part 11 of CASR.

Offence of breaching approval conditions: The note to s 8(3) highlights reg 11.077. A reg 61.040‑approved flight tester’s approval will have conditions that require compliance with the provisions listed in s 8(3)(a)‑(d) (e.g., reg 61.245(2)). The instrument exempts the tester from those conditions to the extent that the tester would otherwise have to comply. But if the tester fails to meet a condition of this instrument (such as the nomination requirement in s 9(c)), the exemption from the approval condition is also lost. The tester then faces potential prosecution under reg 11.077 for breaching a condition of their approval. This is a heavier sanction than a mere regulatory breach, as it is a criminal offence (strict liability, maximum penalty likely 50 penalty units or more).

Certificate integrity: The certificate under s 7(2) must be signed by the head of operations of the provider that conducted the sim training. If the certificate contains false statements (e.g., stating that the applicant was assessed as competent when they were not), that could attract liability under general law (e.g., fraud, misleading conduct) or under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s 20A (offences relating to false or misleading documents). CASA could also treat the certification as grounds for revoking or varying the provider’s approval.

No immunity: The instrument does not grant immunity from prosecution for any other offences. It only exempts from the specified regulations. For example, an applicant must still hold the appropriate pilot licence and meet medical and English proficiency standards. Breaching those remains actionable.

Practical enforcement risk: The instrument is narrow and temporary. CASA’s enforcement activity will likely focus on compliance with the conditions. The most likely vulnerability is the certification chain: if a sim provider issues a certificate without properly conducting the assessment, or if an aircraft training provider uses a stale certificate, the entire training pathway for that applicant could be invalid. Operators should maintain clear records and audit trails to demonstrate compliance with each condition.

The instrument sits within the hierarchy of civil aviation legislation in Australia. It is made under regs 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR, which empower CASA to grant exemptions from provisions of the regulations. It does not amend or repeal any primary or secondary legislation; it creates a conditional dispensation for a limited class of persons and activities.

Interaction with CASR: The instrument directly references and modifies the application of the following CASR provisions: regs 61.195(2)(d), 61.205, 61.235(4)(a)(ii), 61.240, 61.245(2), 61.250, 61.1215, 61.1295(1)(b)(i), 61.1295(3)(b), and 61.1300(4)(b)(ii). For each, the instrument exempts specific persons to a specific extent. It does not repeal those provisions; it simply provides that they do not apply if the conditions are met. Outside the scope of the instrument, the full force of those provisions remains. For example, a person seeking a Boeing 737 type rating cannot rely on this instrument.

Interaction with the Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS): The certificate under s 7(2) must reference the syllabus of training and the competency standards in the MOS for the flight test. The assessment in the simulator must be conducted in accordance with the standards in the MOS (s 7(2)(b)(iii)). This means the MOS retains its role as the benchmark for what constitutes competent performance. The instrument does not lower the competency standard; it only changes the training device in which that standard is assessed for some units.

Interaction with flight simulator qualification certificates (reg 60.015): The definition of low‑fidelity simulator requires that the operator holds a current flight simulator qualification certificate for the device. That certificate (issued by CASA) will specify which training tasks and manoeuvres the simulator is approved for. The certificate under s 7(2)(a)(ii) must state that the sim training included all the training required by the MOS that was permitted by the flight simulator qualification certificate. So the qualification certificate effectively limits the scope of what can be trained in the sim. If the certificate does not authorise certain emergency procedures, those must be deferred to the aircraft training (but then note that aircraft training is limited to normal flight, so that creates a gap unless the qualification certificate is sufficiently broad). This interaction is critical; training providers must check the sim qualification certificate before designing their syllabus.

Interaction with Part 141 and Part 142 approvals: Approved training providers are defined by reference to authorisations under the civil aviation legislation. This includes Part 141 operators (flight training schools) and Part 142 operators (simulator training providers). The instrument does not grant a blanket authorisation to any provider; the provider must already hold the appropriate authorisation to conduct training for the affected type rating. The instrument merely relaxes which training device can be used for some of that training.

Interaction with CASA’s approval conditions under reg 61.040: For flight testers approved under reg 61.040, CASA typically imposes conditions that mirror the standard flight examiner requirements. The instrument exempts those testers from those conditions to the extent that they would require compliance with the listed provisions. However, the note warns that breaching a condition on an approval is an offence under reg 11.077. The instrument therefore carves out an exception to the condition, but only if all conditions of the instrument are met.

Interaction with other exemptions: The instrument does not affect any other exemption instruments currently in force. It is specific to these two aircraft types and these two simulators. It does not create a precedent for low‑fidelity sim use for other ratings; each would require a separate instrument.

Interaction with state and territory laws: Civil aviation is a Commonwealth‑regulated area under the Constitution. The instrument does not interact with state or territory laws directly, though workplace health and safety laws, contract law, and employment law may apply to training providers and instructors independently.

CASA EX47/25 is a new instrument made on 24 April 2025 and commencing on 1 May 2025. It has not been amended. The duration is fixed: it is repealed at the end of 30 April 2028. As a legislative instrument registered under the Legislation Act 2003, any future amendments would be published as amending instruments (likely numbered CASA EX xx/yy). As of the date of this deep dive, no amending instruments exist.

The instrument is not an amendment to any other instrument. It stands alone. Its temporary nature means that if the policy is successful, CASA may extend it or replace it with a permanent provision before the 2028 repeal. Alternatively, if the simulators cease to have valid qualification certificates or if CASA determines the low‑fidelity approach creates safety risks, the instrument may be repealed early under reg 11.205(3) (which allows CASA to revoke an exemption at any time by notice). There is no sunset extension built into the instrument.

Practitioners should monitor the CASA website (noted in the instrument for the sim qualification certificates) for any updates to the sim certificates, and also monitor the Federal Register of Legislation for any amending or replacing instruments. The three‑year window is short enough that providers should plan for the post‑2028 environment now.

This instrument is new and has not been the subject of any reported litigation. No judicial decisions have interpreted its provisions. The instrument is an administrative exemption made by a CASA delegate; it could theoretically be challenged under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) on grounds such as procedural error, unreasonableness, or error of law. However, given the narrow scope and the fact that it grants relief (rather than imposes burdens) to the regulated community, a challenge is unlikely from the beneficiaries. A competitor training provider who does not have access to a low‑fidelity simulator might argue that the exemption confers a competitive advantage without proper justification, but that would require standing and a meritorious ground.

The underlying CASR provisions that are exempted have occasionally been litigated in the context of enforcement actions (e.g., CASA v. an individual for conducting unauthorised training). But those cases do not interpret the exemption. No litigation has been identified that directly involves this instrument or its predecessor.

If a dispute arises over the validity of a certificate under s 7(2) , for example, whether the sim training was actually conducted per the syllabus , that would likely be an administrative dispute between CASA and the provider or tester, resolved through internal review or the AAT, rather than court litigation.

The note to s 3 references the meaning of terms in the Civil Aviation Act and regulations, which have been subject to judicial interpretation in other contexts, but nothing specific to this instrument.

Several provisions in the instrument are easy to overlook or misinterpret. The following are the most likely traps for practitioners.

The low‑fidelity simulators are only two specific machines. The definition is not generic. Using any other low‑fidelity simulator (even one for the same aircraft type) renders the exemptions unavailable. The simulators are physically identified by address: 50 Garden Drive, Tullamarine, Victoria. If the operator moves them to a different location, the instrument’s definition still refers to that address. If the simulator fails to maintain its qualification certificate, it ceases to be a low‑fidelity simulator. There is no fallback if the certificate lapses; training would need to revert to full requirements.

Aircraft training is limited to normal flight. Section 7(3)(a) prohibits simulated failures or any activity not in normal flight. The note is explicit: engine failure, system failures, and similar manoeuvres must have been conducted in the sim. This means the sim qualification certificate must authorise those failures. If the certificate does not cover them, they cannot be trained anywhere under this instrument. The pilot would then receive an incomplete training experience unless the provider has alternative arrangements outside this instrument.

The nomination condition for flight testers. Section 9(c) requires that the approved flight tester be nominated by the provider that conducted the aircraft training. If a provider conducts both sim and aircraft training, that is fine. But if a separate sim‑only provider issues the certificate, the flight tester must be nominated by the aircraft training provider, not the sim provider. This can create scheduling and coordination problems. A flight tester who is nominated by a sim‑only provider cannot rely on the exemption.

The certificate must state that the sim training included all training permitted by the simulator qualification certificate. This is a high bar. If the qualification certificate authorises 10 manoeuvres, the training must cover all 10. If any are omitted, the certificate is non‑compliant, and the aircraft training and flight test lose their exemptions. The provider must ensure that its syllabus aligns exactly with the sim’s approved scope.

Signing authority. The certificate must be signed by the head of operations of the provider that conducted the sim training. This is a defined role (likely per the provider’s organisational structure). A chief pilot or training manager may not suffice unless they hold that title. The signer should verify the assessment before signing.

Expiry. The instrument is repealed on 30 April 2028. Training that straddles the expiry date could be problematic. For example, if sim training is completed in April 2028 but the aircraft training and flight test occur in May 2028, the exemption may no longer be in force. The instrument does not contain a transitional provision. Providers should schedule training packages to conclude before the repeal date.

Interplay with reg 61.195(2)(c). The flight tester must be satisfied that the applicant meets that requirement. That regulation likely requires a recent flight review (BFR) or recent experience. If the applicant does not have that, the tester cannot conduct the test under the exemption. This is an ongoing obligation that does not change.

No exemption from medical or English standards. The instrument only covers training and testing provisions. Applicants must still hold a valid medical certificate and meet English language proficiency for the rating.

One‑way street. The instrument does not allow the flight test to be conducted in the low‑fidelity simulator. The assessment in the sim is a training‑stage assessment, not the official flight test. The flight test must be conducted in the aircraft (by implication, since the exemptions for the tester relate to the conduct of the flight test, and s 9(c) refers to nomination by the aircraft training provider). So the sim cannot replace the aircraft test.

Compliance requires a coordinated process among the training provider (or providers), the instructor, the flight tester, and the applicant. The following steps are a practical guide.

For the applicant:

1. Confirm that the type rating you seek is one of the two affected type ratings (Swearingen SA226/227 or Embraer EMB120). The instrument does not apply to any other rating.
2. Enrol with an approved training provider that is authorised to conduct training for that rating and that offers a program using the Tullamarine low‑fidelity simulators. The provider must hold a current flight simulator qualification certificate for the simulator.
3. Complete the sim training component. Ensure the training covers all units of competency that the simulator’s qualification certificate permits. The provider will then arrange for an approved flight tester to assess you in the simulator against those units.
4. Ensure that the provider issues you (or provides to the aircraft training provider) a certificate under s 7(2) signed by the head of operations. The certificate must state the four things listed in s 7(2)(a)‑(d). Keep a copy.
5. Ensure you meet the prerequisite in reg 61.195(2)(c) (likely a recent flight review or equivalent). The flight tester will check this.
6. Complete the aircraft training with an approved training provider (often the same entity or a partner). The training must be limited to normal flight activities , no simulated failures. The training must cover all units of competency not covered by the certificate.
7. Arrange for a flight test with an approved flight tester. The tester must have been provided with the certificate, must be satisfied of your compliance with reg 61.195(2)(c), and must be nominated by the provider that conducted the aircraft training (not the sim‑only provider).
8. Present the certificate to the tester. The tester will then conduct the flight test in the aircraft. If you pass, the type rating can be granted.

For the training provider conducting sim training:

• Ensure your simulators are the two specified at Tullamarine and that their qualification certificates are current.
• Develop a syllabus that covers all training permitted by the sim’s qualification certificate. Do not omit any permitted unit.
• Engage an approved flight tester to assess each applicant in the sim after training.
• Issue a certificate for each applicant that meets s 7(2) in all respects. Have the head of operations sign it. Maintain records of the training and assessment.
• If you are not also conducting the aircraft training, provide the certificate to another provider who will.

For the training provider conducting aircraft training:

• Obtain the s 7(2) certificate from the sim provider (or from your own sim division if you operate both).
• Ensure your pilot instructors understand that they are exempt from reg 61.1215 only while the certificate is in place, and that aircraft training is limited to normal flight.
• Cover only those units of competency that were not covered by the certificate. Do not duplicate sim‑assessed units.
• Nominate an approved flight tester for each applicant. Ensure the tester is from your organisation (or nominated by you), not from the sim‑only provider.

For the approved flight tester:

• Before conducting the flight test, obtain the s 7(2) certificate from the applicant or the provider.
• Verify that the certificate appears genuine and contains all required statements. If in doubt, contact the signing provider.
• Confirm that the applicant meets reg 61.195(2)(c) , ask to see evidence (e.g., a recent flight review endorsement).
• Confirm that you have been nominated by the provider that conducted the aircraft training, not the sim‑only provider.
• Conduct the flight test per the MOS for the aircraft. The test should cover the units of competency that were not assessed in the sim (i.e., those covered by the aircraft training).
• If you are a reg 61.040‑approved tester, be aware that your approval conditions are modified by the instrument only to the extent you meet its conditions. Keep a copy of the instrument and the certificate for your records.

General compliance tips:

• Document every step. The certificate, the assessment records, the sim training records, and the aircraft training records should all be stored for at least the duration of the instrument plus any limitation period.
• Regularly check that the simulators’ qualification certificates remain current. Notify CASA if a certificate lapses.
• Monitor the CASA website for any amendments, early repeal, or replacement instruments.
• Plan for the instrument’s expiry on 30 April 2028. If you rely on this pathway, begin arrangements for alternative training methods or seek a new exemption well before that date.