CASA EX51/24 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations Beyond Visual Line of Sight Exemption 2024

The instrument is built around a small set of discrete legal concepts and operational constructs that determine eligibility and the permitted operational model. The main concepts and their legal mechanics are these.

• Exempted flight. Defined as any flight of an RPA that is operated beyond visual line of sight of the person operating the RPA at any time during the flight (s 3). The term frames the scope of the instrument: it is not about all RPA flights, it is targeted at flights that go beyond visual line of sight.

• Remote pilot. Defined to include the holder of a remote pilot licence and persons taken to hold a licence under subregulation 202.461(3) of CASR (s 3). The instrument therefore ties eligibility to a person’s regulatory status under existing licensing provisions; it does not create new licensing categories.

• RPA operator. Defined by reference to a person certificated as an RPA operator under regulation 101.335 of CASR (s 3). The instrument therefore operates in the institutional frame of certified operators.

• Supervising remote pilot. Defined as a remote pilot who meets the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) of CASR for operating an RPA beyond visual line of sight, and who is either the RPA operator of the RPA or has been appointed by the RPA operator to supervise the person operating the RPA (s 3). The definition links supervisory authority to specific qualifications and to either operator status or an appointment by the operator.

• Enclosed operation. A tightly framed definition for operations within buildings, structures or underground spaces where physical escape is impossible and where collision cannot eject material to the outside (s 3). The definition is conjunctive and sets a high threshold for exclusion from supervision requirements.

• EVLOS operation. Adopted by reference to section 5.04 of the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3). The term is incorporated by reference rather than defined in full, signalling reliance on the Manual of Standards for operational detail.

• Documented practices and procedures. Adopted by reference to subsection 1.04(2) of the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3). Compliance with these documents is made a condition of the exemptions (s 5(1)), effectively requiring operators and remote pilots to follow, and presumably maintain, the prescribed documents.

• Conditional exemption model. The instrument does not repeal or amend CASR provisions; it creates temporary statutory exemptions from specified subregulations (s 4(1)-(3)), conditional on adherence to the instrument’s requirements (s 4(4) and s 5). This makes the instrument a carve-out mechanism that operates only while its conditions are satisfied.

These concepts together produce an operational architecture: BVLOS flights can be conducted by specified remote pilots without complying with particular CASR provisions, provided the operator/pilot follows the Part 101 MOS documented practices and procedures and operates within a supervisory model that is location-anchored unless the operation meets the enclosed or EVLOS exceptions. The definitions and cross-references embed the instrument within the regulatory and standards framework rather than creating stand-alone operational rules.

The instrument affects a narrow set of persons and organisations identified in its text. Primary subjects are remote pilots, RPA operators and supervising remote pilots, with secondary effects on organisational compliance functions and personnel management.

• Remote pilots. The instrument addresses persons operating RPAs beyond visual line of sight. Remote pilots are defined as holders of a remote pilot licence or persons taken to hold a licence under subregulation 202.461(3) of CASR (s 3). Those remote pilots who operate an RPA for an exempted flight are directly affected because the instrument either grants or withholds exemptions from particular CASR requirements (s 4(1)-(3)). The conditions in section 5 impose affirmative duties on remote pilots when relying on the exemption, such as complying with documented practices and operating under immediate supervision (s 5(1)-(3)).

• RPA operators. The instrument treats the RPA operator as both a source of approvals and as an actor who may be the supervising remote pilot (s 3, s 4(3)). If an RPA operator’s personnel are to benefit from the exemption from subregulation 101.073(1), the operator must hold an approval under regulation 101.029 of CASR for its personnel to operate BVLOS (s 4(3)). The operator therefore bears the compliance cost and administrative responsibility for obtaining that approval and ensuring its personnel operate in accordance with documented practices.

• Supervising remote pilots. The instrument specifies that the supervising remote pilot must meet the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) and must either be the RPA operator or be appointed by the operator to supervise the person operating the RPA (s 3). That definition allocates decision-making power to the RPA operator to appoint supervisors and creates an operational role with location and accessibility requirements (s 5(2)).

• Personnel with delegated responsibilities. Because the instrument allows supervising remote pilots to observe multiple flights at once (the note following s 5(2)), there may be operational effects on rostering, task allocation and monitoring processes within operator organisations. The requirement that supervising remote pilots be "readily accessible" and "immediately available" will affect how operators position supervisors relative to operating crews (s 5(2)).

• Indirectly affected parties. The instrument’s definitions of enclosed operations and EVLOS operations establish alternative operational categories. If an operation qualifies as enclosed or EVLOS, the supervision and direction requirements in subsections (2) and (3) do not apply (s 5(4)). That affects operations planners who design missions to fit within those categories.

Who pays. The immediate compliance costs fall on RPA operators and remote pilots: preparing and maintaining documented practices and procedures consistent with the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 5(1)); securing approvals under reg 101.029 where personnel are to rely on the exemption (s 4(3)); establishing and supporting supervising remote pilots who meet 101.300(4) and who can be physically present and accessible (s 3, s 5(2)). These are organisational and personnel costs rather than costs imposed on third parties by the instrument itself.

Who decides. The RPA operator decides whether to obtain the reg 101.029 approval and whether to appoint supervising remote pilots; the supervising remote pilot has authority to direct the operating remote pilot during exempted flights (s 5(3)). CASA, through the instrument, decides the timeframe and conditions of the statutory exemptions (s 2, s 4-5).

The instrument creates a set of conditional entitlements to non-compliance with particular CASR provisions, and concomitant duties that must be satisfied for those entitlements to apply. It confers rights by way of exemption and imposes duties as conditions of those rights.

Entitlements (rights)

• Exemption from paragraph 101.300(4)(a) of CASR. A remote pilot who, as an RPA operator or a member of an RPA operator’s personnel, operates an RPA for an exempted flight is exempt from compliance with paragraph 101.300(4)(a) (s 4(1)). The instrument does not restate the content of that CASR paragraph; it simply removes the obligation to comply with it for eligible persons while the instrument applies and conditions are met.

• Conditional exemption from subregulation 101.073(1) of CASR. A remote pilot who is a member of an RPA operator’s personnel and operates for an exempted flight can be exempted from subregulation 101.073(1), but only if the RPA operator holds the approval under reg 101.029 permitting its personnel to operate BVLOS (s 4(2)-(3)). The effect is to make the operator’s approval a gate to the exemption for staff.

Duties (conditions attached to the exemptions)

• Compliance with documented practices and procedures. A core duty is that the remote pilot must ensure the RPA operation complies with the documented practices and procedures for operating the RPA for the exempted flight (s 5(1)). The term is given the meaning in subsection 1.04(2) of the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3), thereby tying the duty to a standards instrument.

• Supervision. Except for enclosed operations and EVLOS operations, the remote pilot must operate under the immediate supervision of a supervising remote pilot who is at the same place as the operating remote pilot, is readily accessible, and is immediately available to advise and direct (s 5(2)). The supervising remote pilot must meet the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) of CASR for operating BVLOS and be either the RPA operator or appointed by the operator (s 3). The operating remote pilot has a correlative duty to comply with the directions of the supervising remote pilot (s 5(3)).

• Exemptions limited by time. The instrument operates only between 1 September 2024 and the end of 31 August 2026 (s 2). The rights therefore lapse automatically at the instrument’s expiration.

Interplay of duties and rights

• Conditional nature. The rights only exist while the duties are met. The instrument states that the exemptions are subject to the conditions in section 5 (s 4(4)). That means the entitlement to non-compliance with the identified CASR provisions is contingent: if the conditions are not met, the exemption does not apply and the underlying CASR obligations remain in force.

• Delegation and appointment. The supervising remote pilot may be the RPA operator or a person appointed by the operator (s 3). The operator thus has the right to decide who fulfils supervisory duties, and that appointment must be coupled with a supervising pilot who satisfies subregulation 101.300(4).

• Exceptions to duties. The instrument narrows the supervision and direction duties by excluding enclosed operations and EVLOS operations from subsections (2) and (3) (s 5(4)). When an operation meets those definitions, the supervision and direction duties do not apply, although the duty to comply with documented practices and procedures remains (s 5(1)).

Practical corollaries

• Evidence of compliance. Because compliance with documented practices and supervisor direction determines whether the exemption applies, operators and pilots will need to be able to demonstrate that they complied with those conditions for any given flight. The instrument itself does not specify record-keeping requirements, but the legal status of the exemption is contingent on adherence to those duties (s 4(4), s 5(1)-(3)).

• Organisational responsibility. The RPA operator is positioned as the entity that must obtain certain approvals (s 4(3)) and that appoints supervising remote pilots (s 3). That allocates primary organisational duties to operators while individual operational duties are placed on remote pilots carrying out exempted flights.

The instrument is an exemption instrument; it does not itself create penalty provisions, nor does it specify enforcement mechanisms within its text. Its operative effect is to remove specific compliance obligations under CASR for eligible persons while the instrument is in force and its conditions are met (s 4(1)-(4)). The following points flow directly from the instrument’s design.

• No new penalties in the instrument text. The instrument does not introduce any standalone penalties, infringement notices, or sanctioning processes. It operates by modifying the legal obligations created in CASR for the persons and activities it covers.

• Conditional availability and legal consequence of non-compliance. Because the exemptions are expressly conditional, failing to meet the conditions in section 5 means the exemptions do not apply (s 4(4)). The immediate legal consequence is that the person cannot lawfully rely on the exemption and remains required to comply with the otherwise-applicable CASR provisions referenced in section 4. If they do not, they may be non-compliant with CASR obligations.

• Enforcement through the base regime. Although the instrument does not specify enforcement, its exemptions are framed as modifications to compliance obligations under CASR. Enforcement of CASR obligations, when the exemption does not apply or when obligations other than those exempted are breached, would therefore proceed under the enforcement mechanisms and penalties that apply elsewhere in CASR and the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The instrument itself does not alter those mechanisms; it only alters the set of obligations during the instrument’s operative period.

• Burden of proof and operational evidence. Operationally, if an enforcement body or court were to consider whether a person was permitted to operate without complying with the referenced CASR provisions on a particular flight, the availability of the exemption will turn on whether the instrument’s conditions were satisfied at that time. The instrument makes adherence to documented practices and supervision the identifying conditions (s 5(1)-(3)). That creates an evidentiary dimension: records showing documented procedures, approvals under regulation 101.029 (where applicable), and evidence of supervision (for example, appointment records or presence at the required place) will be material to establishing that the exemption applied.

• Temporal enforcement implications. Because the instrument has a fixed term (s 2), enforcement questions will also be time-bound. Conduct occurring after 31 August 2026 will not be covered by this exemption; once the instrument is repealed, the conditional exemption ceases to exist.

In short, the instrument itself does not set out penalties or a new enforcement pathway. It adjusts the set of obligations under CASR for a limited period and leaves enforcement of the remaining and reimposed obligations to the CASR and Civil Aviation Act framework that governs aviation safety compliance.

The instrument is explicitly interwoven with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and with the Part 101 Manual of Standards. Its operative function is to create exemptions to particular CASR subregulations while relying on and incorporating provisions of CASR and the Manual of Standards. The instrument does not purport to amend CASR text; it sits alongside CASR as an exemption instrument.

Key cross-references and interactions

• Basis for the instrument. The instrument is made under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR, which are cited at the head of the instrument as the legal power for the delegate to make the exemption (instrument preamble). The instrument therefore depends on the statutory authority under CASR to grant exemptions by instrument.

• Exempted CASR provisions. The instrument provides exemptions from paragraph 101.300(4)(a) and, conditionally, subregulation 101.073(1) of CASR (s 4(1)-(3)). It does not alter other CASR provisions. Parties relying on the exemption must still comply with any other applicable CASR requirements not expressly exempted.

• Approvals under CASR. The instrument conditions the personnel exemption on the RPA operator holding an approval under regulation 101.029 of CASR for operator’s personnel to operate BVLOS (s 4(3)). This creates a dependent relationship between the operator-level approval regime in CASR and the instrument. The operator-level approval therefore remains a precondition for personnel to benefit from the exemption.

• Supervising remote pilot qualification. The instrument defines supervising remote pilot by reference to the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) of CASR for operating an RPA beyond visual line of sight (s 3). This links supervisory status to standards in CASR rather than creating a new qualification regime within the instrument.

• Part 101 Manual of Standards. The instrument imports definitions for "documented practices and procedures" and for EVLOS operation from the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3). By doing so it requires compliance with operational standards set out in the Manual of Standards as a condition of the exemption (s 5(1)). The instrument’s operational rules are therefore substantively implemented through the combination of the exemption instrument and the Manual of Standards.

Consequences of these interactions

• No standalone rulebook. The instrument is not self-contained; it must be read alongside CASR and the Part 101 Manual of Standards. Operational detail (for example, what constitutes documented practices and procedures or EVLOS) is provided in the Manual and in CASR provisions the instrument references.

• Gatekeeper approvals. Because the operator-level approval under reg 101.029 is a precondition for personnel exemptions, operators must navigate the CASR approval regime to make use of the instrument for staff. The instrument thus leverages regulatory approvals under CASR to limit who may rely on the instrument.

• Temporal overlay. For the instrument’s duration (s 2), the exemptions modify the applicable legal obligations. After expiry, CASR obligations revert to their unmodified state as the instrument is repealed. Any compliance planning must therefore account for the instrument’s sunset date.

• Enforcement continuity. The instrument does not displace CASR enforcement or alter the acts that constitute offences under CASR and the Civil Aviation Act. It merely alters the relevant compliance boundary for specific provisions for a fixed period and on stated conditions.

In summary, the instrument functions as a temporary, conditional overlay on the existing CASR and Manual of Standards framework, relying on those instruments for definitional content, qualification criteria and approvals, and not creating an independent regulatory regime.

The instrument contains explicit dates and a single operative timeframe but does not contain any internal amendments or prior versions within its text. The instrument records the maker, date of signing and the commencement and expiry dates.

• Maker and signature. The instrument was made by Daniel Bernard O’Hagan, Manager, Legislative Drafting, Legal, International & Regulatory Affairs Division, as a delegate of CASA, and signed on 26 August 2024 (instrument header).

• Commencement and expiry. The instrument commences on 1 September 2024 and is repealed at the end of 31 August 2026 (s 2). The instrument therefore has a two-year life span.

• No internal amendments listed. The instrument does not record any prior versions, amendments, or historical modifications within its text. It stands as a discrete exemption instrument intended to operate for the stated period.

• Relationship to CASR. The instrument is made under specific CASR regulations (11.160 and 11.205) cited at the instrument’s head. It does not purport to amend CASR; it functions as an exemption instrument exercised under those CASR powers. Any future amendments to the components of CASR it references (for example, changes to reg 101.029 or to the Part 101 Manual of Standards) could affect the instrument’s practical operation, but the instrument itself does not record or effect those changes.

Practical implication of the limited amendment history

• Time-limited policy. The fixed-term nature indicates a policy choice to provide a temporary exemption rather than a permanent regulatory change. Stakeholders should plan for the end date and any administrative processes needed to transition operations either to full CASR compliance or to any successor instrument.

• No transitional or grandfathering clauses. The instrument does not include transitional arrangements beyond its dates. It does not, within its text, provide for automatic renewals or extensions. Renewal or replacement would require a further instrument or amendment made under the relevant CASR powers.

• Single instrument status. As drafted, this instrument should be treated as a standalone temporary exemption that interacts with other, ongoing regulatory instruments rather than as an amendment to those instruments.

The text of the instrument contains no references to litigation, court decisions, adjudicative findings, or previous judicial consideration. It lists no cases, disputes, or adjudicative history. Consequently, within the four corners of the instrument the following observations apply.

• No cases cited. The instrument itself does not name any decisions or litigation history. It is an administrative exemption instrument and does not include or summarise any adjudicative outcomes.

• Potential for disputes. Although the instrument does not provide litigation history, the nature of the instrument means that disputes could, in future, arise over whether the conditions for exemption were met for particular flights. Key factual questions likely to generate contest would include whether documented practices and procedures were complied with for a given flight, whether a supervising remote pilot was physically present and readily accessible as required, whether an operation qualifies as an enclosed operation under the instrument’s definition, and whether an RPA operator held the required approval under reg 101.029 when relying on the personnel exemption. The instrument itself makes those elements the determinative conditions (s 5(1)-(4); s 4(3)).

• Evidentiary considerations. Any future litigation or administrative review concerning reliance on the instrument’s exemptions would likely turn on documentary and factual evidence that shows compliance with the prescribed conditions: documented practices and procedures, operator approvals, appointment letters for supervising pilots, and contemporaneous evidence of supervision or presence at the required place during a flight.

• No precedential content. Because the instrument does not reference prior adjudication, it does not seek to rely on or to establish judicial interpretations. The instrumental text therefore leaves the legal interpretation of its conditions to be developed if and when adjudicative bodies are asked to consider disputes.

In sum, the instrument contains no litigation history. It sets out conditional entitlements where future enforcement or dispute resolution would be expected to rely on factual and documentary proof of compliance with those conditions; these are the areas where litigation might later emerge, but any such litigation would be external to the instrument and must be sourced from adjudicative records, not from the instrument text.

The instrument’s operational and legal architecture contains a number of precise features that are straightforward in text but can produce practical pitfalls if not managed deliberately. The following are source-grounded, specific points to watch for.

• Exemption conditionality. The exemptions are not automatic. They are expressly conditioned on the requirements in section 5 (s 4(4)). If an operator or remote pilot assumes the exemption applies without meeting those conditions, they are still bound by the underlying CASR provisions referenced in section 4. That is a binary legal consequence: conditions met, exemption applies; conditions not met, exemption does not apply.

• Narrow definitions with high thresholds. The instrument’s definition of "enclosed operation" requires that it be physically impossible for the RPA to escape and that any collision cannot result in material escaping to the outside and causing injury (s 3). That conjunctive standard is strict and will exclude many indoor or semi-enclosed scenarios where escape or ejection of material is possible. Treating an operation as an enclosed operation to avoid supervision requirements therefore requires careful factual assessment against the instrument’s exact wording.

• Supervision location requirement. The supervising remote pilot must be "at the place where the remote pilot is located" and "readily accessible" and "immediately available" to advise and direct (s 5(2)). This is a concrete, proximate requirement. Remote supervision at a remote command centre that is not co-located with the operating remote pilot may not meet the textual requirement. The instrument’s note that a supervising remote pilot may observe multiple flights does not remove the place and availability requirements for supervising a particular operating remote pilot (s 5(2) note).

• Appointment and qualification of supervising remote pilot. The supervising remote pilot must both meet the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) for BVLOS and be the operator or be appointed by the operator (s 3). That places a dual gating function on supervision: the person must have the qualifying status under CASR and be properly connected to the operator. Organisations that use contractors or third-party supervisors must ensure the appointment process is documented and the supervisor satisfies 101.300(4), otherwise supervisory status under the instrument may be in doubt.

• Operator approval prerequisite for personnel exemption. The exemption from subregulation 101.073(1) for an operator’s personnel is explicitly conditional on the RPA operator holding an approval under regulation 101.029 (s 4(2)-(3)). If an operator permits staff to operate BVLOS without this approval, the staff will not benefit from the personnel exemption and may be non-compliant with 101.073(1).

• Reliance on external documents. The instrument repeatedly imports concepts from the Part 101 Manual of Standards (documented practices and procedures, EVLOS operation) and references subregulations in CASR without restating their content (s 3). This means that compliance understanding requires consulting those other documents. Treating the instrument as a self-contained rule may produce misapplication.

• Time limitation. The instrument is temporary (s 2). If an operator or pilot plans for continued BVLOS operations beyond 31 August 2026, they must either ensure full compliance with the unexempted CASR provisions or secure a different statutory basis for exemption. Relying on the instrument without contingency planning for its expiry is a practical risk.

• Evidence burden. The instrument does not spell out record-keeping obligations, but reliance on the exemption will turn on proof that conditions were met (s 4(4), s 5). Operators and pilots who do not maintain contemporaneous records of documented procedures, approvals, and supervisory presence may be unable to establish that the exemption applied in disputes.

• Scope of exemption unspecified in detail. The instrument exempts compliance with particular CASR provisions without restating those provisions. That means users must be careful to identify precisely what obligations are being disapplied and which obligations remain. Assuming a wider exemption than the text provides is a legal risk.

These are procedural and evidentiary pitfalls that follow directly from the instrument text. Each is a potential source of non-compliance if not addressed through operational processes and clear documentation.

Compliance requires aligning operational practice and documentation with the instrument’s conditional structure. The instrument identifies what must be in place to lawfully rely on the exemptions; the following steps are practical measures grounded in the instrument text.

1. Confirm applicability on a per-flight basis

• Determine whether a planned flight is an "exempted flight" as defined: any flight operated beyond visual line of sight at any time during the flight (s 3). If not a BVLOS flight, the instrument does not apply.

2. Ensure the remote pilot status

• Verify that the person operating the RPA is a "remote pilot" as defined , either a holder of a remote pilot licence or a person taken to hold one under subregulation 202.461(3) (s 3). Keep licence records or supporting documentation showing the person’s licenced status.

3. For operator’s personnel, secure the operator-level approval

• If the pilot is a member of an RPA operator’s personnel and the intention is to rely on the exemption from subregulation 101.073(1), ensure the RPA operator holds the approval under regulation 101.029 permitting its personnel to operate BVLOS (s 4(2)-(3)). Maintain the approval document and the dates of validity.

4. Document practices and procedures

• Operate in strict accordance with "documented practices and procedures" as defined by subsection 1.04(2) of the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3, s 5(1)). Prepare, maintain and retain the relevant documented procedures that apply to the specific exempted flight. Even though the instrument does not prescribe record-keeping, retaining the documents that demonstrate compliance will be material if the availability of the exemption is questioned.

5. Appoint and qualify supervising remote pilots

• Where supervision is required (i.e. where the operation is not an enclosed operation and not an EVLOS operation), ensure the supervising remote pilot:
  • Meets the requirements of subregulation 101.300(4) of CASR for operating BVLOS (s 3).
  • Is either the RPA operator or has been formally appointed by the RPA operator to supervise the operating remote pilot (s 3).
• Keep written appointment records and evidence of the supervisor’s qualifications. Ensure that supervising remote pilots are rostered so they can be physically present at the place where the operating remote pilot is working and be readily accessible and immediately available to advise and direct (s 5(2)).

6. Verify physical presence and accessibility

• For non-enclosed, non-EVLOS operations requiring immediate supervision, establish procedures to ensure the supervising remote pilot is physically present at the required place at the time of the flight and can immediately advise and direct (s 5(2)). Where supervising multiple flights concurrently, ensure the supervising remote pilot’s capacity to be readily accessible to each operating remote pilot is maintained; the instrument’s note allows observing multiple flights but does not remove place and accessibility requirements.

7. Determine whether an operation is "enclosed" or "EVLOS"

• If the operation is intended to proceed without the supervision/location requirements, confirm it meets the instrument’s definition of an "enclosed operation" (s 3). That requires that escape is physically impossible and that no material can escape to injure someone outside. For EVLOS, consult section 5.04 of the Part 101 Manual of Standards as incorporated by reference (s 3). Keep records establishing that the operation meets the relevant definition.

8. Maintain contemporaneous evidence

• Because the instrument conditions the exemption on compliance with the documented practices and supervision requirements (s 5), retain contemporaneous logs or attestations that show:
  • Which documented practices and procedures applied.
  • That the supervising remote pilot was present and accessible.
  • Any directions given by the supervising remote pilot and the operating remote pilot’s compliance with those directions.
  • The operator’s approval under reg 101.029 where personnel are operating BVLOS.

9. Plan for the instrument’s expiry

• The exemptions lapse at the end of 31 August 2026 (s 2). Ensure a compliance pathway beyond that date, either by obtaining the necessary authorisations under CASR without relying on the exemption or monitoring for any replacement or extension instrument. Do not assume the exemption will be renewed.

10. Where in doubt, do not rely on the exemption

• Given the instrument’s precise conditions, conservative practice is to operate in full compliance with the underlying CASR provisions where there is any uncertainty about whether the instrument’s conditions are satisfied or whether the operator holds required approvals. The instrument’s text makes the exemption conditional; uncertainty about satisfying the conditions means the exemption may not be legally available.

These measures derive directly from the instrument’s text. The central compliance tasks are: (a) making and keeping the documented practices and procedures as defined in the Part 101 Manual of Standards; (b) securing and evidencing any required operator approvals; (c) appointing and qualifying supervising remote pilots; (d) ensuring the physical presence and immediate accessibility of supervisors for those flights that are not enclosed or EVLOS; and (e) keeping contemporaneous evidence that the conditions were satisfied for any flight for which the exemption is relied upon.