CASA EX77/24 –Transitional Training and Checking Requirements for Crew Members in Part 133 Operations – Exemption Instrument 2024

The instrument operates through a set of defined concepts that determine eligibility and the scope of relief. Read the definitions in section 3 and the exemptions regime in section 5 together with Table 1 to see how those concepts interlock.

Critical date. The instrument defines "critical date" in section 5(1) by reference to a date notified to the relevant operator by CASA for purposes of section 39 of CASA EX73/24. The instrument notes the default critical date, as at 2 December 2024, is 28 February 2025 unless CASA varies it (s5(1) Note 2). The critical date is the temporal pivot: a qualifying previous event must have occurred before the critical date, and the relevant flight must occur on or after the critical date for the exemption to apply (s5(2)(a)-(c)).

Relevant flight and relevant operator. The instrument uses the defined term "relevant flight" to mean a rotorcraft flight to which Part 133 of CASR applies; the instrument’s note points to regulation 133.005 which provides that Part 133 applies to the operation of a rotorcraft for an Australian air transport operation (section 3 definitions). The "relevant operator" is the operator of such a relevant flight (section 3).

Previous event and qualifying activities. The Table specifies what constitutes a qualifying "previous event" for each exemption category. Examples include: successful completion, for the operator and the rotorcraft, of the emergency procedures proficiency test in Appendix IV of CAO 20.11 (Table 1, items 1, 5, 9, 13); successful completion of a flight review valid immediately before the critical date for conversion training on VFR flights (item 3); successful completion of an instrument proficiency check for IFR conversion (item 3); and the conduct of at least one unsupervised flight or air/medical transport operation within a specified past period (multiple items, often required to have occurred after 28 February 2024 but before the critical date). The instrument ties present exemptions to concrete prior acts rather than to subjective assessments.

Scope of exemptions. Column 5 of Table 1 lists the specific provisions from which exemption is granted. These are typically provisions of the Part 133 Manual of Standards (MOS) , for example paragraph 133.370(2)(g) for the purposes of paragraphs 12.03(a), (b), (c) and 12.08 of the Part 133 MOS; paragraph 133.425(1)(b) for the purposes of section 13.02; paragraph 133.455(1)(b) and paragraph 133.470(1)(b); and subregulation 133.375(1), subregulation 133.395(1) and (2), and subregulation 133.430(1), to the extent indicated. Section 5(2)(e) clarifies that the operator is exempted "to the extent that the provision applies to the operator; or imposes on the operator an obligation to ensure that the crew member complies". This means the exemption can remove an operator’s obligation to prevent a flight commencing when a crew member has not met the specified requirement.

Expiry mechanics. Column 6 of Table 1 sets the expiry dates and, often, the method to calculate them. There are different templates: (a) "no expiry date" for some training categories; (b) fixed expiry dates such as 28 February 2026 or 28 February 2026 for many checks; (c) staged expiry dates tied to the date the prior event occurred (see Table 1 item 3, which staggers expiry for flight review completions across several date bands); and (d) special longer periods for proficiency in life raft or underwater escape skills that run up to three years after the prior test or a hard stop at 1 December 2027. The instrument itself is repealed at the end of 1 December 2027 (section 2), which caps the outer legal life of any exemption this instrument might create.

Relationship to CAO 20.11, Part 61 and Part 133 MOS. The instrument references CAO 20.11 emergency procedures proficiency tests (section 3). It uses Part 61 flight review and instrument proficiency check validity as the qualifying prior events for some conversion training exemptions (Table 1, item 3). The relief given is from specific elements of the Part 133 MOS and CASR subregulations cited in Table 1. The instrument therefore forms a bridge between compliance under the older CAO and the new Part 133 MOS/CASR requirements by recognising prior CAO‑era activity as satisfying or temporarily supplanting some Part 133 obligations.

Conditionality and exclusions. The instrument applies only where the conjunctive conditions in s5(2) are met. The instrument also expressly does not apply to a relevant operator who voluntarily opted not to take the benefit of CASA EX87/21 or its successor CASA EX73/24 (s5(1) Note 3). The critical date notification to the operator under CASA EX73/24 determines individual operator eligibility timing, which introduces an administrative dependence on CASA’s notifications.

In sum, the main concepts are: a specified administrative date (critical date) which divides qualifying prior events from new obligations; a map of qualifying prior events to temporary relief from specified MOS and CASR provisions; operator‑specific notification and exclusion mechanics; and a set of staggered expiry rules that limit how long the temporary relief lasts.

The instrument identifies two categories of affected entities: crew members of relevant flights and operators of those flights. The class of flight in focus is rotorcraft operations to which Part 133 applies, that is, Australian air transport operations by rotorcraft per regulation 133.005 (section 3 notes). The instrument’s Table 1 then carves the affected crew into named designations and into persons "with duties analogous to" those designations.

Crew members. The Table repeatedly lists these current designations: flight crew member, air crew member, cabin crew member, and medical transport specialist (Table 1, Column 2). For several entries it extends coverage to "a crew member, with duties analogous to those of" the listed designation (see Table 1 items 5-7, 9-12, 13-16). The "previous designation" column (Column 3) can be either the same designation or, in some cases, a prior designation under CAO 20.11 for which a person had an obligation to undertake and pass an emergency procedures proficiency test under subsection 12 of CAO 20.11. Thus crews who previously complied under CAO 20.11 can trigger the exemption in certain categories (Table 1, items 1, 5, 9, 13 and related entries).

Operators. The instrument applies to "each operator of a relevant flight" (section 4(b)). For an operator to rely on an exemption for a crew member, the conditions in s5(2) must be met; the operator is exempted to the extent the provision either applies to the operator or imposes a duty to ensure crew compliance (s5(2)(e)). Where an operator has voluntarily opted out of earlier CASA transitional instruments , specifically CASA EX87/21 or its successor CASA EX73/24 , the instrument expressly has no application to that relevant operator (s5(1) Note 3). The instrument therefore produces a two‑tier universe: operators who took the benefit of the earlier instrument(s) and remain within the notification regime, and operators who opted out and are ineligible for these transitional exemptions.

Operational activity thresholds. Several items require an unsupervised flight or an unsupervised air/medical transport operation within a defined period to qualify (commonly after 28 February 2024 but before the critical date). Examples include flight crew members who were not required under subsection 12 of CAO 20.11 to undertake the emergency procedures proficiency test but who conducted at least one unsupervised non‑scheduled air transport or medical transport operation after 28 February 2024 but before the critical date (Table 1, item 2). Other items require successful completion of flight reviews or instrument proficiency checks valid immediately before the critical date (Table 1, item 3). In short, the instrument affects only those crew who meet the historical activity threshold defined in the relevant Table item.

Temporal cut‑offs and staff movement. Because many exemptions hinge on earlier tests or operations that were valid "immediately before the critical date", staff movement between operators, staff who changed designation, or staff who last performed an eligible act outside the windows identified may not qualify. The instrument includes examples where a previous designation under CAO 20.11 qualifies a crew member now holding the same or an analogous designation under Part 133 MOS (Table 1 columns 2-3). Operators must therefore apply the instrument on a person‑by‑person basis rather than treating entire staff cohorts as automatically eligible.

Geographic and operational scope. The instrument only applies to rotorcraft air transport operations covered by Part 133. It does not purport to alter obligations applicable to other parts of CASR, other aircraft categories, or non‑air transport rotorcraft operations. The instrument also interacts with Part 61 defined items like flight review and instrument proficiency check validity, so crew whose prior activity was under Part 61 are included where the Table specifies it (Table 1, item 3).

In practical terms, the primary groups affected are: (a) rotorcraft operators who accepted the earlier CASA transitional instruments and have crew whose prior CAO 20.11 tests, flight reviews or unsupervised operations fall within the instrument’s windows; and (b) the named crew categories who, by reason of prior tests or flights, may be permitted to operate without immediately meeting certain Part 133 MOS training or checking provisions for a limited time.

This instrument alters duties and creates a time‑limited legal right to operate without meeting particular Part 133 MOS and CASR subregulation requirements. The duties and rights are conditional, statutory and discrete.

Rights created by the instrument. Where the conditions in section 5(2) are satisfied, the crew member is "exempted from compliance with each provision mentioned in column 5 of the item" (s5(2)(d)). Concurrently, the operator is exempted "from compliance with the same provision to the extent that the provision: (i) applies to the operator; or (ii) imposes on the operator an obligation to ensure" the crew member’s compliance or to prevent the flight commencing in the absence of compliance (s5(2)(e)). Practically, the instrument permits certain crew to undertake relevant flights without completing new Part 133 MOS training or checks otherwise required, and permits operators to allow those flights to occur without breaching the cited Part 133 or CASR provisions during the exemption period.

Duties that remain. The instrument does not assert that it displaces all regulatory duties. It exempts only specific provisions listed in Table 1 column 5 for the duration and to the extent stated by the instrument. Other CASR obligations, the rest of Part 133, and other safety duties (including obligations in an operator’s Exposition, SMS obligations where applicable, and general duties under CASR) remain in force. The instrument does not specify that operators are relieved from recordkeeping, safety management or reporting obligations that are separate from the particular MOS paragraphs listed.

Operator obligations in practice. Although the instrument exempts operators from some obligations to ensure crew compliance, operators retain an administrative duty to determine whether a particular crew member in fact satisfies the instrument’s qualifying conditions. Section 5(2) makes the exemption conditional on discrete factual predicates: a prior qualifying event, the timing of that event relative to the critical date, and the occurrence of the relevant flight on or after the critical date and before the listed expiry. Therefore operators will need to verify, document and rely upon evidence that the crew member holds the qualifying prior event and that any unsupervised flights or operations occurred in the specified windows. The instrument itself does not specify administrative recordkeeping requirements, but the exemption’s conditional nature effectively imposes a duty on operators to maintain evidence necessary to demonstrate entitlement to the exemption if challenged in oversight or enforcement activity.

Temporal limitations affecting duties and rights. The rights created are time‑limited. Column 6 in Table 1 contains different expiry rules: some training exemptions have "no expiry date" while many checking exemptions expire on fixed dates such as 28 February 2026, or on dates linked to the date the prior event occurred (for example, the staggered banding in Table 1 item 3). Where an operator relies on a "no expiry date" training exemption, that relief continues until the instrument is repealed on 1 December 2027 unless another triggering event ends the exemption earlier; where the Table prescribes an earlier expiry date the operator must ensure conversion to full Part 133 compliance by that date.

Interaction with choice and rostering. Rights under the instrument may affect operator rostering and crew movement decisions. For instance, where the exemption applies to a crew member who conducted one unsupervised air transport flight after 28 February 2024 but before the critical date, the crew member can continue to operate in specified roles without completing certain conversion checks until the relevant expiry. That may influence whether operators choose to roster those crew for particular duties or schedule training earlier to avoid later cliff effects.

Burden of proof for reliance. The instrument’s application is fact‑sensitive; it is not an automatic, fleet‑wide waiver. The operator who wishes to rely on it will have to be in a position to demonstrate the elements of s5(2): the timing and nature of the prior event, the status of the crew member relative to the designation columns, and that the relevant flight took place in the required time window. In short, the instrument replaces a substantive compliance obligation for particular items with a conditional factual verification and recordkeeping burden.

Delegation and discretion. The instrument was made by a CASA delegate (instrument header). It also depends on a CASA notice of critical date under CASA EX73/24. Those facts embed some administrative discretion and reliance on CASA’s notifications to operators about timing. That discretion affects the duties of operators because their eligibility depends on whether they received and acted on CASA’s critical date notification.

In summary, the key duties that remain are operator verification and evidentiary duties; rights created are temporary dispensation from specific Part 133 MOS and CASR subregulation obligations for properly qualified crew and operators; and both sets of obligations are time‑bounded by the expiry rules in Table 1 and by the statutory repeal date of 1 December 2027 (section 2).

This instrument is an exemption instrument and does not itself create new offences or penalty regimes. It was made under regulation 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR by a CASA delegate (instrument header). The primary legal consequence is that, where the instrument applies, non‑compliance with the listed Part 133 MOS or CASR subregulation provisions in Table 1 is legally excused for the crew member and, to the limited extent stated, for the operator. That is the functional enforcement effect: the instrument changes the legal status of certain actions from non‑compliance to compliance by operation of a valid exemption.

Enforcement by CASA under CASR. CASA retains regulatory enforcement powers under the CASR framework for matters outside the exemptions or if the conditions for exemption are not met. If an operator permits a crew member to undertake a relevant flight without satisfying the instrument’s conditions, CASA could treat that as non‑compliance with the underlying Part 133 provisions. The instrument does not change CASA’s ability to take enforcement action for contraventions of CASR or to act where operators fail to maintain safety management, reporting, or other non‑exempt obligations.

Extent of the operator exemption. Section 5(2)(e) narrows the operator exemption: it applies only to the extent a provision either applies to the operator or imposes on the operator an obligation to ensure a crew member’s compliance. That formulation suggests that obligations of a different character which remain outside these categories may continue to be enforceable against the operator even where the crew member is exempted from the technical MOS element. Operators should therefore be careful about treating the exemption as a blanket immunity for all training‑related obligations.

Recordkeeping and evidentiary risk. The instrument does not specify administrative recordkeeping obligations, but reliance on the exemption requires establishing the factual predicates in s5(2). If an operator cannot produce documentary or verifiable evidence that the crew member completed the qualifying previous event, or that an unsupervised flight occurred in the specified window, CASA enforcement or audit could find no valid exemption. That would expose the operator and crew member to potential enforcement action for non‑compliance with the underlying provision. In other words, the instrument substitutes an evidential burden for a subset of the original training obligation.

Temporal limits and post‑expiry enforcement. The instrument’s exemptions have expiry rules in Table 1, and the entire instrument is repealed on 1 December 2027 (section 2). If an operator relies on an exemption and continues to operate beyond an item’s expiry date without completing the Part 133 MOS or CASR requirement, that operation would then be non‑compliant and subject to enforcement action. The instrument’s limited lifespan creates a deterministic enforcement cliff if operators do not transition crew to full compliance before the relevant expiry dates.

Interaction with other instruments. The instrument depends on a "critical date" notified under CASA EX73/24 (s5(1)). If an operator opted out of CASA EX87/21 or CASA EX73/24, this instrument does not apply to them (s5(1) Note 3), and normal enforcement of Part 133 MOS and CASR training/checking obligations applies without transitional relief. That exclusion is an enforcement trap for operators who mistakenly assume relief applies.

No specified penalty provisions in the instrument. The instrument itself does not specify fines, suspensions or other penalties. Enforcement consequences are therefore those embedded in the CASR and Part 133 MOS regime that remain applicable outside the exemptions. Operators and crew should treat the instrument as an enabling legal shield only where its conditions are demonstrably met.

This instrument is a subordinate instrument within the CASR regulatory architecture, and it explicitly cross‑references other instruments and regulatory instruments. The principal interactions are with CAO 20.11, Part 61 of CASR, the Part 133 MOS, the CASR Dictionary, and previous CASA exemption instruments (CASA EX87/21 and CASA EX73/24).

CAO 20.11. The instrument repeatedly uses an "emergency procedures proficiency test" as defined in Appendix IV of CAO 20.11 (section 3). Several items in Table 1 (for example items 1, 5, 9, 13) treat successful completion of that CAO 20.11 test, valid immediately before the critical date, as the qualifying previous event that permits exemption from Part 133 MOS provisions. Operationally this means activities completed under the CAO regime prior to transition are being recognised as equivalent, for a limited time, to new Part 133 training/check obligations.

Part 61 flight review and instrument proficiency checks. Item 3 in Table 1 uses completion of a flight review valid for the rotorcraft under Part 61 of CASR (for VFR conversion training) and completion of an instrument proficiency check under Part 61 (for IFR conversion) as the qualifying previous event. Thus the instrument treats relevant Part 61 competencies as satisfying part of the initial conversion checks required under Part 133 for a limited period.

Part 133 MOS and CASR subregulations. The instrument grants exemptions from specific MOS paragraphs and CASR subregulations identified in Table 1 column 5 (examples include paragraph 133.370(2)(g) for various paragraph purposes in Part 133 MOS paragraph 12.03 and section 12.08; paragraph 133.425(1)(b); paragraph 133.455(1)(b); paragraph 133.470(1)(b); subregulation 133.375(1); subregulation 133.395(1)-(2); and subregulation 133.430(1)). The underlying Part 133 MOS remains in force; the instrument does not amend the MOS but creates a domestic legal exemption from complying with specified parts of it when the prescribed factual predicates are met.

CASA EX87/21 and CASA EX73/24. The instrument explicitly references CASA EX73/24 in relation to the "critical date" (section 5(1)) and excludes operators who voluntarily opted out of either CASA EX87/21 or CASA EX73/24 (section 5(1) Note 3). That creates an operational dependency: eligibility for these exemptions presupposes participation in the earlier transitional instruments. The legal effect is that operators who declined earlier transitional relief or choose not to participate under CASA EX73/24 are not beneficiaries of the relief in this instrument.

CASR Dictionary and regulation 133.005. The instrument uses definitions from the CASR Dictionary (section 3 notes), including the definition of "Part 133 Manual of Standards". It also refers by note to regulation 133.005 (section 3 note) which situates Part 133 as applying to Australian air transport operations by rotorcraft. This confirms the instrument’s geographic and regulatory scope as confined to rotorcraft air transport under the Part 133 architecture.

Subordinate instrument relationship. The instrument was made under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR, so it exists as subordinate law within the CASR framework. It does not (and cannot) override primary legislation. Where it creates exemptions the effect is to alter compliance obligations created by subordinate instruments or the MOS only to the extent permitted by the empowering regulations.

No modification of primary safety duties. The instrument does not purport to change statutory safety duties that are independent of the specified MOS paragraphs; it is limited to exemptions from named MOS paragraphs and subregulations. Operators should therefore not treat the instrument as altering other legal duties under the Civil Aviation Act or the general duties in CASR that are not explicitly mentioned.

In short, the instrument is a narrowly tailored, time‑limited interface between historic compliance under CAO 20.11 and new obligations under Part 133 MOS/CASR and dependent on participation in earlier CASA transitional instruments. It recognises specific prior acts under CAO and Part 61 as temporarily substituting for some Part 133 MOS elements, while leaving the rest of the legal framework intact.

The instrument itself records its creation date and operative period but contains no recorded prior amendments. Relevant points from the instrument text are these:

• Making and signature: The instrument is made by Steven James Campbell, Executive Manager, National Operations & Standards, as a CASA delegate, and is dated 19 November 2024 (instrument header).

• Commencement and repeal: It commences on 2 December 2024 and is repealed at the end of 1 December 2027 (section 2). The repeal date provides a statutory limit to the instrument’s operative life.

• Critical date: The instrument defines "critical date" by reference to CASA EX73/24 and notes that "as of 2 December 2024, the critical date is 28 February 2025, unless varied by CASA" (s5(1) Note 2). That sentence effectively records the initial operational assumption but contemplates a potential CASA variation subsequently.

• Cross‑references to earlier instruments: The instrument preserves a link to earlier transitional instruments. It expressly states that it has no application to a relevant operator who voluntarily opted not to take the benefit of CASA EX87/21 or its successor, CASA EX73/24 (s5(1) Note 3). Those references indicate the instrument is an element in a sequence of transitional measures and that its availability is partly dependent on prior operator choices.

• Table 1 staging: The Table itself contains staggered expiry rules keyed to the date on which prior events occurred. For example, Table 1 item 3 sets different expiry bands depending on whether the prior successful completion of a flight review occurred before 28 May 2024, between 29 May 2024 and 28 August 2024, between 29 August 2024 and 28 November 2024, or between 29 November 2024 and 28 February 2025. Those bands provide a form of internal staging and were enacted as part of this instrument.

No subsequent amendments, revocations or superseding instruments are recorded within the text provided. If CASA issues variations to the critical date, or if other instruments are promulgated that affect operators’ eligibility (for example by changing the relation to CASA EX73/24), those changes would constitute later amendments or complementary instruments external to this instrument’s text. The instrument does not itself contain a mechanism for amendment other than the standard regulatory process under CASR.

Because the instrument is expressly time‑limited and linked to prior transition instruments, its practical amendment history is likely to be short: CASA may vary the critical date notification on a per‑operator basis under CASA EX73/24, and that variation affects operational eligibility. The instrument’s internal expiry mechanisms and statutory repeal date make it a temporary transitional device rather than a standing change to Part 133 MOS.

The instrument’s text contains no references to litigation, legal determinations, or judicial interpretations. It names no cases, and there is no record in the instrument of any court or tribunal challenge to its terms. The instrument is an administrative exemption made under CASR regulations; any litigation history would arise only if CASA or an operator were subject to legal challenge about the instrument’s validity, scope, or the correct interpretation of its conditions.

Given the absence of cases or disputes in the instrument text, there is nothing to report in the way of statutory interpretation cases, judicial construction of its clauses, or appellate authority addressing its operation. Practitioners should therefore rely on the instrument’s plain text and on established CASR enforcement approaches until and if judicial decisions are handed down that construe specific phrases or test CASA’s exercise of delegated authority in issuing such exemptions.

If operators or practitioners anticipate compliance disputes (for example where CASA questions entitlement to an exemption or where an operator’s record of prior events is incomplete), judicial review or administrative appeals could be invoked under the normal CASR administrative law pathways. The instrument does not itself create a bespoke dispute mechanism. For the time being, however, the instrument stands as an administrative instrument without reported litigation in the materials provided.

This instrument contains multiple granular and timing‑sensitive rules that produce practical pitfalls for operators, crew and advisers. The following are concrete points to watch, each grounded in the instrument’s text.

1. Critical date dependence. Eligibility turns on the "critical date" notified under CASA EX73/24 (s5(1)). As at 2 December 2024 the critical date is 28 February 2025 (s5(1) Note 2), but CASA can vary that date. Operators must not assume a uniform national date applies to them without confirming CASA’s notification that applies to their organisation under CASA EX73/24. Relying on the instrument without confirming the operator‑specific critical date can void any claimed exemption.

2. Opt‑out exclusion. The instrument does not apply to a relevant operator who voluntarily opted not to take the benefit of CASA EX87/21 or its successor CASA EX73/24 (s5(1) Note 3). Operators who previously declined transitional relief must not assume they can later rely on this instrument.

3. Conditions are conjunctive. Section 5(2) requires all three conditions to be met: the Part 133 requirement must apply on or after the critical date; a qualifying previous event must have occurred before the critical date; and the relevant flight must occur on or after the critical date but before the expiry date. The exemption does not apply if any link in that chain is missing.

4. "Previous event" must be valid immediately before the critical date. For many items (for example those invoking CAO 20.11’s emergency procedures proficiency test) the Table requires successful completion that was "valid immediately before the critical date" (Table 1 columns 3-4 for items such as 1, 5, 9, 13). If a certificate or test had already expired before the critical date the entitlement may not arise.

5. Unsurpervised flight timing windows. Multiple Table items require the conduct of at least one unsupervised flight or operation after 28 February 2024 but before the critical date. That narrow window may exclude crew who performed unsupervised flights outside those dates. Operators must be able to document the date, nature and supervision status of the flight.

6. Mixed expiry rules and staggering. Expiry dates vary between items and sometimes depend on when the qualifying prior event occurred. Item 3 for conversion training is a complex example: for day VFR FCM proficiency checks the expiry depends on exact date bands of when the flight review occurred (Table 1 item 3, Column 6 subparagraphs (1)-(4)). Operators must avoid treating expiry dates as uniform and must track per‑crew expiry.

7. "No expiry date" traps. Several items list "no expiry date" for the operator’s conversion training or line training (Table 1 Column 6). That might be read as open‑ended relief; however the instrument itself is repealed on 1 December 2027 (section 2), and other parts of the MOS or CASR remain in force. Operators should interpret "no expiry date" in the table as "no separate expiry set in this instrument", not necessarily indefinite legal immunity.

8. Life raft and underwater escape special rules. For many emergency check of competency items, proficiency for use of life rafts or underwater escape has a different expiry calculus: the earlier of the expiry of the prior test, three years after the date of a competency assessment where that assessment happened after 28 February 2023, or 1 December 2027 (Table 1 items 1, 5, 9, 13; Column 6). These multiple potential triggers create complexity in scheduling.

9. Operator exemption is limited. The operator exemption applies "to the extent that the provision applies to the operator; or imposes on the operator an obligation to ensure" crew compliance (s5(2)(e)). Not every practical or managerial obligation associated with training transfer is therefore removed. Operators still need to confirm that a specific provision they would breach is one listed in column 5 and that it falls within the s5(2)(e) formulation.

10. Documentation is implicit, not explicit. The instrument does not prescribe how evidence of prior events is to be recorded; nevertheless, because the exemption is fact‑based, operators should not assume absence of explicit recordkeeping rules means absence of evidential requirements. CASA’s oversight will require documentary support. Lack of documentary proof is a common enforcement risk.

11. Interaction with other parts of CASR. The instrument exempts specific MOS paragraphs and CASR subregulations only. Other CASR rules and safety obligations continue to apply. Operators who treat the exemption as a comprehensive waiver of training obligations risk non‑compliance in relation to obligations outside the listed provisions.

12. Repeal date cliff. The instrument is repealed on 1 December 2027 (s2). Where a Table item purports to create a long running exemption that would otherwise extend past that repeal, the operator must be aware the instrument’s repeal terminates the legal exemption.

13. Ambiguity over "analogous duties". Several Table items extend benefits to "a crew member, with duties analogous to those of" listed roles. The instrument does not define "analogous", so operators and CASA will need to apply a functional test at the time of reliance. That opens potential for disagreement over classification.

14. Multiple instruments and overlapping relief. The instrument sits in a suite of CASA transitional measures. Operators must be certain which instruments they have accepted and which notifications apply. Misunderstanding the relationship among CASA EX87/21, CASA EX73/24 and this instrument is a common operational pitfall.

Practitioners should therefore adopt a conservative approach: confirm operator participation in earlier instruments, verify the operator‑specific critical date, assemble documentary proof of qualifying previous events and unsupervised flights, track per‑crew expiry dates from the Table, and schedule training to close any gaps before the statutory repeal or item expiry.

The instrument creates eligibility conditions that are evidence‑based and time‑sensitive. Compliance in practice requires a structured, auditable approach. The following is a stepwise compliance checklist grounded in the instrument’s requirements.

1. Confirm operator eligibility under CASA EX73/24. Before relying on any exemption, confirm whether the operator accepted the benefit of CASA EX87/21 or CASA EX73/24. If the operator voluntarily opted out of those earlier instruments, this instrument does not apply (s5(1) Note 3). Also confirm the operator’s "critical date" as notified by CASA under CASA EX73/24 for the operator (s5(1)).

2. Map crew to Table 1 entries. For each crew member intended to be relied upon, identify their current designation (Column 2) and any prior designation listed in Column 3. Where the Table uses the phrase "with duties analogous to", document the basis on which the crew member’s duties are classified as analogous to the listed role.

3. Establish the qualifying previous event and its validity. For each crew member, obtain documentary proof of the qualifying prior event specified in the relevant Table item (for example, a certificate for the emergency procedures proficiency test under Appendix IV of CAO 20.11; a Part 61 flight review; an instrument proficiency check; or records of unsupervised flights or air/medical transport operations). Where the Table requires the prior event to have been "valid immediately before the critical date", confirm the prior event’s expiry date and the critical date to ensure the predicate is met (Table 1 columns 3-4; s5(2)(b)).

4. Verify flight timing for the relevant flight. Confirm that the relevant flight occurred on or after the critical date and before the expiry date specified in the Table item (s5(2)(c)). For the benefit to apply to a future flight, ensure scheduling keeps the operation within the exemption window.

5. Maintain auditable records. Although the instrument does not specify recordkeeping requirements, maintain a file for each crew member that includes: the qualifying prior event certificate or record; dates of unsupervised flights or operations; documentation of any flight reviews or instrument proficiency checks; the operator’s critical date notification from CASA; and internal statements of reliance on the instrument with cross‑references to the relevant Table item and subsection. This is the practical decider in any CASA audit.

6. Track expiry dates and plan training. Use the expiry rules in Column 6 to calculate the deadline for transitioning crew to full Part 133 MOS/CASR compliance. Some items have "no expiry date" for training but limited expiry dates for competency checks; others have staged expiry bands tied to the date the prior event occurred (Table 1 item 3 has distinct bands). Build a schedule to complete outstanding conversion training or proficiency checks before the expiry dates or before the instrument’s overall repeal on 1 December 2027 (s2).

7. Note life raft and underwater escape special timings. For emergency check of competency items that involve life raft or underwater escape competence, calculate the applicable expiry as the earliest of the prior test’s expiry, three years after a competency assessment completed after 28 February 2023, or 1 December 2027 (Table 1 Column 6 in relevant entries). Do not rely on a single generic expiry rule for these skills.

8. Update the operator’s Exposition, SMS and training matrices. Reflect any transitional exemptions relied upon in the operator’s Exposition and training records. Where the operator is relieved of an obligation to ensure a crew member’s compliance under a specific MOS paragraph, document the legal basis and retention of evidentiary proof. Ensure the SMS risk assessment accounts for the temporary nature of the exemption and timetable for re‑inserting full training obligations.

9. Confirm the legal extent of operator exemption. Section 5(2)(e) limits operator exemption to provisions that apply to the operator or impose an obligation to ensure crew compliance. Before assuming immunity from all training obligations, verify that the provision relied upon is among those listed in the Table and that it falls within s5(2)(e) scope.

10. Prepare for audits and enforcement queries. Ensure paperwork is collated so that, in the event CASA queries reliance on the exemption, the operator can demonstrate the qualifying prior event, the timing relative to the critical date, and that the relevant flight occurred in the permitted window. Failure to demonstrate the predicates exposes an operator to potential enforcement for non‑compliance with the underlying Part 133 provisions.

11. Seek CASA clarification where uncertain. Where the "analogous duties" phrase or other classification questions arise, engage CASA or legal counsel promptly. The instrument leaves functional room for dispute about what counts as "analogous", or whether a specific operation is a "non‑scheduled air transport operation" or a "medical transport operation", terms that the CASR Dictionary defines. Early clarification reduces downstream enforcement risk.

12. Plan for workforce transition. Use the transitional relief as a bridge, not an end state. Where exemptions avoid immediate training costs, implement a programme to bring crew fully into Part 133 MOS compliance before the expiry dates or before the instrument’s repeal date, to avoid cliff‑edge training pressures.

13. Document internal governance decisions. Board minutes or senior management approvals that record reliance on the instrument, the schedule to meet expiry dates, and the governance of training decisions will be useful evidence of deliberate compliance planning in audits or enforcement scenarios.

14. Coordinate rostering and contractual arrangements. Where crew are engaged under multiple operators or move between roles, ensure contracts and rostering practices permit the operator to rely on the prior events specified. If a crew moves operators, that may affect whether the prior event is treated as "for the operator and the rotorcraft", language used in several Table items.

Following these steps aligns an operator’s practices with the instrument’s conditions and reduces the risk that CASA will find reliance unjustified. The instrument’s fact‑sensitive and time‑bounded nature makes administrative diligence the primary compliance tool.