Civil Aviation Order 100.28 Instrument 2007

The central concept is the Aircraft Weight Control Authority, a form of personnel certification issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) that authorises the holder to perform aircraft weight and balance control functions, including the preparation and approval of loading data and the amendment of flight manual loading information. The instrument does not define the precise scope of activities permitted, but the syllabus in Appendix I provides the substantive content that an authority holder is expected to know. Key technical concepts in the syllabus include: datum, empty weight, operating weight, maximum take-off weight, ramp weight, maximum landing weight, zero fuel weight, centre of gravity, centre of gravity limits, mean aerodynamic chord, unusable fuel and oil, and the principle of moments. The syllabus also covers standard weights for engine fuel, oil, passengers and crew, the compilation of Aircraft Weighing Summaries and Load Data Sheets, and the use of fixed and disposable ballast. The instrument introduces the concept of a Weight Control Officer, who has specified responsibilities and privileges under the syllabus, including the preparation and approval of loading data and the procedure for amendment of flight manual loading information. Another important concept is the distinction between initial issue and renewal. Issue requires examination; renewal does not, subject to the holder providing acceptable evidence of maintained proficiency. The Director is a central figure: the Director issues the authority, may impose limitations, may determine a minimum period before re-examination, and may require additional training. The application process is form-based. Two forms are specified: Form 377 for application for issue or extension, and Form 359 for renewal. The instrument also cross-references Civil Aviation Order 100.23, which is to be read in conjunction with this Order. That cross-reference indicates that the weight control authority does not operate in isolation; it is part of a broader suite of orders governing airworthiness and operational matters. The concept of "acceptable evidence" for renewal is left undefined, which creates interpretive discretion. The examination syllabus is detailed and prescriptive, covering both theoretical principles and practical procedures such as jacking and slinging, fuel tank draining, and fire precautions. The syllabus also requires knowledge of conversion factors between Imperial, US, and SI units for length, mass, and liquid volume, reflecting the international nature of aircraft manufacturing and operations.

The primary persons affected are individuals who apply for or hold an Aircraft Weight Control Authority. These are typically engineers, technicians, or other personnel who perform weight and balance calculations, prepare loading data, and supervise aircraft weighing. The instrument imposes specific educational requirements: an applicant is taken to meet the training requirement if they have completed a tertiary qualification in a relevant engineering discipline and are eligible for Graduate Membership of Engineers Australia in the Professional Engineer occupational category. This effectively limits applicants to those with university-level engineering education, which excludes technicians or tradespeople who may have extensive practical experience but lack formal qualifications. The requirement for "adequate recent practical experience" is not quantified, giving CASA significant discretion in assessing eligibility. The instrument indirectly affects employers of these individuals, such as airlines, maintenance organisations, flight training schools, and aircraft operators who need authorised weight control officers to sign off on load sheets and weight reports. These employers bear the cost of training, examination fees, and lost productivity while employees prepare for and sit examinations. The instrument also affects CASA itself as the regulator responsible for processing applications, conducting examinations, and exercising discretionary powers. The Director of CASA is the decision-maker for several key functions: issuing authorities with limitations, determining re-examination periods, and requiring additional training. The instrument also affects organisations that provide the tertiary engineering qualifications recognised under clause 1.2, as well as Engineers Australia, whose Graduate Membership eligibility test is incorporated by reference. Smaller operators, such as regional airlines or flying schools, may face proportionally higher compliance burdens if they need to train and retain authorised personnel on staff. The two-year validity period means that holders must periodically demonstrate proficiency, which may require recurrent training or internal record-keeping. Holders who fail the examination face a minimum waiting period set by the Director and may need to obtain additional training. The instrument does not specify the cost of the examination or application, but those costs are borne by applicants. The concentration of discretion in the Director creates regulatory uncertainty for all affected parties, particularly the power to impose limitations on an authority without published criteria. Independent consultants who offer weight control services may find that limitations on their authority reduce the range of aircraft types or tasks they can undertake, affecting their ability to compete with larger organisations that can maintain multiple authorised personnel.

The instrument imposes several duties on applicants and authority holders. The applicant has a duty to submit satisfactory evidence of adequate training, adequate recent practical experience, and passing such examinations as are required or approved. This duty is not just a one-time obligation; it applies at the initial application stage and implicitly at renewal, since renewal requires evidence of maintained proficiency and familiarity with current methods. The duty to pass the examination includes achieving a minimum mark of 75 per cent, but also includes a duty to satisfactorily answer any particular questions specified in the question paper, as the Director may fail a candidate regardless of total marks if those specific questions are not answered adequately. This gives the Director an implied power to designate certain questions as critical, placing a heightened duty on candidates to prepare comprehensively. The holder has a duty to apply for renewal on the prescribed Form 359 and to produce acceptable evidence of proficiency. The right to renew without further examination is conditional on that evidence being acceptable to CASA. If the holder cannot produce such evidence, they may be required to sit the examination again. The instrument also creates rights. The applicant has a right to apply for an authority and to have that application considered on its merits. If the applicant complies with all requirements, the instrument states that "an aircraft weight control authority will be issued". This is mandatory language suggesting a right to the authority upon compliance, but it is qualified by the Director's power to impose limitations, meaning the authority may not be unrestricted. The Director has the right to determine a minimum period before a failed candidate can re-sit the examination, and the right to require additional training before re-examination. The Director also has the right to impose limitations on an authority "as he considers necessary". No criteria or appeal mechanism is specified in the instrument, though broader administrative law rights would apply under the Civil Aviation Act or the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The holder has a right to apply for extension of the authority (presumably to add additional aircraft types or functions), but the instrument does not detail the process for extension beyond the application form requirement. The holder is not explicitly given a right to be heard before the Director imposes limitations, nor a right to internal review. The instrument places the burden of proof on the applicant and holder to demonstrate compliance, rather than on CASA to prove non-compliance.

The instrument itself does not prescribe any penalties, fines, or criminal offences. Enforcement mechanisms are not stated in the text. The penalties for operating without a required authority, or for exceeding the limitations of an authority, would be found in the parent legislation, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, and the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which are not included in the source document. The instrument operates as a condition-setting mechanism; breach of those conditions would likely constitute a contravention of the regulations for which penalties apply. The examination failure regime is a form of gatekeeping rather than a penalty. A candidate who fails cannot act as an authorised weight control officer until they obtain the authority. The Director's power to impose limitations on an authority is a potential enforcement tool: limitations can restrict the scope of work the holder can perform, effectively reducing the holder's rights without a formal penalty. The Director's ability to require additional training before re-examination is another form of corrective action rather than a penalty. The instrument does not provide for suspension or revocation of an authority, but those powers likely exist in the parent regulations. The instrument does not create any offences of making false statements in applications or evidence, though such offences would exist elsewhere. The absence of penalty provisions in the instrument means that private parties (such as passengers, competitors, or insurers) cannot bring direct actions under this Order; enforcement is the province of CASA. The practical enforcement mechanism is the requirement for the authority to be held before weight control functions can be performed. This creates a gatekeeping effect: anyone performing those functions without an authority is exposed to enforcement action under the broader regulatory framework. The instrument also uses form-based controls: applications must be on specific forms (377 and 359), which standardises the information provided and facilitates enforcement by enabling CASA to check compliance with procedural requirements. The instrument does not address audit or inspection rights for CASA to verify that holders maintain proficiency between renewals. The two-year renewal cycle provides a periodic checkpoint. The discretion in clause 4.1 allows the Director to frustrate a failed applicant's attempt to re-sit promptly, which could be used strategically by the regulator to delay entry into the market, though it is unclear whether this power has been exercised in practice.

The instrument itself contains a note stating that it is to be read in conjunction with Civil Aviation Order 100.23. That Order is not provided in the source, but the reference indicates that the weight control authority regime does not stand alone. CAO 100.23 is likely the parent order dealing with weight and balance control more broadly, and this Order (100.28) specifies the personnel qualification requirements. The instrument is made under regulation 33B of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, which is the enabling provision that allows CASA to make Civil Aviation Orders. Regulation 33B itself would be subordinate to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The instrument therefore operates within a hierarchy: the Act, the Regulations, and then this Order. Other Civil Aviation Orders may impose additional requirements on the operation of aircraft, such as maintenance, loading, and operational control, which would interact with weight control functions. For example, an aircraft's Certificate of Airworthiness may require compliance with manufacturer's weight and balance data, and the Weight Control Authority holder would need to ensure that the data they produce or approve meets those requirements. The instrument's syllabus includes knowledge of Certificates of Airworthiness and Flight Manuals, indicating that the holder must understand their interaction with weight control. The instrument does not mention the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998, which have progressively replaced the Civil Aviation Regulations for many areas, but the instrument remains in force under the older regulations. The interaction with CASR may be relevant if CASR contain provisions on weight control or personnel licensing that overlap or conflict. The instrument also references Engineers Australia and its Graduate Membership category, effectively incorporating an external private body's standards into the regulatory framework. This creates a dependency on Engineers Australia's rules for eligibility. The instrument does not address state or territory laws, such as occupational health and safety laws that may apply to aircraft weighing operations. It does not interact with international standards such as ICAO Annex 6 or FAA requirements, though weight control is a global standard. The instrument's syllabus includes conversion factors for Imperial, US, and SI units, reflecting the need to work with aircraft designed under different measurement systems, which may be required by other regulatory instruments. The instrument also does not address competition law or anti-competitive effects, though the requirement for a tertiary engineering qualification may restrict competition from technicians without degrees.

The instrument was originally made on 17 December 2007 and registered on F2007L04661. It commenced on 18 December 2007, the day after registration. The instrument repealed and replaced the previous Civil Aviation Order 100.28. The only amendment shown in the table is Civil Aviation Order 100.28 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1), which was registered on 19 September 2013 (F2013L01711) and commenced on 20 September 2013. The amendment affected three provisions: subsection 1 (Requirements for issue), subsection 2 (Application for authority), and subsection 3 (Examination), each marked as "am." (amended). The nature of the amendments is not specified in the source beyond the table, but they presumably changed the text of those subsections. The current compiled version is dated 23 September 2013 and takes into account amendments up to that 2013 instrument. No further amendments are recorded in the source. The instrument does not contain any application, saving, or transitional provisions for either the original or the amending instrument. The amendment history suggests that the original 2007 version was in force for nearly six years before the 2013 changes. The 2013 amendments may have been responsive to changes in engineering qualifications, examination procedures, or application processes. For example, the current clause 1.2 requiring a tertiary qualification and Graduate Membership of Engineers Australia may have been introduced or amended in 2013, as the original 2007 version may have had different training requirements. The amendment to subsection 2 may have updated the application form number or process. The amendment to subsection 3 may have adjusted the examination syllabus or pass mark requirements. Without the prior version, the exact changes cannot be determined. The instrument is not subject to sunsetting under the Legislation Act 2003 as a legislative instrument, but it could be amended or repealed by later instruments. The 2013 amendment is the only recorded change in the source.

The source document contains no references to any litigation, court cases, tribunal decisions, or administrative review proceedings concerning this instrument or the authorities issued under it. This does not necessarily mean that no legal challenges have occurred; it only means that the instrument itself does not cite or note any such history. The instrument is an administrative order made pursuant to regulation 33B of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and is not itself a primary piece of legislation that would typically be the subject of direct litigation. However, decisions made by CASA under this instrument, such as the refusal to issue an authority, the imposition of limitations, or the failure of an examination candidate, could be subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or the common law. The instrument gives the Director broad discretionary powers without specifying review mechanisms, which increases the likelihood of disputes. The power to fail a candidate despite a 75 per cent mark for unsatisfactory answers to particular questions is a potentially contentious ground for review, as it lacks objective criteria. Similarly, the Director's power to impose limitations "as he considers necessary" without any criteria is a wide discretion that could be challenged on grounds of unreasonableness or improper purpose. The requirement for "acceptable evidence" of proficiency for renewal is another potential source of litigation if CASA rejects evidence that the holder considers adequate. Despite these potential grounds, no litigation history is provided in the source. The absence of cited cases may indicate that the instrument has operated without significant legal challenge, or that challenges have been resolved informally or at the tribunal level without reaching published decisions. The instrument is a narrow technical order applying to a small number of specialised personnel, which may limit the volume of disputes.

Several provisions in the instrument create traps for unwary applicants or holders. The most significant is the examination clause (clause 3.2): a candidate must achieve a minimum mark of 75 per cent, but even if they achieve that, the Director may fail them if they do not satisfactorily answer particular questions specified in the question paper. This means candidates cannot rely on a high aggregate score to compensate for weak areas. The Director decides which questions are critical, and those questions are not identified in advance. This creates uncertainty and may cause candidates to overprepare across all topics. The note that examination results are notified direct to the candidate by CASA means there is no formal feedback on which questions were answered unsatisfactorily, making it difficult to target study for re-examination.

Another trap: renewal under clause 7.1 is available without further examination only if the holder produces "acceptable evidence" of maintained proficiency and familiarity. The term "acceptable evidence" is not defined. CASA may reject evidence that the holder considers sufficient, forcing the holder to re-sit the examination. There is no prescribed form or list of acceptable documents. This discretion could be exercised inconsistently across different CASA officers.

The training requirement in clause 1.2 provides a safe harbour for applicants with a relevant tertiary engineering qualification and Graduate Membership of Engineers Australia, but what constitutes a "relevant engineering discipline" is not defined. This leaves the decision to CASA. An applicant with a degree in aerospace engineering might be accepted, but someone with a degree in civil or mechanical engineering may be rejected, even if they have relevant experience.

The Director's power in clause 5.2 to issue an authority "endorsed with such limitations as he considers necessary" is open-ended. Limitations could restrict the holder to specific aircraft types, weight ranges, or functions. A holder may discover that the authority they receive is narrower than expected, limiting their employment or contracting opportunities. There is no right to a hearing before limitations are imposed.

The application for extension of an authority (clause 2.1) is also on Form 377, but the instrument does not specify what evidence is required for extension. Presumably the same training, experience, and examination requirements apply, but that is not explicit.

The instrument does not address what happens if the authority expires before renewal is granted. There is no grace period. The holder would be unlicensed until a new authority is issued, which may take time if CASA requires evidence.

The syllabus includes the "Record of Alterations form", but the instrument does not specify where that form is obtained or how it should be compiled. This may lead to non-compliance by holders who are unaware of prescriptive requirements.

Finally, the instrument does not provide for mutual recognition of overseas qualifications or authorities. An experienced overseas weight control engineer may still need to sit the examination and provide evidence of Australian engineering qualifications.

Compliance with Civil Aviation Order 100.28 requires a structured approach at each stage. An aspiring holder must first ensure they meet the training requirement. The preferred path is to hold a tertiary qualification in a relevant engineering discipline and be eligible for Graduate Membership of Engineers Australia in the Professional Engineer category. Applicants who do not meet this safe harbour must submit evidence of adequate training, which is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Practical experience must be recent and adequate; applicants should document their experience in weight control duties, including the types of aircraft and tasks performed. The application must be made on Form 377, which can be obtained from CASA's website or office. The examination is the core hurdle. Candidates must study the syllabus set out in Appendix I thoroughly. The syllabus covers five areas: general documents and terms, equipment and control, weight and balance calculations, weight and balance extreme conditions, and weight control in service. Candidates should be familiar with relevant Civil Aviation Orders, Aircraft Weighing Summaries, Flight Manuals, Load Data Sheets, and loading systems. Practical skills include using plumb-bobs and levels, scales, and performing calculations for moment indices and centre of gravity. The examination pass mark is 75 per cent, but candidates must also answer any questions the Director designates as critical. It is prudent to aim for mastery across all syllabus topics, not just the aggregate percentage. After passing, the authority will be issued, potentially with limitations. Holders should review any limitations carefully and, if they are more restrictive than anticipated, seek clarification from CASA or apply for extension later. The authority is valid for two years. For renewal, the holder must submit Form 359 along with acceptable evidence of maintained proficiency. Acceptable evidence may include records of recent aircraft weighing work, logbooks, training certificates, or letters from employers confirming ongoing weight control duties. The holder should document all weight control activities during the validity period to build a strong renewal application. If the holder cannot produce acceptable evidence, they may have to re-sit the examination. It is advisable to apply for renewal well before the expiry date, as processing times may vary. Holders should also stay informed of changes to this Order and related Orders, particularly CAO 100.23, which is incorporated by reference. Any amendments to the syllabus or examination requirements must be monitored. Organisations employing weight control officers should maintain systems that track authority expiry dates and ensure holders have access to current documentation. Independent contractors should keep a file of all training, experience, and work records to facilitate renewal.