Civil Aviation Order 95.14 - Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - Parasails & gyrogliders (12/12/2004)

Parasail and gyroglider definitions. The order defines a gyroglider as a non-power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft supported in flight by the reaction of the air on one or more rotors which rotate freely on substantially vertical axes. This distinguishes it from a powered gyrocopter or helicopter. A parasail is defined as a parachute tethered to a point or vehicle on the ground or to a watercraft, deriving lift chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on flexible surfaces remaining fixed under given conditions of flight. Both definitions emphasise non-powered flight (or at least, for parasail, the lift is from aerodynamic reaction on flexible surfaces, not from an engine). The key common feature is that neither aircraft is self-propelled in the conventional sense; they rely on towing or launching from a fixed point.

Conditional exemption. The core legal mechanism is a conditional exemption from specific provisions of CAR 1988 and CASR 1998. The exemption is not a blanket waiver of all aviation law; it is a carefully drawn exception that removes certain regulatory burdens for these aircraft types, but only so long as the operator complies with the conditions set out in section 4. If any condition is breached, the exemption is lost and the operator becomes subject to the full weight of the regulations from which they were exempted. This creates a strict liability regime: ignorance or inadvertence is not a defence, because the exemption is predicated on compliance.

Licence not required. Section 3A.1 authorises a person to perform duties essential to the operation of the aircraft without a flight crew licence, under paragraph 20AB(1)(b) of the Act. This is a specific statutory authorisation that overrides the licensing requirement that would otherwise apply under CASR 1998 or CAR 1988. It effectively allows any person (subject to the conditions) to operate the aircraft without having to obtain a pilot licence, medical certificate, or other credential. However, this does not mean there are no competency requirements; the operator still bears responsibility for safe operation and compliance with conditions.

Operational restrictions. The conditions in section 4.1 are the core of the safety regime. They impose spatial and temporal limits: horizontal distance from persons and buildings (100 metres during launch and otherwise), height limit (300 feet AGL), distance from licensed aerodromes (4 kilometres), and weather/time limits (VMC by day only). These are prescriptive, not performance-based. The operator must know and comply with these distances, which may require pre-flight planning, especially concerning the location of licensed aerodromes and occupied buildings.

CASA permission process. For operations outside the standard envelope, section 4.2 requires a written application to CASA at least 28 days prior, with details of the proposed operation. CASA may grant permission in writing, with conditions to minimise hazard. This introduces a discretionary element: the operator cannot simply operate outside the envelope without prior approval, and CASA can deny permission or impose additional conditions. The 28-day notice period is a significant timing constraint; it precludes spontaneous or short-notice non-standard operations.

Landowner and liability note. The note after section 4.2 explicitly states that the exemption does not confer any rights against the owner or occupier of any land on or over which operations are conducted. This is crucial: the order does not create a right of entry, overflight, or access to private property. The operator must still obtain any necessary permission from the landowner. Additionally, the note says the order does not prejudice any rights or remedies for injury or damage caused directly or indirectly by the aircraft. This preserves common law and statutory liability for negligence, trespass, nuisance, or any other cause of action.

Interaction with residual regulations. While the exemption removes many parts of CAR 1988, it specifically does not exempt regulations 140, 143, 144, 145 and 156 (these are from Part 11, which deals with air navigation and operations). Those regulations remain in force for parasails and gyrogliders. They deal with matters such as dangerous flying, dropping of objects, and other operational rules. So even within the exempted aircraft, some baseline operational prohibitions apply.

Operators of parasails and gyrogliders. The primary class affected is any person who flies or operates a parasail or gyroglider for recreational, commercial, or any other purpose. This includes individuals who own or operate such aircraft from land or water, and those who act as agents or launch crew. The order imposes duties on the person operating the aircraft (or their agent) to comply with conditions and to submit applications for non-standard operations. It also implicitly removes the need for a flight crew licence, which reduces barriers to entry for new operators. However, the operator remains responsible for safety and compliance.

Persons directly associated with the operation. The conditions refer to "any person who is not directly associated with the operation" as being protected by the 100-metre buffer. It implies that those directly associated (e.g., launch crew, spotters, the tow vehicle driver, the person controlling the tether) may be within 100 metres during the launch phase, but only if they are behind the imaginary line described in section 4.1(a)(ii). The definition of "directly associated" is not expanded in the order; it is a source of potential ambiguity. This affects how operators plan their launch sites and manage spectators.

Landowners and occupiers. The note after section 4.2 explicitly protects the rights of landowners and occupiers. They are not required to allow overflight or launch from their land, and they retain all rights and remedies under property and tort law. An operator who launches from or flies over private land without permission may be trespassing or committing a nuisance, even if fully compliant with the aviation exemption. This creates a risk for operators who assume the order gives them a right to fly.

Persons on the ground or water. The 100-metre standoff distances are designed to protect uninvolved persons from injury. That includes beachgoers, swimmers, boaters, or persons on land near launch sites. The condition also protects persons inside occupied buildings. The order thus affects the safety expectations of the general public who may be in areas where parasailing or gyrogliding occurs.

Occupants of licensed aerodromes. The 4-kilometre buffer from licensed aerodrome boundaries protects aircraft operating to and from those aerodromes. The order restricts where parasails and gyrogliders can fly near airfields, which may affect operators who wish to use or operate near such areas. The rule applies to the boundary of the licensed aerodrome, not the runway or movement area, which can be a wider zone.

CASA. The order imposes administrative functions on CASA: receiving and processing applications for permission to operate outside the standard conditions (section 4.2). CASA must assess each application, issue or deny permissions, and attach conditions. This creates a case-by-case licensing function distinct from the general exemption. It also affects CASA's enforcement priorities: if a condition is breached, the operator loses the exemption and becomes subject to enforcement action under the full regulations.

Tow vehicle or watercraft operators. For parasails, the tether may be attached to a vehicle on ground or watercraft. The operator of that vehicle or vessel must ensure the parasail operation complies with the conditions, especially the distance from persons and the height limit. This may affect how the vehicle/vessel is driven or anchored. The order does not exempt the tow vehicle from other laws (e.g., road traffic or maritime regulations), but the operator of the vehicle must coordinate with the parasail operator.

Insurance providers. The order's exemption from many regulations, including airworthiness and licensing, may affect the risk profile of these activities. Insurers may require evidence of compliance with conditions, or may exclude cover for breaches. The note about liability being unaffected means that operators remain exposed to civil claims, which may affect insurance availability and premiums.

Local government and regulatory bodies. The order does not override local laws or planning regulations. Operators may need approvals from local councils or waterway authorities for launch sites, especially from beaches or public parks. The 4-kilometre aerodrome buffer may also interact with zoning or land-use restrictions.

Duty to comply with conditions. The primary duty is on the person operating the parasail or gyroglider to comply with the conditions in section 4.1. This is not an optional safety recommendation; it is the price of the exemption. The conditions are prescriptive and strict: distance from persons and buildings (100 metres), height (300 feet above ground level), distance from licensed aerodromes (4 kilometres), and weather/time (VMC by day). There is no general safety escape clause or discretion to deviate if safe. The operator must know and fulfil each condition on every flight.

Right to operate without a licence. Section 3A.1 confers a right: a person is authorised to perform duties essential to the operation of the aircraft without holding a flight crew licence. This removes the usual licensing requirement under Part 61 of CASR 1998 and Part 7 of CAR 1988. The right is conditional on compliance with all conditions in section 4. It is not an unconditional right; if conditions are breached, the licence exemption also vanishes.

Right to apply for permission for non-standard operations. Section 4.2 gives the operator (or their agent) a right to apply to CASA in writing for permission to operate outside the standard conditions. CASA may grant permission with conditions. This is a procedural right; there is no guaranteed outcome. The operator must allow at least 28 days notice. The right is valuable for operators who need to fly closer to people or buildings, at greater heights, or near aerodromes.

No right against landowners. The note expressly states that the exemption does not confer any rights against the owner or occupier of land. This is a negative right: the operator cannot claim any entitlement to launch from or fly over private property simply because they comply with the aviation order. The operator must secure any necessary landowner permission separately. The note also says the order does not prejudice any rights or remedies for injury or damage. So the operator has no immunity from civil liability arising from the operation.

No right against other aircraft operators. The exemption does not create any priority or right of way over other aircraft. The conditions require a 4-kilometre buffer from licensed aerodromes, which protects other aviation. But outside that buffer, the general rules of the air (the remaining Part 11 regulations) still apply. The operator has a duty to avoid collisions and to give way to other aircraft as required by regulation 140 and others.

Duty to provide information to CASA. The operator seeking permission under section 4.2 must submit a written application specifying the details of the proposed operation. This imposes a duty to provide accurate and sufficient information for CASA to assess the risk. The application must be submitted at least 28 days before the proposed flight. Failure to comply means the operator cannot lawfully conduct non-standard operations.

Right to rely on the exemption. Persons who comply with the conditions have the right to operate without the burden of the exempted regulations. They do not need to register the aircraft, hold an airworthiness certificate, follow maintenance schedules in those parts, or hold a pilot licence. This reduces compliance costs and paperwork significantly, making these activities feasible for hobbyists and small commercial operators.

No right to operate at night or in instrument meteorological conditions. The condition "otherwise than in V.M.C. by day" explicitly prohibits night operations and operation in weather below VMC minima. This is a negative right: the operator cannot rely on the exemption for such operations. If they want to fly at night, they would need CASA permission under section 4.2, and it is uncertain whether CASA would grant it given the inherent risks.

No right to fly within 4 kilometres of a licensed aerodrome. This is an absolute prohibition under the standard conditions. There is no "if safe" exception. The operator must know the locations of all licensed aerodromes (many, but not all, are published) and plan flights to remain outside the buffer. This may significantly limit available flying sites, especially near populated areas or coastal regions near airports.

Duty to ensure no harm to persons or property. The note preserves rights and remedies for injury or damage caused directly or indirectly by the aircraft. This is not a statutory duty of care, but it reinforces that common law duties apply. The operator may be liable for negligence even if fully compliant with the order. The exemption does not shield the operator from civil lawsuits.

CAO 95.14 itself does not create penalties; it is an exemption instrument. Enforcement is indirect: if the conditions in section 4 are not complied with, the exemption is lost. The operator then becomes subject to the full force of the regulations from which they were exempted, including the penalty provisions of CAR 1988 and CASR 1998. Those regulations contain significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment for serious breaches.

For example, operating an unregistered aircraft (contrary to Part 3 CAR 1988) or without a valid airworthiness certificate (Part 4) are strict liability offences under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and its regulations. The maximum penalties for a breach of a regulation can be up to 50 penalty units (currently $13,750) and/or imprisonment for up to two years for some indictable offences under the Act. If the operation is also without the required flight crew licence (Part 61 CASR 1998), that adds another layer of offences. The operator can be liable for multiple breaches if they were non-compliant with conditions.

Additionally, the residual regulations that are not exempted (regulations 140, 143, 144, 145, 156) continue to apply. Breach of those regulations carries its own penalties. Regulation 140 (dangerous flying) for example is a serious offence if the operation endangers persons or property.

CASA can also take administrative enforcement action: issue directions, suspend or revoke any permission granted under section 4.2, or impose enforceable voluntary undertakings. While the operator does not hold a licence (because they are exempt), CASA could still issue a direction under the Act to prohibit operations if the operator poses a safety risk.

For non-standard operations conducted without the required CASA permission, the operator is in breach of the condition and loses the exemption. That makes the entire operation unauthorised, and the operator is then subject to enforcement for all the non-compliance.

The note about liability for injury or damage means that private enforcement through tort law is also a possibility. Victims of negligence or trespass can seek damages, and the order does not provide any immunity. This is a significant practical penalty: a serious accident could result in substantial civil liability, potentially exceeding any regulatory fine.

Enforcement of the distance conditions (100 metres from persons) may be difficult for CASA to monitor, but complaints from the public or police may lead to investigation. The 4-kilometre aerodrome buffer is easier to enforce if the aircraft is observed near an airport. Height violations (over 300 feet) may be detected by radar or air traffic control reports.

The transitional provisions (Table A in the compilation) note that the Civil Aviation Orders apply to a "continued authorisation" as if it were the equivalent new authorisation. This maintains continuity for operators who held approvals under the pre-2014 regime, but does not change the enforcement structure.

In summary, the penalty for non-compliance with CAO 95.14 is not a fine within the order itself, but the removal of the exemption shield, exposing the operator to the underlying regulatory penalties and enforcement actions. This creates a powerful incentive to adhere strictly to the conditions, but also a significant risk for inadvertent breaches, especially concerning the ambiguous definition of "directly associated" and the exact measurement of distances.

Civil Aviation Act 1988. CAO 95.14 is made under subregulation 308(1) of CAR 1988, which itself is made under the Civil Aviation Act. Section 20AB of the Act is referenced in s 3A.1: the order provides an authorisation for the purposes of that section so that persons can perform duties without a flight crew licence. The order does not override any other provisions of the Act; it sits within the delegated legislation framework. The Act's general safety obligations (e.g., section 20A, duty to carry out operations safely) still apply. The exemption does not grant immunity from the Act's strict liability for endangering safety.

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. The order explicitly exempts from Parts 3, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 7, subregulation 83(1) (VHF), Part 11 (with exceptions), and Part 14 of CAR 1988, and Part 61 of CASR 1998. The exempted parts cover registration, airworthiness, maintenance, flight crew licensing, and many operational rules. However, the exempted regulations are not repealed; they simply do not apply if the conditions are met. If conditions are breached, those regulations spring back into effect. The residual regulations (140, 143, 144, 145, 156) remain applicable at all times. These cover rules about dangerous flying, dropping objects, and similar.

Other Civil Aviation Orders. The compilation notes that references to Civil Aviation Orders in the transitional provisions are to specific sections of the Civil Aviation Orders. CAO 95.14 is one of many orders. It interacts with other orders only if they are specifically incorporated; no cross-references appear in the text. However, if another order imposes requirements on aircraft types generally, the exemption in CAO 95.14 may override that order for parasails and gyrogliders, but only to the extent that the other order is sourced from the same regulations and is not specifically preserved. In practice, operators should not assume any other CAO is automatically exempted.

State and territory law. The note about landowner rights makes clear that the order does not override property law, trespass laws, or local government regulations. Operators must comply with all applicable state and territory laws concerning land use, beach access, waterway use, noise, and public safety. For example, parasailing from a public beach may require a permit from the local council, separate to any CASA approval. Similarly, gyrogliding over national parks may be prohibited or restricted.

Tort law and civil liability. The note preserves all rights and remedies for injury or damage caused directly or indirectly by the aircraft. This means that the common law of negligence, nuisance, and trespass applies. The exemption does not provide a defence to a civil claim. Operators should consider the risk of liability and obtain appropriate insurance.

Criminal law. Operating an aircraft in a dangerous manner could also contravene state criminal laws, such as reckless endangerment. The order does not provide immunity from prosecution under criminal statutes.

Watercraft regulations. For parasails towed by watercraft, maritime laws (e.g., from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority or state transport authorities) may impose additional requirements regarding safe navigation, distance from swimmers, and equipment on the towing vessel. The order does not address those.

International law. The order applies within Australian jurisdiction. If a parasail or gyroglider operates near international waters or borders, other rules may apply. The order does not address overflights of foreign territories.

Insurance law. The order's exemption from airworthiness and licensing may be considered by insurers when assessing risk. Some policies may require compliance with all aviation regulations as a condition of cover, which would be problematic if the operator relies solely on the conditional exemption. Operators should check their insurance policies to ensure cover is not voided by reliance on an exemption.

CAO 95.14 has a sparse but significant amendment history. The current version was substituted by Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R68) 2004, notified in the Gazette on 23 December 2004 (F2005B00901). This repealed the previous section 95.14 and replaced it with the text in Schedule 1. That substitution likely reflected changes to the underlying regulations (e.g., the introduction of CASR 1998) and a desire to update the exemption for parasails and gyrogliders.

The only subsequent amendment traced in the Table of Orders is Civil Aviation Order (Flight Crew Licensing) Repeal and Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 1), registered on FRLI on 29 August 2014 (F2014L01177), which commenced on 1 September 2014. This instrument amended the heading of CAO 95.14 (the heading was repealed and substituted) and substituted subsection 3 (the exemption provision). The amendment was part of a broader restructure of flight crew licensing, moving from the old system under CAR 1988 to the new system under CASR 1998. The Table of Amendments shows that subsection 3 was repealed and substituted, and the heading was also replaced. The transitional provisions in sections 3 and 31 of that instrument define terms like "continued authorisation" and "new authorisation" and provide that the Civil Aviation Orders apply to a continued authorisation as if it were the equivalent new authorisation. This was to avoid disruption for operators who held approvals under the previous licensing framework.

The amendment history is minimal but important. The 2014 change reflects a shift from a licensing regime under CAR 1988 to one under CASR 1998, and the need to update the exemption to ensure it refers to the correct licensing provision (Part 61 of CASR 1998). Before 2004, the CAO would have been in a different form, potentially exempting from older parts of CAR 1988 that may have been restructured. Without access to the pre-2004 version, we cannot assess the extent of the change, but the substitution suggests a comprehensive rewrite.

This compilation was prepared on 3 February 2015, so it reflects the law as at that date. There have been no further amendments noted in the table. However, later changes to the Civil Aviation Orders framework (e.g., the ongoing rewrite of CASR) may affect CAO 95.14 indirectly. Users should check the current Federal Register of Legislation for any later amendments or revocations. The order is still in force as of the knowledge cut-off.

The source text contains no references to any litigation involving CAO 95.14. The order itself is a legislative instrument, not a decision of a court. There are no cases named or cited in the text. Therefore, we cannot report any specific court decisions interpreting its provisions.

However, it is possible that cases have addressed the scope of the exemption or the meaning of terms like "directly associated" or "occupied building", but such cases would not be noted in this instrument. Without a specific citation, we cannot assume any litigation exists. The absence of litigation history in the source is notable: it may indicate that the order has operated without major dispute, but it could also mean that disputes are resolved informally or through CASA enforcement rather than court proceedings.

The note about preserving rights and remedies suggests that civil cases could arise from accidents or injuries, but those would be brought under tort law, not under the order itself. The order would be relevant to whether the operator had a legal right to be flying, but the cause of action would be separate. There may have been personal injury claims involving parasails or gyrogliders where the court considered compliance with CAO 95.14 as evidence of reasonable care or as a statutory standard. But we cannot assert that such cases exist.

Similarly, CASA may have issued administrative enforcement decisions under the Act that rely on breach of conditions in CAO 95.14, but those would be internal determinations, not litigation.

In summary, on the material provided, there is no litigation history to report. The order has not been challenged in court (within the knowledge of the source) and has not been the subject of judicial interpretation. This should be treated as a neutral fact: the order may be clear enough to avoid litigation, or the small number of operators may limit the likelihood of disputes reaching court. Practitioners should be aware that the meaning of key terms such as "directly associated" and "imaginary horizontal line" has not been tested in court, introducing some legal uncertainty.

Ambiguous definition of "directly associated". The conditions in section 4.1 refer to persons "directly associated with the operation of the parasail or gyroglider". The order does not define this phrase. Does it include the tow vehicle driver, a spotter, a launch assistant, a camera operator filming the flight? The vagueness creates risk. If an operator assumes a friend holding a GoPro is directly associated, but later CASA determines otherwise, the operator may have breached the 100-metre condition and lost the exemption. The prudent approach is to treat only essential crew as directly associated, and to keep all others at least 100 metres away.

The imaginary horizontal line during launch. Subparagraph 4.1(a)(ii) requires that during the launching phase, the operator keep the aircraft at least 100 metres from any person who is not behind an imaginary horizontal line that is at right angles with the initial direction of flight and touches the rearmost part of the aircraft immediately before launch starts. This is geometrically precise but practically difficult to implement. The operator must determine the initial direction of flight, the rearmost part of the parasail or gyroglider before launch, and then ensure all non-associated persons are behind that line. Any error in calculation or change in wind direction could lead to non-compliance. This condition is a trap for the unwary.

"Occupied building" not defined. The condition in 4.1(b)(ii) requires 100 metres from an occupied building. What constitutes an occupied building? A house with someone inside? A storage shed? A toilet block at a beach? There is no guidance. The operator may not know whether a building is occupied at the time of flight. The safest interpretation is to treat any building that could be occupied at any time as "occupied", and err on the side of 100 metres. But that may severely limit available launch sites.

No allowance for gusts or towing line length. The height limit is "300 feet above ground level". For a parasail towed behind a boat, the tether length may be longer than 300 feet. If the tow line is 500 feet, the parasail will exceed 300 feet even in normal flight. Operators must ensure the tether length is such that the maximum altitude does not exceed 300 feet. This may require limiting line length or flying at a lower angle. The condition does not allow for the natural variation due to gusts.

4 kilometres from a licensed aerodrome boundary. This is a substantial buffer. Many coastal areas popular for parasailing may be within 4 kilometres of a licensed aerodrome (e.g., near a regional airport). Operators must check aerodrome boundaries, which may not be well known. The definition of "boundary" is not clear: is it the perimeter fence, the runway strip, or the whole aerodrome property? The order says "the boundary of a licensed aerodrome". CASA would likely interpret it as the legal boundary of the aerodrome land. Operators should obtain a map of licensed aerodromes and measure the distance precisely.

V.M.C. by day only. This prohibits all night operations and operations in instrument meteorological conditions (cloud, fog, reduced visibility). Even twilight may be questionable. The operator must ensure flights are conducted only in daylight and with visibility sufficient for visual flight. This severely limits the operational window, especially in winter.

No exemption from regulations 140, 143, 144, 145, 156. These regulations remain in force. They cover dangerous flying, dropping articles, and other operational rules. For example, regulation 140 prohibits operating an aircraft in a manner that creates a hazard to another aircraft or to persons or property. This is a broad prohibition. Even if the operator complies with CAO 95.14 conditions, they could still breach regulation 140 if, for example, they fly over a crowded beach at low altitude. The operator must also comply with those residual regulations.

The 28-day notice period for non-standard operations. Section 4.2 requires a written application to CASA at least 28 days prior to the proposed flight(s). This is a long lead time. It prevents spontaneous deviations from the standard conditions. If the operator wants to fly near a building for a special event, they must plan well in advance. There is no urgent application process. And CASA may impose conditions that are more restrictive than the standard ones.

No rights against landowners. This is easy to overlook. An operator who launches from a beach or a farmer's field without permission risks trespass. The note is explicit but appears after the conditions. It is not a condition, but it is a fundamental limitation on the exemption's scope. The operator should obtain written permission from the landowner or waterway authority before operating.

Liability for injury or damage not limited. The note preserves all rights and remedies. The operator cannot rely on the exemption to avoid civil liability. In a negligence lawsuit, the court would consider whether the operator acted reasonably, and compliance with CAO 95.14 conditions would be relevant but not dispositive. The operator should have public liability insurance.

Potential for conflicting state laws. The order does not override local council by-laws, state regulations on beach access, or waterway authority permits. An operator may be fully compliant with CAO 95.14 but still be fined by the local council for operating from a prohibited area.

Transitional provisions. The 2014 amendment uses terms like "continued authorisation" and "new authorisation". Operators who previously held an approval under the old licensing system should ensure they understand the transitional effect. The order says the Civil Aviation Orders apply to a continued authorisation as if it were the equivalent new authorisation. This likely means old approvals remain valid, but operators should confirm.

Inadvertent breach due to movement of persons. The 100-metre distance from persons may be hard to maintain if a person walks into the zone during the flight. The condition is ongoing: "must not fly ... within a horizontal distance of 100 metres from any person who is not directly associated". If a bystander wanders under the aircraft during a flight, the operator may be in breach even though they started compliant. The operator must have a plan to abort or move away if persons approach. This places a continuous monitoring burden on the operator.

To benefit from the exemption while avoiding enforcement action, the operator must adhere strictly to the conditions in section 4. The following steps are practical guidelines, not an exhaustive legal checklist.

Pre-flight planning.

• Identify all licensed aerodromes within at least 5 kilometres of the intended operating area. Plot their boundaries and ensure the flight will remain at least 4 kilometres from those boundaries. Use CASA's aerodrome database, NOTAMs, or published charts. Consider some margin for error.
• Identify all occupied buildings within 200 metres of the intended flight path. Ensure the flight will maintain at least 100 metres horizontal distance from every occupied building. If in doubt, treat all buildings as occupied.
• Identify all persons who may be within the operating area. For the launching phase, ensure any person not directly associated is either more than 100 metres away, or is behind the imaginary line described in subparagraph 4.1(a)(ii). For all other times, ensure no non-associated person is within 100 metres.
• Select a launch site that allows for the direction of flight to be clear of persons and obstacles. Determine the initial direction of flight and the rearmost part of the aircraft before launch to correctly identify the permissible zone for non-associated persons.
• Check the weather forecast: the flight must be conducted in V.M.C. by day. Ensure no cloud, fog, or poor visibility is expected. Only fly during daylight hours.
• Check the maximum altitude achievable with the tether length (for parasails) or natural glide (for gyrogliders). Ensure the altitude will not exceed 300 feet AGL at any point. Consider using an altimeter or GPS.
• Ensure the tether line length (if used) is short enough that the aircraft cannot exceed 300 feet AGL. For example, if the tow point is at ground level, the line length must be less than 300 feet, or the angle must be limited to ensure maximum height is below the limit.
• Obtain any necessary permissions from the landowner, waterway manager, or local council for the launch site and overflight. Document these permissions in writing.
• Verify that the person operating the aircraft understands the conditions and has a plan to abort if conditions change (e.g., a person approaches, weather deteriorates).

During flight.

• Continuously monitor the position of the aircraft relative to persons, buildings, and aerodromes. If a non-associated person comes within 100 metres, take immediate corrective action (e.g., fly away, abort the flight).
• Maintain altitude at or below 300 feet AGL. Use a barometric altimeter or GPS if available.
• Ensure the flight remains within 4 kilometres of any licensed aerodrome boundary.
• Operate only during daylight and in V.M.C. Cease operations if visibility drops or cloud encroaches.
• During the launch phase, confirm that the area behind the imaginary line (as defined) is clear of non-associated persons. If not, delay launch until it is.
• Do not operate if there is any doubt about compliance. Better to cancel the flight than risk losing the exemption.

Non-standard operations.

• If the desired operation cannot meet any of the standard conditions (e.g., you need to fly within 100 metres of a building, or higher than 300 feet, or at night), submit a written application to CASA at least 28 days before the proposed flight. Include full details: location, time, altitude, distances, risk assessment, and any mitigating measures. Wait for CASA's written permission before proceeding. Comply with any additional conditions imposed.
• Keep a copy of the application and CASA's response as proof of authorisation.

Documentation and record keeping.

• Maintain a log of flights, including date, time, location, distances, altitude, weather conditions, and any deviations. This can support compliance if questioned.
• Keep copies of any landowner permissions, local council approvals, and CASA permissions for non-standard operations.
• If operating commercially, consider obtaining public liability insurance. The exemption does not limit liability.

Post-flight.

• Review the flight against the conditions. Identify any inadvertent breaches and consider whether to report them to CASA voluntarily. Prompt action may mitigate enforcement.

Training and competency.

• Although no licence is required, the operator should be competent to operate the aircraft safely and understand the conditions. Practical training or briefing is advisable.
• Ensure any crew or assistants (directly associated persons) are instructed on the conditions and their role in maintaining compliance.

Regular review.

• Check the Federal Register of Legislation for any amendments to CAO 95.14 or related instruments. The compilation reflects the law as at February 2015; later changes may have occurred.
• Monitor CASA guidance or advisory material on parasailing and gyrogliding.

By following these steps, the operator can substantially reduce the risk of breaching the conditional exemption. However, no advice can guarantee complete avoidance of liability, especially where conditions are ambiguous. The operator bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance.