Grizzly's interpretation is spot on in my view. Of course it really requires a court to make a definitive interpretation of the law. So we'll have to wait for an insurance claim, at which point I think it will be in the insurers' interests to make a strong case that the flight crew was illegally composed and therefore they need not pay.
The argument runs something like this:
- FAA certifies the aircraft for single pilot ops provided it is operated in accordance with the approved flight manual.
- The approved flight manual contains a MEL specifying that for single pilot ops amoung other things the aircraft must be fitted with a kit that disables all but nine seats (a bunch of placards and flags I think).
- SA-CAA issues a certificate of airworthiness that recognises the original certification and limitations.
- Thus with more than 9 pax the 1900 is a two crew minimum aircraft.
Should the operator obtain a "waiver" or "special permission" from CAA then they would need to follow the procedure outlined in the ANR 76 since the restriction is imposed by this law and not the new CARs. There would be a record at the minister's office and if I recall correctly an entry in the Government Gazette. If CAA thought for some reason that they could issue a Part 11 exemption it must be similarly recorded and is subject to disclosure usually by publication in the AIC. All records are of course obtainable under the Access to Information Act.
If CAA, or the Minister, hasn't issued a legal exemption the Commissioner can be charged with failing to comply with Part 183.
Any agreement between insurer and operator that circumvents the law is contra bones mores - morally bad - and thus not contractually binding.