CASA Consultation Hub

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is committed to working cooperatively with the aviation industry and community to maintain and enhance aviation safety. This hub is a place for you to find and participate in consultations that interest you.

COVID-19

We have suspended all face-to-face engagement activities in line with nation-wide efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19.

To ensure our more important and longer-term initiatives remain on track, we will still be conducting online consultation and encourage your participation. 

Your feedback is important and if you have any specific circumstances or challenges in participating during the current environment, please contact us using the details listed in each consultation.

Recently updated consultations are displayed below. Alternatively, search for consultations by keyword and interests.

 

Open Consultations

Closed Consultations

We Asked, You Said, We Did

Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes

We Asked

Between 12 and 27 November 2019 aerodrome operators, consultants and internal CASA personnel were invited to review and provide feedback on the suitability of guidance material developed to assist aerodrome operators transitioning to the new Part 139 regulations and manual of standards (MOS), specifically:

  • applying for aerodrome certification
  • application of aerodrome standards.

The consultation has closed, a summary of feedback is provided below.

About this consultation

After extensive industry consultation and a recommendation provided by the Technical Working Group in support of making the new Part 139 regulations and MOS, the Part 139 MOS was made on 5 September 2019. Comments provided by two of the six respondents on the increased runway strip width provisions for Code three runways was therefore considered outside the scope of this consultation.

While CASA acknowledges there will be a different, or a 'lesser' standard in runway strip width and separation distances for existing aerodromes applying the grandfathering provision, to the standards for new facility developments, the changes align with ICAO Annex 14 and provide a safety enhancement.

Some comments regarded the content as too technical or written from a legal perspective. An inadequate timeframe for considering and preparing a review and comments were also raised.

You Said

Respondents

A total of six submissions were received, three from aerodrome operators and three from aerodrome consultants. Five consented to their comments being made public, one requested their submission remain confidential.

Summary of feedback

In addition to the responses discussed above, clarification was sought on the following:

  • Application for certification:
    • cost(s) for existing aerodromes in transitioning
    • submission of an incomplete aerodrome manual at time of certification where elements are not yet known.
  • Transition timeframes:
    • time limitations on grandfathering aerodrome facilities yet to be constructed were reported as contrary to that previously stated by CASA
    • acceptance of applications within three months of the new rules commencing.
  • 'Grandfathering' existing aerodrome facilities:
    • the age of the aerodrome and the aerodrome operator not being aware of the standard to which the facility was constructed
    • existing registered aerodromes not required to have manuals, and therefore no records of grandfathered facilities or any commissioning documentation etc. is available
    • administrative oversight should not preclude the ability for a facility to be grandfathered.
  • Definitions:
    • 'grandfathered facility' to include reference to the OLS
    • 'OLS' to be made clear that not each surface is applicable to each runway type
    • 'air transport passenger movement numbers' requires clarification as the department does not publish charter operations. Aircraft and passenger movement rates are required to be known by the aerodrome operator as these influence ATI requirements.
  • Whether a TIFP includes a circling approach, likewise potential implication on instrument runway classification.
  • The ability to apply new visual aids standards, clarification requested on whether this extended to aerodrome lighting.
  • Application of the ARC.
  • RV/RVR:
    • minima are determined by obstacle clearances not RVR
    • instrument approach procedures are determined by procedure designer
    • aerodrome operator only facilitates low visibility operations.

We Did

Comments provided by industry have been considered for both ACs and incorporated, where appropriate.

Since this consultation, CASA has refined the transition policy and industry were invited to review the proposed policy under the 'Proposed Part 139 (aerodromes) transition strategy - (PP 1916AS)' consultation. As there were no issues identified outside those provided in the transitional policy consultation please refer to the Summary of Consultation (AS 14/24) as published on the CASA website.

Additionally, following both consultations on these ACs and the transition policy, industry requested a 12-month deferment of the commencement of the new MOS. As this could prejudice aerodrome operators in the process of developing aerodrome facilities in accordance with the new regulations and MOS, this wasn't considered appropriate. However, industry was provided with an additional three months for the transition timeframes. The transition policy and three month deferment of transition timeframes were incorporated in the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 139 Aerodromes-Transitional provisions and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2020 (the transitional Regulations) and the Part 139 (Aerodromes) Manual of Standards 2019 (the transitional MOS). AC 139.A-03 v1.0 has been amended to incorporate the transitional Regulations and MOS.

A grandfathered facility is an existing aerodrome facility—and for a runway, its associated obstacle limitation surfaces—that fully complies with the aerodrome standards that were in force immediately before the commencement of the MOS. This applies if the aerodrome manual documents how the facility does not comply with the MOS. The administration is now less onerous, and while there is presently no requirement for existing registered aerodromes to maintain an aerodrome manual, they are currently required to maintain a record of each facility that does not comply (refer MOS para 12.1.1.2A). Likewise, there is nothing that precludes the requirement to maintain lighting commissioning documentation.

Post consultation, Manual of Standards (MOS) – Part 139 Aerodromes Amendment Instrument 2020 (No. 1) came into effect on 26 March 2020, authorising early access to all provisions in Chapter 8 and the use of inset runway edge lights in Chapter 9. AC 139.A-03 v1.0 has been updated to reflect the availability of the new MOS provisions.

In relation to AC 139.B-01 v1.0 on 'Applying for aerodrome certification', the current rules require the submission of an aerodrome manual concurrently with an application for certification. This requirement has not changed. CASA cannot make an adequate assessment for aerodrome certification on receipt of an incomplete aerodrome manual. There are no costs incurred by existing certified and registered aerodrome operators transitioning to the new rules. They will be deemed to hold a 'transitional aerodrome certificate' under the transitional Regulations and a new aerodrome certificate will be provided, at no cost, when the revised or new aerodrome manual is submitted to CASA and assessed as compliant with the new MOS.

Responsibilities associated with reduced visibility operations were made clearer and clarification was provided that an aerodrome with a circling approach is considered to have a terminal instrument flight procedure (TIFP). While a TIFP dictates whether an aerodrome is certified or not, a TIFP in itself does not dictate whether the runway is an instrument runway or not.

CASA will monitor the effectiveness of the new Part 139 of CASR and MOS Part 139 with a view for further revision if required based on industry feedback and safety outcomes. A post-implementation review is planned for after 13 November 2022 which is the end of the transition period.

We Asked

In May 2019, we asked people to answer some questions regarding an airspace change proposal (ACP) to trial the lowering of Class E airspace to 5,500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) over Ayers Rock Aerodrome. Notification of the consultation process included:

  • an email sent to all pilots at the start of the consultation period and a reminder email was sent prior to the consultation period closing (approx. 40,000 pilots)
  • CASA Briefing newsletter (May 2019) – reached approx. 7,000 subscribers
  • being promoted via a link on the CASA home page (www.casa.gov.au) during the consultation period
  • an email to advise all RAPAC members (641 individuals and organisations) that consultation had opened, and the proposal was placed on the agenda at RAPAC meetings held during the consultation period
  • being promoted via CASA’s social media channels.

Consultation through CASA’s website was open for 30 days and was also available to all members of the public. Respondents included aircraft operators and airspace users, air traffic controllers and other interested persons. The process sought responses to questions which related to the background of the respondent, the nature of their operations, the impact of the change on them and their opinions on cost and safety impacts of the change.

You Said

A total of 27 respondents provided feedback to this proposal through CASA’s Consultation Hub. One written submission was received by email and not via the Consultation Hub.

Of the responses received 10 supported the proposal; 11 did not support the proposal, six were supportive but with changes (in design or altitude); one did not answer.

We Did

Feedback from the consultation hub was considered and assessed as part of the ACP process.

The proposal was submitted in response to the Minister for Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) - Statement of Expectations 2018-2019, which stated that ‘Airservices will work with DIRD, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Defence to provide options for enhancing the level of safety and efficiency of Australian controlled airspace including at major regional airports’. Non towered locations such as Ayers Rock have surveillance capability to the ground. An enhanced level of service along with segregated departure and arrival tracks could be provided to IFR aircraft, commensurate with the level of electronic surveillance.

In response to public comments, the final airspace design was reduced to lessen the impact on visual flight rules pilots and still be beneficial to instrument flight rules aircraft. The trial of Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock Aerodrome will commence on 20 May 2020.

We Asked

In May 2019, we asked people to answer some questions regarding an airspace change proposal (ACP) lower Class E airspace to Flight Level (FL) 125 where the current base is FL180. Notification of the consultation process included:

  • an email sent to all pilots at the start of the consultation period and a reminder email was sent prior to the consultation period closing (approx. 40,000 pilots)
  • CASA Briefing newsletter (May 2019) – reached approx. 7,000 subscribers
  • being promoted via a link on the CASA home page (www.casa.gov.au) during the consultation period
  • an email to advise all RAPAC members (641 individuals and organisations) that consultation had opened, and the proposal was placed on the agenda at RAPAC meetings held during the consultation period
  • being promoted via CASA’s social media channels.

Consultation through CASA’s website was open for 30 days and was also available to all members of the public. Respondents included aircraft operators and airspace users, air traffic controllers and other interested persons. The process sought responses to questions which related to the background of the respondent, the nature of their operations, the impact of the change on them and their opinions on cost and safety impacts of the change.

You Said

A total of 77 respondents provided feedback to this proposal through the Consultation Hub. The majority of the responses received were airspace users (41), followed by other (17) with six air traffic controllers responding. One additional written submission was received by email and not via the Consultation Hub. Overall, 39 supported the change; 29 did not support the proposal and nine were supportive but with changes.

Two respondents provided a written response in addition to their submission through the Consultation Hub. One additional written submission was received by email and not via the Consultation Hub.

We Did

Feedback from the consultation hub was considered and assessed as part of the ACP process.

An improvement in surveillance capability due to the installation of Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers nation-wide will provide benefits to airspace users. To realise these benefits, Airservices proposed to lower the base of Class E airspace over low density continental areas to F125 where it is currently FL180.

The lowering of Class E airspace to FL125 will commence on 20 May 2020.