Proposed implementation of ICAO's Global Reporting Format (PP 2211AS)

This consultation asked people to review and comment on a set of policy proposals relating to the implementation of ICAO's Global Reporting Format (GRF). The GRF establishes a system ensuring the consistent assessment, reporting and use of dry, wet, and contaminated runways. The consultation has now closed, and a summary of the feedback is provided below.

About this consultation
As these are new requirements recently introduced by ICAO, the proposals were aimed at a risk-based implementation of a very broad range of procedures and requirements affecting a wide number of aviation stakeholders such as airline pilots in particular, aerodrome operators servicing scheduled air transport operations and air traffic controllers. We asked for feedback on:

• the definition of contaminated runway and associated terms
• standards associated with aerodrome serviceability inspections
• how GRF standards apply to aerodrome operators
• triggers for runway surface condition inspections
• runway surface condition assessment process (including use of technical solutions)
• timely communication of Runway Condition Reports (RCRs)
• introduction of SNOWTAMs
• embedding GRF implementation in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)
• transition to implementing these standards.

In total, there were 21 respondents to the proposals. Of the respondents who made written submissions, 10 consented to having them made public and 11 requested their submissions be confidential.

The 21 respondents encompass the spectrum of the industry with pilots, aerodrome operators, air navigation service providers and consultants providing responses.

Broadly, the responses to these policy proposals have been positive.

Summary of feedback
In general terms, there was a consistent theme from some respondents promoting alignment with ICAO standards and recommended practices and others preferring an Australian-specific approach. Similarly, in feedback on implementation timeframes, we saw a strong division between urgency and delay.

Numerous respondents raised concerns with the resource implications on non-controlled, certified aerodromes. These issues covered establishment of a Unicom, additional training, equipment, personnel, and hours of service at the aerodrome. There were also issues raised about management activities.

At controlled, certified aerodromes, several concerns regarding air transport operations outside of tower hours were raised.

Next steps
The policy proposal document, and the feedback received, has been subject to industry consultation through the National Runway Safety Group (NRSG). A working group consisting of members from CASA, Airservices Australia and industry was established under the NRSG specifically to consider Australia's implementation of the GRF. This working group has been instrumental in the development of this policy.

The feedback from this consultation was presented to the NRSG GRF working group with the following amendments incorporated:

• Additional inspection requirements will be based on a concept of a runway assessment validity period rather than prescriptive inspection periods.
• Multiple policies will be amended to clarify that GRF implementation will only be required when aircraft operating at an aerodrome can use the GRF runway condition code.
• Transitional arrangements will be provided for aerodromes that wish to implement the GRF earlier than the transition timelines proposed.

Given the feedback on resource implications at non-controlled aerodromes we will review the policy for GRF implementation at these aerodromes.

These policies will now be used in the development of amendments to relevant legislation, particularly, aerodrome standards. The final amendment proposals will be subject to consultation through the NRSG GRF working group and the broader industry through the CASA Consultation Hub.