Proposed Bankstown Airport Southeast VFR Corridor

CASA, through the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), sought feedback from the aviation industry on an airspace change that proposed:  

• reclassifying a section of the Sydney Control Zone (CTR), located south and southeast of the Bankstown CTR, to create a Class G corridor from surface to 1,500 ft above mean sea level
• the introduction of 2 one-way daytime-only visual flight rules (VFR) lanes within the proposed corridor.

The proposal aimed to safely accommodate sustained growth in the Sydney region by reducing congestion and providing more equitable access to airspace. The proposed design intended to reduce airspace risks associated with the constrained nature of the Bankstown CTR while also providing better access to the Sydney training areas.  

The consultation period ran between 27 August and 22 October 2024.

Airservices Australia sought community feedback in parallel with CASA, which will be considered in our decision-making under the airspace regulations.

We sought feedback to understand industry issues, observations or positions regarding the:

• safe accommodation of air traffic in the region
• proposed introduction of the VFR lanes
• proposed airspace design and procedures.

Industry bodies and all local airspace users including flying schools, aero clubs, commercial operators, and recreational and sport aviation pilots were encouraged to respond.

A total of 100 responses were received primarily through the CASA Consultation Hub, but also via direct email.

Submissions were received from a wide variety of airspace users including aerial work operators, flight training organisations, air transport licence holders, commercial licence holders, private/recreational pilots, emergency services, air navigation service provider officers, sports aviation pilots, and some non-aviation industry stakeholders.

Eighty-eight percent of the responses received were from fixed wing operators with 12% from rotary wing operators.

Of the total responses, 8% nominated instrument flight rules (IFR) as their primary mode of operation, 47% indicated visual flight rules (VFR) only and 32% identified both IFR and VFR. Thirteen percent of respondents elected not to answer.

Most responses received were from recreational and private pilots. Air transport pilots and commercial pilots represented around a third of the total submissions. This included those who described their primary role as both air transport and commercial or chief pilot.

Safety managers, air navigation service provider staff and student pilots also provided comments. Specific submissions were also received from several industry organisations including Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA), the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and the aerodrome operator Aeria Management Group.

Summary of feedback

Typical responses recognised that the proposed corridor would enhance safety by reducing congestion and providing improved access to the flying training areas. However, 3 common concerns were raised by most respondents:

• the low-level nature of the corridor
• the risk of mid-air collision
• likelihood of controlled airspace and restricted airspace incursions.

Low-level nature of the corridor

Respondents considered the upper limit of the proposed corridor was constrained by the higher terrain to the south, potentially limiting forward visibility and reducing the time available to manage an inflight emergency or upset.

Risk of mid-air collision

Feedback indicated that the narrow width of the proposed corridor may affect the ability to safely transit in a 2-way configuration.

While many respondents acknowledged the inherent constraints posed by the adjacent restricted areas and the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) control zone, concerns were raised about the risk of collision with opposite tracking aircraft operating along the proposed inbound and outbound lanes simultaneously.

This is particularly the case for less experienced pilots, creating a significant risk of air proximity incidents.

Marginal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) were also cited as a potential contributing factor, as was the perceived complexity of the arrival procedure during a high workload phase of flight.

The less likely ‘nose-to-tail end’ collision risk posed by aircraft ‘catching up to’ or overtaking slower aircraft due to varying performance characteristics was also recognised.

Airspace incursions

The proximity of the proposed inbound and outbound lanes to adjacent restricted areas and the Sydney KSA control zone featured in almost all responses. The high likelihood of incursions into either or both was consistently highlighted as a concern.  

Many considered the narrow dimensions set an unrealistic expectation that VFR aircraft could navigate accurately enough in the available airspace. Using GPS navigation tools, which are typically seen as a risk mitigation measure, was also considered risky because it requires a head down rather than a heads-up posture. This issue was particularly highlighted in responses from some flying training organisations. Many passenger transport pilots that typically operate into Sydney KSA also highlighted concerns about controlled airspace incursions during passenger transport operations.

Other comments

The following concerns and comments also featured.

• Suggestion to establish separate altitude requirements for helicopter operations to address the performance differences between fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
• The impact on passenger transport aircraft arriving and departing on the 07/25 RWY at KSA was raised. This includes the proximity of large aircraft operations above general aviation aircraft as well as concerns about wake turbulence.
• Some respondents raised the perceived complexity of the arrival into the Bankstown Control Zone, particularly the circuit joining procedure. There are concerns about the traffic convergence that could result when arrivals from the 2RN approach point merge with those returning from the proposed corridor.
• Radio congestion was raised as a potential unintended consequence.
• Some respondents favoured the retention of controlled airspace, potentially in its current state, preferring arrangements be established to facilitate regular and reliable access through that airspace volume and receiving an air traffic service.
• An initial trial period was suggested.
• Several noise related responses were received. The responses also raised concerns over a potential ground risk posed by aircraft as the corridor stretches along a populated area.

For more detail, view the published responses below.

Next steps

CASA appreciates the contributions made by respondents and acknowledges that their feedback has been beneficial to the consultation process.

We are working with Airservices Australia to consider all feedback received from both this consultation and the community consultation process they conducted in parallel.