[Peetwo]

Oversight or lack there of - Part III.V

Some images to clarify this transitional surface business courtesy of the NZCAA. Keep in mind the transitional surface arrangement over the dutch is 1:7 or 8.13 degrees. This 1:7 slope is NOT a CASA requirement as suggested in the EAPL document.





Now this image is how it's worked out in Australia per the CASA MOS.



The NZCAA and FAA have adopted a more stringent definition of the transitional surface than CASA has; the reason being to protect airstrip space from possible encroaching development.......sound familiar.

I thought I had gotcha moment when I read the NZCAA requirements but that was just my lack of understanding of kiwi englush. In their requirements the strip width can be a minimum 150m wide; conveniently the same as runway 35 at Essendon. Then I worked out they are referring to 150m wide each side of the strup; why they couldn't have just written 300m is anyone's guess.

It makes me wonder though if someone tried to pass off the NZ requirement as a CASA requirement and conveniently misinterpreted the 150m. If it had been prepared in accordance with the NZ requirements correctly; there would not be any buildings at the DFO sight.

PB

Yet again Mr PB an excellent, concise and dare I say fully transparent post, that highlights clearly the bizarre disconnections between the Australian rule set and oversight of airports versus (apparently) the rest of the world...  Please Mr PB keep your informative posts coming and the key for the Tim Tam cupboard is in the mail...

Briefly going back in time to this commitment by Carmody to Senator Fawcett (02:30 minutes)..

Now on a passing strange coincidence and very much aligned to the disturbing revelations contained in the 'Oversight or Lack There of' post series so far; I note that on the same day that CASA was appearing before the Senators in the Drone Wars inquiry - see HERE - that they have released a NPRM on Part 139...

Via the CASA twitter guy/gal...

Have your say on a proposal to update the Part 139 ruleset for aerodromes via CASA’s consultation hub at https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/nprm1426as/ ….

---

Overview

Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and the subsidiary Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) were implemented in 2003. These rules regulate:

• the operation of certified, registered and ‘certain other’ aerodromes
  
• obstacles and hazards
  
• aerodrome radio communication services.
  

[size=undefined]By 2014, CASA and industry both recognised that a comprehensive review of the Part 139 legislative framework was necessary. While a review of the rules for fire fighting (Subpart 139.H of CASR) and heliports will be subject to separate consultation, the proposed amendments to Part 139 of CASR and the Part 139 MOS aim to:
[/size]

• more closely reflect the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) for Annex 14, Aerodromes to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention)
  
• simplify the categorisation of aerodromes by moving to two categories: certified aerodromes (regulated) and uncertified aerodromes (unregulated)
  
• introduce a graduated structure for aerodrome certification requirements to ensure that regulatory requirements are commensurate with the operation(s) being conducted at the aerodrome
  
• re-write existing regulations in an outcome-based format, where appropriate
  
• reduce existing regulatory costs
  
• provide a more streamlined and clearer regulatory framework for Part 139.
  

Why We Are Consulting

CASA recognises the valuable contribution that community and industry consultation makes to the regulatory development process. This notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) sets out the rationale for updating the rules related to aerodromes, describes previous consultation we have conducted and asks you to consider a range of proposals for rule changes.

  
And some examples from the NPRM under paragraphs...

1) 3.2.2 Harmonisation with ICAO

- Some standards are not consistent with Volume I of Annex 14 to the Chicago Convention and its associated documents...

..As Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention, CASA seeks to include certain aspects of PANS-Aerodromes in the Part 139 rules and supporting guidance materials.

- The ICAO Air Navigation Commission has initiated a review of the relationships between obstacle limitation surfaces and PANS-OPS surfaces, which relates to instrument approach procedures, and a complete review of Annex 14 to the Chicago Convention.

& from 2) 3.3 Key considerations

These obligations and principles underpinned CASA’s approach to reviewing the Part 139 regulations and standards. The review has also considered the following:

- The protection of the travelling public requires the maintenance of minimum physical standards, infrastructure condition and the protection of terminal instrument flight procedures including obstacle free areas...

...- Regulations will only be written to address identified risk or to harmonise with the Annex 14 SARP and PANS-Aerodromes.

Ps Also refer para 3.5.1

Finally in reference to the proposed amendment to Part 139 (Annex A - Draft Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 139) Regulation 2017) I note the CASA word weasel confection of the day is the word 'HAZARD' - see HERE...

From Subpart 139.001 'Simplified outlined of this Part':

Some objects or structures can create a hazard to aircraft operations at an aerodrome and more generally. CASA must be notified of proposals to build such objects or structures and can make determinations about whether they are hazards.

& from 139.150 'Hazards to aircraft operations':

Prescribing objects or structures that may be hazards

(5) The Part 139 Manual of Standards may prescribe kinds of objects or structures that may constitute a hazard to aircraft operations.
(6) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (3)(a) do not limit the kinds of objects or structures that may be prescribed by the Part 139 Manual of Standards under subregulation (5).

Note: For powers to remove or mark hazards affecting an aerodrome, see the following:
(a) Division 9 of Part 9 of CAR;
(b) the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988;
© Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996.

 
MTF...P2

Ps Is it any wonder the word 'HAZARD' was emphatically emphasised by Dr A at 00:30 seconds here:

Hmm...wonder what the legal definition of a 'HAZARD' is...