notice of final change - civil aviation safety authority · readers should note that this notice of...

NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of

Part 139 MOS – January 2015

Project Number: AS 11/15

NOTICE OF FINAL

CHANGE

Aerodromes

Runway Width Review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes

Section 6.2 - Runways

and

Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of Part 139

MOS - Aerodromes, Chapters 1 and 2 including changes

to subsequent chapters

REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES

NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 1

Readers should note that this Notice of Final Change (NFC) contains the summary of responses

(SOR) to the consultation draft of Notice of Proposed Change (NPC) 139/05. This NFC also

contains the detailed comments received by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (Annex

A); CASA’s agreed policy and intended legislative changes (Annex B).

This NFC finalises the public consultation process in respect of the NPC.

Audience

This NFC will be of interest to:

aerodrome operators

airlines

aircraft operators

pilots

relevant CASA personnel

Airservices Australia

publishers of aeronautical information products

suppliers of aeronautical data for aeronautical navigation databases

instrument flight procedure designers Organisations responsible for objects and

structures which affect aviation safety.



Foreword

On 5 March 2014, CASA published for consultation NPC 139/05 (project AS 11/15) - Runway

Width Review of Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Aerodromes Section 6.2 - Runways and

Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Chapters 1 and 2 including

changes to subsequent chapters.

The purpose of this NFC is to set out CASA's disposition of comments received during

consultation on the amendments and to document CASA's disposition to those comments.

This NFC:

provides a background of the regulatory policy proposed and consultation undertaken

discusses the submissions made in response to NPC 139/05

provides an analysis of the responses and gives CASA's response and disposition

discusses the impact and gives an explanation of the changes

provides the final legislative changes and associated advisory materials.

CASA received sixteen responses to the NPC 139/05 consultation documents. A summary of

responses, together with CASA's disposition is attached to this NFC at Annex A.

CASA would like to thank those who participated in the consultations on the issues addressed in

the NPC. The input of stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected by the proposals is

appreciated and valued in our regulatory development process.

Nick Ward

A/g Executive Manager

Standards Division

January 2015



Contents

1 Reference material 4

1.1 Acronyms and abbreviations 4

1.2 Definitions 4

1.3 References 6

2 Introduction 7

2.1 Objectives of the proposed change(s) 8

2.2 Previous consultation 9

3 Summary of responses 10

3.1 Respondents 10

3.2 Analysis of responses 11

4 Conclusion 15

4.1 CASA’s disposition 15

5 Implementation and review 16

5.1 Implementation timeframes 16

5.2 Transition and post-implementation reviews 16

Annex A Summary of responses to NPC 139/05 A1

Annex B Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No.1) B1



1 Reference material

1.1 Acronyms and abbreviations

The acronyms and abbreviations used in this NFRM are listed in the table below.

Acronym / abbreviation Description

AFM Aeroplane Flight Manual

ARC Aerodrome Reference Code

CAR 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CASR 1998 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

CAO Civil Aviation Order

MOS Manual of Standards

NFRM Notice of Final Rule Making

NPC Notice of Change

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making

NRF NPC Response Form

PIR Post-Implementation Review

RESA Runway End Safety Area

RVR Runway Visual Range

RPA Rules and practices for aerodromes

SARP Standards and Recommended Practice

SCC Standards Consultation Committee

SOR Summary of Responses

1.2 Definitions

Terms that have specific meaning within this NFRM are defined in the table below.

Term Definition

Airways Engineering Instructions (AEI)

The official publication known as Airways Engineering Instructions issued:

by CASA or its predecessors, before the RPA was first issued; or

otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth

Aerodrome facility Any of the following at, in, or on something at an aerodrome, for which standards are provided by the MOS:

surfaces

infrastructure



Term Definition

structures

buildings

installations

stations

systems

equipment

earthing points

cables

lighting

signage

markings.

Airport Engineering Instructions (APEI)

The official publication known as Airport Engineering Instructions issued:


otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth.

Airport Instructions (API) The official publication known as Airport Instructions issued:


otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth.

Other aerodrome facility standard

For an aerodrome facility that does not comply with the standards set out in the MOS, the RPA, the AEI, the APEI, or the API, means:

the standard, procedure or practice (the SPP) that the aerodrome facility was designed and constructed, being an SPP which, at the time, was required by the Commonwealth to be complied with for the design and construction of the aerodrome facility; or

where CASA is satisfied that the SPP that the aerodrome facility was designed and constructed is an historical SPP that can no longer be identified with certainty — an SPP specified in writing by CASA, following consultation with the aerodrome operator, as the standard to which, on the basis of its current characteristics, the aerodrome facility was probably designed and constructed.

Upgrade (for an aerodrome facility

1. Any change to, or improvement of, the facility that allows it to do one or more of the following:

accommodate the parking, holding, movement or operation of larger or heavier aircraft, or aircraft modified to carry more passengers or freight

accommodate the parking, holding, movement or operation of more aircraft

be used by aircraft flying under changed approach conditions, for example, a change:

o from non-instrument to non-precision instrument; or o from non-precision instrument to precision instrument;

or o from precision category I to category II or III

accommodate aircraft take-offs and aerodrome surface movements in RVR conditions of less than 550m.

2. The replacement of any aerodrome facility that does not comply with the standards for the facility in this MOS. Note: The upgrade of a particular non-compliant aerodrome facility is the trigger for that particular non-compliant facility to be brought into compliance with the relevant MOS standards. Since the timing and budgeting of an upgrade is usually under the aerodrome operator’s control, so too is the timing of works necessary to bring the non-compliant facility into compliance with the MOS.



1.3 References

Regulation 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998)

Regulation 235A of Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988)

Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) – Aerodromes

Annex 14, Aerodromes, to the Chicago Convention

Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 235A-1(0)



2 Introduction

Project AS 11/15 commenced on 24 May 2011 to amend the runway width requirements

prescribed within Chapter 6 of the Part 139 MOS. Part 139 MOS references the Convention on

International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) aerodrome reference code (ARC), which is

the code that aerodrome facilities and runways are designed. The application of the ARC in the

Part 139 MOS has resulted in aircraft operations being limited, based on aircraft characteristics.

Runways that are narrower than the runway width dimensions set out in the ARC are classified

as narrow runways.

In June 2012, CASA adopted a policy to de-link the requirements of aeroplane operations (into

and out of narrow runways) from the aerodrome design requirements set out in the Part 139

MOS.

CASA launched two separate projects to propose amendments to Part 139 MOS.

The first project (AS 11/14 – the ‘PIR Project’) was initiated to conduct a post-

implementation review (PIR) of Chapters 1 and 2 of the Part 139 MOS. While work was

underway on this project, the second project arose.

The second project (AS 11/15 –the ‘Runway Width Project’) was launched to amend the

runway width requirements prescribed within Chapter 6 of the Part 139 MOS and

separate the regulatory management of aeroplane operations from the design of

aerodromes.

During the PIR Project, CASA identified a number of areas within Chapters 1 and 2 of the Part

139 MOS that needed to be modified. As these changes directly related to the Runway Width

Project, CASA decided that the two projects would be run concurrently, with a joint consultation

process, to ensure that the proposed changes could be reviewed by industry as one package.

At the time this project was initiated, CASA policy required aerodrome operators to widen

runways to accommodate aeroplanes that were, at that time, operating into and out of

aerodromes with narrow runways. In addition, many of the affected aeroplanes had approved

narrow runway Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) supplements. Subsequent to the introduction of

the Part 139 MOS, operations of aeroplanes into and out of aerodromes required specific

exemptions for the aeroplanes against the runway width requirements.

As part of the original policy, CASA decided to move away from the established practice of:

permitting large aircraft to operate to lesser runways via operational exemptions

requiring aerodromes to upgrade to the requirements of the new critical aircraft within a

specified timeframe to meet the requirements of that size aircraft.

Following further consideration of aeroplane operational requirements, CASA will no longer

mandate that aerodrome operators must upgrade any facility for continued operations of a

specifically approved aeroplane type, or the introduction of a new larger aircraft type.

Aerodrome upgrades will be a decision made by the aerodrome operator; however, aeroplane

operators will need to assess the available aerodrome facilities and any risks associated with

operating larger aeroplanes into or from an aerodrome designed to a specific ARC; or in many

cases, aerodromes that were constructed prior to the current standards.



Significant change to the Part 139 MOS is required with the removal of the references to ‘critical

aircraft’ and ‘critical aeroplane’ from the MOS. This has the effect of de-linking continued

aeroplane operations from aerodrome design and operational requirements.

Aeroplane operators will no longer need to apply for exemptions to operate aeroplanes into

narrower runways than specified by the ARC. Aeroplanes will be required to operate in

accordance with an approved AFM narrow runway supplement specified AFM runway width

limitation or operational documentation (i.e. the Airbus A380 has an AFM 45 m wide runway

limitation).

One of the other consequences of the changes to Chapters 1, with the removal of references to

Part 121A of CASR 1998, is that the Part 139 MOS is now applicable to certified and registered

aerodromes that only have charter operations. With the other changes introduced under this

project, these aerodromes only need to nominate their ARC and maintain their facilities under

the standards which existed at the time they were built. The provisions of the Part 139 MOS

would only come into effect if the facilities are upgraded or replaced.

CASR 139.190 requires certified aerodromes to provide a visual approach slope indicator

system for jet-propelled aircraft conducting regular public transport (RPT) or charter operations.

Before these amendments to Part 139 MOS, this requirement did not apply to charter operations

due to the applicability of the MOS. To avoid disadvantaging current charter operators, CASA

has issued a general exemption against CASR 139.190 to certified aerodromes to allow charter

operations without a visual approach slope indicator system for jet-propelled aircraft. It is

intended that this general exemption will remain in place until CASR Parts 119, 121 and 135

come into effect, at which time RPT and charter operations will be regulated together as air

transport operations.

2.1 Objectives of the proposed change(s)

The objectives of the proposed changes were as follows:

change the runway width requirements (identified during the Runway Width Project)

editorial changes to Chapter 1

editorial changes to Chapter 2

remove reference to Regulation 235A of CAR 1988

amend Chapter 2 to require aerodrome operators to determine an ICAO ARC for

aerodrome facilities

remove any requirement for aerodrome upgrades to meet the coding of the largest

aircraft serving a port

remove reference to critical aircraft and align terminology with Annex 14 to the Chicago

Convention

remove specific reference to the Airbus A380 and promulgate generic standards to

cater for new large aeroplane type

remove Chapter 13 of the Part 139 MOS and incorporate contents into a new Advisory

Circular (AC)



2.2 Previous consultation

The original NPC 139/05 was consulted internally within CASA in March 2012.

Subsequent to the policy change in June 2012, the two projects (AS11/14 - PIR and AS11/15 -

Runway Width Projects) were combined with the consequential expansion of the NPC 139/05.

Consultation on the amended regulation 235A of CAR 1988 and the new CAAP 235A, was

previously conducted during May and June 2013.

In addition, there has been consultation in regards to the narrow runway related project with the

Standards Consultative Committee (SCC), both on the website and at dedicated SCC meetings

from 2012 through 2014.



3 Summary of responses

3.1 Respondents

Sixteen respondents submitted comments to the NPC:

eleven industry representatives

three private individuals

two CASA staff

Industry

Organisation Response

Essendon Airport NRF

Airportsplus Email

Ballina Byron Gateway Airport - Government NRF

Lismore Regional airport - Government NRF

AFAP- Brian O'Dea NRF & letter

Regional Express- Garry Filmer NRF

AIPA Letter

Department of Planning and Transport Infrastructure, SA Government

Email

Australian Airports Association Email

Sydney Airport NRF

Ayres Rock Airport Letter

Private Individuals

Peter Cochrane NRF

Keith Pope - Qld Airports Limited Email

Nil consent to name being published Email

CASA

Representative Response

CASA Aerodrome Inspector Email

CASA Standards Officer Project Leader Email



3.2 Analysis of responses

Analysis of the nine respondents’ disposition to each key proposal detailed in the NRF is

provided below and in Figure 1.

Respondents that provided responses in letters and emails are addressed separately in general

terms and can be found in the SOR in Section A9 - General comments. Responses in letter and

email form are not addressed in detail in this analysis.

In addition some responses were outside the terms of reference for this project, specifically

referenced the aeroplane operational Regulation 235A of CAR 1988 and supporting

CAAP 235A-1(0).

Appropriate answers to the respondents input on the operation of aeroplanes on narrow runways

are not addressed in this analysis but can be found in the SOR Annex A.

Of the nine respondents:

one respondent was ‘very satisfied’;

four were ‘satisfied’;

two were ‘dissatisfied’ with the CASA consultation on the issue;

two respondents did not comment on the consultation process;

only one respondent answered ‘Not acceptable under any circumstances’. This was 6%

of the total number of qualification answers to the Key Proposals.

3.2.1 Key proposal 1

Nine respondents commented on key proposal 1:

six respondents agreed to the proposal without change

one change to the regulation was made, in accordance with the respondent's

recommendations – Paragraph 1.1.5.3 was amended to take into account the new title:

Manager, Air Traffic Management System Standards Section, Standards Division of

CASA

Of the other two responses:

one recommendation was outside the terms of reference of the project

the other response included several comments which were general in content and not

directly applicable to the proposal.

In addition, some of the issues raised in the comments will be addressed in the future complete

review of the Part 139 MOS.



three respondents agreed to the proposal without change

two respondents recommended that the term ‘upgrade’ should be clearly defined, CASA

agreed and as such the regulation was amended accordingly



two respondents recommended that the standards to which the (older) facilities comply

is further clarified. CASA agreed to this recommendation, the regulation was amended

accordingly.

two respondents recommended that Table 2.1-2 – Aerodrome reference codes and

aeroplane characteristics and Table 5.1-1 – ACN values should remain in the

document. CASA disagreed; these tables are difficult to keep up to date. Up to date

information can be obtained from the manufacturers and ICAO. The appropriate

location and publication of the information contained within these tables is under

consideration. The MOS is a not a document that is easy to update when these values

change



seven agreed without change

one respondent's concern is addressed by the fact that 235A of CAR 1988 is being

revised

one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. This respondent

was not aware that the operational 235A of CAR 1988 rule has been revised, with the

applicable consultation to that the Narrow Runway project addressing the respondents

concerns.

No change to the regulation was required as a result of the responses.



six agreed without change

one respondent did not provide comment against the ‘changes would make it

acceptable’ so it was not possible to provide comment to that response.

two responses addressed the issue of aerodrome operators choosing their code for the

aerodrome facilities. CASA clarified that the aerodrome operator had to select the code

that would provide compliance against the Part 139 MOS requirements covering all

facilities required for the intended operation (i.e. the taxiways have to provide access

from the runways and the apron area had to meet the standards for the intended

operation).




six agreed without change

one respondent indicated the difficulty of determining when a facility was built and, as

such, the particular ARC and another respondent questioned what would be the trigger

for an upgrade. CASA response – it is required for the aerodrome operator to determine



the code to which the aerodrome complies, with any future upgrade of facilities are

required to meet the requirements of the Part 139 MOS requirements.

one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. CASA disagreed

with the respondent's comments as it was apparent that the respondent did not fully

understand that the proposal is not changing the requirements that an aerodrome is

required to meet when it is being designed or upgraded. The standards remain the

same (i.e. in accordance with the Part 139 MOS).




eight agreed with no change

one respondent indicated that the proposal would be supported if the MOS was aligned

with Annex 14 in regard to the term ‘critical aircraft’.

CASA agrees that it is necessary to align with Annex 14 and for this reason the term 'critical

aircraft’ is being removed from the MOS as the context in which it is referred in the Part 139

MOS is to place operational restrictions on the use of the aerodrome by certain aeroplane types.

This is not the intent of this term in Annex 14; and as such, the proposal supports the

respondents view. The future Part 139 MOS review will address the context in which this term is

currently used such that all reference to the operational restrictions placed on aeroplanes will be

removed from the MOS.



six agreed with no change

one respondent recommended that Paragraphs 6.2.14.3 and 6.3.2.1 be amended to

make reference to “Code F” instead of specific reference to the A380. . CASA agrees

that reference to the A380 may be able to be removed and replaced with the generic

term “Code F”. However, as a result of further consideration of the consequential

implications of removing specific reference to the A380 and the manner in which the

PIR Key Proposal 7 was worded it is CASA’s opinion that to change all references in

the MOS from A380 to “Code F” may have unintended consequences for other aircraft

types which may not been specifically referenced in the consultation. Additionally, the

inclusion of shoulders for runways and taxiways for the A380 was the subject of an

aeronautical study and removal of this requirement would require further assessment.

As a result of CASA’s reassessment of this particular Key Proposal it is intended for to

specifically address the issues of reference to the A380 as a future priority in the

proposed re-write of Part 139 MOS.

the remaining two responses indicated an interpretation that the aerodrome standards

are used to limit the operation of aeroplanes, this is an incorrect interpretation. This is

one of the primary aspects of this PIR and that is to remove reference in the Part 139

MOS limiting the operations of aeroplanes.



One respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. This respondent

had a misunderstanding that the A380 was re-certified to code E. Aeroplanes are not

certified to specific codes.

CASA noted the overall agreement of the respondents to this Key Proposal. However due

consideration of the manner in which the consultation was presented, and the Proposed

Amendments summarised in Key Proposal 7, it was decided to withhold the amendments of this

proposal for incorporation in the future proposed rewrite of 139 MOS.

This Key Proposal was not only to remove reference to the A380 but also to make the standard

generic to facilitate operations of all larger aeroplanes, not just the A380 i.e. reference to Code

F. With the manner in which the MOS is currently drafted in order to affect this change would

have required further re-structuring applicable sections of the MOS provisions which may have

caused unintended consequences for both aerodrome and aeroplane operators.

The respondents comments recorded in this NFRM will be taken into account with the future

rewrite of the 139 MOS.

As a result of this policy decision it was decided not to make any changes to the regulation.



eight agreed with no change

one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstance.

This respondent was not aware that the MOS is a manual of standards and that Chapter 13 is

not a standard and, as such, does not belong in the MOS; however, CASA acknowledges that

this information should be re-located in another document. The appropriate details contained

within Chapter 13 will be transferred across to advisory material that is currently under

development.

No change to the regulation was required as a result of the response.

3.2.9 General comments

29 general comments were received to the NPC and these are detailed in Section A.9 of the

SOR in Annex A. Only two of these comments resulted in CASA's disposition for a change to the

regulation. Many of the remaining comments were outside of the scope of the NPC.



4 Conclusion

The reference to ‘upgrade’ aerodrome facilities and the applicability of previous standards

(i.e. AEI, AEPI, API, RPA, and other aerodrome facility standards) generated a considerable

amount of the consultation comment.

As such, all references to ‘upgrade’ and specific terms related to the previous aerodrome

standards and instructions were clarified in Subsection 1.2.1 – Definitions.

One respondent highlighted two paragraphs specifically related to A380 that had not been

identified at the initiation of the NPC for removal. These paragraphs will be retained, however in

line with the decision to withhold removal of reference to A380 in this PIR the comment has been

noted and will be addressed in the future rewrite of the Part 139 MOS.

An arbitrary standard related to shoulder widths based on passenger seat numbers, has been

removed; this standard has no ICAO foundation.

Minor editorial changes have also been made.

The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) has assessed the proposed regulations and

determined that they will have minor impacts only. Therefore no further analysis in the form of a

Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was required and OBPR has provided a RIS exemption

(OBPR ID: 13895, 17497 and 17793).

4.1 CASA’s disposition

The following changes to the regulation have been made as a result of the consultation:

Section 1.2 – Definitions applicability of the use of the definition in the MOS

Subsection 1.2.1 – Definitions several new definitions included:

AEI

Aerodrome facility

AEPI

API

Other aerodrome facility standard

RESA

Upgrade( for an aerodrome facility)

Subsection 1.2.2 – clarification runway in relation to upgrade

Subsection 1.2.3 – clarification taxiway in relation to upgrade

Paragraph 2.1.2.2 – clarification to refer to ‘upgrade’ in the definitions

Paragraphs 2.1.2.2A, 2.1.2.3 and 12.1.1.2B – inclusion of references to aerodrome

standards

Paragraph 2.1.3.2 – incorporated as this was inadvertently overlooked

Paragraph 6.3.1.1A (c) – editorial reference should be paragraph 6.3.9.1A, not 6.3.1.1A

Paragraph 6.2.9.3 Table 6.2-4A – correction to the constructed gravel surface

Paragraph 6.2.11.3 – removed as this is an arbitrary and in not an ICAO SARP

substitution of Subparagraph 9.1.1.2(c) for consolidation and reference to Section 1.2.



5 Implementation and review

5.1 Implementation timeframes

The regulatory amendments were commenced on 13 November 2014.

5.2 Transition and post-implementation reviews

CASA will monitor and review the new rules on an ongoing basis. CASA will conduct post-

implementation monitoring and reviews as needed, or every 2-3 years as prescribed by

Government guidelines.

Additional information is available from:

Miles Gore-Brown

CASR Part 139 Project Leader

Email

[email protected]

Telephone

Australia 02 6217 1031 or

131 757 (for the cost of a local call)

International +61 2 6217 1031

notice of final change - civil aviation safety authority · readers should note that this notice of...

Documents