Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Directions under subregulation 235 (2) relating to landing weight and landing distance required
Legislation
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
Subregulation 235 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) authorises CASA to issue directions setting out the manner of determining a maximum weight for an aeroplane that its gross weight must not exceed at take-off or landing.
Subregulation 5 (1) of CAR 1988 provides that where the regulations authorise CASA to issue any directions, it may do so in the form of Civil Aviation Orders (the CAOs).
For aeroplanes with a maximum take-off weight exceeding 5 700 kg, CASA has issued such directions in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.1B.
These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.
Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
A landing distance determined by this method is one that can realistically be achieved by a line pilot as distinct from a certified landing distance which is achieved by a test pilot. The method of calculation established by the operator contains comprehensive criteria that has to be applied by the pilot, including the assessment of expected braking performance based on wider environmental conditions, also temperature, altitude, wind, runway slope, increased speed due to autothrust, use of autoland, reversers, and autobrake settings. The distances take into account the possibility of failure in a system or other adverse conditions.
The distance arrived at is called the “in-flight landing distance” (IFLD). The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) both recommend that this distance be factored by 115%, that is, a buffer of 15%. The new in-flight landing distance figures are up to 20% greater than the previous certified base figures onto which buffers of 67% or 92% are added. In the circumstances, it is not intended to add the existing buffers onto the IFLD.
Use of IFLD has been generally accepted and amendments of subsection 11 of CAO 20.7.1B have been prepared and will be released for comment. In the meantime, Airbus has released a new Flight Crew Operating Manual reflecting the new criteria for determining landing distance. Airbus has stated that currently published landing distance factors are no longer applicable and that the applicable landing distance is to be calculated as the IFLD.
The directions allow the operator to immediately utilise the new 15% buffer with landing distances for a given weight that are calculated using the new method.
Legislative Instruments Act
Under subparagraph 6 (d) (i) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the LIA), an instrument is a legislative instrument for section 5 of the LIA if it is declared to be a disallowable instrument under legislation in force before the commencement of the LIA. Under regulation 5A of CAR 1988, if CASA has issued a CAO, and CASA later issues a direction that affects the operation of the CAO, the later document is declared to be a disallowable instrument. The instrument affects the operation of subsection 11 of CAO 20.7.1B. As a legislative instrument, it is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LIA.
Consultation
Discussions have been organised and held by EASA and FAA, following a series of runway overruns. Airlines and other members of the aviation industry have accepted the IFLD concept as a means of avoiding such incidents. In particular, Airbus and Boeing have either implemented it or are preparing to implement it. Pending consultation on the CAO 20.7.1B amendments, it has been proposed that directions be issued as requested by the aviation industry. Directions of this sort will not apply except with the agreement of the relevant operator and in accordance with their Flight Crew Operating Manual.
This instrument itself renews instrument CASA 39/13 which was issued for a period of
6 months in the belief that the next amendment of subsection 11 of CAO 20.7.1B would have been in effect within that time period. This amendment has not yet occurred.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
Making and commencement
The exemption has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
This instrument commences on the day of registration and expires, as if it had been revoked by another instrument, at the earlier of: the coming into effect of the next amendment of subsection 11 of CAO 20.7.1B; or the end of 31 July 2014.
[Instrument number CASA 181/13]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Directions under subregulation 235 (2) relating to
landing weight and landing distance required
This legislative instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview of the legislative instrument
The legislative instrument contains directions relating to the calculation of the landing distance available at a given landing weight. The primary effect of the legislative instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
The objectives of the legislative instrument include addressing concerns raised by authorities on avoiding runway overruns.
Human rights implications
This legislative instrument does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms.
Conclusion
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority