Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
CASA 23/26—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (Procedures at Richmond) Amendment Instrument 2026
Purpose
The instrument amends CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024 (CASA 68/24), which was made in 2024 to clearly apply provisions of Part 173 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) to the design of terminal instrument flight procedures (TIFPs) for the use of civil pilots and non-state aircraft at military aerodromes. Part 173 and the Manual of Standards Part 173—Standards Applicable to Instrument Flight Procedure Design (the Part 173 MOS) regulate the designers of such TIFPs and impose safety standards on the design of the procedures.
The purpose of the amendments is to deal with the non-compliance of TIFPs for Richmond aerodrome with standards set out in provisions in the Part 173 MOS arising from the airspace changes to support operations at Western Sydney International Airport from 9 July 2026. These are standards about overlapping procedures, airspace buffers and restricted areas. The instrument amends CASA 68/24 to alter these requirements, following a process of assessment by CASA. This would allow civilian pilots to use the TIFPs at Richmond, which enhances flight safety and increases the possibility for civil operators to access these aerodromes during Instrument Meteorological Conditions. In making a direction under the principal instrument, CASA applies the standards in subregulation 11.245(2) of CASR that it must be satisfied it is necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of air navigation and only for the purposes of CASA’s functions.
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. Relevantly, the Governor-General has made CASR and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).
Section 4 of the Act provides that, except where the expression state aircraft is used, references in Part III or IIIB or section 98 to aircraft or air navigation do not include references to state aircraft or air navigation by state aircraft.
State aircraft, in section 3 of the Act, is defined to mean: (a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and (b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.
Subregulation 3(5) of CAR provides that, subject to these Regulations (that is, CASR and CAR), these Regulations do not apply to or in relation to state aircraft or to military aerodromes.
Part 173 of CASR provides for the standards that apply to the design of TIFPs. Regulation 173.005 relevantly provides the Part applies to persons who want to become, or are, certified designers of TIFPs and certain employees of those persons; and persons who design instrument flight procedures other than TIFPs. Relevantly, subregulation 173.005(2) provides that the Part also sets out certain rules that apply to CASA in administering procedure design certificates. Under subregulation 173.005(3), the Part does not apply in relation to the design of TIFPs for use by an aircraft in circumstances where one or more engines of the aircraft become inoperative while it is on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight.
Section 2.1 of the Part 173 MOS requires a procedure designer to have arrangements in place to provide and receive information necessary to provide the design service (which includes design, amend, maintain, review TIFPs).
Under paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS, primary areas of instrument approach procedures must not be closer than one nautical mile to the primary area of a procedure to a secondary aerodrome. Where this is not practical, vertical separation may be used to ensure that a minimum of 1 000 ft is maintained by aircraft on the two procedures.
Paragraph 8.1.1.4 of the Part 173 MOS sets out detailed standards about buffer zones that are required for TIFPs within controlled airspace. Paragraph 8.1.1.5 of the MOS sets out detailed standards for TIFPs that cross or abut prohibited and restricted areas, involving buffer zones and clearance and other requirements.
Subpart 11.G of CASR provides for CASA to issue directions in relation to matters affecting the safety of air navigation. Under paragraph 11.245(1)(a) of CASR, CASA may, by instrument, issue a direction about any matter affecting the safe navigation and operation of aircraft. Subregulation 11.245(2) of CASR provides that CASA may issue such a direction if CASA is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of air navigation, if the direction is not inconsistent with the Act, and for the purposes of CASA’s functions.
Under paragraph 11.250(a) of CASR, a direction under regulation 11.245 ceases to be in force on the day specified in the direction. Under regulation 11.255, it is an offence of strict liability (with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units) to contravene a direction under regulation 11.245.
Under section 15 of CASA 68/24, Schedule 1 may set out circumstances in which the designer of a TIFP need not comply with a requirement imposed by the instrument. These requirements include provisions of Part 173 or standards of the Part 173 MOS applied to the designer under the instrument. Subsection 15(4) provides that if Schedule 1 sets out requirements to be met by a person in relation to circumstances set out the Schedule, the person must meet the requirements. This is, therefore, a direction. Contravention of a direction is a strict liability offence that attracts a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units.
Under subsection 14(1) of the Legislation Act 2003 (the LA), a legislative instrument may make provision in relation to matters by applying, adopting or incorporating provisions of an Act or disallowable legislative instrument as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time. A legislative instrument may also make provision in relation to matters by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in any other instrument or writing as in force at, or before, the time the legislative instrument commences. Under subsection 14(2) of the LA, unless the contrary intention appears, the legislative instrument may not make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time. However, subsection 98(5D) of the Act provides that, despite section 14 of the LA, a legislative instrument made under the Act or the regulations may apply, adopt or incorporate any matter contained in any instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time, even if the other instrument or writing does not yet exist when the legislative instrument is made.
Under subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character (including rules, regulations or by-laws), the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument. Under subsection 13(1) of the LA, subsection 33(3) applies to legislative instruments as if each provision of the instrument were a section of an Act.
Background
During the airspace change process to support operations at Western Sydney International Airport from 9 July 2026, it was identified that several instrument flight procedures would not fully comply with specific Part 173 MOS requirements related to lateral and vertical containment and procedure overlap. These non-compliances are primarily driven by the highly complex and constrained nature of the Sydney Basin airspace, characterised by dense traffic, multiple interacting aerodromes, and the need to accommodate a wide range of operational requirements while minimising impacts on VFR operations outside controlled airspace.
CASA 68/24
CASA 68/24 was made to clarify the rules as intended to apply to the design of TIFPs for use by civil aircraft operating under the IFR at military aerodromes and to deal with problems posed by the legislation. Under subregulation 3(5) of CAR, the regulations generally do not apply to a military aerodrome. The Part 173 MOS permits TIFPs to be designed to aerodromes certified (or registered) under Part 139 of CASR only. Military aerodromes are not required to be certified under Part 139.
Before the commencement of CASA 68/24, TIFPs at military aerodromes had been in operation for many years and an equivalent level of safety had been maintained through application of established Part 173 of CASR standards. For example, TIFPs had been designed to the Part 173 of CASR criteria by Part 173 certified designers, they were subject to CASA flight validation before implementation, and to mandatory periodic CASA flight revalidation assessments, maintained in accordance with the Part 173 MOS and ongoing publication in the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) in accordance with the requirements of Part 175 of CASR.
CASA 68/24 uses the directions power in regulation 11.245 to extend the scheme in Part 173 to the design of TIFPs for civil aircraft at military aerodromes, as far as is practicable, and enables persons who have been certificated under Part 173 as certified designers to design TIFPs (of a type approved under the person’s procedure design certificate) for the use of aircraft, other than state aircraft, operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of, certain military aerodromes.
CASA 68/24 applied a selection of provisions from Part 173, and made modifications to some of them, as appropriate and applicable to the design of TIFPs for military aerodromes, including joint user aerodromes. Essentially, only a person defined as a relevant designer, who designs a TIFP that is of a type approved in the person’s procedure design certificate, is permitted to design the TIFPs. The conditions (if any) in the procedure design certificate applicable to the type of procedure apply to the designer, as do the applied and modified Part 173 provisions, which are set out in Division 2 of CASA 68/24.
A number of special arrangements regarding TIFPs at military aerodromes, and approved by CASA, that were in existence at the time CASA 68/24 commenced were continued in existence under section 15 of that instrument. Section 15 provides that Schedule 1 sets out circumstances in which particular TIFPs need not comply with a particular standard required under Division 2, as those circumstances are set out in the Schedule. The Schedule can set out requirements that must be met by the designer for the purpose of safety of air navigation. These arrangements had previously been characterised as exemptions from the Part 173 scheme.
CASA 68/24 was amended in 2025 by CASA 28/25—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (GAS Pty Ltd) Amendment Instrument 2025, which provided for additional special arrangements for TIFPs designed by Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd, in Part 4 of Schedule 1.
Overview of instrument
The instrument makes amendments necessary to allow 2 procedure designers, Airservices Australia (AA), and Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd (GAS), to design and maintain TIFPs at Richmond aerodrome that would otherwise not comply with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS requiring TIFPs not to overlap. The TIFPs overlap with 2 other AA-designed TIFPs at the helipad site at Westmead Hospital.
The instrument makes the amendments necessary to allow for AA to design and maintain its Richmond TIFP which also would not comply with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.4 of the MOS to maintain stated airspace buffer distances or standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.5 of the MOS to meet certain stated requirements applicable to TIFPs in prohibited and restricted areas.
The amendments include a requirement for a post-implementation review (PIR) of the operation of AA’s Richmond procedure by 9 July 2027 (that is, within 12 months of the commencement of the instrument). For the PIR, AA is required to consult with operators that use the procedure and provide CASA with a copy of its report.
CASA has assessed AA’s safety case and associated mitigators to address the residual risk and is satisfied the instrument has no impact on the safety of air navigation.
In accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the instrument amends CASA 68/24.
For paragraph 15J(2)(c) of the LA, this instrument incorporates the Part 173 MOS as the instrument is in force from time to time, authorised by paragraph 14(1)(a) of the LA. The MOS prescribes standards concerning the design, amendment, review and maintenance of TIFPs, in accordance with Part 173 of CASR. The amendments alter the requirements that apply to particular TIFPs under the MOS. It is a legislative instrument available for free on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Content of instrument
Section 1
This section provides the citation of the amending instrument as CASA 23/26—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (Procedures at Richmond) Amendment Instrument 2026.
Section 2
This section provides for the amending instrument to commence on 9 July 2026.
Section 3
This section provides that CASA 68/24 is amended as set out in Schedule 1.
Schedule 1
Schedule 1 sets out the amendments.
Item 1
This item adds a new Part 2A in Schedule 1, that provides for the disapplication of standards or requirements otherwise imposed under Division 2 of the instrument, for TIFPs designed by AA to Richmond aerodrome.
Clause 5A
This clause provides the definitions of terms used in the Part. The definitions of the relevant TIFPs enable the shortening of provisions.
Clause 5B
Subclause 5B(1)
Subclause 5B(1) disapplies AA from the requirement, imposed under Division 2 of CASA 68/24, to meet the standards in paragraphs 8.1.1.3, 8.1.1.4 and 8.1.1.5 of the Part 173 MOS when designing or maintaining a specified TIFP at Richmond.
Richmond (YSRI) ILS-Z OR LOC-Z RWY 28 is a procedure designed and maintained by AA that overlaps with 2 TIFPs for Westmead aerodrome (Westmead CASB (YXWS) RNP 126 and Westmead CASB (YXWS) RNP 026).
Subclause 5B(2)
Subclause 5B(2) disapplies AA from the requirement, imposed under Division 2 of CASA 68/24, to meet the requirement in regulation 173.100 of CASR (as modified by section 18) to ensure that the certificate by its chief designer for the AA Richmond procedure is to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards in paragraphs 8.1.1.3, 8.1.1.4 and 8.1.1.5 of the Part 173 MOS.
Subclause 5B(3)
Subclause 5B(3) disapplies AA’s chief designer from the requirement imposed under section 22 of the instrument that a certificate mentioned above be to the effect that the relevant procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards in paragraphs 8.1.1.3, 8.1.1.4 and 8.1.1.5 of the Part 173 MOS.
Clause 5C
Subclause 5C(1)
Subclause 5C(1) inserts a requirement that AA must ensure the design work in relation to the Richmond procedure is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with a caution note indicating the procedure is overlaid by YXWS RNP 126 and YXWS RNP 026, and aircraft separation is not assured outside Richmond air traffic control hours.
Subclause 5C(2) provides a definition for the term YXWS, used in subsection (1).
Clause 5D
Subclause 5D(1)
Subclause 5D(1) inserts a requirement that AA must, before 9 July 2027, conduct a post‑implementation review of the operation of the Richmond procedure, and consult with operators who use the procedure, as part of the review. The provision requires AA to provide a copy of the review report to CASA.
Items [2] and [3]
These items amend subclause 14(1) in Part 4 of Schedule 1 as necessary to alter the requirements applying to existing procedures designed and maintained by GAS to Richmond aerodrome (Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10 and Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28) to permit them to overlap with 2 new TIFPs to a Westmead Hospital helipad site (Westmead CASB (YXWS) RNP 126 and Westmead CASB (YXWS) RNP 026). The Westmead Hospital TIFPs replace previous TIFPs: Westmead Hospital (YWST) RNP 127 and Westmead Hospital (YWST) RNP 052 (which didn’t impact the Richmond procedures).
Item [4]
This item substitutes subclauses 15(2) and (3) to impose requirements on GAS to include a caution note on the design of its Richmond TIFPs, which indicate the procedure is overlaid by the Westmead Hospital TIFPs. The caution note alerts pilots to the overlapping TIFPs.
Items [5] and [6]
These items make consequential amendments to the definitions in subclause 15(4) regarding terminology that applies to the new Westmead Hospital helipad site.
Legislation Act 2003
Paragraph 10(1)(d) of the LA provides that an instrument will be a legislative instrument if it includes a provision that amends or repeals another legislative instrument. This instrument amends CASA 68/24, that was registered as a legislative instrument and is, therefore, also a legislative instrument subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA.
Sunsetting
Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the sunsetting provisions) does not apply to the instrument because the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under CASR (item 15 of the table in section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015).
In this case, the instrument amends the principal instrument (CASA 68/24) and is almost immediately spent and repealed in accordance with the automatic repeal provisions in section 48A of the LA. The principal instrument is itself repealed at the end of 30 November 2027 by virtue of section 26 of the principal instrument. Thus, in practice, no sunsetting avoidance issues arise and there is no impact on parliamentary oversight.
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LA has not been undertaken in this case. The instrument is provided to deal with consequential impacts to TIFPs for Richmond aerodrome following the airspace changes to support Western Sydney International Airport. However, there have been informal communications with AA, the procedure designer that is regulated by new Part 2A of Schedule 1, resulting from AA’s application to CASA in relation to its Richmond TIFPs affected by the airspace changes, and CASA has not received any adverse comment regarding the requirements in the instrument.
Other amendments involving the designer GAS are the same in essence to the existing requirements for its Richmond procedures which currently overlap to the earlier version of the Westmead Hospital helipad TIFPs.
The amended instrument is provided to include additional TIFPs for use by civil pilots following the airspace changes taking place in relation to the new Airport. In these circumstances, CASA is satisfied that no further consultation is appropriate or reasonably practicable for this instrument for section 17 of the LA.
Sector risk, economic and cost impact
Subsection 9A(1) of the Act states that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. Subsection 9A(3) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
The cost impact of a standard refers to the direct cost (in the sense of price or expense) which a standard would cause individuals, businesses and the community to incur. The economic impact of a standard refers to the impact a standard would have on the production, distribution and use of wealth across the economy, at the level of the individual, relevant businesses in the aviation sector, and the community more broadly. The economic impact of a standard could also include the general financial impact of that standard on different industry sectors.
The instrument makes amendments to CASA 68/24 to permit certain TIFPs designed by AA and GAS, which increase the circumstances in which flights by civil pilots operating civil aircraft can take place at military aerodromes in instrument flight conditions. This is expected to have a beneficial effect for civilian aircraft operators at these aerodromes.
CASA has assessed that the economic and cost impact of the instrument is not significant. There are no risks associated with different industry sectors. As such, CASA considers there will be no change of economic or costs impact on individuals, businesses or the community.
Impact on categories of operations
There are no material changes to the stakeholders or any particular categories of aviation operators. The instrument continues to enable instrument flight procedures to be available for civilian aircraft operators.
Impact on regional and remote communities
There are no material changes to the stakeholders or to regional or remote communities.
Office of Impact Analysis (OIA)
CASA has assessed the impact of the instrument against the Australian Government Impact Analysis Framework. The instrument makes minor or machinery changes to an existing instrument and there will be no significant change to the cost impact on individuals, businesses or the community. As the impact is below $20 million over 10 years and there are no disproportionate impacts, CASA has made the assessment that no Impact Analysis is required.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Making and commencement
The instrument has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260(1) of CASR.
The instrument commences on 9 July 2026 and is automatically repealed in accordance with section 48A of the LA.
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
CASA 23/26—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (Procedures at Richmond) Amendment Instrument 2026
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
CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024 (CASA 68/24) was made in 2024 to clearly apply provisions of Part 173 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) to the design of terminal instrument flight procedures (TIFPs) for the use of civil pilots and non-state aircraft at military aerodromes. Part 173 and the Manual of Standards made under that Part (the Part 173 MOS) regulate the designers of such TIFPs and impose safety standards on the design of the procedures.
The purpose of the amendments is to deal with the non-compliance of TIFPs for Richmond aerodrome with standards set out in provisions in the Part 173 MOS arising from the airspace changes to support operations at Western Sydney International Airport from 9 July 2026. The standards relate to overlapping procedures, airspace buffers and restricted areas. The instrument amends CASA 68/24 to alter these requirements, following a process of assessment by CASA. This would allow civilian pilots to use the TIFPs at Richmond, which enhances flight safety and increases the possibility for civil operators to access these aerodromes during Instrument Meteorological Conditions. In making a direction under the principal instrument, CASA applies the standards in subregulation 11.245(2) of CASR that it must be satisfied it is necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of air navigation and only for the purposes of CASA’s functions.
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