CASA 28/25 — Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (GAS Pty Ltd) Amendment Instrument 2025

Explanatory Statement

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

CASA 28/25 — Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (GAS Pty Ltd) Amendment Instrument 2025

Purpose

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 instrument amends the principal instrument, CASA 68/24, to alter some requirements that would otherwise apply under the instrument to certain TIFPs designed by Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd (GAS). These include standards set out in provisions in the Part 173 MOS about overlapping procedures, airspace buffers and prohibited and restricted areas. This follows a process of assessment by CASA of the TIFPs, including ground and flight validations conducted by CASA. The amendments also impose requirements in the interests of the safety of air navigation, related to the TIFPs, that must be met by GAS. 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. The amendments will permit civilian pilots to use additional TIFPs at Nowra, Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley. This enhances flight safety and increases the possibility for civil operators to access these aerodromes during instrument meteorological conditions.

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 the 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.

Subregulation 139.025(1) of CASR provides that the operator or an aerodrome must hold an aerodrome certificate for the aerodrome if: (a) there is a TIFP for the aerodrome; and (b) the procedure is not only for use in a specialised helicopter operation. Under subregulation 139.025(2) of CASR, a person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

Part 173 of CASR provides for the standards that apply to the design of TIFPs. Paragraph 173.005(1)(b) relevantly provides the Part applies to persons who want to become, or are, certified designers of TIFP and certain employees of those persons; and persons who design instrument flight procedures other than TIFP. 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 TIFP for use by an aircraft in circumstances where 1 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 and review TIFPs).

Under paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS, primary areas of certain instrument approach procedures must not be closer than 1 nautical mile to the primary area of a procedure at a second 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 2 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. Subclause 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 requirement. 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

CASA 68/24 was made to clarify the rules as intended to apply to the design of TIFP 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 of CASR.

Before the commencement of CASA 68/24, TIFPs at military aerodromes had been in operation for many years without any known issue relating to the aerodrome’s non‑certification. The TIFPs at these aerodromes have had 5 CASA flight revalidations since 2008, which confirmed that the aerodromes’ infrastructure supported the TIFPs. No safety issues relating to the aerodromes’ non-certification had been identified. Withdrawing the civilian TIFPs from military aerodromes would impact industry by severely restricting civil aircraft operations in poor weather and at night.

An equivalent level of safety had been maintained through application of established CASR Part 173 standards. For example, TIFPs had been designed to the CASR Part 173 criteria by CASR 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 Part 173 MOS and ongoing publication in the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) in accordance with the requirements of Part 175 of CASR.

The purpose of CASA 68/24 was to use the directions power in regulation 11.245 to extend the scheme in Part 173 to the design of TIFP for civil aircraft at military aerodromes, as far as is practicable. The Part 173 MOS permits TIFPs to be designed to aerodromes certified (or registered) under Part 139 of CASR only. However, military aerodromes are not required to be certified under CASR Part 139.

CASA 68/24 enables certain 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 TIFP 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 TIFP. 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. These include any conditions, recast as directions. 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.

Overview of instrument

The instrument makes amendments necessary to allow GAS to design and maintain TIFPs 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. These are TIFPs at Nowra aerodrome that overlaps with a TIFP (designed and maintained by Airservices Australia (AA) in its capacity as a certified designer under Part 173 of CASR) and TIFPs at Richmond aerodrome that overlaps with an AA-designed TIFP at Westmead hospital.

The instrument also makes amendments necessary to allow GAS to design and maintain TIFPs at Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley aerodromes that would otherwise 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, or in close proximity to, prohibited and restricted areas.

The instrument clarifies the requirements, set out in section 13 of CASA 68/24, about arrangements made between TIFP designers and aerodrome operators regarding obstacle data, and also makes some minor corrections and typographical amendments to Schedule 1.

CASA has assessed GAS’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.

Documents incorporated by reference

In accordance with paragraph 15J(2)(c) of the LA, the following table contains a description of the documents incorporated by reference into the legislative instrument, the organisation responsible for each document and how they may be obtained. The table also states how the document is incorporated.

Content of instrument

Section 1

This section provides the citation of the amending instrument as CASA 28/25 — Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2025.

Section 2

This section provides for the amending instrument to commence at the time it is registered.

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 to CASA 68/24.

Item 1

This item substitutes subsection 13(4) of Division 2 of the instrument to clarify that arrangements about communications between designers of TIFP and aerodrome operators, for the monitoring of obstacles, need to be agreed to in writing by the aerodrome operator.

Item 2

This item substitutes the heading to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the instrument for clarification and consistency within the instrument.

Item 3

This item substitutes the heading to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the instrument for clarification and consistency within the instrument.

Item 4

This item corrects an error in existing subclause 5(2) of Schedule 1 to the instrument. Subclause 5(2) of CASA 68/24 disapplies the requirements of regulation 173.100 (applied by Division 2 (and as modified under section 18) of CASA 68/24) under which a certified designer must ensure that each TIFP it has designed is given to the AIS for publication in the AIP together with a certificate by the chief designer to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with any applicable standards.

Subclause 5(2) is stated to apply to the chief designer, but it should apply to the certified designer, AA, not to AA’s chief designer. Therefore, this is in error and is corrected by this amendment. The requirement of the chief designer to provide a certificate about the design being in accordance with applicable standards is imposed on the chief designer under section 22 of CASA 68/24, and the disapplication of this requirement is dealt with by subclause 5(3) in Schedule 1.

Item 5

This item adds a new Part 4 to the end of Schedule 1, that provides for the disapplication of standards or requirements otherwise imposed under Division 2 of the instrument, for TIFPs designed by GAS for civil pilots and operators of civil aircraft at military aerodrome. These procedures are already being used by Defence pilots for State aircraft at these aerodromes.

Clause 13

This clause provides the definitions of terms used in the Part. The definition GAS procedures lists the TIFPs that are the subject of Part 4 and enables the shortening of provisions.

Clause 14

Subclause 14(1)

Subclause 14(1) disapplies GAS from the requirement, imposed under Division 2 of CASA 68/24, to meet the standards in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS when designing or maintaining a TIFP mentioned in the table. Paragraph 8.1.1.3 provides for standards relating to minimum distances between TIFPs.

The table sets out that 2 GAS procedures at Nowra overlap with a TIFP for Shellharbour aerodrome (Shellharbour Airport (YSHL) RNP RWY 34) and 2 GAS procedures at Richmond overlap with a TIFP for Westmead aerodrome (Westmead (YWST) RNP 127).

Subclause 14(2)

Subclause 14(2) disapplies GAS 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 a GAS procedure mentioned in the table in clause 14 is to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS.

Subclause 14(3)

Subclause 14(3) disapplies GAS’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 paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 MOS.

Clause 15

Subclause 15(1)

Subclause 15(1) inserts a requirement that GAS must ensure the design work in relation to a GAS procedure at Nowra mentioned in the table in subclause 14(1) is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the caution set out in the provision: “Caution: procedure is overlaid by YSHL RNP RWY 34. Aircraft separation is not assured after NOWRA APP hours.”.

Subclause 15(2)

Subclause 15(2) inserts a requirement that GAS must ensure the design work in relation to the GAS procedure Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10 is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the caution set out in the provision: “Caution: RNP RWY 10: procedure is overlaid by YWST RNP 127. Aircraft separation is not assured.”.

Subclause 15(3)

Subclause 15(3) inserts a requirement that GAS must ensure the design work in relation to the GAS procedure Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28 is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the caution set out in the provision: “Caution: RNP RWY 28: procedure is overlaid by YWST RNP 127. Aircraft separation is not assured.”.

Subclause 15(4) provides a definition for the terms NOWRA APP hours, used in subclause (1) and YWST, used in subclauses (2) and (3).

Clause 16

Subclause 16(1)

Subclause 16(1) disapplies GAS, in relation to its design of the procedures listed in column 1 of the table, from requirements to meet the standards of the provisions of the Part 173 MOS that are listed in the item of the table for the procedure. These are standards set out in paragraphs 8.1.1.4 and 8.1.1.5 of the MOS, as listed in the table. Paragraph 8.1.1.4 includes standards about airspace buffers that are required for procedures within controlled airspace. Paragraph 8.1.1.5 includes standards for procedures that cross or abut prohibited or restricted areas. These impose rules about the lateral and vertical distance of a TIFP from airspace boundaries, including restricted areas.

The table inserted by this subclause sets out multiple GAS procedures in Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley and details in column 1 which standards contained in paragraphs 8.1.14 and 8.1.15 are disapplied in relation to a procedure.

Subclause 16(2) is an application provision for the simplification of subclauses (3) and (4).

Subclause 16(3)

Subclause 16(3) disapplies GAS 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 a GAS procedure mentioned in the table in subclause (1) is to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards disapplied by subclause (1).

Subclause 16(4)

Subclause 16(4) disapplies GAS’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 disapplied by subclause 16(1).

Clause 17

Subclause 17(1)

Subclause 17(1) inserts a requirement that GAS must ensure the design work in relation to the GAS procedures which are the subject of the disapplication provisions in clause 16, and are listed in the table inserted by subclause 17(1), are carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the caution set out for the procedure in column 2 of the item.

Subclause 17(2) defines abbreviations that have been used in the phrases required by subclause (1).

Clause 17 is a direction, under subsection 15(4) of CASA 68/24, contravention of which is a strict liability offence with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units.

Clause 18

This clause inserts a requirement that GAS include in its operations manual copies of CASA 68/24 and any other direction CASA issues to the designer under regulation 11.245 of CASR. As a direction that CASA may issue to a single entity is not likely to be legislative (and, therefore, not published on the FRL), this provision would ensure any relevant rules are available to personnel of the designer.

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

The amended instrument is provided to include additional TIFPs for use by civil pilots, and provide clarity on what an “arrangement” is between a designer and Defence.

CASA understands that Defence aerodromes do have processes in place to monitor and report on obstacles as per Part 139 of CASR. Before the commencement of CASA 68/24, CASA had informed stakeholders that an arrangement could be as simple as the designer’s normal obstacle advice letter to the aerodrome operator which would include a request for their acknowledgement and agreement that they will monitor and report any changes to the designer. The amendment does not add to that scope.

GAS, the designer who is regulated by new Part 4 of Schedule 1, applied for the provisions in item 5 of Schedule 1 of the instrument and was given a copy of a draft instrument for comment. The instrument reflects amendments that GAS requested to the draft instrument.

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 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)

An Impact Analysis (IA) is not required in this case as the instrument is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OIA under which an IA is not required for directions, approvals, permissions and exemptions (OIA reference number: OIA23-06252).

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 at the time it is registered 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 28/25 — Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (GAS Pty Ltd) Amendment Instrument 2025

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 instrument amends the principal instrument, CASA 68/24, to alter some requirements that would otherwise apply under the instrument to certain TIFPs designed by Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd (GAS). These include standards set out in provisions in the Part 173 MOS about overlapping procedures, airspace buffers and prohibited and restricted areas. The amendments also impose requirements in the interests of the safety of air navigation, related to the TIFPs, that must be met by GAS. 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.

The instrument makes amendments necessary to allow GAS to design and maintain TIFPs 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 other TIFPs at Nowra and Richmond aerodromes. It also makes amendments necessary to allow GAS to design and maintain TIFPs at Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley aerodromes that would otherwise 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 instrument clarifies the requirements, set out in section 13 of CASA 68/24, about arrangements made between TIFP designers and aerodrome operators regarding obstacle data, and also makes some minor corrections and typographical amendments to Schedule 1.

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