CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2026

Explanatory Statement

Airspace Regulations 2007

CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2026

Purpose

The purpose of CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2026 (the determination) is to determine, for the use of aviators and others, the revised Australian airspace architecture which, effective on 9 July 2026, is derived primarily from the Designated Airspace Handbook (the DAH) of the Aeronautical Information Publication (the AIP).

The new airspace architecture determination incorporates major changes in 2 geographic locations relative to the repealed predecessor instrument; namely, changes in the Sydney Basin necessary for the introduction of Western Sydney International Airport (WSIA) and to create a new one-way visual flight rules (VFR) corridor out of Bankstown Airport (YSBK), and changes in northern NSW to introduce an air traffic control (ATC) service at Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport (YBNA). To effect these changes, the normal Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) processes have been followed and recorded.

Legislation — the Act

Section 15 of the Airspace Act 2007 (the Act) provides that the Governor-General may make regulations for the Act.

Under subsection 11(1) of the Act, the regulations may confer functions and powers on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in connection with the administration and regulation of Australian-administered airspace.

Under subsection 11(2) of the Act, the regulations may make provision for, and in relation to, various matters, including the classification and designation of airspace, and the determination of controlled aerodromes, flight information areas, flight information regions and control areas and zones.

Legislation — the regulations

Under subregulation 5(1) of the Airspace Regulations 2007 (the AsR 2007), CASA may, in writing, make various determinations about the aviation status of the airspace for whose management Australia has responsibility under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention).

Under subregulation 5(2) of AsR 2007, if a determination provides that a volume of airspace of a specified class ceases to be airspace of that class and becomes airspace of another specified class, the determination must specify the date or times of the changed classification or the conditions under which the airspace becomes airspace of another specified class.

Under subregulation 5(3), a determination must be made to take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP, or a NOTAM.

Under subregulation 5(4), unless sooner repealed, a determination ceases to have effect at the time, in the event, or in the circumstances specified in the determination, or on repeal of the determination.

Under subregulation 5(5), a determination has no effect during any period in which relevant air traffic services (ATS) are not provided.

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.

Background

Under regulation 5 of AsR 2007, CASA may make determinations that a volume of airspace is a flight information area, a flight information region, a control zone, a control area, or is classified, in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, as Class A, B, C, D, E, F or G airspace. A determination may also be made that an aerodrome is a controlled aerodrome.

Each of these determinations is relevant for the purpose of defining and regulating the use of, and relevant ATS provided in, the airspace.

For example, different airspace classifications give rise to differing requirements about the following: the type of flight permitted (whether under visual or instrument flight rules (IFR)); how aircraft are to be separated; whether there are speed limitations; and whether there are radiocommunication, navigation or ATC requirements. A controlled aerodrome is an aerodrome at which an ATC service is provided to air traffic. A flight information region is an airspace of defined dimensions within which a flight information service and alerting service are provided.

Under subsection 13(1) of the Act, CASA has responsibility for conducting regular reviews of the existing classifications of volumes of Australian-administered airspace to determine whether those classifications are appropriate.

The definitive description of Australian-administered airspace is compiled and monitored by Airservices Australia (AA). Currently, these descriptions are published twice yearly in an alternating 24- or 28-week cycle, in AA’s DAH, which is part of the AIP.

The DAH lists and describes, in tabular form, the lateral and vertical limits, and other relevant details, of Australian-administered airspace. The DAH, therefore, contains detailed airspace information in respect of the following: flight information regions; flight information areas; volumes of airspace that fall within the 5 current classifications of Australian-administered airspace (Classes A, C, D, E and G); volumes of airspace that fall within the 2 current control zones (for Class C airspace and Class D airspace); and controlled aerodromes.

On 1 July 2007, CASA took over from AA responsibility for the regulation of Australian‑administered airspace. While AA remains responsible for the definitive description of Australian-administered airspace, CASA underpins the legality and enforceability of AA’s DAH descriptions by embodying them in a determination under regulation 5 of AsR 2007.

AA has published its latest DAH, effective on, and from, 9 July 2026. This updated DAH contains some significant revisions of the descriptions of relevant airspace information since the previous issue by AA in November 2025. However, these changes to the determination are essentially amendments to airspace volumes that are required to achieve operational outcomes (in particular, at WSIA, YSBK and YBNA). Consequently, it is necessary for CASA, under regulation 5 of AsR 2007, to update the previous determination issued by CASA in November 2025.

Summary of the determination

The determination repeals the previous instrument of determination (CASA OAR 186/25 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2025 (CASA OAR 186/25)) and redetermines relevant matters in an instrument with changes effective on, and from, 9 July 2026.

This instrument determines relevant volumes of airspace as flight information regions and areas, as classifications of airspace, and as control zones, and determines relevant controlled aerodromes.

Details of the determination

More details of the determination are set out at Attachment 1.

Legislation Act 2003 (the LA)

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 repeals instrument CASA OAR 186/25 that was registered as a legislative instrument and is, therefore, also a legislative instrument.

Under subsection 8(4) of the LA, a written instrument is a legislative instrument if it is made under a power delegated by the Parliament and it determines, or alters the content of, the law with consequential effects on privileges, interests, obligations or rights. In effect, an instrument is relevantly taken to be a legislative instrument if it makes new law (rather than applying existing law to a case) and in doing so affects privileges, interests, obligations or rights.

The determination, by repealing and remaking in altered form the existing airspace management determinations is, therefore, a legislative instrument. It is subject to registration, and to tabling in the Parliament, under sections 15G and 38 of the LA, respectively. However, under items 3(a) and 5(c) of the tables in sections 10 and 12, respectively, of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, the determination is not subject to either disallowance or sunsetting as follows.

Disallowance

As the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under AsR 2007, Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the disallowance provisions) does not apply to the instrument (as per item 3(a) of the table in section 10 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015). The instrument is specifically prescribed, being a determination made under regulation 5 of AsR 2007.

As such, the instrument, which is of indispensable operational and navigational significance for both domestic and international aviation in Australia, is intended, in the interests of aviation safety, to have unqualified operation, certainty and clarity. It would cause serious confusion and safety risk for operators if disallowed, particularly for international operators. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for it to be subject to disallowance.

The determination is typically repealed and remade every 6 months. In the unlikely event that an instrument of this kind would be one to which the Parliament, or a House of the Parliament, made its objections known to CASA, it would certainly not be remade in the same or similar form within 6 months without CASA considering and, as far as safe and practicable, addressing those parliamentary concerns.

Sunsetting

As the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under AsR 2007, Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the sunsetting provisions) does not apply to the instrument (as per item 5(c) of the table in section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015).

The instrument, which is of indispensable operational and navigational significance for both domestic and international aviation, is intended, in the interests of aviation safety, to have unqualified operation and certainty, and it would not be appropriate for it to be subject to sunsetting. In any event, as a matter of longstanding and continuing practice since 2007, these determinations are typically repealed and remade every 6 months.

Although not applicable in this instance, it may be noted in passing that section 15 of AsR 2007 requires CASA to review all operationally-significant instruments at least once within every 5-year period after the instrument is made. In practice, determinations are reviewed every 6 months before being reissued in appropriately amended form.

Incorporations by reference

Under paragraph 15J(2)(c) of the LA, the Explanatory Statement must contain a description of the incorporated documents and indicate how they may be obtained.

There are no such specific documents incorporated into the determination.

Consultation

CASA’s usual consultation processes for the determination would normally follow a standardised procedure as follows.

The specific airspace change proposals contained in the determination were made available for consultation, which in some instances included by being posted by CASA on its website. Public and aviation industry comments, especially those of the airspace users of any relevant airspace, were invited on these proposals.

In addition, where possible, relevant Aviation State Engagement Forums (AvSEFs), previously known as Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPACs), were notified of the proposed amendments and their views sought.

AvSEFs are State-based aviation forums and AvSEF members are notified of papers promulgated on the AvSEF website covering all matters relating to airspace and related procedures in their particular geographic areas of interest. AvSEF membership is open to all stakeholders of the Australian aviation industry, including associations, organisations, and independent entities.

In the case of the present determination instrument, the key changes are those required for:

-          introduction of WSIA; and

-          provision of a Class D ATC service at YBNA; and

-         creation of a one-way VFR corridor out of YSBK.

From 2016 to 4 June 2025, industry consultation activities for the changes associated with WSIA were led by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. These activities resulted in amendments to the airspace design and procedures that were ultimately authorised by the Minister. From 4 June 2025, AA assumed responsibility for industry engagement in response to which further amendments were made to the airspace design to accommodate industry feedback and requests (where feasible). AA also undertook extensive community consultation from July to September 2025. The majority of concerns related to noise, which is not within CASA’s remit.

Responsibility for consultation on the introduction of an ATC service at YBNA was shared between AA (community consultation) and CASA (industry consultation), and consultation outcomes informed the development of the preferred design.

Creation of the VFR corridor out of YSBK has been consulted extensively by CASA over many years, following identification of elevated airspace collision risk within the YSBK control zone. Consultation with a broad range of industry stakeholders was undertaken by CASA, and AA carried out comprehensive community consultation.

Any representations made by airspace users and others in the course of consultation activities are taken into account by CASA in exercising its powers under the AsR 2007.

The next DAH revision and the associated determination instrument are expected to be made on or about 26 November 2026.

Office of Impact Analysis (OIA)

CASA considers that this type of instrument usually represents the administration of existing regulatory requirements. OIA has provided general advice that the administration of existing regulatory requirements is exempt from the preparation of an Impact Analysis (IA). However, on this occasion, CASA prepared an IA that addresses the economic and cost impact and the risks associated with different industry sectors for each of the airspace change proposals associated with WSIA and YBNA. The IAs are at Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.

Sector risk, economic and cost impact

Economic and cost impact

Under paragraph 17 of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2026, (the AAPS), the administration of Australian-administered airspace shall give priority to the safety of air navigation. In addition, application of the AAPS shall follow other principles, including considering cost implications for all airspace users.

The IAs at Attachments 2 and 3 address the economic and cost impact and the risks associated with different industry sectors for each of the airspace change proposals associated with WSIA and YBNA, respectively. Any negative cost impacts have been considered and balanced against the primary requirement to ensure safety for all airspace users.

The creation of the VFR corridor to the south-east of YSBK is limited in scope and has a positive economic impact, as it provides an expedited route for aircraft operating from YSBK to flight training areas to the south of Camden aerodrome without adversely impacting operations at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.

Environmental impact

Under subsection 9A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, while regarding the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as practicable, the environment is protected from the effects and associated effects of the operation and use of aircraft. Also, under paragraph 17 of the AAPS, application of the AAPS shall, as far as is practicable, ensure the environment is protected from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft.

An environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the changes associated with WSIA by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) in late 2024, and authorised by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on 4 June 2025. This authorisation was subject to conditions, including prioritisation of the use of reciprocal runway operations and noise abatement procedures at night (noting that consideration of aircraft noise does not fall within CASA’s remit). Evidence that the environmental impacts of the final airspace design remained within the bounds of the EIS was supplied by AA as part of their submission to CASA.

In contrast to WSIA, the changes associated with YBNA are changes associated with an existing aerodrome. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) was developed by AA, in collaboration with CASA, and the identified impacts triggered the requirement under section 160 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) to obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment (the Minister). The Minister decided that the proposed action was not likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

Similarly to the changes at YBNA, the creation of the southeast VFR corridor out of YSBK is associated with an existing aerodrome. An EIA was prepared by AA, which triggered the requirement under section 160 of the EPBC Act to refer the matter to the DCCEEW. A notification of referral decision was provided by DCCEEW indicating that the proposed action did not require the Minister’s advice.

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment 4 has been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The instrument is compatible with human rights and, to the extent that it may also limit human rights by imposing certain limitations on freedom of movement by aviators, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to protect aviation safety in the use of airspace.

Making and commencement

The instrument has been made by a delegate of CASA, in accordance with subregulation 13(1B) of the AsR 2007.

As required by subregulation 5(3) of AsR 2007, following registration, the determination commences on 9 July 2026 (at 1600 Coordinated Universal Time on 8 July 2026), the day it is published in the AIP DAH.

Attachment 1

Details of CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2026

Section 1 — Name

Under this section, the determination is named CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) Instrument 2026 to identify its purpose.

Section 2 — Commencement

Under this section, the determination commences at 1600 Coordinated Universal Time on 8 July 2026. It was published in the AIP DAH as required by subregulation 5(3) of AsR 2007, which is expressed to commence 9 July 2026 (local time).

Section 3 — Repeal

Under this section, the previous determination, CASA OAR 186/25, is repealed.

Section 4 — Definitions

Under this section, some terms and phrases are defined for clarity.

Section 5 — Determinations of airspace and controlled aerodromes, etc.

Under subsection 5(1), the CASA delegate determines that the volumes of airspace described in a Schedule listed in an accompanying table (the Table, see below), are the areas, regions or zones, or have the airspace classifications (in accordance with Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention), mentioned in the Table for the Schedule. The Table indicates as follows:

Under subsection 5(2), the CASA delegate determines that the aerodromes mentioned in Schedule 10 are controlled aerodromes.

Under subsection 5(3), it is provided that, subject to sections 6 and 7, each of the determinations made by subsections 5(1) and 5(2) ceases to have effect only if the instrument is repealed or amended, and then only in accordance with the amendment.

Section 6 — Determination that airspace of a class becomes airspace of another class

Under subsection 6(1), the CASA delegate determines that the airspace classified as Class A, C, D, E or G by section 5 above (initial classification) temporarily ceases to be airspace of that class and becomes airspace of another specified class in accordance with the condition mentioned in subsection 6(2).

Under subsection 6(2), and subject to subsection 6(3), a volume of airspace with an initial classification ceases to be airspace of that class and becomes airspace of another specified class outside the ATC service hours of activity specified in the AIP, or in a NOTAM authorised by the delegate, or, if the ATC service for the airspace has been suspended or has ceased functioning, in accordance with a NOTAM authorised by the delegate.

However, under subsection 6(3), airspace that would become classified as airspace of another class does not do so if AA continues temporarily to control the airspace under the initial classification because this is necessary for continued aircraft separation or other operational reasons. Under subsection 6(4), the airspace becomes the specified class as intended when the temporary requirement ceases.

Under subsection 6(5), the determination made by subsection 6(1) ceases to have effect only if the determination instrument is repealed or amended, and then only in accordance with the amendment.

Section 7 — Emergency determination that airspace of a class becomes airspace of another class

Under subsection 7(1), the CASA delegate determines that a volume of airspace, described in Schedule 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 (a classification Schedule) as being of the class mentioned for it in the Table in section 5 (initial classification), temporarily ceases to be airspace of that class and becomes airspace of another specified class in accordance with the condition mentioned in subsection 7(2).

Under subsection 7(2), a volume of airspace with an initial classification, as described in a classification Schedule, ceases to be airspace of that class and temporarily becomes airspace of another specified class (the new class) if hours of activity for the new class are specified in a NOTAM that is authorised in writing by the delegate.

Under subsection 7(3), an authorisation may only be given on the grounds that emergency or other conditions affecting, or that are likely to affect, the relevant airspace make the temporary reclassification of that airspace necessary or prudent in the interests of aviation safety. Under subsection 7(4), an authorisation mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must include the delegate’s determination that the grounds mentioned in subsection (3) exist.

Under subsection 7(5), an authorisation mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) may not remain in force for longer than 7 days but may be renewed in accordance with this section. Under subsection 7(6), the determination made in subsection (1) ceases to have effect only if the instrument is repealed, or amended, and then only in accordance with the amendment.

Section 8 — Determination for voice deactivation of a Class C Control Zone

Under subsection 8(1), the CASA delegate determines that a volume of airspace described in Schedule 5 as a Class C Control Zone temporarily ceases to be a Class C Control Zone and becomes airspace of another specified class if:

(a) the details for the Control Zone set out in Schedule 5 provide for its activation in accordance with an hours of activity statement that is a NOTAM (an activating NOTAM); and

(b) the activating NOTAM specifies a finish time for the activation (the specified finish time); and

(c) the Controlling Authority for the Control Zone uses voice telecommunication to a receiving ATC authority to deactivate the Control Zone earlier than the specified finish time (early deactivation) in accordance with subsection (2).

A Note explains that activation times specified in a NOTAM are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) unless otherwise indicated.

Under subsection 8(2), early deactivation may only be carried out if the activity for which the activating NOTAM was published has been completed or otherwise terminated, and the early deactivation has been authorised by the delegate.

Under subsection 8(3), early deactivation may not occur earlier than 60 minutes before the specified finish time unless an amending NOTAM is issued.

Under subsection 8(4), to avoid doubt, the period of activation of a Control Zone activated by NOTAM may not be extended by voice telecommunication past the specified finish time.

A series of Notes offers guidance. Note 1 explains that for an early deactivation within the 60 minutes before the specified finish time, an amending NOTAM is NOT required. Note 2 explains that for an early deactivation that is earlier than 60 minutes before the specified finish time, an amending NOTAM IS required. Note 3 explains that for an extension to the specified finish time, an amending NOTAM IS required.

Note 4 sets out the proper pro forma for an activating NOTAM as follows:

Reference/year NOTAMN

A) [Insert details]

B) [Insert start time specified in UTC]

C) [Insert finish time specified in UTC]

D) [Insert periods of activity details]

E) [Insert details of Control Zone, including the following statement:

“active; however, may be subject to early deactivation. Check status with [insert details of ATC authority].”]

Schedule 1 — Flight information regions (FIRs)

This Schedule describes the FIRs. These FIRs encompass the entire airspace overlying continental Australia out to 12 nautical miles (NM) beyond the coastline, plus other airspace allocated to Australia by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The effect of the determination is that this airspace is to be provided with a flight information service and an alerting service. For guidance only, a Note inserts a map of the FIRs.

The impact of the new determination of Australian FIRs is expected to be nil as these regions are in existence solely for the delineation of each flight information centre’s area of responsibility.

Schedule 2 — Flight information areas (FIAs)

This Schedule describes the FIAs. These FIAs encompass the entire airspace overlying continental Australia out to 12 NM beyond the coastline plus other airspace allocated to Australia by ICAO. The effect of the determination is that the FIAs are airspace volumes of defined dimensions, excluding controlled airspace, within which flight information and alerting services are provided by an ATS unit.

The impact of the new determination of Australian FIAs is expected to be nil as these regions are in existence solely for the delineation of each flight information centre’s areas of responsibility.

Schedule 3 — Class A airspace

This Schedule describes the Class A airspace. The effect of the determination is that in these areas only IFR aircraft are permitted. All flights are to be provided with an ATC service and be separated from each other.

The impact of the new determination of Class A airspace is expected to be negligible as the majority of this airspace is already in existence as previously established airspace for IFR operations within the Australian FIRs. Any changes are minor adjustments only.

Schedule 4 — Class C airspace

This Schedule describes the Class C airspace. The effect of the determination is that in these areas IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted. All flights are to be provided with an ATC service and IFR flights are to be separated from other IFR and VFR flights. VFR flights are to be separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights. New and amended Class C airspace volumes have been determined to accommodate WSIA, enable provision of an ATC service at YBNA, and create a one-way VFR corridor out of YSBK.

Schedule 5 — Class C Control Zones

This Schedule describes the Class C Control Zones. The effect of the instrument is that these areas contain the paths of IFR flights arriving and departing from aerodromes to be used under instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). These zones are established for current IFR and VFR operations within the Australian FIRs. A new Class C Control Zone has been determined around WSIA, and consequential amendments have been made to the Class C Control Zone at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.

Schedule 6 — Class D airspace

This Schedule describes Class D airspace. The effect of the determination is that in these areas IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted. All flights are to be provided with an ATC service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights. VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights. New and amended Class D airspace volumes have been determined to accommodate WSIA, enable provision of an ATC service at YBNA, and create a one-way VFR corridor out of YSBK.

Schedule 7 — Class D Control Zones

This Schedule describes the Class D Control Zones. The effect of the instrument is that these areas contain the paths of IFR flights arriving and departing from aerodromes to be used under IMC. A new Class D Control Zone has been determined around YBNA, and consequential amendments (associated with WSIA) have been made to the Class D Control Zone at YSBK.

Schedule 8 — Class E airspace

This Schedule describes Class E airspace. The effect of the determination is that in these areas IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted. IFR flights are to be provided with an ATC service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights. All flights will receive traffic information so far as practical. Minor adjustments have been made to accommodate WSIA.

Schedule 9 — Class G airspace

This Schedule describes Class G airspace. The effect of the determination is that in these areas IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted. The impact of the new determination of Class G airspace is expected to be negligible as the majority of this airspace is already in existence as previously established airspace for all flight operations within the Australian FIRs. Any changes are minor adjustments only.

Schedule 10 — Controlled aerodromes

Under regulation 7 of the Air Services Regulations 2019, certain qualified employees of AA may give air traffic instructions and air traffic clearances to an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome or in airspace that is determined to be of a particular class. Certain members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) are similarly empowered by the Defence Aviation Authority. This Schedule lists the aerodromes that are controlled aerodromes. The effect of the determination is to identify the aerodromes at which licensed AA or ADF air traffic controllers may issue enforceable directions and instructions to aircraft. WSIA and YBNA have been added to reflect their creation and transition (from uncontrolled to controlled), respectively.

Attachment 2

Impact Assessment for Western Sydney International Airport Airspace Changes

Background

The Australian Government in 2014 announced the decision to construct the Western Sydney Airport. A range of design decisions about the airport were published at the time of the decision, including:

• the location and size of the runway
• the types of aircraft and operations
• the construction stages and timelines.

A range of specific design parameters for the airport were subsequently specified in a draft EIS published in 2014 and the Master Plan published in 2025. Initially the airport will feature a single 3 700 m-long runway and eventually the construction of a second parallel runway, with this likely to occur in 2050.

In addition, the EIS outlined a number of operational parameters. These parameters related to the types of aircraft and the number of aircraft movements. The EIS estimated that there would be initially 21 aircraft movements per hour or approximately 63 000 per year. The EIS further outlined that there would be a need for changes to the surrounding airspace to facilitate the operation of the airport.

Problem

The construction of the Western Sydney Airport requires the airspace around the new airport to be amended to enable the operations of the airport and continue the safe operation of other aircraft operations around the airport.

The current airspace around the location of the Western Sydney Airport is Class G uncontrolled airspace that is inconsistent with the regulatory requirements specified in AsR 2007 for the airspace around a major international airport with 21 aircraft movements per hour.

The Western Sydney Airport would not be able to safely operate with 21 aircraft movements per hour within Class G airspace.

Objective

The objective is to establish a safe, efficient and equitable airspace design around the Western Sydney Airport. The airspace design must be consistent with the requirements specified in AsR 2007.

Options

Option 1: Status quo – No change to existing airspace

This option is not feasible because the Western Sydney Airport’s new runway, flight paths, and traffic volumes cannot be supported by the existing airspace structure. The new airport could simply not operate within that airspace design. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the requirements under AsR 2007 and aircraft operators (including international operators) would be likely to refuse to operate at the airport as it would be unsafe.

Option 2: Implement Class D airspace and a transponder requirement

This option uses the flight path changes finalised in the EIS and authorised in June 2025. The indicative flight paths for Stage 1 (single runway) and long-term (parallel runway) operations at the airport, based on AA’s preliminary airspace management analysis, were shown in the Airport Plan and the EIS.

The Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) is largely consistent with the indicative proposals provided in the EIS and the Master Plan. However, the current ACP is unique in that a separate requirement for a Transponder will be implemented for the Class D airspace surrounding the Western Sydney Airport. The transponder requirement is a key enabler of the airspace solution, which was selected to preserve operational viability for general aviation (GA) users. While it imposes a cost, it facilitates equitable access and enhances safety through positive conspicuity with less stringent meteorological criteria. It is the most efficient, or least costly, method of achieving the safety outcome around the Western Sydney Airport.

Further details of the airspace changes were subject to further consultation during 2025 and a final ACP was submitted to CASA.

Impact

Implementing Option 2: Class D and a transponder requirement

As the airspace changes are designed to facilitate the operation of the Western Sydney Airport, the economic impact of the airspace changes must be seen in the context of the economic impact of the airport overall. It is also important to note that the costs that arise from the airspace change are a consequence of the necessary safety-driven redesign of the airspace architecture to support the commencement of operations at WSI. The “do nothing” option was precluded on safety grounds.

The airspace changes are consistent with the strategic objectives outlined in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement, supporting the safe and efficient integration of WSI into the national airspace system.

A particular focus of the EIS analysis was on the impact of these flight paths and associated airspace changes on aircraft noise and the potential negative effect of noise on property values and tourism. The draft EIS also outlined the impact of the flight paths and airspace changes on the users of the Bankstown and Camden aerodromes, especially the training schools located at these aerodromes.

The economic impact of the Western Sydney Airport was estimated as part of the EIS. Some of the estimated economic impacts are:

• 750 full-time jobs during construction
• a total economic benefit of $1 900m during construction
• approximately 8 000 jobs at the airport after commencement
• additional jobs associated with services linked to the airport, such as surrounding support businesses
• once operating an economic benefit of $205m annually to the Australian economy.

Impact of the airspace changes

The EIS considers the impact of the airspace change on the flight training undertaken at the Bankstown and Camden aerodromes. The EIS reports that there are approximately 600 student pilots that are trained at Bankstown and Camden each year. Based on consultation with the affected training providers, it would result in increased transit times of 20 minutes to reach and return from the training areas under the new airspace design.

The additional 20 minutes would increase the cost of each:

• Recreational Pilot Licence training flight by $91.80
• Private Pilot Licence training flight by $50.60
• Joy flight sortie by $222.

The EIS assumed that the average increased cost would be $100 per flight and that there would be 150 000 training flights that would be impacted each year, resulting in an estimated cost of $15m annually.

This estimate of $15m is likely to overstate the annual cost of changes to airspace around Bankstown and Camden. A $15m annual cost would translate to an increased cost of $25 000 per student pilot and the estimate of 150 000 flights impacted implies that the 600 student pilots from Bankstown and Camden undertake 250 one-hour training flights each year. This is significantly higher than the average of 50 hours of flight training for student pilots.

Under the alternative assumption of 50 flights per student pilot, this would equate to an annual cost of $3m and an average increased cost of $5 000 per student pilot.

Transponder requirement

The airspace change will result in the classification of Class D airspace with the requirement for a serviceable transponder. A basic Mode S transponder can be retrofitted to aircraft for approximately $8 000.

While it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of aircraft that will require a transponder, there is evidence available on the current number of aircraft that are operating in the airspace that will be subject to the transponder requirement. For the affected airspace during January 2025, there were 63 flights with a flight plan for which the aircraft was not fitted with a transponder and a further 5 flights without a flight plan for which the aircraft was not fitted with a transponder. Based on these estimates, it is plausible that there will be 100 aircraft that use the affected airspace on a regular basis and would require the fitment of a transponder. The transponder fitment cost would be $0.8m for 100 aircraft.

However, this transponder fitment cost may overstate the total cost. It is possible that non‑equipped aircraft could choose to comply by altering their flight paths to avoid fitting a transponder and while this alteration of flight paths would be a cost impost to the operator, if they elect to comply this way it indicates that it is a lower cost of compliance.

The introduction of VFR coded clearances and dedicated ATS positions is expected to reduce procedural delays and improve operational efficiency for GA users, partially offsetting the increased transit times.

Overall cost impact

It is estimated that increased flight times will increase the annual cost of flight training undertaken at Bankstown and Camden aerodromes by $3m annually and impose a one-off transponder cost requirement of $0.8m.

The EIS estimates that the other costs of the airspace change in terms of negative changes in property values or reductions in tourism are not supported by evidence.

Consultation

The Draft EIS that outlined the flight paths and associated airspace changes was publicly exhibited for approximately 3 months in late 2023. In addition, there was an extensive program of community and stakeholder consultation activities.

Approximately 8 400 submissions were received from locations across Australia, with the majority of the submissions attributed to a location within the Sydney Basin.

The top 5 key issues identified in submissions[1] were:

• the flight paths and flight path design, hours of operation, aircraft movements and aircraft type
• aircraft noise, including the impact assessment approach, ambient noise monitoring, the noise impacts of the project (including sleep disturbance), and the mitigation, management and monitoring of aircraft noise
• project development and alternatives, including the preliminary flight path design process, changes since the 2016 EIS and suggested alternatives identified in submissions
• human health, including the impact assessment approach, the human health impacts of the project such as noise (in particular sleep disturbance), air quality and water quality, and the mitigation of these impacts
• social, including impacts of the project on the way of life, surroundings, quality of life, equity, health and wellbeing.

Of the submissions received, most did not support the project.

• less than 0.5 per cent of submissions clearly expressed support for the project
• 68 per cent of submissions clearly expressed an objection to the project
• 32 per cent of submissions did not clearly state a position or provided comment only on the project.

This consultation feedback was to be expected from community members located in the Sydney Basin. The feedback was considered in the context of the benefits that the Western Sydney Airport will provide to the community.

Implementation

The implementation of the airspace change is to occur in July 2026 to align with the commencement of aircraft operations.

AA will:

• finalise airspace design documentation and VTC publication
• conduct final safety assessments and implementation approvals
• deploy updated ATC procedures and systems across the Sydney Basin
• establish noise monitoring, community engagement forums, and noise abatement procedure compliance mechanisms
• undertake a post‑implementation review after 12-24 months of operations.

Conclusion

In 2014, the Australian Government decided on the construction of the Western Sydney Airport, including the design of runway and details of the types of aircraft operations. The current airspace around the Western Sydney Airport is classified as Class G uncontrolled airspace, which is incompatible with the airspace required for an international airport.

The option to implement Class D airspace with a transponder requirement around the Western Sydney Airport will achieve the objective of an efficient and equitable airspace design. While the option will impose an upfront transponder cost of approximately $0.8m and impose annual costs of approximately $3m on flight training schools located at Bankstown and Camden airports, the change will facilitate the large benefits of the Western Sydney Airport. The Airport is estimated to deliver an overall economic benefit of approximately $205m annually.

Attachment 3

Impact Assessment for Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport Airspace Changes

Background

The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport is a certified aerodrome operated by the Ballina Shire Council. The airport has one sealed runway and an Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service. Ballina is serviced by airlines, including Jetstar Airways, Virgin Australia, Regional Express Airlines, Qantas, QantasLink and Fly Pelican.

Additionally, general aviation aircraft, including helicopter and fixed-wing flying schools, operate from Ballina servicing the surrounding areas. Sport and recreational aviation, including ultra-light, sports rotorcraft, paragliding and hang-gliding operations occur within the vicinity of Ballina and Lismore.

The airport provides local residents and tourists services to the Ballina and Byron Bay region and is touted regularly as a holiday destination by the airlines that operate into Ballina. Tourism has been a primary driver in the considerable growth in aircraft movements, particularly passenger transport movements, that is apparent since 2017 in the Ballina airspace. The number of air transport flights increasing by approximately 50%.[2] The Ballina airport is now one of the busiest non-towered locations in Australia. The management of the airspace around Ballina has been a significant focus of CASA in recent years to ensure that the increase in aircraft movements is consistent with an appropriate level of safety.

The Airspace Act 2007 provides CASA with authority to administer and regulate Australian-administered airspace. Australian airspace is classified as Class A, C, D, E and G depending on the level of Air Traffic Service (ATS) required to best manage the traffic safety and efficiency.[3] The airspace classification determines the category of flights permitted, aircraft equipment requirements and the level of ATS provided.

The current airspace around Ballina is primarily Class G from 4 500 ft to 8 500 ft and does not have an Aerodrome Control Service, that involves Air Traffic Controllers managing the airspace and providing a system to manage the separation of aircraft.

Problem

The Ballina aerodrome has seen a considerable growth in aircraft movements, particularly passenger transport movements that is apparent since 2017, with the number of air transport flights increasing by approximately 50%.[4] The increase in aviation activity has rendered the airport high on the list of the busiest non-towered locations in Australia.

In addition, the risk profile has altered during that period driven by the introduction of new carriers and the provision of additional airline services.

While a number of risk mitigation measures have been introduced over time, including a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service in 2017 and a Flight Information Service, there has been a rise in the number of safety incidents, along with feedback from airlines on the risk factors present in the Ballina airspace.

In 2019, CASA was advised by the airlines operating in Ballina that they remained concerned about ongoing risks associated with their operations despite those risk mitigation measures adopted to date. The risk primarily related to potential conflicts with unknown VFR aircraft. To reduce this risk in 2019, a Broadcast Area (BA) with mandatory radio broadcast requirements was established within 10 NM of Ballina and CASA initiated a review of the Ballina Airspace.

Shortly after initiating the review of the Ballina Airspace in 2019, an incident occurred between a Jabiru aircraft and a Jetstar A320 aircraft on approach to Ballina outside the recently established BA which required immediate investigation[5]. A schedule of regular site visits, information exchange, forums and stakeholder engagement has ensued since 2019.

As a result of that engagement, CASA received information about an apparent increase in communication-related incidents and separation issues. This was followed shortly after by a joint letter from the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA) and the Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia (Civil Air) requesting the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to undertake an aeronautical risk assessment to consider a change in the airspace classification. The clear message is that refinements to the adopted mitigation measures as well as the introduction of additional measures may be necessary to reduce the residual airspace risk.

Since the initiation of the original review, there has been a significant shift in the risk profile driven by the increase in movements at Ballina, particularly post COVID. Furthermore, the concerns of the air transport operators regarding the level of residual risk remain, despite the measures that have been introduced.

The OAR Review

The OAR review reported that during the period 01 July 2020 to 31 July 2021, 41 occurrences within 20 NM of Ballina were recorded by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The table below illustrates the number of incidents.

Table 1: Ballina Incidents 01 July 2020 to 31 July 2021

The OAR review provided an assessment of a further 18 notable events over the review period, including:

• a Jetstar A320 aircraft conducted a missed approach due to a VFR aircraft transiting along the coast
• VFR aircraft failed to comply with the broadcast requirements of the Ballina BA. The aircraft mistakenly entered the northeast corner of the BA.
• VFR aircraft called Ballina SFIS to advise that they were departing Ballina tracking North. The aircraft had nil transponder and radio was mostly unreadable. This created a safety issue with inbound RPT aircraft.

CASA observes the frequency of separation incidents, which had previously remained at approximately 2 per year since 2010, has significantly increased since November 2020. Many of the incidents listed above occurred within the circuit area at Ballina. Given the increasing traffic levels, CASA expects the heightened rate of separation events per year to continue.

Taken together with the ATSB research[6] that almost 80 per cent of mid-air collisions occurred in or near the circuit area, the incidents, observations and findings outlined above tend to demonstrate an ongoing and unacceptable risk in the airspace volumes being present despite the measures that have been introduced.

Objective

The objective is to establish a safe, efficient and equitable airspace design around the Ballina aerodrome. The airspace design must be consistent with the requirements specified in AsR 2007.

Options

Option 1: Status quo

The current airspace around Ballina is Class G from 4 500 ft to 8 500 ft and does not have an Aerodrome Control Service. Without an Aerodrome Control Service, the primary method of traffic separation is visual and relies on pilots using “alerted see-and-avoid” practices and complying with the radio broadcast requirements.

Radio Service

In response to the increased aircraft activity the aerodrome operator in 2017 established, without regulatory compulsion, a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) which operated between 0800 hours and 1800 hours (local) when Air Transport Operations (ATO) aircraft greater than 30 seats operate.

In 2019, CASA was advised by the airlines operating in Ballina that they remained concerned about ongoing risks associated with their operations despite those measures adopted to date. The risk primarily related to potential conflicts with unknown VFR aircraft. To reduce this risk CASA mandated a BA with mandatory radio broadcast requirements within 10 NM of Ballina.

The establishment of the BA in conjunction with the CA/GRS, mandated the carriage and use of a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio. As a consequence, all aircraft are required to make at least one radio call — whether arriving, departing, or overflying Ballina intended to reduce the incidence of unknown VFR operations. On 28 January 2021, the Ballina BA was expanded to 15 NM to address some of the risks identified from the Jabiru incident and increase situational awareness of aircraft operating in the vicinity of Ballina.

Surveillance Flight Information Service

The Ballina aerodrome is also supported by a Surveillance Flight Information Service (SFIS), which is a Flight Information Service (FIS) provided to both VFR and IFR aircraft on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), it provides information to support pilot self‑separation. On 12 August 2021, AA introduced SFIS which utilises a dedicated console and provides an enhanced flight information service within 15 NM of Ballina from the surface to 8 500 ft above mean sea level (AMSL).

Under the status quo option, the Ballina Airspace would remain Class G from 4 500 ft to 8 500 ft and pilots would be primarily responsible for aircraft separation, with the support of the SFIS and a requirement for mandatory radio calls.

Option 2: Aerodrome Control Service Option

Under Option 2 aircraft separation in the Ballina airspace will be primarily managed by an ATC system. Class C airspace would be introduced between 4 500 ft to 8 500 ft, with AA providing an Aerodrome Control Service. There would be published flight paths for the Ballina airspace and the Class C airspace will require aircraft to be fitted with a transponder and for pilots to lodge a flight plan.

The Aerodrome Control Service would introduce an ATC service for aerodrome traffic, including aircraft flying in a designated volume of airspace in the vicinity of the aerodrome, the circuit area and operating on the manoeuvring area.

Aerodrome Control Services have historically been provided from ATC towers; however, the service could be provided remotely via visual surveillance system and other supporting systems.

The Aerodrome Control Service nominates the runway-in-use, issues taxi, take-off, and landing clearances as well as providing essential local traffic information. Effectively, air traffic controllers play a significant role in ensuring aircraft separation and the avoidance of mid-air collisions

Impact

This analysis considers the potential safety benefits and the cost impact of changing the airspace around the Ballina aerodrome to make it controlled airspace with the establishment of an Aerodrome Control Service provided by AA.

Benefits

The primary benefit of introducing an Aerodrome Control Service is a reduction in the risk of an aircraft accident, in particular, the risk of a mid-air collision. Recent research by AA can provide an indicative quantification of the benefits in terms of a reduced accident risk and economic valuation of that reduced risk.

Reducing the error rate for aircraft on a collision course

The extent to which an Aerodrome Control Service reduces the risk of a mid-air collision was recently published in research by AA analysing the safety benefits of changing the airspace design along the east coast of Australia.

AA reported within Class C airspace that there was a 100-fold improvement in the probability of the gross error rate for 2 aircraft on collision course within controlled airspace compared to uncontrolled Class G airspace, that was reducing the risk of an error from an estimated 1/200 to 1/20 000.

Collision risk and consequences

AA also modelled the reduction in the mid-air collision risk and found that the airspace changes along the east coast of Australia would reduce the collision risk from between 4-16 times above the Target Level of Safety (TLS)[7] to between 0.1-0.4 times (below) the Target Level of Safety. Or expressed in the probabilistic years between collisions, it would increase from ~700 years to ~25 000 years.[8]

In addition, AA outlined an economic valuation of the reduction in risk that identified the expected cost factors of such a VFR/IFR collision (Box 1).

Box 1: Economic Values of a mid-air collision

Source:AA 2022

The economic cost outlined in Box 1 and the collision risk estimates can be applied to derive an indicative quantified benefit of implementing controlled airspace at Ballina. The following estimates are based on the assumption of an IFR/VFR collision between an Airbus A320 carrying 170 people and a small aircraft carrying 2 people. This assumption for the type of collision is informed by the 2019 incident at Ballina between an A320 carrying 170 people and a Jabiru aircraft carrying 2 people.

For the consideration of this type of accident, utilising the values from Box 1 are that it would result in 172 deaths with an estimated societal cost of $1 204m, the loss of 2 aircraft with a value of $254m and an accident investigation cost of $174m. Therefore, the total economic cost for such an accident is estimated at $1 630m.

If the introduction of Class C airspace and an Aerodrome Control Service was to result in a 4 to 16 times reduction in the probability of this type of mid-air collision, this would lead to an estimated annual benefit ranging from $0.79m (if it was at the more conservative estimate of a 4 times improvement) to $3.2m if it was to result in a 16 times improvement in the accident risk.

While these estimates are indicative only and rely on a number of assumptions, they do provide an indication that for one element of the safety benefit, it is possible to derive an economic benefit to society of approximately $3.2m annually.

Cost impacts

The potential impact on airspace users

Powered aircraft operating in the proposed controlled airspace around Ballina between 4 500 ft and 8 500 ft must be fitted with a transponder that allows the aircraft to be identified to ATC, which can reduce the risk of a mid-air collision.

AA has provided CASA with an analysis of traffic through the proposed Class C airspace volumes. The analysis indicates a very high rate of transponder carriage by VFR traffic through the airspace. The existing high rate of transponder carriage indicates that the economic and cost impact on airspace users by deciding to use Class C between 4 500 ft and 8 500 ft will be low.

A transponder costs approximately $12 000 to fit to an individual aircraft. While it is not known with certainty as to the number of aircraft that would be affected, the consultation undertaken by CASA indicates that this could be in the range of 50 to 100 aircraft. At an estimate of 50 aircraft impacted, the estimated cost is $0.6m, or if it is 100 aircraft the estimated cost is $1.2m.

Airservices Australia

AA will be required to establish an ATC capability at Ballina. While there are different options for providing this, AA will establish a control tower and staff the tower with air traffic controllers. AA has provided estimated compliance costs. In terms of the initial capital costs to establish the control tower, AA estimates this to cost $12.8m. The ongoing cost to staff the tower and other ongoing costs is estimated at $3.5m.

These costs may eventually flow to the airspace users through the AA pricing agreement or result in reduced dividend payment from AA to the Australian Government. It has been reported that the domestic airlines have indicated strong support for funding the cost of an Aerodrome Control Service at Ballina.

Consultation

CASA and AA have undertaken extensive consultation on the options for the airspace design around Ballina, including:

• industry consultation on a draft Ballina Airspace Review in early 2022
• publication of a draft Ballina Airspace Review in 2022
• an initial Community Engagement Plan published by AA, June 2024
• preliminary Flight Paths published by AA, July 2024
• preferred Flight Paths published by AA, November 2024.

CASA consultation

Following on from industry feedback on a draft Airspace Review, CASA published a draft Airspace Review for public consultation in June 2022. The review outlined the current airspace design, the nature of the aircraft operations, safety issues and CASA’s preferred option to implement controlled airspace.

CASA received 148 responses from a variety of airspace users. Most were from airlines, aerial work operators, flight training, air transport licence holders, commercial licence holders, private/recreational pilots, sports aviation pilots and air navigation service provider staff.

The reduction of airspace risk was widely supported. There was virtually no opposition to the importance of airspace safety and strong support to improve safety in and around Ballina.

There were some differences in opinion regarding the appropriateness, timing and phased implementation of the recommended measures.

There were a small number of remarks regarding the cost associated with the recommendations. Some preferred more cost-effective solutions such as the existing SFIS services. The primary concern among the general aviation community was the balance between retaining the current level of access and amenity while deriving the safety dividend.

Airservices Australia consultation

AA outlined the 9 proposed flight paths based on the feedback and published the Proposed Flight Paths for consultation in June 2024. This included a survey that asked the community to choose “I support” or “I do not support” for each path, and then provided an open field for comments.

A total of 69 survey responses and 52 email submissions were received during the consultation period.

The feedback for the 9 proposed flight paths was mixed, with respondents raising issues relating to aircraft noise, potential contamination of water supplies, minimisation of carbon emissions and keeping aircraft over water.

AA revised the proposed flight paths based on the feedback and published the preferred flight paths for consultation in November 2024.

A total of 16 survey responses, 7 emails and 1 postal submission were received during the engagement period. For 6 of the 9 preferred flight paths, there was majority support from the responses and for 3 of the preferred flight paths, there was majority opposition from the responses.

Most of the feedback involved changes such as shifting the flight path or increasing altitude that cannot be implemented due to international design standards and/or the need to maintain a safe and efficient air traffic network. The final design aims to provide a balanced outcome that reflects all the factors outlined in our Flight Path Design Principles. After carefully reviewing the feedback received, AA has stated that the preferred flight path design will proceed as the final design.

Implementation and Review

The establishment, amendment and disestablishment of airspace is made through a legislative instrument, with the airspace determined by that legislative instrument made available to users of airspace through the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) published by AA.

CASA has directly engaged with the users of the Ballina airspace for at least 6 years on the airspace design issues around Ballina and will continue to engage directly with the airspace users to support their transition to the revised airspace design.

CASA through the OAR will continue to monitor the airspace design of Ballina and should there be significant change in operational profile of the airspace, the OAR will undertake a formal Airspace Review. In addition, the OAR will respond to any airspace change proposal related to Ballina. These proposals can be submitted by any stakeholder, including individuals, residents, pilots, or aircraft operators.

Conclusion

The airspace surrounding the Ballina aerodrome has experienced a strong growth in aircraft movements, including air transport flights, as tourism and recreation demand grows in the area. The number of aircraft movements are now at a level that is typically associated with the provision of Aerodrome Control Service and controlled airspace.

While there have been changes to the design of the Ballina airspace in recent years, including the introduction of SFIS, it has been identified by CASA that there remain safety risks, related to the growth in aircraft movements. More specifically, there are a number of safety incidents that reveal that the current system for avoiding the risk of a mid-air collision is not sufficient in reducing the risk of a collision and this includes that the system of radio calls has led to a congestion problem and the visual separation by pilots is subject to failure. The airlines operating into the Ballina aerodrome have reported concerns to CASA about the current airspace design.

CASA is proposing to introduce Class C airspace between 4 500 ft to 8 500 ft, with AA providing an Aerodrome Control Service. While this has a cost in terms of AA requiring a control tower and the ongoing costs of maintaining it and between 50 to 100 aircraft may require a transponder to continue to operate in that airspace, there are significant safety benefits.

Extending Class C airspace down to 4 500 ft in the vicinity of Ballina will provide improved safety and service provision for IFR and VFR aircraft through the provision of separation and traffic information services supported by electronic surveillance.

References

Airservices Australia. En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA), effective 24 May 2018, Airservices Australia;

Airspace Act 2007, Australian Government, Canberra;

Airspace Regulations 2007, Australian Government, Canberra;

Australian Transport Safety Bureau 2004, Aviation safety investigations and report 2012‑2018, retrieved 16 May 2018 from <http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-investigationreports/?mode=Aviation>;

Aviation Safety Incident Reports 2012-2018, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra;

Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Office of Airspace Regulation (2022). Airspace Review of Ballina;

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 2015, Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015, Canberra. <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01133>.

Attachment 4

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

CASA OAR 086/26 — Determination of Airspace and Controlled Aerodromes, Etc. (Designated Airspace Handbook) 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

The legislative instrument is a determination under regulation 5 of the Airspace Regulations 2007. Under regulation 5, CASA may make determinations that a volume of airspace is a flight information area, a flight information region, a control zone, a control area or is classified, in accordance with Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), as Class A, B, C, D, E, F or G airspace. A determination may also be made that an aerodrome is a controlled aerodrome. Each of these determinations is relevant for the purpose of defining and regulating the use, and relevant air traffic control, of the airspace. Such a determination is a legislative instrument.

Human rights implications

Each of the determinations in the legislative instrument may indirectly engage the right to freedom of movement in the air under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR). This arises because, under other civil aviation rules, not all aircraft are permitted to fly in every classification of airspace as they might choose. However, this right is more directly engaged by the primary requirements of airspace regulation designed for aviation safety and conformity with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization under the Chicago Convention.

The orderly regulation of classes of airspace for different kinds of flight also has the effect of increasing aviation safety generally. To this extent, the determination instrument engages the right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR, and the right to safe and healthy working conditions for air crew under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, in each instance, the engagement has the effect of directly or indirectly promoting the relevant right.

The instrument is otherwise 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. To the extent that the instrument engages relevant rights, the engagement is either reasonable, necessary and proportionate, or the right is positively promoted.

Conclusion

The legislative instrument is compatible with human rights and to the extent that it may also limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to protect aviation safety in the use of airspace.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[1] Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design | Environmental Impact Statement | Submissions Report

[2] CASA 2022

[3] How airspace is managed - Airservices

[4] CASA 2022

[5] <Separation occurrence involving Airbus A320-232, VH-VGP and Jabiru J230D, 24-7456, near Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, New South Wales, on 28 November 2020 | ATSB>.

[6] ATSB 2004

[7] The Target Level of Safety 1.5 ×10-8 fatal accidents per flight hour.

[8] AA-TEMP-SAF-0060 v2