notice of final change - civil aviation safety authority · readers should note that this notice of...
TRANSCRIPT
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of
Part 139 MOS – January 2015
Project Number: AS 11/15
NOTICE OF FINAL
CHANGE
Aerodromes
Runway Width Review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes
Section 6.2 - Runways
and
Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of Part 139
MOS - Aerodromes, Chapters 1 and 2 including changes
to subsequent chapters
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 1
Readers should note that this Notice of Final Change (NFC) contains the summary of responses
(SOR) to the consultation draft of Notice of Proposed Change (NPC) 139/05. This NFC also
contains the detailed comments received by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (Annex
A); CASA’s agreed policy and intended legislative changes (Annex B).
This NFC finalises the public consultation process in respect of the NPC.
Audience
This NFC will be of interest to:
aerodrome operators
airlines
aircraft operators
pilots
relevant CASA personnel
Airservices Australia
publishers of aeronautical information products
suppliers of aeronautical data for aeronautical navigation databases
instrument flight procedure designers Organisations responsible for objects and
structures which affect aviation safety.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 2
Foreword
On 5 March 2014, CASA published for consultation NPC 139/05 (project AS 11/15) - Runway
Width Review of Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Aerodromes Section 6.2 - Runways and
Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Chapters 1 and 2 including
changes to subsequent chapters.
The purpose of this NFC is to set out CASA's disposition of comments received during
consultation on the amendments and to document CASA's disposition to those comments.
This NFC:
provides a background of the regulatory policy proposed and consultation undertaken
discusses the submissions made in response to NPC 139/05
provides an analysis of the responses and gives CASA's response and disposition
discusses the impact and gives an explanation of the changes
provides the final legislative changes and associated advisory materials.
CASA received sixteen responses to the NPC 139/05 consultation documents. A summary of
responses, together with CASA's disposition is attached to this NFC at Annex A.
CASA would like to thank those who participated in the consultations on the issues addressed in
the NPC. The input of stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected by the proposals is
appreciated and valued in our regulatory development process.
Nick Ward
A/g Executive Manager
Standards Division
January 2015
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 3
Contents
1 Reference material 4
1.1 Acronyms and abbreviations 4
1.2 Definitions 4
1.3 References 6
2 Introduction 7
2.1 Objectives of the proposed change(s) 8
2.2 Previous consultation 9
3 Summary of responses 10
3.1 Respondents 10
3.2 Analysis of responses 11
4 Conclusion 15
4.1 CASA’s disposition 15
5 Implementation and review 16
5.1 Implementation timeframes 16
5.2 Transition and post-implementation reviews 16
Annex A Summary of responses to NPC 139/05 A1
Annex B Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No.1) B1
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 4
1 Reference material
1.1 Acronyms and abbreviations
The acronyms and abbreviations used in this NFRM are listed in the table below.
Acronym / abbreviation Description
AFM Aeroplane Flight Manual
ARC Aerodrome Reference Code
CAR 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CASR 1998 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
CAO Civil Aviation Order
MOS Manual of Standards
NFRM Notice of Final Rule Making
NPC Notice of Change
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NRF NPC Response Form
PIR Post-Implementation Review
RESA Runway End Safety Area
RVR Runway Visual Range
RPA Rules and practices for aerodromes
SARP Standards and Recommended Practice
SCC Standards Consultation Committee
SOR Summary of Responses
1.2 Definitions
Terms that have specific meaning within this NFRM are defined in the table below.
Term Definition
Airways Engineering Instructions (AEI)
The official publication known as Airways Engineering Instructions issued:
by CASA or its predecessors, before the RPA was first issued; or
otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth
Aerodrome facility Any of the following at, in, or on something at an aerodrome, for which standards are provided by the MOS:
surfaces
infrastructure
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 5
Term Definition
structures
buildings
installations
stations
systems
equipment
earthing points
cables
lighting
signage
markings.
Airport Engineering Instructions (APEI)
The official publication known as Airport Engineering Instructions issued:
by CASA or its predecessors, before the RPA was first issued; or
otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth.
Airport Instructions (API) The official publication known as Airport Instructions issued:
by CASA or its predecessors, before the RPA was first issued; or
otherwise by or under the authority of the Commonwealth.
Other aerodrome facility standard
For an aerodrome facility that does not comply with the standards set out in the MOS, the RPA, the AEI, the APEI, or the API, means:
the standard, procedure or practice (the SPP) that the aerodrome facility was designed and constructed, being an SPP which, at the time, was required by the Commonwealth to be complied with for the design and construction of the aerodrome facility; or
where CASA is satisfied that the SPP that the aerodrome facility was designed and constructed is an historical SPP that can no longer be identified with certainty — an SPP specified in writing by CASA, following consultation with the aerodrome operator, as the standard to which, on the basis of its current characteristics, the aerodrome facility was probably designed and constructed.
Upgrade (for an aerodrome facility
1. Any change to, or improvement of, the facility that allows it to do one or more of the following:
accommodate the parking, holding, movement or operation of larger or heavier aircraft, or aircraft modified to carry more passengers or freight
accommodate the parking, holding, movement or operation of more aircraft
be used by aircraft flying under changed approach conditions, for example, a change:
o from non-instrument to non-precision instrument; or o from non-precision instrument to precision instrument;
or o from precision category I to category II or III
accommodate aircraft take-offs and aerodrome surface movements in RVR conditions of less than 550m.
2. The replacement of any aerodrome facility that does not comply with the standards for the facility in this MOS. Note: The upgrade of a particular non-compliant aerodrome facility is the trigger for that particular non-compliant facility to be brought into compliance with the relevant MOS standards. Since the timing and budgeting of an upgrade is usually under the aerodrome operator’s control, so too is the timing of works necessary to bring the non-compliant facility into compliance with the MOS.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 6
1.3 References
Regulation 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998)
Regulation 235A of Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988)
Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) – Aerodromes
Annex 14, Aerodromes, to the Chicago Convention
Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 235A-1(0)
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 7
2 Introduction
Project AS 11/15 commenced on 24 May 2011 to amend the runway width requirements
prescribed within Chapter 6 of the Part 139 MOS. Part 139 MOS references the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) aerodrome reference code (ARC), which is
the code that aerodrome facilities and runways are designed. The application of the ARC in the
Part 139 MOS has resulted in aircraft operations being limited, based on aircraft characteristics.
Runways that are narrower than the runway width dimensions set out in the ARC are classified
as narrow runways.
In June 2012, CASA adopted a policy to de-link the requirements of aeroplane operations (into
and out of narrow runways) from the aerodrome design requirements set out in the Part 139
MOS.
CASA launched two separate projects to propose amendments to Part 139 MOS.
The first project (AS 11/14 – the ‘PIR Project’) was initiated to conduct a post-
implementation review (PIR) of Chapters 1 and 2 of the Part 139 MOS. While work was
underway on this project, the second project arose.
The second project (AS 11/15 –the ‘Runway Width Project’) was launched to amend the
runway width requirements prescribed within Chapter 6 of the Part 139 MOS and
separate the regulatory management of aeroplane operations from the design of
aerodromes.
During the PIR Project, CASA identified a number of areas within Chapters 1 and 2 of the Part
139 MOS that needed to be modified. As these changes directly related to the Runway Width
Project, CASA decided that the two projects would be run concurrently, with a joint consultation
process, to ensure that the proposed changes could be reviewed by industry as one package.
At the time this project was initiated, CASA policy required aerodrome operators to widen
runways to accommodate aeroplanes that were, at that time, operating into and out of
aerodromes with narrow runways. In addition, many of the affected aeroplanes had approved
narrow runway Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) supplements. Subsequent to the introduction of
the Part 139 MOS, operations of aeroplanes into and out of aerodromes required specific
exemptions for the aeroplanes against the runway width requirements.
As part of the original policy, CASA decided to move away from the established practice of:
permitting large aircraft to operate to lesser runways via operational exemptions
requiring aerodromes to upgrade to the requirements of the new critical aircraft within a
specified timeframe to meet the requirements of that size aircraft.
Following further consideration of aeroplane operational requirements, CASA will no longer
mandate that aerodrome operators must upgrade any facility for continued operations of a
specifically approved aeroplane type, or the introduction of a new larger aircraft type.
Aerodrome upgrades will be a decision made by the aerodrome operator; however, aeroplane
operators will need to assess the available aerodrome facilities and any risks associated with
operating larger aeroplanes into or from an aerodrome designed to a specific ARC; or in many
cases, aerodromes that were constructed prior to the current standards.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 8
Significant change to the Part 139 MOS is required with the removal of the references to ‘critical
aircraft’ and ‘critical aeroplane’ from the MOS. This has the effect of de-linking continued
aeroplane operations from aerodrome design and operational requirements.
Aeroplane operators will no longer need to apply for exemptions to operate aeroplanes into
narrower runways than specified by the ARC. Aeroplanes will be required to operate in
accordance with an approved AFM narrow runway supplement specified AFM runway width
limitation or operational documentation (i.e. the Airbus A380 has an AFM 45 m wide runway
limitation).
One of the other consequences of the changes to Chapters 1, with the removal of references to
Part 121A of CASR 1998, is that the Part 139 MOS is now applicable to certified and registered
aerodromes that only have charter operations. With the other changes introduced under this
project, these aerodromes only need to nominate their ARC and maintain their facilities under
the standards which existed at the time they were built. The provisions of the Part 139 MOS
would only come into effect if the facilities are upgraded or replaced.
CASR 139.190 requires certified aerodromes to provide a visual approach slope indicator
system for jet-propelled aircraft conducting regular public transport (RPT) or charter operations.
Before these amendments to Part 139 MOS, this requirement did not apply to charter operations
due to the applicability of the MOS. To avoid disadvantaging current charter operators, CASA
has issued a general exemption against CASR 139.190 to certified aerodromes to allow charter
operations without a visual approach slope indicator system for jet-propelled aircraft. It is
intended that this general exemption will remain in place until CASR Parts 119, 121 and 135
come into effect, at which time RPT and charter operations will be regulated together as air
transport operations.
2.1 Objectives of the proposed change(s)
The objectives of the proposed changes were as follows:
change the runway width requirements (identified during the Runway Width Project)
editorial changes to Chapter 1
editorial changes to Chapter 2
remove reference to Regulation 235A of CAR 1988
amend Chapter 2 to require aerodrome operators to determine an ICAO ARC for
aerodrome facilities
remove any requirement for aerodrome upgrades to meet the coding of the largest
aircraft serving a port
remove reference to critical aircraft and align terminology with Annex 14 to the Chicago
Convention
remove specific reference to the Airbus A380 and promulgate generic standards to
cater for new large aeroplane type
remove Chapter 13 of the Part 139 MOS and incorporate contents into a new Advisory
Circular (AC)
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 9
2.2 Previous consultation
The original NPC 139/05 was consulted internally within CASA in March 2012.
Subsequent to the policy change in June 2012, the two projects (AS11/14 - PIR and AS11/15 -
Runway Width Projects) were combined with the consequential expansion of the NPC 139/05.
Consultation on the amended regulation 235A of CAR 1988 and the new CAAP 235A, was
previously conducted during May and June 2013.
In addition, there has been consultation in regards to the narrow runway related project with the
Standards Consultative Committee (SCC), both on the website and at dedicated SCC meetings
from 2012 through 2014.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 10
3 Summary of responses
3.1 Respondents
Sixteen respondents submitted comments to the NPC:
eleven industry representatives
three private individuals
two CASA staff
Industry
Organisation Response
Essendon Airport NRF
Airportsplus Email
Ballina Byron Gateway Airport - Government NRF
Lismore Regional airport - Government NRF
AFAP- Brian O'Dea NRF & letter
Regional Express- Garry Filmer NRF
AIPA Letter
Department of Planning and Transport Infrastructure, SA Government
Australian Airports Association Email
Sydney Airport NRF
Ayres Rock Airport Letter
Private Individuals
Peter Cochrane NRF
Keith Pope - Qld Airports Limited Email
Nil consent to name being published Email
CASA
Representative Response
CASA Aerodrome Inspector Email
CASA Standards Officer Project Leader Email
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 11
3.2 Analysis of responses
Analysis of the nine respondents’ disposition to each key proposal detailed in the NRF is
provided below and in Figure 1.
Respondents that provided responses in letters and emails are addressed separately in general
terms and can be found in the SOR in Section A9 - General comments. Responses in letter and
email form are not addressed in detail in this analysis.
In addition some responses were outside the terms of reference for this project, specifically
referenced the aeroplane operational Regulation 235A of CAR 1988 and supporting
CAAP 235A-1(0).
Appropriate answers to the respondents input on the operation of aeroplanes on narrow runways
are not addressed in this analysis but can be found in the SOR Annex A.
Of the nine respondents:
one respondent was ‘very satisfied’;
four were ‘satisfied’;
two were ‘dissatisfied’ with the CASA consultation on the issue;
two respondents did not comment on the consultation process;
only one respondent answered ‘Not acceptable under any circumstances’. This was 6%
of the total number of qualification answers to the Key Proposals.
3.2.1 Key proposal 1
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 1:
six respondents agreed to the proposal without change
one change to the regulation was made, in accordance with the respondent's
recommendations – Paragraph 1.1.5.3 was amended to take into account the new title:
Manager, Air Traffic Management System Standards Section, Standards Division of
CASA
Of the other two responses:
one recommendation was outside the terms of reference of the project
the other response included several comments which were general in content and not
directly applicable to the proposal.
In addition, some of the issues raised in the comments will be addressed in the future complete
review of the Part 139 MOS.
3.2.2 Key proposal 2
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 2:
three respondents agreed to the proposal without change
two respondents recommended that the term ‘upgrade’ should be clearly defined, CASA
agreed and as such the regulation was amended accordingly
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 12
two respondents recommended that the standards to which the (older) facilities comply
is further clarified. CASA agreed to this recommendation, the regulation was amended
accordingly.
two respondents recommended that Table 2.1-2 – Aerodrome reference codes and
aeroplane characteristics and Table 5.1-1 – ACN values should remain in the
document. CASA disagreed; these tables are difficult to keep up to date. Up to date
information can be obtained from the manufacturers and ICAO. The appropriate
location and publication of the information contained within these tables is under
consideration. The MOS is a not a document that is easy to update when these values
change
3.2.3 Key proposal 3
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 3:
seven agreed without change
one respondent's concern is addressed by the fact that 235A of CAR 1988 is being
revised
one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. This respondent
was not aware that the operational 235A of CAR 1988 rule has been revised, with the
applicable consultation to that the Narrow Runway project addressing the respondents
concerns.
No change to the regulation was required as a result of the responses.
3.2.4 Key proposal 4
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 4:
six agreed without change
one respondent did not provide comment against the ‘changes would make it
acceptable’ so it was not possible to provide comment to that response.
two responses addressed the issue of aerodrome operators choosing their code for the
aerodrome facilities. CASA clarified that the aerodrome operator had to select the code
that would provide compliance against the Part 139 MOS requirements covering all
facilities required for the intended operation (i.e. the taxiways have to provide access
from the runways and the apron area had to meet the standards for the intended
operation).
No change to the regulation was required as a result of the responses.
3.2.5 Key proposal 5
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 5:
six agreed without change
one respondent indicated the difficulty of determining when a facility was built and, as
such, the particular ARC and another respondent questioned what would be the trigger
for an upgrade. CASA response – it is required for the aerodrome operator to determine
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 13
the code to which the aerodrome complies, with any future upgrade of facilities are
required to meet the requirements of the Part 139 MOS requirements.
one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. CASA disagreed
with the respondent's comments as it was apparent that the respondent did not fully
understand that the proposal is not changing the requirements that an aerodrome is
required to meet when it is being designed or upgraded. The standards remain the
same (i.e. in accordance with the Part 139 MOS).
No change to the regulation was required as a result of the responses.
3.2.6 Key proposal 6
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 6:
eight agreed with no change
one respondent indicated that the proposal would be supported if the MOS was aligned
with Annex 14 in regard to the term ‘critical aircraft’.
CASA agrees that it is necessary to align with Annex 14 and for this reason the term 'critical
aircraft’ is being removed from the MOS as the context in which it is referred in the Part 139
MOS is to place operational restrictions on the use of the aerodrome by certain aeroplane types.
This is not the intent of this term in Annex 14; and as such, the proposal supports the
respondents view. The future Part 139 MOS review will address the context in which this term is
currently used such that all reference to the operational restrictions placed on aeroplanes will be
removed from the MOS.
3.2.7 Key proposal 7
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 7:
six agreed with no change
one respondent recommended that Paragraphs 6.2.14.3 and 6.3.2.1 be amended to
make reference to “Code F” instead of specific reference to the A380. . CASA agrees
that reference to the A380 may be able to be removed and replaced with the generic
term “Code F”. However, as a result of further consideration of the consequential
implications of removing specific reference to the A380 and the manner in which the
PIR Key Proposal 7 was worded it is CASA’s opinion that to change all references in
the MOS from A380 to “Code F” may have unintended consequences for other aircraft
types which may not been specifically referenced in the consultation. Additionally, the
inclusion of shoulders for runways and taxiways for the A380 was the subject of an
aeronautical study and removal of this requirement would require further assessment.
As a result of CASA’s reassessment of this particular Key Proposal it is intended for to
specifically address the issues of reference to the A380 as a future priority in the
proposed re-write of Part 139 MOS.
the remaining two responses indicated an interpretation that the aerodrome standards
are used to limit the operation of aeroplanes, this is an incorrect interpretation. This is
one of the primary aspects of this PIR and that is to remove reference in the Part 139
MOS limiting the operations of aeroplanes.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 14
One respondent did not accept the change under any circumstances. This respondent
had a misunderstanding that the A380 was re-certified to code E. Aeroplanes are not
certified to specific codes.
CASA noted the overall agreement of the respondents to this Key Proposal. However due
consideration of the manner in which the consultation was presented, and the Proposed
Amendments summarised in Key Proposal 7, it was decided to withhold the amendments of this
proposal for incorporation in the future proposed rewrite of 139 MOS.
This Key Proposal was not only to remove reference to the A380 but also to make the standard
generic to facilitate operations of all larger aeroplanes, not just the A380 i.e. reference to Code
F. With the manner in which the MOS is currently drafted in order to affect this change would
have required further re-structuring applicable sections of the MOS provisions which may have
caused unintended consequences for both aerodrome and aeroplane operators.
The respondents comments recorded in this NFRM will be taken into account with the future
rewrite of the 139 MOS.
As a result of this policy decision it was decided not to make any changes to the regulation.
3.2.8 Key proposal 8
Nine respondents commented on key proposal 8:
eight agreed with no change
one respondent did not accept the change under any circumstance.
This respondent was not aware that the MOS is a manual of standards and that Chapter 13 is
not a standard and, as such, does not belong in the MOS; however, CASA acknowledges that
this information should be re-located in another document. The appropriate details contained
within Chapter 13 will be transferred across to advisory material that is currently under
development.
No change to the regulation was required as a result of the response.
3.2.9 General comments
29 general comments were received to the NPC and these are detailed in Section A.9 of the
SOR in Annex A. Only two of these comments resulted in CASA's disposition for a change to the
regulation. Many of the remaining comments were outside of the scope of the NPC.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 15
4 Conclusion
The reference to ‘upgrade’ aerodrome facilities and the applicability of previous standards
(i.e. AEI, AEPI, API, RPA, and other aerodrome facility standards) generated a considerable
amount of the consultation comment.
As such, all references to ‘upgrade’ and specific terms related to the previous aerodrome
standards and instructions were clarified in Subsection 1.2.1 – Definitions.
One respondent highlighted two paragraphs specifically related to A380 that had not been
identified at the initiation of the NPC for removal. These paragraphs will be retained, however in
line with the decision to withhold removal of reference to A380 in this PIR the comment has been
noted and will be addressed in the future rewrite of the Part 139 MOS.
An arbitrary standard related to shoulder widths based on passenger seat numbers, has been
removed; this standard has no ICAO foundation.
Minor editorial changes have also been made.
The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) has assessed the proposed regulations and
determined that they will have minor impacts only. Therefore no further analysis in the form of a
Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was required and OBPR has provided a RIS exemption
(OBPR ID: 13895, 17497 and 17793).
4.1 CASA’s disposition
The following changes to the regulation have been made as a result of the consultation:
Section 1.2 – Definitions applicability of the use of the definition in the MOS
Subsection 1.2.1 – Definitions several new definitions included:
AEI
Aerodrome facility
AEPI
API
Other aerodrome facility standard
RESA
Upgrade( for an aerodrome facility)
Subsection 1.2.2 – clarification runway in relation to upgrade
Subsection 1.2.3 – clarification taxiway in relation to upgrade
Paragraph 2.1.2.2 – clarification to refer to ‘upgrade’ in the definitions
Paragraphs 2.1.2.2A, 2.1.2.3 and 12.1.1.2B – inclusion of references to aerodrome
standards
Paragraph 2.1.3.2 – incorporated as this was inadvertently overlooked
Paragraph 6.3.1.1A (c) – editorial reference should be paragraph 6.3.9.1A, not 6.3.1.1A
Paragraph 6.2.9.3 Table 6.2-4A – correction to the constructed gravel surface
Paragraph 6.2.11.3 – removed as this is an arbitrary and in not an ICAO SARP
substitution of Subparagraph 9.1.1.2(c) for consolidation and reference to Section 1.2.
REVIEW AND PIR OF PART 139 MOS ‑ AERODROMES
NFC 139/05 - Runway width review of Part 139 MOS - Aerodromes Section 6.2 Runways and PIR of Part 139 MOS Page 16
5 Implementation and review
5.1 Implementation timeframes
The regulatory amendments were commenced on 13 November 2014.
5.2 Transition and post-implementation reviews
CASA will monitor and review the new rules on an ongoing basis. CASA will conduct post-
implementation monitoring and reviews as needed, or every 2-3 years as prescribed by
Government guidelines.
Additional information is available from:
Miles Gore-Brown
CASR Part 139 Project Leader
Telephone
Australia 02 6217 1031 or
131 757 (for the cost of a local call)
International +61 2 6217 1031