Annex B

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

IFR minima and low visibility operations

Annex B

Details of changes

Covering legislative arrangements and advisory material pertaining to instrument approach and IFR take-off minima, arrangement for exemptions to these minima, and proposed changes to Civil Aviation Safety

Regulations 1998 (CASR) Parts 139, 171, 172 and 173.

Document NPRM 0906AS Page B1


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK





S TANDARD IFR T AKE OFF AND A PPROACH MINIMA AND EXISTING AIP GUIDANCE ON L OW V ISIBILITY O PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

Explanation

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section and other sections of this NPRM as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A

PPROACH MINIMA AND EXISTING

AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS


Proposal GEN1: Changes to Definitions

In all CASR Part 139, CASR Part 172, AIP and other aeronautical documents, CASA proposes to amend or add definitions as follows:

Instrument Approach and Landing Operations: Instrument approach and landing operations are classified as follows: a. Non-precision Approach and Landing Operations: Instrument approaches and landings which do not utilise electronic glide path guidance. b.

Precision Approach and Landing Operations: Instrument approaches and landings using precision azimuth and glide path guidance with minima as determined by the category of operation. Categories of Precision

Approach and Landing Operations are:

(i) Category I (CAT I) operation. A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200FT and a visibility not less than 800M, or a runway visual range not less than 550M.

(ii) Category II (CAT II) operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than

200FT but not lower than 100FT, and a runway visual range not less than 300M 350M.

(iii) Category IIIA (CAT IIIA) operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 100FT, or no decision height and a runway visual range not less than 175M 200M.

(iv) Category IIIB (CAT IIIB) operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with either, a decision height lower than 50FT, or with no decision height and a runway visual range less than 175M 200M but not less than 50M.

(v) Category IIIC (CAT IIIC) operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.

Explanation

This change adopts a pending change by ICAO of the minima for Category II,

IIIA and IIIB precision approaches. The new minima are already in use in the

USA, UK and Europe.

CASA anticipates no significant changes to aircraft operator and aerodrome operator approval requirements as a result of this change.

Instrument Runway

One of the following types of runways intended for the operation of aircraft using instrument approach procedures: a. Non-precision approach runway. An instrument runway served by visual aids and a non-visual aid providing at least directional guidance adequate for a straight-in approach.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements Explanation b. Precision approach runway, CAT I. An instrument runway served by lLS and visual aids intended for operations with a decision height not lower than 200FT and either a visibility not less than 800M, or a runway visual range not less than 550M. c. Precision approach runway, CAT Il. An instrument runway served by lLS and visual aids intended for operations with a decision height lower than 200FT, but not lower than 100FT and a runway visual range not less than 300M

350M. d. Precision approach runway, CAT Ill. An instrument runway served by ILS to and along the surface of the runway and:

(i) for CAT IIIA - intended for operations with a decision height lower than 100FT, or no decision height and a runway visual range not less than 175M 200M;

(ii) for CAT IIIB - intended for operations with a decision height lower than 50FT, or no decision height and a runway visual range less than 175M 200M, but not less than 50M;

(iii) for CAT IIIC - intended for operations with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.

Low Visibility Operation: An operation involving:

(a) an approach with minima less than Category I; or

(b) a take-off in visibility less than 550 m.

Low Visibility Procedures: Procedures applied at an aerodrome for the purpose of ensuring safe operations during low visibility operations.

Qualified observer: A person qualified to the standards specified in Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 to provide runway visibility assessments.

These are new definitions that:

(a) make the distinction between a low visibility operation

(something an aircraft does) and low visibility procedure

(something done by an aerodrome and ATC to support low visibility operations).

(b) underpin the new concept of runway visibility assessments.

Visibility condition 1: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi and to avoid collision with other traffic on taxiways and at intersections by visual reference, and for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance;

Visibility condition 2: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi and to avoid collision with other traffic on taxiways and at

(c) Provide distinction between the different visibility conditions that dictate the commencement or otherwise of low visibility




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements intersections by visual reference, but insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance;

Explanation procedures.

Visibility condition 3: Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi but insufficient for the pilot to avoid collision with other traffic on taxiways and at intersections by visual reference, and insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance. For taxiing, this is normally taken as visibilities equivalent to an RVR of less than 550 m but more than 75 m.

Note: Visibility condition 3 marks the onset of low visibility operations

Visibility condition 4: Visibility insufficient for the pilot to taxi by visual guidance only. This is normally taken as an

RVR of 75 m or less.

Visibility marker: A dark object of suitable dimensions for use as a reference in evaluating runway visibility.

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS


Proposal FLTOPS1: Standard Takeoff minima

CASA proposes to replace the entire section of AIP ENR 1.5 Section 4.4 Standard Take-off Minima, with the following:

Explanation

This is the existing preamble in AIP to table of take-off minima in the AIP. No changes to this part are proposed other than to renumber the section.

4.4 Standard take-off Minima

4.4.1 Standard Take-off Minima are applicable at all aerodromes except where otherwise detailed on individual

Aerodrome Charts contained in DAP East and West.

4.4.2 Standard Take-off Minima, day and night, are contained in the following tables. These take-off minima are not applicable when in the case of an engine failure in multi-engined aeroplanes, a return to land at the departure aerodrome is necessary. Meteorological conditions are then to be above IAL minima or such as to allow a visual approach:

Requirements – fixed wing aircraft

Ceiling

(Feet)

0

Visibility minimum

(metres)

550

• Multi-engined IFR Aeroplanes, either: o

two pilot operated, or o

single pilot operated turbo-jet or (operative) auto-feather equipped

• Aeroplane: o

has a MTOW 5,700KG or greater (see Notes 1,

2, 4, 5); or o

if MTOW is less than 5700 kg, is capable of a gross climb gradient of at least 1.9% (see Notes

2, 3, 4, 5).

• Aerodrome has: o

runway edge lighting, spaced at not more than

60 m intervals, in operation; and

The proposed minima differ from the current minima in the following ways:

1. The minima for aerodromes with runway edge lighting at 60 spacing is adjusted from 500 m to

550 m. this change is intended to align aircraft operating minima with the relevant aerodrome lighting and infrastructure requirements.

2. At aerodromes that are noncontrolled or controlled aerodromes outside of ATC hours of operation, the 550 m take-off minimum may only be used at an aerodrome where carriage of radio is mandatory, by day and provided the aircraft operator has




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements o

either runway centreline lighting or centreline markings.

• If aerodrome is non-controlled or ATC is not in operation: o

The aerodrome must be one at which the carriage of radio is mandatory; and o

The take-off is conducted by day only; and o

The pilot or aircraft operator has appropriate arrangements to ensure the safety of operations in visibility conditions as low as 550 m.

• Multi-engined IFR Aeroplanes, either: o

two pilot operated, or o

single pilot operated turbo-jet or (operative) auto-feather equipped

• Aeroplane: o

has a MTOW 5,700KG or greater; or o

if MTOW is less than 5700 kg, is capable of a gross climb gradient of at least 1.9%

• All other IFR aeroplanes (see Note 4)

0 800

300 2,000

Explanation an agreement with the aerodrome operator for aerodrome safety measures. These measures are intended to minimise the risk of ground collision with uncontrolled aircraft or vehicles.

There are no changes to the existing requirements for use of the 800 m IFR take-off minima.

However this part of the table is reworded to allow a cascading (lower to higher) flow of take-off information.

There are no changes to the existing requirements for use of the 2000 m

IFR take-off minima.

Note 1. Aeroplanes must comply with pertinent obstacle clearance requirements of CAO 20.7.1B.

Note 2. Visibilities may be reduced by specific approval; such approvals along with mandatory requirements must be inserted in Company Operations Manuals.

There is no change to the existing notes that accompany the fixed wing take off minima.

Note 3. a. b. c.

Aeroplane engine-out climb gradient under ambient conditions (manufacturer’s data) must be at least 0.3% greater than the obstacle free gradient for the runway length required.

Aeroplanes may use published obstacle free gradients, provided such gradients are surveyed to at least a distance of 7,500M from end of TODA. All runways with strip widths of 150M or greater are surveyed to 7,500M unless otherwise annotated.

Where an operator can establish an obstacle free gradient (150M baseline at end of TODA,

12.5% splays, 7500M distance) not more than 30° from runway heading, and whose




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements procedures involve not more than 15° of bank to track within the splay, and 3a. above can be met, these minima may be used.

Explanation

Note 4. The pilot in command is responsible for ensuring that: a. terrain clearance is assured until reaching either en route LSALT or departure aerodrome

MSA; b. c. in the case of multi-engined aeroplanes, 4a. above can be complied with should engine failure occur at any time after V1, or lift-off, or encountering non-visual conditions; if a return to the departure aerodrome is not possible, that the aeroplane's performance and fuel availability is adequate to enable the aeroplane to proceed to a suitable aerodrome, having regard to terrain, obstacles and route distance limitations.

Note 5. Requirements for two pilot operations are : a. endorsed on type; b. c. multi-crew trained on type; multi-crew proficiency checked within the previous 13 months; and

CASA proposes to replace the entire table and notes covering Standard Take-off Minima - helicopters, with the following:

Requirements - Helicopters

Visibility minimum

(metres)

550

• Multi-engined helicopters operated in accordance with PC1/PC2 procedures

• Aerodrome has: o

runway edge lighting, spaced at not more than

60 m intervals, in operation; and

Ceiling

(Feet) clear of cloud until attaining

Vyse or

Vmin IMC

(whichever is the

The only change proposed for helicopter take off minima is to adjust the original 500 m visibility minimum to

550 m.

The change is intended to maintain consistency with fixed wing aircraft standard minima and the proposed onset value for low visibility operations; that is 550 m.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements Explanation o

either runway centreline lighting or centreline markings.

• Multi-engined helicopters operated in accordance with PC1/PC2 procedures

• All other IFR helicopters greater)

800

500 800

In all cases, the responsibility for obstacle clearance rests with the pilot in command. A take-off into instrument meteorological conditions should not be commenced unless the pilot has determined that the helicopter in the OEI configuration can comply with published procedures or, where no published procedures exist, that the helicopter can be kept well clear of all obstacles along the intended flight path.

Note: 1. The additional ceiling for all other IFR helicopters is to allow for the greater rate of descent when compared to a comparable aeroplane should an engine fail during take-off.

Note 2. Performance Class 1 (PC1). Performance Class 1 operations are those with performance such that, in the event of failure of the critical power-unit, the helicopter is able to land within the rejected take-off distance available or safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, depending on when the failure occurs.

Note 3. Performance Class 2 (PC2). Performance Class 2 operations are those operations such that, in the event of critical power-unit failure, performance is available to enable the helicopter to safely continue the flight, except when the failure occurs early during the take-off manoeuvre or late in the landing manoeuvre, in which cases a forced landing may be required.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS


Proposal FLTOPS2: Landing minima and AIP information on low visibility operational aspects

CASA proposes to consolidate the requirements relating to landing minima from different parts of the AIP (ENR 1.5

Sections 4.5 5.4, 8 and 9) into the one place for ease of reference, and to make a number of changes to existing requirements as shown in orange:

4.5 Landing Minima

4.5.1 Approved non-precision approach procedures

IFR Day and Night non-precision approaches - minima specified in the relevant Instrument Approach Chart, except that for runways equipped with HIAL, the landing visibility minima for straight in approach procedures must be increased by 900M when the HIAL is not available.

4.5.2 Approved precision approach Category I procedures

Explanation

This proposal involves consolidating requirements relating to landing minima from different parts of the AIP

(ENR 1.5 Sections 4.5 5.4, 8 and 9) into the one place for ease of reference.

Published ILS CAT I DA and visibility minima may be used, except that: a. visibility 1.5KM is required when HIAL is not available; and b. visibility 1.2KM is required unless: c.

(1)

(2) the aircraft is manually flown for the entire approach using a flight director or the aircraft is flown to the CAT I DA with an autopilot coupled (LOC and GP); and the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable failure warning system for the primary attitude and heading reference systems; and

(3) high intensity runway edge lighting is available. visibility 800M is required for single pilot operations unless either of the following is used at least to the applicable DA:

(1)

(2) a suitable autopilot coupled to the ILS; or an approved HUDLS (including EVS) or equivalent approved system.

4.5.3 Approved precision approach Category II or III procedures

Published ILS CAT II/III minima may only be used by aircraft operators approved by CASA.

Note 1: Operators of Australian registered aircraft wishing to operate to category II/III minima outside Australia

The proposal adds a 0.8 km visibility requirement for single pilot CAT I approaches under the specified circumstances. This is consistent with overseas practice.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

Proposed Standards and requirements must also be approved by CASA.

Explanation

Note 2: Approval requires operators to satisfactorily address aircraft equipment and maintenance; pilot minimum experience requirements; pilot ground, simulator and flight training; pilot competency and recency; aerodrome and runway assessment methods, in addition to any operational restrictions and/or local regulatory authority requirements.

4.5.4 Aerodromes without Approved Instrument Approach Procedure

IFR Day - visual approach requirements.

4.6.

IFR Night - VMC from LSALT within 3NM.

Protection of ILS critical and sensitive areas

4.6.1. ILS installations are subject to signal interference when vehicles or aircraft are operated near the localizer or glide slope antennas. The surface areas within which this interference is possible is delineated as either an ILS critical area or an ILS sensitive area. The boundaries of critical and sensitive areas will often overlap parts of runways and taxiways.

For ease of reference, CASA proposes to move the guidance on ILS critical and sensitive area protection from

ENR 1.3-1 so that the information is adjacent to the information on approach procedures.

4.6.2 ILS critical and sensitive areas are generally not protected: a. b. c. d. when the cloud ceiling at or above 800 FT or the visibility is 3 000 m or more, or when the arriving aircraft is beyond the distances from the runway threshold specified in 4.6.3 and

4.6.4 below, even if low visibility procedures are in force, or when the control tower is not in operation, or at uncontrolled aerodromes.

Note: In the circumstances mentioned above, pilots should anticipate ILS signal disturbance and be prepared to take appropriate corrective action.

ICAO standards and recommended practices require protection of ILS critical areas at all times that an ILS is in use. Unfortunately, the configuration of many of the ILS installations in

Australia has prevented adoption of the ICAO standards because doing so would severely affect traffic movement rates, particularly in good weather conditions.

4.6.3 When the cloud ceiling below 800 FT, but not less than 200 FT; or visibility less than 3 000 m, but not less than

550 m, ATC is required to provide partial protection of the ILS critical and sensitive areas in accordance with the following:

Instead, Australia adopted US standards for ILS protection. The US standards only require protection when the cloud ceiling or visibility is less than defined values. The standards also permit momentary intrusion of the ILS




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS a. b. c.


ILS localiser critical area: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC will not permit vehicle or aircraft operations in or over an ILS localiser critical area, other than preceding aircraft that land, exit a runway, depart or miss approach.

ILS glidepath critical area: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC will not permit vehicle or aircraft operations in or over an ILS glidepath critical area, unless the arriving aircraft has reported the aerodrome in sight and is circling or side stepping to land on a runway other than the ILS runway.

ILS sensitive areas: ATC is not required to protect the ILS sensitive areas.

Explanation protection areas by aircraft landing or taking off. The US standards maximise operational benefits of the good weather conditions generally prevalent in Australia, whereas the ICAO standards are based on European weather conditions.

Note: Under the partial protection provided in these circumstances, some ILS signal disturbance may be encountered.

However, for reasons not clearly apparent, the US standards were only partially adopted and there are significant differences between

Australian and US practice. It has also not been possible to find evidence of a safety assessment to validate the differences. This situation is not acceptable from a safety viewpoint.

4.6.4 When the cloud ceiling is below 200 FT or the visibility is less than 550 m (low visibility operations), ATC will protect ILS critical and sensitive areas in accordance with the following: a. ILS critical areas: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC will not permit aircraft or vehicles within the ILS localiser or glidepath critical areas. b. c.

ILS sensitive areas: Once an arriving aircraft within 2 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC will not permit aircraft or vehicles within the ILS sensitive areas.

Guided take-offs: If notified by a pilot of an intention to conduct a guided take-off, ATC will not permit aircraft or vehicles within the applicable ILS localiser critical and sensitive areas during the conduct of the take-off.

4.6.5 Pilots must inform ATC: a. about an intention to conduct an autoland operation; or b. at start up, about an intention to conduct a guided take-off that requires guidance provided by an ILS localiser

This information enables ATC to either provide appropriate protection or inform the pilot of possible ILS signal disturbance. If necessary, ATC will use the phrase “ILS CRITICAL (and/or SENSITIVE) AREA NOT

PROTECTED”.

For the sake of international harmonisation, CASA intends to adopt the ICAO standards in the longer term but after appropriate assessment. In the interim, CASA proposes to more closely align the Australian practices for ILS protection with the US practice.

This will involve raising the thresholds for ILS protection as follows:

Cloud ceiling: 600 ft to 800 ft, and

Visibility: 2000 m to 3000 m.

The proposal also involves some small technical changes to the specifics of the ILS protection standards.




S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

4.7 Low Visibility Operations

Proposed Standards and requirements Explanation

This new section is intended to provide information on the subject of low visibility operations.

4.7.1 A low visibility operation is defined as an operation involving: a. an approach with minima less than Category I; or b. a take-off in visibility less than 550 m.

4.7.2 Aircraft operators may conduct low visibility operations only if specifically approved by CASA. Approvals are granted in the form of an exemption to the standard IFR take-off and approach minima and will be subject to specified requirements.

4.8 Low Visibility Procedures

4.8.1 Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) are applied at controlled aerodromes to ensure safety during low visibility operations. LVPs are initiated when the visibility on an aerodrome becomes insufficient for ATC to control aerodrome traffic by visual surveillance. Various LVP measures are progressively implemented as the weather deteriorates.

indicate the activation of additional procedures to manage ground traffic as well as to restrict vehicle and pedestrian access to the movement area when LVP measures are progressively implemented when the RVR visibility is reported as 800M or less.

4.8.2 When the visibility becomes less than 550 m or the cloud ceiling reduces below 200 FT, ATC will verify all LVP measures are in place and then commence protection of ILS critical and sensitive areas (as per para x). At this point, pilots will be notified ‘LOW VISIBILITY PROCEDURES IN FORCE’ by ATIS broadcast or directed transmissions.

Pilots will be notified that low visibility procedures have been implemented by ATIS broadcast or directed transmissions.

4.8.3 Pilots will be notified by ATIS broadcast or directed transmission if one or more RVR sensors are is not available when visibility is less than 800M.

CASA proposes to relocate this section from its current location in Section 4.2 of ENR 1.5 to the end of Chapter 4 of

ENR 1.5, as shown.

This proposal is intended to provide pilots with up-to-date information on low visibility procedures. In particular, pilots are informed about the point at which ATC will commence ILS critical and sensitive area protection.




8.

S

TANDARD

IFR T

AKE

-

OFF AND

A


AIP

GUIDANCE ON

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS

CATEGORY I MINIMA


CASA proposes to relocate these sections to Section 4.5 as explained earlier.

8.1 Published ILS CAT I DA and visibility minima are available to all aircraft except that: a. visibility 1.5KM is required when HIAL is not available; and b.

(1)

(2)

(3) visibility 1.2KM is required unless: the aircraft is manually flown for the entire approach using a flight director or the aircraft is flown to the CAT I

DA with an autopilot coupled (LOC and GP); and the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable failure warning system for the primary attitude and heading reference systems; and high intensity runway edge lighting is available.

9. CATEGORY II/III MINIMA

9.1 Published ILS CAT II/III minima may only be used by aircraft operators approved by CASA. Operators of

Australian registered aircraft wishing to operate to category II/III minima outside Australia must also make application to CASA.

9.2 Approval requires operators to satisfactorily address aircraft equipment and maintenance; pilot minimum experience requirements; pilot ground, simulator and flight training; pilot competency and recency; aerodrome and runway assessment methods, in addition to any operational restrictions and/or local regulatory authority requirements.




I NTERIM S YSTEM FOR APPROVING L OW V ISIBILITY O PERATIONS


Proposal FLTOPS3: Use of exemptions to regulate approvals to conduct low visibility operations

Until CASR Parts 91 and 121 are made, CASA proposes to continue using the existing CAR Regulation 308 exemption process for approving operators to conduct low visibility operations.

However, to assist the application/approval process, CASA proposes to issue a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication

(CAAP) on low visibility operations. This CAAP will detail the range of minima CASA will grant and the training, qualification and operation requirements that will apply to each exemption.

Explanation

Until the Flight Operations CASRs are finalised, the exemption process is the only practical method for approving aircraft operators to conduct low visibility operations.

CASA envisages the details and specifications proposed for the CAAP on Low Visibility Operations being adopted as the standards or acceptable means of compliance with the requirements of CASR Part 121 relating to low visibility operations.

The proposed CAAP can be found at Annex C.

Proposal FLTOPS4: Approach ban covering air transport operations

For future CASR Parts 121, 133 and 135, CASA had proposed an approach ban regulation. NPRM 0808OS

(Passenger Transport Services & International Cargo Operations – Small Aeroplanes) released on 16 Feb 2009 is the latest example of public consultation on the proposed approach ban regulations:

135.405 Commencement and continuation of approach

(1) In this regulation, a reference to the reported visibility or RVR at an aerodrome is a reference to a current report of the visibility or RVR at the aerodrome by: an meteorological reporting facility.

(2) The pilot in command of an aeroplane may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported

RVR or visibility, but if the reported visibility or controlling RVR is continuously less than the specified minimum for the approach, he or she must not, subject to subregulation (4), continue the approach:

(a) in the case of a precision approach, beyond the final approach point; or




I

NTERIM

S

YSTEM FOR APPROVING

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS


(b) in the case of a non-precision approach, below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome elevation.

Note Controlling RVR means the reported values of 1 or more RVR reporting locations (touchdown, midpoint and stop-end) used to determine whether operating minima are, or are not, met.

(3) If the reported RVR or visibility falls below the specified minimum for the approach after:

(a) in the case of a precision approach, the aeroplane passes the final approach point; or

(b) in the case of a non-precision approach, the aeroplane descends below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome elevation; the approach may be continued to the DA/H or MDA/H.

(4) If the MDA/H for an aerodrome is 1 000 ft or more above the aerodrome elevation, the operator must establish a height, for each relevant approach procedure, below which the approach must not be continued if the RVR or visibility is continuously less than the applicable minima.

(5) The pilot in command of an aeroplane may continue an approach below DA/H or MDA/H, and complete the landing, only if the required visual reference is established above or at the DA/H or MDA/H, and is maintained.

Proposal to amend aspects of the original approach ban proposals

For future regulations covering air transport operations, CASA proposes to implement approach ban requirement along the lines of that proposed for CASR Part 135 (as detailed above), but with the following changes:

1. Amend forms of visibility assessment (as proposed in sub regulation (1) of the Part 135 draft regulations above) to include a runway visibility assessment as a valid source for the purposes of the approach ban regulation and to define a hierarchy of visibility assessments. To this end, the proposed hierarchy would be as follows: b. where no RVR is available, runway visibility assessed by a person authorised by the aerodrome operator; or c. where no RVR or runway visibility is available, the ground visibility assessed by a meteorological observer or facility authorised by the Bureau of Meteorology.

This proposal is intended to give greater flexibility for pilots by providing an additional source of visibility information from which a decision to continue or discontinue an approach can be made. The proposal is consistent with practice in Canada.

This proposal adopts the UK and future European standard for the approach ban point.

The justification for the change is that the final approach point is too early in a precision approach for the flight control systems of many aircraft to




I

NTERIM

S

YSTEM FOR APPROVING

L

OW

V

ISIBILITY

O

PERATIONS


2. Amend approach ban limit point (as specified in proposed sub regulation (2) above) to the effect that the approach ban limit would the same for both precision and non precision approaches – that is ‘1 000 ft above the aerodrome elevation’.

Note: Under the exemption scheme described in Proposal FLTOPS3, exemptions granted to aircraft operators to conduct Precision Approach Category II or Category III operations will include an approach ban requirement.

See Annex C to this NPRM for details.

Explanation have completed configuration checks.

At 1000 ft point, all flight control system checks will have been completed and the pilot would be in a better position to decide on whether to continue or discontinue the approach based on the aircraft’s final configuration.




P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS TO

C

IVIL

A

VIATION

S

AFETY

R

EGULATION

(CASR) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal CASR139-1: Aerodromes to require approval to support low visibility operations

CASA proposes to amend CASR 139 (Aerodromes) to the effect that low visibility operations may only take place at aerodromes approved by CASA. An aerodrome operator would also be approved with specific limitations depending on the demonstrated capability. For example, an aerodrome may be approved only for Category II approaches and departures with minima not less than 350 m.

For approval, aerodrome operators would be required to demonstrate:

Conformance with the aerodrome’s safety management system in identifying and mitigating the risks associated with the proposed low visibility operations.

Compliance with the relevant standards in MOS Part 139 for the desired operating visibility.

Establishment of suitable low visibility procedures that address as a minimum the issues specified in MOS Part

139 (see the relevant entry in this NPRM Annex for the specific details).

Establishment of agreements covering low visibility operations with relevant service providers such as air traffic services, and rescue and firefighting.

Provision of navigation aids suitable for desired low visibility operations (for example a Category III ILS for category

III operations).

where appropriate to the proposed operations, provision of RVR equipment acceptable to the Bureau of

Meteorology.

There are special requirements for aircraft operators, aerodrome operators and air traffic controllers when the visibility is reduced, the aim of which is to ensure that the aircraft operations can be conducted in safety.

These requirements include special operating procedures and standards, and high levels of aerodrome infrastructure and facilities, according to the particular visibility conditions in which flying operations are to be conducted.

These special requirements demand that CASA pays particular attention to the capability and compliance levels of an aerodrome wishing to equip to support low visibility operations.

CASA believes the safe operations in low visibility conditions would be enhanced if such operations were covered under specific approval. The proposal is consistent with practice in

Canada, the UK and Europe.”




L IST OF P ROPOSED A MENDMENTS – M ANUAL OF S TANDARDS (MOS) P ART 139 – A ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment Reasons

Proposal MOS139-1: Aerodrome information for AIP

Chapter 5: Aerodrome information for AIP

Section 5.1: General

5.1.2 Aerodrome Information to be Provided for a Certified Aerodrome

Part 1: Amend section 5.1.2.5 as follows:

5.1.2.5 Lighting systems.

This information must include:

(a) type, length and intensity of approach lighting system;

(b) runway threshold lights, colour and wing bars;

(c) type of visual approach slope indicator system;

(d) length of runway touchdown zone lights;

(e) length, spacing, colour and intensity of runway centre line lights;

(f) length, spacing, colour and intensity of runway edge lights;

(g) colour of runway end lights and wing bars;

(h) length and colour of stopway lights;

(a) lighting systems for runways;

(b) approach lighting system;

(c) visual approach slope indicator system;

(d) (i) pilot activated lighting;

(e) (j) location, characteristics and hours of operation of aerodrome beacon (if any);

(f) (k) lighting systems for taxiways; and

(g) (l) any other lighting systems; and

(m) secondary power supply including switch-over time.

The proposal is consistent with practice in many overseas countries and conforms to ICAO Annex 15 requirements.

This change is intended to ensure pilots are informed about lighting capability of an aerodrome. This information is an important component of flight planning.

This information will be published in

ERSA.






Part 2: Add

5.1.2.X

a new paragraph to MOS Part 139 section 5.1.2 as follows:

Low visibility procedures . When low visibility procedures are established at an aerodrome, provide a description of the low visibility procedures, including:

(a) runway(s) and associated equipment used under low visibility procedures;

This proposal aligns Australian requirements for aerodrome information with ICAO Annex 15 standards concerning aeronautical information about low visibility procedures. (b) defined meteorological conditions under which initiation, use and termination of low visibility procedures would be made; and

(c) description of ground marking/lighting for use under low visibility procedures.

This information would be published in

ERSA or the relevant aerodrome chart.

Example of detail to be included in ERSA

AD 2.14 AERODROME AND APPROACH LIGHTING

RWY 16/34 HIRL (1)

RWY 16/34 PAPI (2)

RWY 16/34 RCGL (3)

3.0 DEG 74FT

RWY 16/34 RCLL (4)

RWY 16 HIAL-CAT II (5)

RWY 16

RWY 34

RTZL(6)

HSL

RWY 34 SFL (7)

1. 3,257 M; 60M. White from THR to 600M from RWY end; yellow from 600M from RWY end to RWY end

This is an example of the type of information that is expected to appear in ERSA as a result of proposal MOS

139-2

The example does not represent any aerodrome or a particular standard for detail to be provided. Aerodrome operators would be expected to publish procedures that are appropriate to their situation/

3. 3,257M, White.

4. 3,257M; 15M. White from THR to 900M from RWY end; white/red from 900M from RWY end to 300M from RWY end; red from 300M from RWY end to RWY end.

5. ICAO TYPE A (CALVERT); 900M.

6. 900M.

7. 450M.

STOP BARS AND RGL AT ALL RWY/TWY INTERSECTIONS

AD 2.15 OTHER LIGHTING AND SECONDARY POWER

ABN ALTN 8 WG




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment

1. TWY LGT: GREEN CENTRELINE LIGHTS ON ALL TWY

2. SECONDARY POWER SUPPLY: ALL RWY AND TWY LGT.

3. SWITCH-OVER TIME SECONDARY PWR:

RWY LGT: 1 SECOND DURING VIS COND 2 & 3

OTHER LIGHT AND RWY LIGHTING DURING VIS

COND 1: 15 SEC.

AD 2.22 FLIGHT PROCEDURES

Reasons

Runways 08R and 26L, subject to serviceability of the required facilities, are suitable for Category ll and lll operations by operators whose minima have been accepted by CASA.

Phases of Low Visibility Procedures (LVPs). The following table describes the phases of LVPs:

Implementation Below 2 000 m

Declaration Below 550 m

Suspension 2 000 m or better

Pilots will be informed when these procedures are in operation by ATIS broadcast or by RT.

Departing Aircraft: ATC will require departing aircraft to use the following Category lll holding points:

Runway 26L — Alpha 3 or Mike 3;

Runway 08R — Juliet 3, Juliet 4, Juliet 7 and Hotel 3.

Occasionally it may be necessary for other departure points to be used due to work in progress or at the discretion of

ATC. Under these circumstances, due allowance will be made by ATC for the necessary ILS protection.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Arriving Aircraft: All appropriate runway exits will be illuminated, and pilots should select the first convenient exit.

Surface Movement Radar (SMR) is normally available to monitor pilot 'runway vacated' reports. When SMR is not available to ATC, runway vacation will be assessed by receipt of a pilot report that the aircraft has passed the last of the alternate yellow and green centre-line lights. These lights denote the extent of the ILS Localizer Sensitive Area.

When Low Visibility Procedures are in force a much reduced landing rate can be expected due to the requirement for increased spacing between arriving aircraft. In addition to the prevailing weather conditions, such factors as equipment serviceability may also have an effect on actual landing rates. For information and planning purposes, the approximate landing rates that can be expected are:

RVR (m)

Greater than 1000

Expected Landing Rate

24

Between 1000 and 600 20

Between 550 and 350

Less than 300

15

12 or less

Proposal MOS139-2: Taxiway Minimum Separation Distances

Chapter 6: Physical Characteristics

Section 6.3: Taxiways

Add a third note to the end of table of runway/taxiway separation distances in Section 6.3.17.1 as follows:

Note: 1. The separation distances are based on the concept of the wing of the aeroplane, centred on the parallel taxiway, remaining clear of the runway strip of standard width.

2. The taxiway centreline to runway centreline separation distances have been determined using the maximum runway strip width required for the particular category and code of runway.

Additional note to inform readers that

ILS installations can also be an influence on the positioning of taxiways.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


3. ILS installations may also influence the location of taxiways due to interferences to ILS signals by a taxiing or stopped aircraft. Information on critical and sensitive areas surrounding ILS installations is contained in Annex 10, Volume I, Attachment C.

Proposal MOS139-3: Holding Bays, Runway-holding Positions, Intermediate Holding Positions and

Road-holding Positions

Chapter 6: Physical Characteristics

Section 6.4: Holding Bays, Runway-Holding Positions, Intermediate Holding Positions and Road-Holding

Positions

Amend sections 6.4.2, 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 as follows:

6.4.2 Provision of a Holding Bay, Runway-holding Position, Intermediate Holding Position and Roadholding Position

6.4.2.1 The provision of a holding bay is the prerogative of the aerodrome operator, however if it is provided, it must be located such that any aeroplane on it will not infringe the inner transitional surface.

6.4.2.2 A runway-holding position or positions must be established:

(a) on a taxiway, at the intersection of a taxiway and a runway; or

6.4.2.3

(b) at an intersection of a runway with another runway where the aircraft is required to be held ; or

(c) on a taxiway if the location and alignment of the taxiway is such that a taxiing aircraft or vehicle can infringe an obstacle limitation surface or interfere with the operation of radio navigation aids.

Except for an exit taxiway, an intermediate holding position or positions must be established on a taxiway if the air traffic control requires the aeroplane to hold at that position.

6.4.2.4 A road-holding position must be established at an intersection of a road with a runway. See also

Paragraph 8.6.11 for signage and marking of a roadholding position.

6.4.3 Location of Holding Bay, Runway-holding Position, Intermediate Holding Position or Road-holding

Position

This change aligns Australian standards with ICAO Annex 14 standards concerning protection of ILS critical and sensitive areas.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


6.4.3.1 A holding bay, runway-holding position, intermediate holding position or roadholding position must not be placed where an aircraft or vehicle using it:

(a) infringes the inner transitional surface of a precision approach runway or, in other cases, the graded area of the runway strip; or

(b) interferes with the operation of radio navigation aids.

6.4.4 Distance from Runway-holding Position, Intermediate Holding Position or Road-holding Position to

Runway Centreline

6.4.4.1 A runway-holding position, intermediate holding position, or a road-holding position must not be located closer to the centreline of the runway than the distance determined using Table 6.4-1.

6.4.4.2 For a precision approach runway the distance in Table 6.4-1 may be reduced by 5 m for every m by which the elevation of the runway-holding position is lower than the elevation of the runway threshold, contingent upon not infringing the inner transitional surface.

Table 6.4-1: Minimum distance from runway-holding position, intermediate holding position or road-holding position to associated runway centre line

Code number

Noninstrument

Nonprecision approach

Type of runway

Precision

Category I

Precision

Category II or III

Take-off

1 30m 40m 60m e, f

- 30m

2 40m 40m 60m e, f

- 40m

3 75m a

75m a

90m b, e, f

105m c , e, f

75m a

90m d, e, f

105m c, d, e, f

75m a If the runway’s code is 3A, 3B or 3C, the minimum distance is 45m. b If the runway’s code is 3A, 3B or 3C, the minimum distance is 75m.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment Reasons c May be reduced to 90m up to 300m from the runway end. d If the runway’s code is F, this distance should be 107.5m. e The distance may be decreased 5 m for every m the bay or holding position is lower than the threshold, contingent upon not infringing the inner transitional surface. f This distance may need to be increased to avoid interference with radio navigation aids, particularly the glide path and localizer facilities. Advice on ILS critical and sensitive areas should be obtained from the relevant aeronautical telecommunications service and radio-navigation service provider.

Proposal MOS139-4: Aiming Point Marking

Chapter 8: Visual Aids Provided by Aerodrome Markings, Markers, Signals and Signs

Section 8.3: Runway markings

Replace

8.3.7

section 8.3.7 with the following:

Aiming Point Marking

Aiming point markings have replaced fixed distance markings in the international standards for aerodrome marking (ICAO Annex 14). Aiming point markings are now in extensive world use and Australia is now one of the few countries still using the fixed distance marking.

Note: Aiming point markings were previously described as fixed distance markings.

8.3.7.1 An aiming point marking must be provided at each approach end of all sealed, concrete or asphalt runways 30 m wide or greater, and 1500 m long or greater.

8.3.7.2

Note: An aiming point marking should be provided at each approach end of paved instrument runways that are less then 1500 m in length.

An aerodrome operator may elect to retain a fixed distance marking:

CASA proposes to adopt the ICAO aiming point marking standard. The reason is to harmonise Australian practice with international standards, particularly in respect of instrument runways at international aerodromes.

(a) provided under 8.3.7 before it was revoked by this section; and

(b) in use immediately before the commencement of this section; until:

Despite the different name, the 2 types of markings have similar specifications.

In fact for Australian runways less than

2400 m in length and for runways




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(c) (A date 2 years from effective date of MOS change) for international aerodromes; or

(d) (A date 3 years from effective date of MOS change ) for other aerodromes

Reasons aligned to the VASIS/PAPI slope origin, there is no difference.

Note: When an Aerodrome Operator elects to implement an aiming point marking or determines that an existing marking meets the aiming point marking specification, the operator should raise a

NOTAM for a period of 2 months to inform pilots about the presence of the revised marking.

8.3.7.3 The aiming point marking must commence no closer to the threshold than the distance indicated in the appropriate column of Table 8.3-x, except that, on a runway equipped with a visual approach slope indicator system, the beginning of the marking must be coincident with the visual approach slope origin.

Table 8.3-x: Location and dimensions of aiming point marking

For aerodromes with runways 2400 m long or greater, CASA proposes to reduce the impact of the change by allowing a 2 year transition period for international airports and 3 years for other aerodromes.

Proposed changes to touchdown zone markings are detailed in the next section.

Location and dimensions

(1)

Landing distance available

Less than

800 m

(2)

800 m up to but not including

1200 m

(3)

1200 m up to but not including

2400 m

(4)

150 m 250 m 300 m

2400 m and above

(5)

400 m Distance from threshold to beginning of marking

Length of stripe a

30-45 m 30-45 m 45-60 m 45-60 m

Width of stripe

Lateral spacing between inner sides of stripes

4 m

6 m c

6 m m c

6-10

18-22.5 m

6-10 m b

18-22.5 m a. The greater dimensions of the specified ranges are intended to be used where increased conspicuity is required. b. The lateral spacing may be varied within these limits to minimize the contamination of the marking by rubber deposits. c. These figures were deduced by reference to the outer main gear wheel




8.3.7.4

L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment span which is element 2 of the aerodrome reference code at Chapter 2,

Table 2.1-1: Aerodrome Reference Code.

An aiming point marking must consist of two conspicuous stripes. The dimensions of the stripes and the lateral spacing between their inner sides must be in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate column of Table 8.3-x. Where a touchdown zone marking is provided, the lateral spacing between the markings must be the same as that of the touchdown zone marking.

Reasons

Proposal MOS139-5: Touchdown Zone Marking

Chapter 8: Visual Aids Provided by Aerodrome Markings, Markers, Signals and Signs

Section 3: Runway markings

Insert the following new sub-section in Section 8.3 of MOS Part 139:

CASA proposes to adopt the ICAO A – basic pattern touchdown zone (TDZ) marking for precision runways in

Australia.

8.3.x Touchdown Marking

8.3.x.1 A touchdown zone marking must be provided at both ends of all sealed, concrete or asphalt runways 30 m wide or greater, and 1500 m long or greater.

These TDZ markings are similar in size to the existing TDZ markings; however there are more pairs of stripes (4 – 6 pairs) compared to the current pairs.

Note: A touchdown zone marking may be provided at both ends of other sealed, concrete or asphalt runways.

The change is intended to harmonise the visual appearance of precision runways in Australia with the international standard. 8.3.x.2 Where provided, a touchdown zone marking must conform to the following patterns:

(a) on precision runways: the ICAO ‘A’ – basic pattern as described in this section; or

(b) On other runways: the simple pattern as described in this section

Note: The simple pattern touchdown zone marking was previous standard for all touchdown zone markings in Australia.

CASA proposes to reduce the impact of the change by allowing a 2 year transition period for international airports and 3 years for other aerodromes.

8.3.x.3 An aerodrome operator may elect to retain a simple pattern touchdown zone marking on a precision runway until

(a) (A date 2 years from effective date of MOS change) for international aerodromes; or

(b) (A date 3 years from effective date of MOS change ) for other aerodromes

No changes are proposed for the requirement to provide TDZ markings and the current standard for TDZ markings on runways other than precision runways. However, these

TDZ markings will become known as




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


‘simple’ TDZ markings

Note: When an Aerodrome Operator elects to implement the ICAO ‘A’ – basic pattern touchdown zone marking, the operator should raise a NOTAM for a period of 2 months to inform pilots about the presence of the revised marking.

8.3.x.4

8.3.x.5

The ICAO ‘A’ – basic pattern touchdown zone marking is as shown in figure 8.3-y and must consist of pairs of rectangular markings symmetrically disposed about the runway centre line with the number of such pairs related to the landing distance available and, where the marking is to be displayed at both the approach directions of a runway, the distance between the thresholds, as follows:

Landing distance available or the distance between thresholds less than 900 m

900 m up to but not including 1200 m

1200 m up to but not including 1500 m

Pair(s) of markings

1

2

3

1500 m up to but not including 2400 m 4

2400 m or more 6

Each ICAO ‘A’ – basic pattern touchdown zone markings must:

(1) be not less than 22.5 m long and 3 m wide; and

(2) have a lateral spacing between the inner sides of the rectangles equal to that of the aiming point marking.

(e) be placed at longitudinal intervals of 150 m beginning from the threshold except that pairs of touchdown zone markings coincident with or located within 50 m of an aiming point marking must be deleted from the pattern.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Note: For ICAO ‘A’ – basic pattern touchdown zone markings on a non-precision approach runway where the code number is 2, an additional pair of touchdown zone marking stripes should be provided 150 m beyond the beginning of the aiming point marking.

Figure 8.3-y: Aiming point and ICAO ‘A’ — basic pattern touchdown zone markings

(illustrated for a runway with a length of 2400 m or more)

8.3.x.6 A simple touchdown zone marking is as shown in figure 8.3-z and must comprise 4 white stripes each

30 m long and 3 m wide, located in pairs such that the ends nearest the threshold of each pair of stripes are 150 m and 450 m respectively from the line the runway threshold. The lateral spacing lateral spacing between their inner sides must be equal to that of the aiming point marking:

8.3.x.7 If simple runway touchdown zone markings are provided on runways less than 1500 m in length, the markings at 450 m from the end of the runway threshold may be omitted.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Figure 8.3-z: Aiming point and simple touch down zone markings

Proposal MOS139-6: Target date for compliance with MOS Part 139 lighting requirements

Chapter 9: Visual aids provided by aerodrome lighting


Amend section 9.1.1.1 as follows:

This proposal is intended to ensure that an aerodrome at which low visibility operations is conducted is equipped to the relevant MOS standards for the particular operating visibility conditions.

9.1.1.1 Existing installed lighting systems must be operated and maintained in accordance with existing procedures. The standards in this Chapter do not apply to an existing lighting facility until:

(a) the light fittings of a lighting system are being replaced with fittings of a different type. A lighting system in this case has the following meaning: lights on a section of taxiway (not all taxiways), lights on a threshold (not all thresholds) etc.

(b) the facility is upgraded;

(c) there is a change in the category of either:

At present, some aircraft operators are approved to take-off at controlled aerodromes in visibility conditions as low as 300 m. However, apart from

Melbourne (Tullamarine) aerodrome, no Australian controlled aerodrome meets the MOS standards in full for operations in such visibility conditions.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(i) aerodrome layout; or

(ii) aerodrome traffic density; or

(d) in exceptional circumstances, CASA determines that in the interest of safety, a lighting facility has to meet the standards of this Chapter; or

(e) an aerodrome is supporting low visibility operations.

Note: The requirement of subparagraph (e) does not commence until:

(a)

(b)

[date – 3 years from promulgation of this amendment to MOS part 139]; or if the aerodrome operator notifies an earlier date in writing to CASA – that date.

According to MOS Part 139 (which replicates ICAO and major aviation country standards), for operations in visibility conditions of less than 350 m, an aerodrome must have taxiway m intervals, and must either have stop bar lighting or constrained taxiing operations. Despite these standards, the level of equipage of Australian controlled aerodromes (other than

Melbourne) is:

 taxiway centreline lighting of m spacing, (which meets the MOS standards only for operations in visibility conditions of

550 m or better) , and

no provision of stop bar lighting.

CASA believes it is inappropriate that an aircraft operation is occurring in visibility conditions as much as 250 m less than the internationally recognised capability of the available taxiway lighting.

CASA proposes to address this issue in a number of ways:

To immediately raise the visibility minimum for takeoffs under existing aircraft operator approvals




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment Reasons from 300 m to 350

m.

taxiway centreline lighting spaced reducing the take-off minimum by

50 m, the required taxiway lighting deficit is reduced by half.

To change MOS Part 139

Chapter 9 so that an aerodrome supporting low visibility operations

(that is take-offs with less than

550 m visibility and approaches with minima less than Category I) must achieve compliance with the

MOS Part 139 standards relevant to the particular visibility conditions within 3 years.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal MOS139-7: Switchover time for secondary power supply



Add a new paragraph to 9.1.7 Secondary Power Supply to as follows:

9.1.7.X For a runway meant for take-off in visibility conditions of less than 800 m, a secondary power supply capable of meeting the requirements of subsection 9.1.8.1(c) must be provided.

While MOS Part 139 section 9.1.8.1(c) lists the maximum switch-over times for a take-off in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 800 m, there is no overarching requirement in

MOS for provision of secondary power for runways intended for take-offs in such conditions.

The absence of the specific requirement was never intended to imply that provision of secondary power for the circumstances was voluntary. This proposal intends to make clear the requirement.

Proposal MOS139-8: Precision approach category I lighting system


Section 9.7: Approach Lighting Systems

Replace the entire section 9.7.2: ‘Precision approach runway category I’, with the following:

9.7.2

9.7.2.1

This change will enable aerodrome operators to install either Calvert or

ALSF-2 approach lighting systems, rather than to be limited to only choice

- the Calvert-type.

Precision approach category I lighting system

Where physically practicable, a precision approach category I lighting system must be provided to serve a precision approach runway category I.

The standard for a Calvert system is unchanged from existing MOS standards

9.7.2.2

Location

A precision approach category I lighting system must consist of a row of lights on the extended centre line of the runway extending, wherever possible, over a distance of 900 m from the runway threshold with a row of lights forming a crossbar 30 m in length at a distance of 300 m from the runway threshold.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Note: The installation of an approach lighting system of less than 900 m in length may result in operational limitations on the use of the runway.

9.7.2.3 The lights forming the crossbar must be as nearly as practicable in a horizontal straight line at right angles to, and bisected by, the line of the centre line lights. The lights of the crossbar must be spaced so as to produce a linear effect, except that gaps may be left on each side of the centre line. These gaps must be kept to a minimum to meet local requirements and each must not exceed 6 m.

Notes: 1. Spacings for the crossbar lights between 1 m and 4 m are in use. Gaps on each side of the centre line may improve directional guidance when approaches are made with a lateral error, and facilitate the movement of rescue and fire fighting vehicles.

2. See ICAO Annex 14, Attachment A, Section 11 for guidance on installation tolerances.

9.7.2.4 The lights forming the centre line must be placed at longitudinal intervals of 30 m with the innermost light located 30 m from the threshold.

9.7.2.5 The system must lie as nearly as practicable in the horizontal plane passing through the threshold, provided that: a) no object other than an ILS azimuth antenna must protrude through the plane of the approach lights within a distance of 60 m from the centre line of the system; and b) no light other than a light located within the central part of a crossbar or a centre line barrette (not their extremities) must be screened from an approaching aircraft. Any ILS azimuth antenna protruding through the plane of the lights must be treated as an obstacle and marked and lighted accordingly.

9.7.2.6

Characteristics

The centre line and crossbar lights of a precision approach category I lighting system must be fixed lights showing variable white. Each centre line light position must consist of either: a) a single light source in the innermost 300 m of the centre line, two light sources in the central 300 m of the centre line and three light sources in the outer 300 m of the centre line to provide distance information; or

9.7.2.7 The barrettes must be at least 4 m in length. When barrettes are composed of lights approximating to point sources, the lights must be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 1.5 m.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


9.7.2.8

9.7.2.9

If the centre line consists of barrettes as described in 9.7.2.6 (b), each barrette must be supplemented by a capacitor discharge light. Each capacitor discharge light must be flashed twice a second in sequence, beginning with the outermost light and progressing toward the threshold to the innermost light of the system. The design of the electrical circuit must be such that these lights can be operated independently of the other lights of the approach lighting system.

If the centre line consists of lights as described in 9.7.2.6 (a), additional crossbars of lights to the crossbar provided at 300 m from the threshold must be provided at 150 m, 450 m, 600 m and 750 m from the threshold. The lights forming each crossbar must be as nearly as practicable in a horizontal straight line at right angles to, and bisected by, the line of the centre line lights. The lights must be spaced so as to produce a linear effect, except that gaps may be left on each side of the centre line. These gaps must be kept to a minimum to meet local requirements and each must not exceed 6 m.

9.7.2.10 Where the additional crossbars described in 9.7.2.9 are incorporated in the system, the outer ends of the crossbars must lie on two straight lines that either are parallel to the line of the centre line lights or converge to meet the runway centre line 300 m from threshold.

9.7.2.11 Figure 9.7-1 below illustrates both precision approach category I lighting configurations.

9.7.2.12 The lights must be in accordance with the specifications of Section 9.8, Figure 9.8-1.

Note: ICAO Annex 14, Attachment A, Section 11 provides information on the flight path envelopes used in the design of these lights.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Figure 9.7-1: Precision approach category I lighting systems




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal MOS139-9: Precision approach category II and III lighting system


Section 9.7: Approach Lighting Systems

Replace the entire section 9.7.3: ‘Precision approach runway categories II and III’, with the following:

9.7.3

9.7.3.1

Precision approach category II and III lighting system

A precision approach category II and III lighting system must be provided to serve a precision approach runway category II or III.

This change will enable aerodrome operators to install either Calvert or

ALSF-2 approach lighting systems, rather than to be limited to the Calverttype.

Location

9.7.3.2 The approach lighting system must consist of a row of lights on the extended centre line of the runway, extending, wherever possible, over a distance of 900 m from the runway threshold. In addition, the system must have two side rows of lights, extending 270 m from the threshold, and two crossbars, one at 150 m and one at 300 m from the threshold, as shown in Figure 9.7.2.

Note: The length of 900 m is based on providing guidance for operations under category I, II and III conditions. Reduced lengths may support category II and III operations but may impose limitations on category I operations.

9.7.3.3

9.7.3.4

9.7.3.5

9.7.3.6

9.7.3.7

The lights forming the centre line must be placed at longitudinal intervals of 30 m with the innermost lights located 30 m from the threshold.

The lights forming the side rows must be placed on each side of the centre line, at a longitudinal spacing equal to that of the centre line lights and with the first light located 30 m from the threshold. The lateral spacing (or gauge) between the innermost lights of the side rows must be not less than 18 m nor more than 22.5 m, and preferably 18 m, but in any event must be equal to that of the touchdown zone lights.

The crossbar provided at 150 m from the threshold must fill in the gaps between the centre line and side row lights.

The crossbar provided at 300 m from the threshold must extend on both sides of the centre line lights to a distance of 15 m from the centre line.

If the centre line beyond a distance of 300 m from the threshold consists of lights as described in 9.7.3.11

(b), additional crossbars of lights must be provided at 450 m, 600 m and 750 m from the threshold.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


9.7.3.8 Where the additional crossbars described in 9.7.3.7 are incorporated in the system, the outer ends of these crossbars must lie on two straight lines that either are parallel to the centre line or converge to meet the runway centre line 300 m from the threshold.

9.7.3.9 The system must lie as nearly as practicable in the horizontal plane passing through the threshold, provided that:

(a) no object other than an ILS azimuth antenna must protrude through the plane of the approach lights within a distance of 60 m from the centre line of the system; and

(b) no light other than a light located within the central part of a crossbar or a centre line barrette (not their extremities) must be screened from an approaching aircraft. Any ILS azimuth antenna protruding through the plane of the lights must be treated as an obstacle and marked and lighted accordingly.

Characteristics

9.7.3.10 The centre line of a precision approach category II and III lighting system for the first 300 m from the threshold must consist of barrettes showing variable white, except that, where the threshold is displaced

300 m or more, the centre line may consist of single light sources showing variable white.

9.7.3.11 Beyond 300 m from the threshold each centre line light position must consist of either: a) b) a barrette as used on the inner 300 m; or two light sources in the central 300 m of the centre line and three light sources in the outer 300 m of the centre line; all of which must show variable white.

9.7.3.12 The barrettes must be at least 4 m in length. When barrettes are composed of lights approximating to point sources, the lights must be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 1.5 m.

9.7.3.13 If the centre line beyond 300 m from the threshold consists of barrettes as described in 9.7.3.11 (a), each barrette beyond 300 m must be supplemented by a capacitor discharge light. Each capacitor discharge light must be flashed twice a second in sequence, beginning with the outermost light and progressing toward the threshold to the innermost light of the system. The design of the electrical circuit must be such that these lights can be operated independently of the other lights of the approach lighting system.

9.7.3.14 The side row must consist of barrettes showing red. The length of a side row barrette and the spacing of its lights must be equal to those of the touchdown zone light barrettes.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


9.7.3.15 The lights forming the crossbars must be fixed lights showing variable white. The lights must be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 2.7 m.

9.7.3.16 The intensity of the red lights must be compatible with the intensity of the white lights.

9.7.3.17 The lights must be in accordance with the specifications of Section 9.8, Figure 9.8-1 and Figure 9.8-2.

Note: ICAO Annex 14, Attachment A, Section 11 provides information on the flight path envelopes used in the design of these lights.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Figure 9.7-2: Inner 300 m approach and runway lighting for precision approach runways categories II and III




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal MOS139-10: Runway end lights


Section 9.10: Runway lighting

Amend the section 9.10.18 as follows:

9.10.18 Pattern of Runway End Lights

9.10.18.1 The pattern of runway end lights must consist of:

(a) at least 6 lights spaced at equal intervals between the rows of runway edge lights; or

(b) if the runway is provided with the alternative threshold light pattern, the threshold pattern.

9.10.18.2 For a precision approach runway category III, the spacing between runway end lights must not exceed

6 m.

This change is intended to standardise the runway end lighting pattern with

ICAO recommendations for precision approach category III.

Proposal MOS139-11: Runway centreline lights


Section 9.10: Runway lighting

9.10.24 Runway Centreline Lights

Amend section 9.10.24.1 and note as follows:

9.10.24.1 Runway centreline lights must be provided on a precision approach runway Category II or III, and a runway intended to be used for take-off in RVR conditions of less than 350 m with an operating minimum below an

RVR of the order of 400 m.

Note: Provision of Runway centreline lights should be provided on a precision approach runway Category I, and a runway intended to be used for take-off in visibility conditions of 350 m with an operating minimum of an RVR of the order of 400 m or higher, where the width between the runway edge lights is greater than 50 m is recommended.

This proposal happens to coincide with separate Notice of Proposed Change for MOS Part 172 which introduced the

400 m visibility requirement for take-off operations. The intention of this change from the original proposal is to standardise the centreline requirement

– from both flight operations and aerodrome infrastructure perspectives

– around a revised 350 m value.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal MOS139-12: Taxiway centreline lights


Section 9.13: Taxiway lighting

9.13.11 Characteristics of Taxiway Centreline Lights


9.13.11.2 Taxiway centreline lights on exit taxiways, including rapid exit taxiways, must be inset, fixed lights:

(a) showing green and yellow alternately, from the point where they begin near the runway centre line to the perimeter of the ILS or MLS critical and sensitive area or the lower edge of the inner transitional surface, which ever is further from the runway; and

(b) showing green from that point onwards.

This change aligns Australian standards with ICAO Annex 14 standards for taxiway centreline lighting.

Proposal MOS139-13: Road-holding position light


Section 9.19: Other Lights on an Aerodrome

Add a new section as follows:

9.19.X Road-holding position light

9.19.X.1 A road-holding position light must be provided at each road-holding position serving a runway when it is intended that the runway will be used in RVR conditions of less than 350 m.

9.19.X.2 A road-holding position light must conform to the standards specified in ICAO Annex 14 or demonstrate an equivalent outcome.

This change is intended to standardise the ICAO requirements for control of vehicle access to runways in particular low visibility conditions.






Proposal MOS139-14: Classification of lighting outages


Section 9.20: Monitoring, Maintenance and Serviceability of Aerodrome Lighting


9.20.2.5 A lighting system is deemed to be on outage when:

(a) in the case of a lighting system comprising less than 4 lights (e.g. intermediate holding position lights or runway threshold identification lights), any of the lights are on outage;

(b) in the case of a lighting system comprising 4 or 5 lights (e.g. wind direction indicator lights or runway guard lights), more than 1 light is on outage;

(c) in the case of a lighting system comprising 6 to 13 lights (e.g. threshold lights or LAHSO lights), more than 2 lights are on outage, or 2 adjacent lights are on outage;

(d) in the case of a precision approach runway category II or III:

(1) more than 5% of the lights are on outage in any of the following elements:

(A) precision approach category II and III lighting system, the inner 450 m;

(B) runway centre line lights;

(C) runway threshold lights; and

(D) runway edge lights;

(2) more than 10% of the lights are on outage in the touchdown zone lights;

(3) more than 15% of the lights are on outage in the approach lighting system beyond 450 m;

(4) in any case other than a barrette or a crossbar; 2 adjacent lights are on outage; or

(5) for a barrette or a crossbar; more than 2 adjacent lights are on outage;

(e) in the case of a runway meant for take-off in visibility conditions of less than 550 m:

(1) more than 5% of the lights are on outage in any of the following elements:

This change implements the ICAO

Annex 14 standards for instrument approach runways category II and III; and take – but reworded to fit in with the rest of the section.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(A) runway centre line lights (where provided); and

(B) runway edge lights; or

(2) 2 adjacent lights are on outage;

(f) in the case of a taxiway intended for use in RVR conditions of less 350 m, 2 adjacent taxiway centre line lights are on outage;

(d) (g) in the case of a any other lighting system comprising more than 13 lights, more than 15% of the lights are on outage, or two adjacent lights are on outage.

Note: A lighting system here means lights used to illuminate a particular facility e.g. all the lights used to mark a threshold or runway end, runway edge lights on a runway, taxiway lights on a length of taxiway between intersections a T–VASIS or a PAPI system.

Proposal MOS139-15: Monitoring of lighting systems


Section 9.10: Monitoring, Maintenance and Serviceability of Aerodrome Lighting

The 1 st

paragraph implements the

ICAO Annex 14 requirement to monitor automatically the serviceability of lighting systems such as Stop bar lights.

Add 2 new paragraphs after existing 9.20.1.1 as follows:

9.20.1.1A Where lighting systems are used for aircraft control purposes, such systems must be monitored automatically so as to provide an indication of any fault which may affect the control functions. This information shall be automatically relayed to the air traffic service unit.

9.20.1.1B For runways meant for use in visibility conditions of less than 550 m, a suitable system must be provided for warning ATC and maintenance crew when the serviceability level of the following lighting falls below the minimum serviceability levels:

(a) approach lighting system,

For the 2 nd

paragraph, CASA envisages a suitable system as including an automatic monitoring system or a system of preventative maintenance and inspection that provides an accurate indication of current serviceability of the relevant aerodrome lighting.

(b) runway centre line,

(c) runway threshold,

(d) runway edge,




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(e) touchdown zone,

(g) stop bars,

(h) essential taxiways.

Proposal MOS139-16: Aerodrome low visibility procedures

Chapter 10: Operating Standards for Certified Aerodromes

Section 10.17: Aerodrome Safety Procedures During Low Visibility Operations

Amend the entire section as follows

This change establishes the distinction of low visibility procedures as the activity conducted by ground services, and low visibility operation as something conducted by aircraft.

Section 10.17: Aerodrome safety procedures during Low Visibility Operations and low cloud conditions of reduced visibility

10.17.1 Introduction

10.17.1.1 The operator of a controlled aerodrome must establish low visibility procedures (LVPs) if flight operations take place at that aerodrome when the visibility is 800 m or less.

At an aerodrome where low visibility operations are conducted the aerodrome operator must establish procedures for the management of ground activities during low visibility.

Note : In Australia, ATC notify that low visibility operations are in progress at controlled aerodromes when the RVR is less than 800 m.

The change in requirements for the things an aerodrome operator must take into account when developing

LVPs are generally based on existing practice, but provides more detail and includes new requirements to coordinate LVPs with ATC and to protect ILS critical and sensitive areas from aerodrome operator-responsible activities.

Note: Aircraft operations at aerodromes during reduced visibility or low cloud conditions present additional hazards to the aircraft and to other aerodrome users. As visibility reduces, the ability of air traffic service staff, pilots, vehicle drivers and other personnel to identify hazards and to take remedial action in a timely manner becomes limited. In conditions of low cloud, the time available for the pilot of an approaching aircraft to assess the aerodrome environment visually is reduced.

10.17.1.2 Aerodrome safety procedures must address the alerting procedure, and details of the ground operations procedure involving people, vehicles, removal of unnecessary people from airside, physical check of




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment lighting installations and warning devices such as signage.

10.17.1.3 Where the visibility operations are determined by manual measurement of RVR, the aerodrome safety procedures must include:

(a) methods for the measurement and timely reporting of RVR;

(b) location of the runway observing positions; and

(c) requirements and training of personnel selected for RVR observer duties.

Reasons

10.17.2 Development of Low visibility procedures aerodrome providers, in the development of an LVP. The LVP must take into account local conditions and, as a minimum, address: a. Aerodrome procedures and facilities for supporting the desired movement rate. b. Training and authorisation for drivers and other personnel who will work airside during the operation of low visibility procedures. c. Control of airside operations by vehicles and personnel. d. Withdrawal of non-essential vehicles and personnel. e. Suspension of routine maintenance on visual and non-visual aids. f. Securing access and preventing inadvertent entry. g. Adequate provision for alerting airlines and other affected organisations. h. Coordination of procedures and activities with air traffic services. i. Physical checking of lighting installations and warning devices such as signage. j. Protection of ILS critical and sensitive areas.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Note: Further guidance on low visibility procedures and surface movement control under varying conditions can be found in the ICAO Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and Control

Systems (SMGCS) [Doc 9476-AN/927].

10.17.3 Implementation of low visibility procedures

10.17.3.1 The aerodrome operator must implement LVPs when the visibility on any part of the aerodrome is insufficient for ATC to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance; that is, visibility condition 2 exists. However, this visibility value must not be less than 800 m.

10.17.3.2 The aerodrome operator must inform ATC when aerodrome operator’s component of the LVPs is fully in place.

Notes:

1. The point at which restrictions on aerodrome operations should be progressively introduced as the weather deteriorates will vary from aerodrome to aerodrome depending on local conditions.

This point should relate to a specific RVR/RV measurement in a worsening weather situation and should be based on the rate of weather deterioration and the amount of lead time necessary to implement extra measures.

2. In order to continue unrestricted operations for as long as possible whilst weather conditions deteriorate, LVPs should be designed to implement most of the ground-based measures in good time, and in certain circumstances before they are absolutely necessary. The final measures should be implemented only when the weather conditions demand it. However, there is potential for misunderstandings to occur as to the status of LVPs at the aerodrome. Procedures should ensure that the potential for such misunderstandings is minimised and that there is a single point from which definitive information about the current status of LVPs can be confirmed.

3. ATC will implement further measures to protect ILS critical and sensitive areas when the visibility is below 550 m or the cloud ceiling is below 200 ft

4. ATC will declare to pilots that LVPs are in place when the visibility is less than 550 m (visibility condition 3) or the cloud ceiling is less than 200 ft, but only after ATC has commenced safeguarding the ILS protection areas and has verified from the aerodrome operator that all LVP measures are in place.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


10.17.5 Review of Low Visibility Procedures

10.17.5.1 Aerodrome operators, in co-operation with local ATC and other persons or organisations involved in LVP operations, must regularly review the LVPs to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.

Proposal MOS139-17: Runway visibility assessments by ground personnel


Insert a new section in Chapter 10 as follows:

This new section establishes the standards for ground personnel conducting runway visibility assessments. The standards are based on Canadian practice of the same name.

Section 10.X Runway visibility assessments by ground personnel

10.X.1 Application

10.X.1.1 An aerodrome operator may appoint a person in writing to conduct runway visibility (RV) assessments at the aerodrome in accordance with this section (the appointed RV assessor ).

10.X.1.2 The appointed RVA assessor must:

Runway visibility assessments replace the original practice of ground personnel providing runway visual range assessments.

(a) satisfy each of the requirements mentioned in clause 10.X.3; and

(b) follow the procedures set out in subsection 10.X.4

10.X.1.3 The appointed RV assessor must not conduct runway visibility assessments at the aerodrome until CASA has acknowledged in writing receipt of the operator’s notice of appointment of the person.

10.X.1.4 For paragraph 120 (1) (b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the appointed RV assessor is approved by CASA for an operator or pilot-in-command of an aircraft to use the person’s RV assessment to determine if the required visual reference for a landing, or the minimum take-off visibility, is likely to exist.

CASA proposes that RVR only refers to assessments by electronic means.

However, this change is not intended to prevent a pilot from making the final assessment as to whether required visibility exists or does not exist.

Note: Under regulation 120 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, among other things, the operator or pilot-in-command of an aircraft must not use a weather report of actual meteorological conditions in the planning, conduct and control of a flight if the meteorological observations or reports were not made with the authority of the Director of Meteorology or a person approved for the purpose by CASA.,

10.X.2 Facilities and procedures

10.X.2.1 The aerodrome operator must:




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(a) establish a system for using visibility markers or counting of runway lights (or both) for assessing runway visibility;

(b) establish and mark fixed locations from which assessments are to be conducted;

Note: These locations should be near the threshold or midpoint of the runway, such as the taxiway holding position for the taxiway adjoining the runway threshold, or at a point adjacent to the runway threshold, from which the distance to visibility markers is known.

(c) if runway markers are to be used:

(1) locate visibility markers as to be representative of the runway conditions;

(2) locate visibility markers within 10 degrees of the runway centre line; and

(3) provide visibility markers that:

(A) consist of dark objects of suitable dimension or lights of moderate intensity; and

(B) meet the standards of MOS Part 139 section 8.6.5 for structural strength and frangibility.

(d) produce a visibility markers chart that includes:

(1) the visibility markers used to assess runway visibility, showing their distances in m, and bearings from the point of observation;

(2) the identification of the day and night visibility markers in their proper positions by means of the designated symbols listed on the chart; and

(3) the clear identification of the point of observation.

(e) if assessments are made by counting runway lights, produce a conversion chart based on the actual spacing of the runway lights; and

(f) include the aerodrome manual

(1) The specific procedures for the conduct of runway visibility assessments at the aerodrome; and

(2) the names of persons authorised to conduct runway visibility assessments.

10.X.3 Appointed persons conducting runway visibility assessments

10.X.3.1 An appointed RV assessor must:




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(a) have a distant visual acuity of 6/12 or better in each eye separately and 6/9 or better binocular (with or without correcting lenses);

(b) hold a certificate of proficiency in aeronautical radio telephony;

(c) be competent to operate on the manoeuvring area of the aerodrome;

(d) have demonstrated competence in the following:

(1) identifying the location of each point of observation;

(2) identifying the visibility markers for each point of observation;

(3) identifying the relevant runway edge lights for making a runway visibility assessment;

(4) using the conversion table and the visibility markers chart; and

(5) reporting a runway visibility assessment.

10.X.4 Procedures for conducting a runway visibility assessment

10.X.4.1 Runway visibility assessments must be conducted without using any optical devices to enhance normal distance vision.

10.X.4.2 The person conducting the assessment must:

(a) make the visibility assessment from a nominated observation point; and

(b) carry out the observation by:

(1) establishing the farthest visible runway edge lights or visibility markers that can be seen and identified; and

(2) from the assessment, determining the distance, in m to the nearest 50-metre increment, using the conversion table or the visibility markers chart; and

(3) immediately reporting to the ATS facility that serves the aerodrome, if available, or to the person who requested the report, the runway visibility along the specified runway in the following format:

“RUNWAY VISIBILITY, RUNWAY [runway number], THRESHOLD [distance assessed] m, {if applicable: MIDPOINT [distance assessed] m}, ASSESSED AT [time] UTC”, to the nearest 50 m increment;

(4) if the runway visibility varies during the assessment, report the lowest value observed.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


(c) not report any weather phenomena that are reducing the runway visibility unless the person is an authorised meteorological observer.

Notes:

1. The term “optical devices” does not include spectacles or contact lenses that the person usually wears for normal distance vision.

2. It is preferable that observations not be made through a window, especially at night.

(d) limit reports to the following range of values:

(1) Lowest limit: 350 m; and

(2) Upper limit: 2000 m; and

Notes

1. Where the runway visibility is below 350 m, the runway visibility should be reported as

“less than 350 m”.

2. Where the runway visibility is above 2000 m feet, it is reported that the runway visibility is greater than 2000 m.

10.X.4.3 A runway visibility assessment must only be provided to a pilot if the assessment was conducted within the previous 20 minutes.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


Proposal MOS139-18: Siting of equipment and installations on operational areas

Chapter 11: Standards for other aerodrome facilities


Add a new section in Chapter 11 as follows:

11.1.x Siting of equipment and installations on operational areas

11.1.x.1 Unless its function requires it to be there for air navigation purposes, equipment or installation must not be located:

(a) on a runway strip, a runway end safety area, a taxiway strip, if it would endanger an aircraft; or

(b) within the area specified in Table 6.3-5 as the minimum separation distance between the centre line of a taxiway (including an apron taxiway); and a building, structure, vehicle, wall, plant, equipment, parked aeroplane or road, if it would endanger an aircraft; or

(c) on a clearway if it would endanger an aircraft in the air.

11.1.x.2 Any equipment or installation required for air navigation purposes which is located:

(a) on that portion of a runway strip within:

(1) 75 m of the runway centre line where the code number is 3 or 4; or

(2) 45 m of the runway centre line where the code number is 1 or 2; or

(b) on a runway end safety area, a taxiway strip or within the distances specified in Table 6.3-5; or

(c) on a clearway and which would endanger an aircraft in the air; must be frangible and mounted as low as possible.

11.1.x.3 Unless its function requires it to be there for air navigation purposes, equipment or installation must not be located within 240 m from the end of the strip and within:

(a) 60 m of the extended centre line where the code number is 3 or 4; or

(b) 45 m of the extended centre line where the code number is 1 or 2; of a precision approach runway category I, II or III.

This amendment adopts the relevant

ICAO standards (see Annex 14 section

9.9) for the siting of equipment and installations.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


11.1.x.4 Any equipment or installation required for air navigation purposes which is located on or near a strip of a precision approach runway category I, II or III and which:

(a) is situated on that portion of the strip within 77.5 m of the runway centre line where the code number is

4 and the code letter is F; or

(b) is situated within 240 m from the end of the strip and within:

(1) 60 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 3 or 4; or

(2) 45 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 1 or 2; or

(c) penetrates the inner approach surface, the inner transitional surface or the balked landing surface; must be frangible and mounted as low as possible.

Proposal MOS139-19: ILS installations on aerodromes

Chapter 11: Standards for other aerodrome facilities


Replace sections 11.1.8 through 11.1.10 with the following:

11.1.8 General

11.1.8.1 The ILS has the following basic components:

(a) VHF localizer equipment,

(b) UHF glide path equipment,

(c) VHF marker beacons or distance measuring equipment (DME), and

(d) monitor systems, remote control and indicator equipment;

11.1.8.2 The component facilities perform specific functions and are separately located on the approach path to and alongside the runway they serve. Different siting requirements and restrictions to access and movement apply to each site.

11.1.9 Protection of ILS installations

11.1.9.1 Aerodrome operators must consult with the relevant aeronautical telecommunications service and radio-




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment navigation service provider to establish adequate arrangements for ensuring that ILS installations are not adversely affected by:

(a) electromagnetic interference; or

(b) the presence or construction of buildings; or

(c) the presence of temporary or permanent structures.

Reasons

Notes:

1. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) can be produced by a variety of sources including power lines, substations and industrial-scientific-medical equipment.

2.

3.

Buildings and other structures can reflect ILS signals in unwanted directions, distorting the information provided to aircraft.

For aerodrome planning, aerodrome operators should consult relevant aeronautical telecommunications service and radio-navigation service provider to ensure adequate provision is made for ILS installations and associated critical and sensitive areas.

11.1.10 Critical and sensitive areas

11.1.10.1 An aerodrome operator must consult with the relevant aeronautical telecommunications service and radionavigation service provider to establish and define appropriate:

(a) critical areas for each ILS installation; and

(b) sensitive areas for Category II and III ILS installations.

Notes:

1. An ILS critical area is an area of defined dimensions about the localizer and glide path antennas




2.

3.

L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment where vehicles and aircraft are excluded during all ILS operations. The critical area is protected because the presence of vehicles and/or aircraft inside its boundaries will cause unacceptable disturbance to the ILS signal-in-space.

Reasons

An ILS sensitive area is an area extending beyond the critical area where the parking and/or movement of vehicles and aircraft is controlled to prevent the possibility of unacceptable interference to the ILS signal during ILS operations. The sensitive area is protected against interference caused by large moving objects outside the critical area but still normally within the airfield boundary.

The size and shape of a critical or sensitive area depends on the characteristics of the particular

ILS system and the configuration of the particular environment.

A critical area may separately be established for vehicles and aircraft of particular sizes. 4.

11.1.10.2 An aerodrome operator must ensure that the boundaries of each critical area are marked using a suitable method.

Note: Suitable methods include:

(a) Using weed killer along the perimeter of the critical area to ‘burn’ a line in the grass.

(b) Using road paint on any paved surface that crosses the critical area perimeter.

11.1.10.3 An aerodrome operator must place signs at each road access point to an ILS critical area to warn drivers and pedestrians against entering the critical area without authority.

11.1.10.4 An aerodrome operator must not permit

(a) vehicles and plant to enter and remain in an ILS critical area whilst the ILS is in use.

(b) construction or variation to access is permitted within the critical or sensitive areas without the prior coordination with the relevant aeronautical telecommunications service and radio-navigation service provider.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


11.1.10.5 Where access to the critical area is required for a particular purpose (for example for grass cutting), an aerodrome operator must arrange for the ILS to be temporarily removed from service and NOTAM issued to so inform pilots. Subsequent access to the critical area must be under ATC control.

11.1.10.6 An aerodrome operator must not permit vehicles and plant to enter and remain in an ILS sensitive area at any time that low visibility procedures are in effect.

11.1.11 ILS Site preparation

11.1.11.1 An ILS critical area must be prepared to have a lateral gradient of not greater than ±1%, longitudinal gradient of not grater than ±1% and shall be graded smooth to within ±75 mm of design.

11.1.12 Obstructions around Marker Beacons

11.1.12.1 Obstructions.

Buildings, power or telephone lines, or clumps of trees should not extend above an elevation angle of 30 degrees from a point 1.5 m above ground level at the location of the marker beacon antenna.

11.1.

13 12 Locator

11.1.

13 12.1 All requirements as for non-directional beacons below.

Renumber subsequent paragraphs

Proposal MOS172-1: ATC Low visibility procedures and protection of ILS critical and sensitive areas


Section 10.3: Circuits and runways

These new sections establish the requirements for protecting ILS critical and sensitive areas and informing aircraft when these areas are not protected.

Insert a new subsection in Chapter 10 Section 10.3 as follows

10.3.3 Declaration of low visibility procedures in force

10.3.3.1 ATC must inform pilots that low visibility procedures (LVP) are in force when flight operations are conducted at an aerodrome when the visibility is less than 550 m (visibility condition 3) or the cloud ceiling is less than 200 ft, but only once ATC has:

(a)

(b) verified that all LVP measures at an aerodrome are in place, and for aerodromes at which ILS approaches will be conducted, procedures are in place to safeguard

ILS protection areas in accordance with section 10.3.4 (c).

ICAO standards and recommended practices require protection of ILS critical areas at all times that an ILS is in use. Unfortunately, the configuration of many of the ILS installations in

Australia has prevented adoption of the ICAO standards because doing so would severely affect traffic movement rates, particularly in good weather




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES

Proposed Amendment Reasons conditions.

10.3.4 Protecting ILS critical and sensitive areas

10.3.4.1 When the cloud ceiling is at or above 800 ft or visibility is 3 000 m or more, ATC is not required to provide

ILS critical or sensitive area protection.

10.3.4.2 When the cloud ceiling is below 800 ft, but not less than 200 ft; or visibility less than 3 000 m, but not less than 550 m, ATC must safeguard ILS protection areas as follows:

(a) ILS localiser critical area: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the

OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC must not permit vehicle or aircraft operations in or over an ILS localiser critical area, other than preceding aircraft that land, exit a runway, depart or miss approach.

(b)

(c)

ILS glidepath critical area: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the

OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC must not permit vehicle or aircraft operations in or over an ILS glidepath critical area, unless the arriving aircraft has reported the aerodrome in sight and is circling or side stepping to land on a runway other than the ILS runway.

ILS sensitive areas: No ILS sensitive area protection is required.

10.3.4.3 When the cloud ceiling is below 200 FT or the visibility is less than 550 m (low visibility operations):

(a) ILS critical areas: Once an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or, if the OM is not available, within 4 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC must not permit aircraft or vehicles within the ILS localiser or glidepath critical areas.

(b)

(c)

ILS sensitive areas: Once an arriving aircraft is within 2 NM of the landing runway threshold, ATC must not permit aircraft or vehicles within the ILS sensitive areas.

Guided take-offs: If notified by a pilot of an intention to conduct a guided take-off, ATC must not allow aircraft or vehicles within the applicable ILS localiser critical and sensitive areas during the conduct of the take-off.

Instead, Australia adopted US standards for ILS protection. The US standards only require protection when the cloud ceiling or visibility is less than defined values. The standards also permit momentary intrusion of the ILS protection areas by aircraft landing or taking off. The US standards maximise operational benefits of the good weather conditions generally prevalent in Australia, whereas the ICAO standards are based on European weather conditions.

However, for reasons not clearly apparent, the US standards were only partially adopted and there are significant differences between

Australian and US practice. It has also not been possible to find evidence of a safety assessment to validate the differences. This situation is not acceptable from a safety viewpoint.

For the sake of international harmonisation, CASA intends to adopt the ICAO standards in the longer term but after appropriate assessment. In the interim, CASA proposes to more closely align the Australian practices for ILS protection with the US practice.

This will involve raising the thresholds for ILS protection as follows:




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

139 – A

ERODROMES


10.3.5 Informing pilots when critical and sensitive areas are not protected

10.3.5.1 If an aircraft advises that a "CAT III", "autoland", “coupled”, “guided take-off” or similar type operation will be conducted, ATC must inform an aircraft that the relevant ILS critical or sensitive area is not being protected if:

(a)

(b)

ATC is not required to protect an ILS critical or sensitive area according to paragraph 10.3.4.3, or

ATC is not able to provide ILS critical or sensitive area according to sub-paragraphs 10.3.4.3 (a) to

(c) in other circumstances.

Cloud ceiling: 600 ft to 800 ft, and

Visibility: 2000 m to 3000 m.

The proposal also involves some small technical changes to the specifics of the ILS protection standards.




L IST OF P ROPOSED A MENDMENTS – M ANUAL OF S TANDARDS (MOS) P ART 173 – I NSTRUMENT FLIGHT

PROCEDURE DESIGN


Proposal MOS173-1: Minimum values for instrument approach minima

Chapter 8: Design Standards


Replace the existing table in section 8.1.6.2 with a new table as follows:

8.1.6.2 Minimum Values.

The following are the minimum visibility values approved for straight-in procedures.

Table 8-1: Minimum visibility

Approach type Lowest MDH/DH

NPA

Minimum

(feet) visibility

VIS/RVR a

(metres)

- 1500/1500 b

APV (including

RNP)

Aerodrome Capability

≥

No HIAL

Instrument runway

>250 1200/1000

HIRL

Category I Precision

≥ 250 800/800

Short HIAL (< 900 m -

≥ 740 m)

>250 1200/1000

900 m HIAL

Category I Precision approach runway

RVR

At least TDZ RVR sensors

PRECISION CAT I

The new table adds visibility minimum values for precision approach category

II and III.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

173 – I

NSTRUMENT FLIGHT



No HIAL


Short HIAL (< 740 M)

HIRL


>250 1200/1000

Short HIAL (< 900 m -

≥ 740 m)


PRECISION CAT II

100

100

350 RVR

300 RVR


900 m HIAL

At least TDZ RVR sensors

ADC in operation

Category II Precision approach runway

Category II/III HIAL

THR RVR sensor and at least 1 RVR sensor at either the MID or

END zone.

Airport equipped for surface movement in

RVR ≥ 350 m

Category III Precision approach runway


THR RVR sensor and at least 1 RVR sensor




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

173 – I




PRECISION

CAT IIIA

PRECISION

CAT IIIB

0

0

175 RVR

75 RVR at either the MID or

END zone.


RVR < 350 m

Category III Precision approach runway


RVR sensors at all zones


RVR < 350 m

PRECISION

Not considered for the Australian environment

CAT IIIC a. RVR values may only be used if electronic RVR information is provided. b. No credit allowed for approach light system.

Reasons

Proposal MOS173-2: State minimum for precision approach category II operations



Amend the existing section 8.1.7.2 as follows

8.1.7.2 DA/MDA.

The State DA/MDA must not be less than:

(a) the OCA determined in accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS Vol II and paragraph 8.1.5.

(b) the visual segment limitations contained in paragraph 8.1.4 above.

(c) the OCA plus any margin deemed necessary to account for poor ground equipment performance or local conditions.

Adds a state minimum Decision

Altitude (DA) for precision approach category II.




L

IST OF

P

ROPOSED

A

MENDMENTS

– M

ANUAL OF

S

TANDARDS

(MOS) P

ART

173 – I




(d) threshold elevation plus 200 ft for precision approach category I operations.

(e) threshold elevation plus 100 ft for precision approach category II operations.

Proposal MOS173-3: Confirmation of aerodrome capability



Add a new section as follows:

8.1.X Confirmation of aerodrome capability

8.1.X.1 Prior to the effective publication date of a procedure, the certified designer must have written confirmation from the aerodrome operator that the aerodrome meets all the relevant CASR Part 139 requirements and standards for operations at the minimum visibility specified for the procedure, including and not limited to:

(a) runway physical characteristics, markings, lighting and obstacle limitation surfaces

(b) taxiway physical characteristics, markings, lighting and obstacle limitation surfaces,

(c) if relevant, ILS protection surfaces, and

(d) for procedures with a visibility minimum of less than 550 m or with minima less than Category I, provision of:

(1)

(2) aerodrome control services aerodrome low visibility procedures

This requirement is intended to ensure that a procedure does not permit operations in visibility conditions less than the minimum for which the aerodrome is equipped.



INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



Annex B - Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Details of changes

Covering legislative arrangements and advisory material pertaining to instrument approach and IFR take-off minima, arrangement for exemptions to these minima, and proposed changes to Civil Aviation Safety

Regulations 1998 (CASR) Parts 139, 171, 172 and 173.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section and other sections of this NPRM as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.

m.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Related documents

Products

Support

Annex B - Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Annex B

Details of changes

Covering legislative arrangements and advisory material pertaining to instrument approach and IFR take-off minima, arrangement for exemptions to these minima, and proposed changes to Civil Aviation Safety

Regulations 1998 (CASR) Parts 139, 171, 172 and 173.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section and other sections of this NPRM as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.

CASA proposes a number of changes to the procedures and requirements for standard IFR take-offs and landings within Australia, and the information provided in AIP on low visibility operations and procedures. These changes will complement the proposed standards for low visibility operations

For ease of reference, the proposed changes are shown as they would appear in the AIP. CASA will change legislative instruments and determinations to give the AIP changes the necessary legal head of power.

Proposed changes are shown in this section as orange font for text to be added and strike-through font for text to be deleted.

Only sections affected by proposed changes are included.

m.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib