Runway Changes Could Hamper Regional Aviation

[Rotor Work]

From ABC News

Runway changes could hamper regional aviation and force airlines including Rex to curtail outback services - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/runway-changes-could-hamper-regional-aviation/5305180)

Runway changes could hamper regional aviation and force airlines including Rex to curtail outback services

PM (http://www.abc.net.au/pm)
By Caroline Winter
Updated 9 hours 10 minutes ago
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/733362-3x2-340x227.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/rex-regional-express/5305258) Photo: Regional Express has worries about the changes (Rex) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/rex-regional-express/5305258)
Map: Coober Pedy 5723 (http://maps.google.com/?q=-28.9988,134.7573%28Coober%20Pedy%205723%29&z=5)

New aviation rules could affect a number of regional areas where airstrips fail to meet international standards.
The proposed changes could hamper flights to outback Coober Pedy in South Australia, and areas with narrower-than-standard runways including Ballina in northern New South Wales and Emerald, Bundaberg and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) wants to ensure all runways are of a width which meets international standards.
Coober Pedy Council says it will have to change its airstrip but it does not have enough money to do so.
The airline Regional Express (Rex) is warning it might have to axe flights to the town, which could hit tourism and mining.
Commercial airlines have been taking passengers to and from Coober Pedy for 27 years.
Since 2007, Rex has been the sole operator in the market, offering its flights six days per week.
Network strategy and sales manager with Rex, Warrick Lodge, says it is a difficult time for airlines generally.
"Regional airlines are doing it tough at the moment. The aviation industry's in crisis. We can do without these red tape issues, restricting services to remote regional communities that so heavily rely upon them," he said.
"If these regulations are promulgated and there are no changes made, we are not able to operate to Coober Pedy airport unless the runway is widened.
"Those same regulations will apply to all operators. This is something that's of grave concern for Coober Pedy."
Wide enough airstrip, but part gravel

The international regulations require a 30-metre-wide sealed runway.
The strip at Coober Pedy is 30 metres wide but only 18 metres are sealed.
Coober Pedy airport has been operating under an exemption, but Mr Lodge says CASA has now cited safety concerns as the reason for needing a change.
"Regional Express has very advanced safety management systems in place. Those safety management systems have not identified any safety-related issues in terms of operating to Coober Pedy with an 18-metre-wide gravel strip and this is certainly an issue which is all about red tape and really an issue that should be addressed quickly," he said.
Australia is aligning our runway rules with the international standards and that means that there's a slightly different approach, but the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is certainly not requiring regional aerodromes with narrow runways to go out and immediately widen them

Peter Gibson, CASA


Coober Pedy Mayor Steve Baines is worried for the outback community if Rex pulls out.
"Losing the service would essentially destroy the tourist industry and it would place an enormous cost-time burden on local businesses and create a massive inconvenience for the residents," he said.
He said it also would affect fly-in, fly-out mining operations in the outback.
Mr Baines says the South Australian Government pledged $340,000 if it were matched by federal money and the council would make up the shortfall.
But a grant application has been knocked back by the Federal Government.

Audio: Listen to Caroline Winter's report on regional aviation (PM) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/fears-regional-towns-will-be-isolated/5304242)

"One option is that someone in Canberra has to find the will to continue the exemption in the short-term," Mr Baines said.
"The second is that the Federal and State Government and our council find the $720,000 to widen the runway.
"The third one unfortunately is that come February next year, if neither of those are done, we're cut off from the rest of the country and international tourism."
Peter Gibson of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says there has been confusion over the new rules.
"Australia is aligning our runway rules with the international standards and that means that there's a slightly different approach, but the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is certainly not requiring regional aerodromes with narrow runways to go out and immediately widen them," he said.
"The council (at Coober Pedy) needs to understand that Rex is in talks with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority about getting the required documentation to operate under the proposed new standards.
"Now if the standards go ahead, they can get their documentation and Rex can continue to operate onto narrow runways with their aircraft."
A draft proposal on the runway width review has been released this week and is open for comment until May.

[thorn bird]

This is all part of the CAsA policy of "SAFE SKIES ARE EMPTY SKIES".
Why would anyone thing CAsA gives two hoots whether outback Australia has an air service or not. They are only required to consider safety.
One wonders why they only require 30 meters though. Obviously the wider the runway the safer it is, perhaps they should require runways to be as wide as they are long, just to be on the safe side!

[dubbleyew eight]

interesting.
if the government had spent $240,000,000 upgrading facilities instead of wasting all the money on a regulatory wet dream there would be no problem and safety would actually be improved.

stop sending Australia into the 3rd world CAsA.

[Wally Mk2]

'Double8' ...what do ay mean "stop sending Australia into the 3rd world" we have never been anything else!

CASA= Crush Aviation Safer All-round.


Wmk2

[thorn bird]

Agree Wally,
Australia is the only third world country where you can drink the water.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hold it. Let's hear from He Who Cannot Be Named and his mate Pbsled on this internationalisation of our regulations now!

[tail wheel]

Peter Gibson:

"Now if the standards go ahead, they can get their documentation and Rex can continue to operate onto narrow runways with their aircraft."

Ah, so it is not a runway width issue, rather a matter of more paper to enhance safety? :confused:

[Delta_Foxtrot]

tail wheel,

Nail very well hit on head!:D

[megle2]

And of course there is a Casa fee to pay for the issue of the said exemption

[ROTOR BLAST]

There is a cost to harmonising our rules.
What will happen to Sydney with it's A380 exemption?
Who is going to pay for the Code E 45m wide runway to be widened to Code F 60m?

[Kiwiconehead]

Ah, so it is not a runway width issue, rather a matter of more paper to enhance safety?

Well, if you get enough paper, you can lay it along the sides of the runway to make it wider. Job done :E

[megle2]

Yes you can but like BN along comes a 380 and blows it away
So it has to be all done again but there is a up side, it creates jobs so that's a plus for someone

[TWOTBAGS]

There is a lot more to this story.

It began with a half arsed attempt at harmonization when the AIP reference to being able to use a runway narrower than usually required, if the runway was a particular length and operator used half the crosswind component as the max allowable on said runways.

When this reference was removed, instantly a whole bunch of people suddenly found themselves in breach of the law. A whole bunch of foot stamping and pill spitting later CASA found themselves issuing instruments left right and center for operations that were previously par for the course.

However is did not only effect the smaller operators, other places such as YBSU were also affected.

The department in their infinite wisdom then told said operators that they would have to have a "Narrow Runway Operational Supplement" in order to continue operations. Numerous organizations went out and in some cases have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to comply with CASA's new edict, which for some people has taken and extraordinary amount of time.

The results?

Costs to the operators due to administrative burden and the initial disruption to the customers..... oh and the CASA costs for a dispo for something that is normal.

Cost to the operators in getting OEM approval for flight manual supplements.

Has there been any safety issue involving a runway excursion on a so called "Narrow Runway", (no evidence found).

About a dozen airport operators that are scratching their heads wondering how they going to fund widening there runways up to 50% to comply with a foreign standard.

Who do you think will be the recipient of the ultimate bill for this folly in harmonization????

Another question is to ask why we need this harmonization in the first place and do they really understand the impetus for the whole change? Lets go to ICAO and have a squizz shall we. 30 metre runways in oz for A320/737 ops are more than adequate given the fact, that we have the most benign meteorological environment, an average of 8 below par days annually and you tell me a Jet airline destination in this country that regularly has anything close to the the definition of a contaminated runway. I mean proper standing water, ice , slush etc. Yep that's right a big fat ZERO, maybe Darwin in a heavy wet but the rest of it...... nah.

ICAO requiring 45 metres is all to do with limiting the deviation from centreline either takeoff or landing, on runways that may be contaminated. All you need to do is add in slush and snow and it's a fun time, believe me. So that extra 7.5 metres per side would allow for an much larger (50%) deviation from centreline should these unknown to Australia conditions actually prevail here.

Guess what they dont exist here so why do we have to comply with a non existent boogy man that has its foundations in a risk register and a safety case sitting on the desk of someone in Montreal in winter which is so far removed from YBSU which gets 300 days of sun per annum.........

The cost to industry (airports and operators) is outrageous given that the conditions behind the ICAO standard simply do not exist in this country and the regulator is blindly following a standard that is not pertinent.

It truly shows that there are some people within the regulator that have no concept of affordable safety and sensible application of international standards, simply because they themselves do not understand the reasons behind the safety case for the application of the standard in the first place.

[Capn Bloggs]

It truly shows that there are some people within the regulator that have no concept of affordable safety and sensible application of international standards, simply because they themselves do not understand the reasons behind the safety case for the application of the standard in the first place.
As I said before, I'm looking forward to Dick's and Leddies' take on this...

[Frank Arouet]

This topic has history with McCormick dating back to 2011.


Aviation Business: CASA clarifies runway width standard for Australia's airports (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/casa-clarifies-runway-width-standard-for-australia-s-airports).


Also somebody recently posted a good story on PPRune D&G from the past regarding HS 121 Trident introduction to Australia which suffered because of a regulatory imposed bureaucrat embuggerence. This may have a bearing on the topic.


I've searched but can't find it.

[Stan van de Wiel]

This is all part of the CAsA policy of "SAFE SKIES ARE EMPTY SKIES".
Why would anyone think CAsA gives two hoots whether outback Australia has an air service or not. They are only required to consider safety.
One wonders why they only require 30 meters though. Obviously the wider the runway the safer it is, perhaps they should require runways to be as wide as they are long, just to be on the safe side!

Possibly a reason for our leadership(?) in aviation safety was the abundance in "all-over fields". Was it another ICAO mandate to abandon these for such narrow concrete tracks in the first place. Perhaps it was foresight on the part of our burorats to provide more development land for our impoverished airport head lease holders. Fortunately again by foresight at the expiry of the 99 year leases these sites will revert back to the Cwth and be available for use by G.A etc. we may have to leave some historical records to show future generations what G.A was. Considering that it only took CAsA some 20 years to loose the picture, imagine memories in 83 years time.

High speed rail to these remote settlements appears more realistic by the day!

"Empty skies are SAFE skies"

[Pinky the pilot]

And of course there is a Casa fee to pay for the issue of the said exemption

Not to mention the fine of X number penalty units for non-compliance with said paperwork.:*:yuk:

Obviously the wider the runway the safer it is, perhaps they should require runways to be as wide as they are long, just to be on the safe side!

Struth thorn bird, Don't give them ideas!:=:D

[GADRIVR]

Well said Twotbags....... now go the beach and have a drink!!!

[holdingagain]

Probably the cheapest exemption to allow narrow runway use was the King Air 350 at $340 valid for a year

Casa never announced the reg had changed and it was only by chance that it was discovered during a in house performance discussion.

Casa was asked to clarify. Suddenly it was found all were non compliant and Casa issued exemptions.

[dubbleyew eight]

further evidence of CAsA's blatant ongoing ineptitude.

how are they ever going to function with a more complex rules set????

new zealand far's please and wind up the CAsA. a new start required.

[Mach E Avelli]

When it suits we Aussies to do things differently to ICAO, we do so. The age 65 rule is one example.
Why not simply rewrite the runway codes for domestic airfields to make them fit the runways currently in use? Whack on some conservative limitations for crosswind and runway braking action, throw in a couple of mandatory recurrent simulator exercises for crews and the job would be done.
File a difference with ICAO. It's not as if we don't have half a century of acquired experience flying jets and turboprops from narrow runways. How many accidents in Australia can be attributed to narrow or substandard runways? Very few, and those that have occurred were likely due to a lack of pilot training. Or were the majority who flew to those airfields without incident just lucky all those years?
Any rule that permits an exemption is a Clayton's rule. Who can authorise an exemption? What are their qualifications that allow them to exempt something from the underpinning rule?
Exemptions for the few could be held to be discriminatory by the majority. When things go wrong for an operator working under an exemption everyone ducks for cover and the lawyers go into a feeding frenzy.
New Zealand rules would be a great improvement for their clarity; EXCEPT in regards to runway and airport requirements. NZ has fewer and better airports than we do. To get so many of our 'deficient' airports to the ICAO standard is not 'affordable safety'.

[LeadSled]

As I said before, I'm looking forward to Dick's and Leddies' take on this... Bloggs,
What are you expecting me to say??

This nonsense move ( essentially moving from using the FAA standards to ICAO standards) was mooted years ago, and I opposed it then, as having no cost/benefit justification.

Don't forget, filing a difference (which CASA does when it suits them) makes Australia compliant. And don't forget that the Convention applies to international air transport, the adoption of ICAO SARPS for domestic aviation is a matter for sovereign nations.

CASA pushes ICAO compliance when it suits them, and ignores ICAO compliance when it suits them, what suits the Australia aviation community gets scant consideration.

It doesn't surprise me now, remember Mr. McCormick's statement to the effect that it was very hard to write rules that worked, so, in future we could look forward to a much greater flow (flood, even) of Legislative Instruments.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

CASA pushes ICAO compliance when it suits them, and ignores ICAO compliance when it suits them…I’d suggest some small changes to that assertion, so that the blame is distributed where it should be, rather than focused on the patsies…

Australia pushes ICAO compliance when it suits Australia … because the government wants to hide behind CASA’s ‘expert view’ rather than take responsibility for the consequences of making the necesary decisions. :ok:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I note the amendment by Creamie, and acknowledge that is certainly an element, but I am a devotee of the suggestion:
" If you have to choose between a conspiracy and a cockup, go for the cockup every time, statistically you will be well ahead".
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

In the stock market this process is known as Churning - brokers push investors to buy and sell shares simply to earn a commssion.

I fail to understand why the majority of CASA activity should not be viewed as using exactly the same principle - justifying its existence and size by constantly changing the rules for no useful purpose other than to keep staff employed.

"Harmonization" appears to be the latest excuse for pointless activity. If harmonisation were such a godsend, why doesnt CASA start by adopting either the EASA or FAA regulations in their entirety?

How can it be that something that was "safe" yesterday is today declared to be "unsafe" today, and vice versa? Simply by the writing of a piece of paper?

On a technical level, how can it be that a runway standard designed for the worst European weather - freezing rain, Ice, snow, low cloud and high mountains in heavily populated areas have any relevance whatsoever to the operation of a desert airport like Coober Pedy?

To me, CASA is sounding more like "group therapy for congenital deviates", to borrow Len Deightons phrase.

[Pinky the pilot]

Sunfish; A well reasoned post Sir!:ok: You expressed the matter far better than I could ever hope to.

I have wondered for quite some time just why there is such a need to change the rules and regulations, but spend such a huge amount of (taxpayers) money over such a large period of time and still have no end in sight. Or see much progress for that matter.

I started flying in 1982 and the then ANO's and ANR's whilst being cumbersome, somewhat vague in places and, according to a Lawyer acquaintance of mine who once borrowed my set 'for a bit of a read':ooh: had 'several direct contradictions in them, were not completely in 'legalese' and could be reasonably interpreted and understood.':hmm:

If harmonisation were such a godsend, why doesn't CASA start by adopting either the EASA or FAA regulations in their entirety?


Indeed! As for the ICAO standards though, I once heard them described as 'the lowest common denominator.'