Registered Airports to ALAS
Thread Starter
Registered Airports to ALAS
Greetings All wise ones of aviation.
I am looking for instances where a previously registered airport has been "let sliP into an ALA status.
At YSHT members are trying to convince the local council that we have no need of a registered airport, happy to have just an ALA.
They are saying that CASA says its not possible,
I am looking for some history on the subject.
Mick
I am looking for instances where a previously registered airport has been "let sliP into an ALA status.
At YSHT members are trying to convince the local council that we have no need of a registered airport, happy to have just an ALA.
They are saying that CASA says its not possible,
I am looking for some history on the subject.
Mick
I haven't the time to chase up the various ERSA, AIP and MOS references, but ..
The term "ALA" has not existed for many years The classifications are Certified, Registered, Uncertified & Unregistered ADs amongst others.
I think RPT/PTO are restricted as to which types they can operate to (Certified or Registered?) - does SHT have an RPT service?
Also I think the same applies (i.e. AD certification level) for there to be published instrument approaches - does SHT have any published approaches?
The term "ALA" has not existed for many years The classifications are Certified, Registered, Uncertified & Unregistered ADs amongst others.
I think RPT/PTO are restricted as to which types they can operate to (Certified or Registered?) - does SHT have an RPT service?
Also I think the same applies (i.e. AD certification level) for there to be published instrument approaches - does SHT have any published approaches?
Thread Starter
It does not have any RPT services.
Not being an IFR jockey I don't know for sure if it has published approaches, but I suspect it has.
It certainly has an NDB, though who uses those anymore??
Mick
Not being an IFR jockey I don't know for sure if it has published approaches, but I suspect it has.
It certainly has an NDB, though who uses those anymore??
Mick
We have all been looking at the 61/64/141/142 and 119/121/135 packages and we have let the aerodromes slip under our guard.
CASA's Part 139 transition will make Charter into unregistered aerodromes very difficult.
Aerodromes will be "Certified", "Registered" and "Other". To maintain non-precision approaches such as NDB and RNAV approaches, yes you must be Certified or Registered.
You can get a summary table from CASA's website HERE
I am concerned that Charter operators will essentially need to employ a ARO on-staff to assess "Other" aerodromes for suitability.The table says "Operator responsibility" but in modern CASA speak that doesn't mean "I accept the risk" it means "I have covered CASA's arse and mine by employing a consultant to tell me what any normal pilot can discern using professional judgement"
CASA's Part 139 transition will make Charter into unregistered aerodromes very difficult.
Aerodromes will be "Certified", "Registered" and "Other". To maintain non-precision approaches such as NDB and RNAV approaches, yes you must be Certified or Registered.
You can get a summary table from CASA's website HERE
I am concerned that Charter operators will essentially need to employ a ARO on-staff to assess "Other" aerodromes for suitability.The table says "Operator responsibility" but in modern CASA speak that doesn't mean "I accept the risk" it means "I have covered CASA's arse and mine by employing a consultant to tell me what any normal pilot can discern using professional judgement"
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Qatar
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mick,
With respect to your original question, Dysart and Blackwater were de-certified to ALAs (unofficial catch-all term) a couple of years ago. But these are private aerodromes which have heavy restrictions on any operations now.
CASR 139’s framework of certified, registered and “certain other” aerodromes has been around for 15 years. The requirements for ARO’s at charter aerodromes used by aircraft with more than 30 seats became a requirement in 2005 and the world didn’t fall apart. In the interests of full disclosure, the bulk of my livelihood during that time was training AROs for mining companies so I guess I look upon the change as positive.
However, 139 is currently undergoing a full review and it looks like charter-only aerodromes will be falling out of the system again. I think we are just waiting on the SOR and NFRM with respect to these changes. It would appear that under the new regime, the only requirement for certification is the existence of instrument approach procedures.
So back to you original problem, YSHT has an NDB and an RNAV approach, so it looks like it will need to stay in the new “regulated” category (aka certified). That being said, the new regulatory regime for certified aerodromes includes different levels of regulatory burden but I’m not sure what that means for you guys.
With respect to your original question, Dysart and Blackwater were de-certified to ALAs (unofficial catch-all term) a couple of years ago. But these are private aerodromes which have heavy restrictions on any operations now.
CASR 139’s framework of certified, registered and “certain other” aerodromes has been around for 15 years. The requirements for ARO’s at charter aerodromes used by aircraft with more than 30 seats became a requirement in 2005 and the world didn’t fall apart. In the interests of full disclosure, the bulk of my livelihood during that time was training AROs for mining companies so I guess I look upon the change as positive.
However, 139 is currently undergoing a full review and it looks like charter-only aerodromes will be falling out of the system again. I think we are just waiting on the SOR and NFRM with respect to these changes. It would appear that under the new regime, the only requirement for certification is the existence of instrument approach procedures.
So back to you original problem, YSHT has an NDB and an RNAV approach, so it looks like it will need to stay in the new “regulated” category (aka certified). That being said, the new regulatory regime for certified aerodromes includes different levels of regulatory burden but I’m not sure what that means for you guys.
YSHT has an NDB and an RNAV approach, so it looks like it will need to stay in the new “regulated” category (aka certified).
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From days long past from what I can recall airfields such as Lilydale (non-certified or registered) did have instrument approaches (RNAV mainly) until CASA decided to take this away. I remember the uproar about forcing pilots to scud run because the IFR approach was removed. From what I can tell it appears the sole motivator of this decision was the issuing of NOTAMS, i.e. it was decided that only Registered and Certified aerodromes could directly issue NOTAMS and a NOTAM service is required for Instrument Approaches (presumably so that during the planning process pilots can receive information regarding obstacles and closures etc.) thus only Registered & Certified aerodromes can have Instrument approaches (with a few very special exceptions - see DAPS - CASA Approval only).
One small change to the regulations could solve that issue; A non-registered or non-certified aerodrome with IFR Approaches must be PPR (Prior Permission Required), which most are anyway. Thus the pilot must call prior to departure, receive permission and any relevant data regarding obstacles and closures and always carry an alternate. This would allow Shepparton to keep its approaches but reduce costs*.
* The above solution is based on the assumption of a reasonable and logical regulator who fosters aviation and believes in safety at a reasonable cost.
One small change to the regulations could solve that issue; A non-registered or non-certified aerodrome with IFR Approaches must be PPR (Prior Permission Required), which most are anyway. Thus the pilot must call prior to departure, receive permission and any relevant data regarding obstacles and closures and always carry an alternate. This would allow Shepparton to keep its approaches but reduce costs*.
* The above solution is based on the assumption of a reasonable and logical regulator who fosters aviation and believes in safety at a reasonable cost.
From what I can tell it appears the sole motivator of this decision was the issuing of NOTAMS, i.e. it was decided that only Registered and Certified aerodromes could directly issue NOTAMS and a NOTAM service is required for Instrument Approaches (presumably so that during the planning process pilots can receive information regarding obstacles and closures etc.) thus only Registered & Certified aerodromes can have Instrument approaches (with a few very special exceptions - see DAPS - CASA Approval only).
Instrument approach procedures take into account this area and obstacles therein, hence the need for someone to actively monitor in case something impacts or invalidates the designed procedure - in which case a NOTAM would be issued.
....unless the OLS is infringed by DFO buildings and other non-aviation infrastructure out of which someone’s making a lot of money. That’s ‘safe’ and does not need to be notified to anyone by any means.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Qatar
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi HL, I was referring to the regime under the new proposed regulations that will do away with registered as a category.
CM is closer to the mark on why a minimum of registered was required for any airport. It was more about obstacle monitoring but NOTAMing was a consideration as well from my recollection.
CM is closer to the mark on why a minimum of registered was required for any airport. It was more about obstacle monitoring but NOTAMing was a consideration as well from my recollection.
Last edited by CASR139; 7th Sep 2018 at 04:41. Reason: autocorrect got it the way
Certified or registered to have an IFR approach. Remember the Lillydale controversy.
Re. Part 135, please read it very carefully.
The way I read it (and at least one FOI agrees with me -- informally, he awaits "official policy") for a Part 135 operation each and every destination will have to be in the "Exposition" and declared by the AOC holder, and "accepted" by CASA as meeting the survey requirements, and each survey must be conducted by or specifically contracted by a specific AOC operator ----- lots of potential revenue here for "Aerodrome Consultants".
No more ad hoc "charters" to somewhere new, and probably blanket exemptions of RFDS and similar.
This is "logical", because this is what happens with HCRPT, you can't just lob in anywhere with your A 380, and part of the alleged policy ( as a result of a deliberate misreading of the Seaview Royal Commission recommendations by CASA) is to make all "public transport" operators conduct their business to the "same standards of air safety".
After all, how can you possibly justify some passengers being "less safe" than others. Only 100% aviation safety is acceptable to the (non) travelling public.
And remember, the above is one tiny piece of the whole bunfight of Part 135 ---- for NIL risk management (safety) improvement, and certainly, yet again, CASA flatly refused to comply with Government policy for cost/benefit justification.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
So, what I have gleaned is that the Part 135 amendments will likely mean that the Charter business out of YSHT will likely be shut down as the trips to Camerons Corner, the Dig Tree, Innaminka, Noccundra Pub, Barkly Downs Homestead, Adels Grove , Mataranka Homestead, El Questro , Drysdale Station ,Cape Leveque, etc will suddenly become unsafe.
The guys who charter a plane to go to any station stay for pig shooting or fishing will be no more.
So at this rate it doesn't really matter what happens , YSHT will get less and less use and the council will be able to say its a white elephant that costs ratepayers lots of money, and close it down and sell the land off for more Macmansions.
Think I might make my trip to the USA next year a one way permanent shift.
F*&*&^%%&k you CASA and all who inhabit your poxy offices.
Mick
The guys who charter a plane to go to any station stay for pig shooting or fishing will be no more.
So at this rate it doesn't really matter what happens , YSHT will get less and less use and the council will be able to say its a white elephant that costs ratepayers lots of money, and close it down and sell the land off for more Macmansions.
Think I might make my trip to the USA next year a one way permanent shift.
F*&*&^%%&k you CASA and all who inhabit your poxy offices.
Mick
