I do wish CASA would stop giving me reasons to be cynical. I promised my partner, the magnificent Sonya, that I would try not to be so cynical in 2011 and look at the positive side of things. And I reckon I was doing pretty good until CASA released the draft changes to CASR Part 139!
Here’s some background: there were several private airports around Australia that had their own instrument approach procedures; NPAs, RNAVs. CASA’s regulations didn’t allow for a private airport to have an approach to a runway, but it didn’t say they couldn’t have an approach to circling minima. CASA has now moved to close that loophole so that no private airport can have any sort of NPA.
Why not? What is the problem with IFR pilots using NPAs at private airports?
CASA has made their objections very clear. Unless the airport is registered or certified, there is no compulsion for obstacles along the approach path to be reported and notams submitted. There is, according to the team in Canberra, an opportunity for unsuspecting IFR pilots to fly into tall objects erected since the original NPA/RNAV was surveyed. But no matter, according to the draft, “the requirement will have little or no impact on private and publicly available airports.”
I have so many issues with this I can’t fit them all in here. But here is my big irk.
CASA has used a bulldozer to uproot a daisy. At the time of writing, no such obstacles are thought to exist, but on the basis of the chance that they may exist in the future, the airports are being told to register or certify or their NPA is off the books.
The cost of registering or certifying is a massive impact, as is the ongoing cost of staying that way. It’s not just checking for obstacles, it’s a whole heap of other things that are needed to qualify: bird threats, fences, surface inspections, ad infinitum.
Why can’t CASA simply put in the regs that a private airport with an NPA needs to have the approach checked for obstacles by a qualified person on a regular basis? Problem solved without all the other palaver needed to get registered or certified. Private airports don’t need all the extra cost imposed by the CASA regs; they just need an NPA to get IFR pilots home safely.
And as for having little impact … 34 airports were impacted at the start and many have had to register or certify to keep their valuable NPA. Do you recognise any of these airports: Bunbury, Casino, Lilydale, Oodnadatta, Murray Field, Quirindi?
Casino and Lilydale have had their NPAs cancelled. Given that both these airports are flanked by high ground, how is this increasing safety, especially when CAAP 89P-1 (1) General 1.3 says “CASA strongly recommends that, where terrain permits, NPA procedures be provided as they enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations.”?
It’s enough to make a bloke cynical. Sorry, Sonya.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch