John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No.1 standing in my name for nine sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) and business of the Senate notice of motion No.1 standing in my name for 11 sitting days after today for the disallowance of Instrument No. CASA 383/05. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence relating to these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243

10 November 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243. These Regulations amend the principal Regulations to introduce new provisions concerning pilot operating procedures on, and in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes. The Committee has considered these Regulations and raises the following matters.

First, the new paragraph 166(2)(c) requires that the pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must conform with, or avoid, the circuit pattern. New paragraph 166(2)(d) requires that when the pilot joins the circuit pattern this must be done in a certain direction. The latter requirement is subject to subregulations 166(3) and (4). The relationship between paragraphs 166(2)(c) and (d) is not clear. Does ‘conforming’ with a circuit pattern mean the same thing as ‘joining’ a circuit pattern? If so, is it intended that paragraph 166(2)(c) should also be subject to regulations 166(3) and (4)? Nor is it clear when a pilot must avoid the circuit pattern. The Committee would appreciate clarification of the operation of these provisions.

Secondly, regulation 166 prescribes a number of strict liability offences. New regulation 166A also prescribes a strict liability offence, but subregulation 166A(4) provides a defence of reasonable excuse. The Committee seeks your advice as to why a similar defence is not available for the strict liability offences specified in regulation 166.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 2 December 2005, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

6 February 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 10 November 2005 regarding Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243. I apologise for the delay in responding.

I have now received the following advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

In respect of your request for clarification of the operation of the provisions in paragraphs 166(2)(c) and (d), I am advised that paragraphs 166(2)(c) and (d) reflect phases of the operation of an aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome. Paragraph 166(2)(c) obliges aircraft outside a circuit pattern to avoid the circuit, and aircraft in a circuit pattern to conform with the circuit. Paragraph 166(2)(d) obliges an aircraft outside the circuit wishing to land to join the circuit and to do so in a particular way (unless making a straight-in approach).

Conforming with the circuit pattern means flying an aircraft in the circuit pattern that is defined by any other aircraft already flying in the circuit. Joining the circuit pattern occurs when the aircraft first enters the circuit.

An aircraft which is outside the circuit pattern for an aerodrome and wishes to land at the aerodrome has two options: (a) to join the circuit pattern in accordance with CAR 166(2)(d) or CAR 166(4), and then conform with the circuit in accordance with CAR 166(2)(c); or (b) to avoid the circuit in accordance with CAR 166(2)(c) and carry out an approach in accordance with CAR 166(3).

In respect of your request for advice as to why there is a provision for a strict liability defence of reasonable excuse in 166A but not in 166, I am advised that the defence of reasonable excuse was provided for an offence against subregulation 166A(3) because it only deals with the operation of radio, and that may be reasonable circumstances where the pilot is unable to comply. It is not appropriate to provide for a reasonable excuse defence for the essential safety-related behaviour required by CAR 166. Naturally, the defence of mistake of fact is still available in relation to the strict liability offences in CAR 166.

Thank you for raising these matters with me.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

9 February 2005

ref: 22/2006

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2006 (reference 07719-2005) responding to Committee concerns in relation to the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243. In general terms, these Regulations introduce new pilot operating procedures on, and in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes.

In your letter, you point out that an aircraft which wishes to land at a non-controlled aerodrome has two options: to join the circuit pattern and land in conformity with the circuit, or to avoid the circuit and carry out a straight-in approach. Under subregulation 166(3), a pilot may choose to carry out a straight-in approach only if the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable radio, and the pilot broadcasts an intention to make such an approach on the frequency in use at the aerodrome, and the wind direction and usable runways are appropriate for such an approach, and final approach is established at least 5 miles from the landing runway, and the pilot gives way to any other aircraft established and flying the circuit pattern.

While subregulation 166(3) imposes a measure of control over the use of straight-in approaches, it is not clear how it will operate in all potential situations. For example, how can the pilot of the aircraft carrying out the straight-in approach be certain of the position of all other aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome, particularly those already in, or about to join, the circuit pattern? For the purposes of right of way, is there potential for uncertainty as to whether another aircraft is “established and flying in the circuit pattern” or about to join the circuit. For the purposes of ensuring adequate communication between all aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome, should the requirement as to having a serviceable radio, operating on the relevant frequency, be imposed on all those aircraft? Do the new procedures take adequate account of the possibility that inexperienced or trainee pilots might also be in the vicinity of the aerodrome? Finally, to avoid the possibility of any misunderstandings between pilots as to their position or intention, is there any benefit in providing that straight-in approaches should only be undertaken when there are no other aircraft flying in the circuit pattern? The Committee would appreciate clarification of these issues.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 1 March 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to Senator John Watson, Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Brett Mason

Deputy Chairman

1 March 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Senate Standing Committee on

Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your Committee’s letter of 9 February 2006 regarding Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No 3), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243. I note that the Committee’s questions appear to fall outside its terms of reference, however I am happy to respond.

In respect of your request for clarification of the operation of the provisions in paragraph 166(3), I have now received advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In relation to your specific questions, I offer the following:

1. How can the pilot of the aircraft carrying out the straight-in approach be certain of the position of all other aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome ... ? The intention of the recommended suite of continually updated position-based broadcasts is to enable pilots to develop situational awareness or a mental picture of traffic in the vicinity of the aerodrome. In addition, pilots are required to maintain a lookout so as to visually acquire other aircraft. The combination of radio broadcasts and visual lookout is a long standing practice in Australia and elsewhere.

2. For the purposes of right of way is there potential for uncertainty as to whether another aircraft is established ... in .... or joining the circuit? Regardless of the system employed, there will always be the potential for some uncertainty. That is why pilots are required to maintain a lookout in 166(2)(a). However, if pilots make the appropriate radio broadcasts, that uncertainty is reduced or eliminated. In the case of aircraft not equipped with radio, their position track and altitude relative to the runway provides a visual indication of whether they are established in or joining the circuit.

3. For the purposes of ensuring adequate communication ...should the requirement as to having a serviceable radio ... be imposed on all those aircraft? This is done now where CASA has determined that traffic levels and mix create an unacceptable risk to aviation safety. However at most non-controlled aerodromes traffic levels are too low to justify the mandatory carriage of radio.

4. Do the new procedures take adequate account of the possibility that trainee or inexperienced pilots may also be in the vicinity of the aerodrome? Yes. All pilots are taught the procedures as part of their training. As only a small percentage of the total pilot population at most non-controlled aerodromes are trainees, their contribution to overall risk is small. The standardisation on one set of procedures across all aerodromes also assists trainee and inexperienced pilots.

5. ...Is there any benefit in providing that straight-in approaches should only be done when there are no other aircraft flying in the circuit... ? No. The imposition of such a restriction would unnecessarily prohibit a recognised safe and efficient procedure for aircraft landing. The procedure is in use all over the world and has been used in Australia for more than 15 years with no evidence of significant collision risk.

Thank you for raising these matters with me.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Instrument No. CASA 383/05

1 December 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to Instrument No. CASA 383/05 made under regulation 179A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 that specifies instructions for the navigation of an aircraft under the Instrument Flight Rules.

The Committee notes that clause 8 in Schedule 1 to this Instrument makes reference to “a long flight over water”. There is no reference in clause 8 to any definition of what constitutes a “long flight”. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether the clause should contain a reference to such a definition.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 23 January 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this Instrument. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Brett Mason

Deputy Chairman

27 February 2006

Senator Brett Mason

Deputy Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Mason

I refer to your letter dated 1 December 2005 regarding Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Instrument No. CASA 383/05 made under regulation 179A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 that specifies instructions for the navigation of an aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules. I apologise for the delay in providing a response.

The Committee noted that clause 8 in Schedule 1 to this Instrument makes reference to “a long flight over water” without defining what may constitute a “long flight”. The Committee sought advice on whether the clause should contain a reference to such a definition.

I am advised that clause 8 of Schedule 1 to the Instrument seeks to prevent an aircraft remaining off track for the remaining part of a flight once an off-track situation is detected.

If an aircraft is off track, the shortest way to the destination is a straight line. However, the aircraft will remain off track for the remainder of the flight if the aircraft is flown from its off-track position direct to the destination. Not regaining the flight plan track, while providing the least flight time, may compromise safety through a breakdown of the applicable traffic separation standard as there is an expectation that the aircraft will be navigated along the flight plan track.

Clause 8 in Schedule 1 to this Instrument requires the pilot in command of an aircraft to cause the aircraft to resume its flight plan track within 200 miles of detecting the off-track situation.

In the context of the Instrument, a “long flight” is one where an off-track position is detected more than 200 miles from the flight destination. The clause only applies to aircraft operating under the I.F.R. in oceanic airspace, which are almost exclusively sophisticated jet operations. Operators involved in such operations have procedures designed to ensure compliance with the requirements of this clause, and understand its purpose and effect.

Accordingly, I am advised that it is CASA’s view that a definition of a “long flight” is not required for the purposes of clause 8 in Schedule I to this Instrument.

Thank you for raising this matter with me.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services