[Peetwo]

CM puts Su_Spence on notice?? -  

Via the AP emails:

Subject: Enquiry CS0022947 has been resolved [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Thank you for contacting us with your enquiry.

Enquiry number CS0022947

Question: This further inquiry relates to my earlier inquiry CS0019386 which resulted in follow-up inquiry CS0019673, which follow-up inquiry has yet to be answered.

The first of my questions in inquiry CS0019386 was: 

"The ERSA entry for The Oaks (YOAS) includes this under the heading "Flight Procedures":  "1.  All CCT to W of AD".  Does the quoted "Flight Procedure" constitute an "instruction" within the meaning of CASR 91.385(1)(b)(i), requiring that any turns be made to the right after joining the circuit for RWY 18 YOAS, thereby implicitly authorising right turns in those circumstances? "

CASA's answer to that question was:

"An aerodrome means an area of land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment), the use of which as an aerodrome is authorised under the regulations, being such an area intended for use wholly or partly for the arrival, departure or movement of aircraft. Division 3 of Part 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) refers.

Subregulation 91.385(1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) applies to all non controlled aerodrome means an aerodrome at which an aerodrome control service is not operating. 

The Oaks Aerodrome, being an uncertified aerodrome and non-controlled, meaning that is subject to change without prior notice and is not subject to Notam action. Pilots and operators must contact the aerodrome operator directly to ensure currency and accuracy of aerodrome information.

Special procedures unique to the aerodrome which pilots would reasonably be expected to know in the interests of aviation safety are notified in the flight procedures section of a particular aerodrome. The Oaks aerodrome have these procedures and are relevant instructions as referred in regulation 91.385 of CASR."

My supplementary question arising from that answer was:  Is CASA's answer to my question a 'yes' or a 'no'?

CASA has yet to answer that question.  Please answer that question. 

My second question in my inquiry CS0019386 was:

"The reason I ask is that it is possible (and lawful) to use RWY 18 at YOAS without conducting any turns in the circuit (i.e. a straight in approach and upwind departure) and, if the intention was that any turns after joining the circuit for RWY 18 must be made to the right, it is difficult to understand why that is not stated plainly in the ERSA entry. 

If the quoted entry does not constitute an "instruction" within the meaning of CASR 91.385(1)(b)(i), requiring that any turns be made to the right after joining the circuit for RWY 18 at YOAS, it would seem to follow that any right turns after joining the circuit for that RWY are contraventions of CASR 91.385(1)." 

CASA's answer to the second question was:

"A straight-in approach is possible unless directed by the aerodrome operator, or unable to meet the requirements of straight-in approach as stated in regulation 91.395 of CASR, complying with the general requirements stated on regulation 91.375 of CASR. Including that a pilot must keep a safe lookout for other traffic to avoid collision and not cause a danger to other aircraft."

My supplementary questions arising from that answer was:  Is CASA suggesting that an aerodrome operator has the power to "direct" matters such as that straight-in approaches not be conducted, even if the straight-in approach would otherwise satisfy CASR 91.375?  If CASA is making that suggestion, what is the source of the aerodrome operator's power to give those "directions"?

CASA has yet to answer to those questions.  Please answer those questions.

Response: For clarity your questions have been summarised prior to each answer.

Question 1: "The ERSA entry for The Oaks (YOAS) includes this under the heading "Flight Procedures": "1. All CCT to W of AD". Does the quoted "Flight Procedure" constitute an "instruction" within the meaning of CASR 91.385(1)(b)(i), requiring that any turns be made to the right after joining the circuit for RWY 18 YOAS, thereby implicitly authorising right turns in those circumstances? "

Answer 1: Yes - it does constitute an instruction - CASA answered this question in the last paragraph of the original response and provided an explanation.

Question 2: The reason I ask is that it is possible (and lawful) to use RWY 18 at YOAS without conducting any turns in the circuit (i.e. a straight in approach and upwind departure).

Answer 2: Yes - it is possible to conduct a straight in approach if the pilot complies with the requirements of regulation 91.395 of CASR, and for an upwind departure, regulation 91.390 of CASR must be complied with.

Question 3: Is CASA suggesting that an aerodrome operator has the power to "direct" matters such as that straight-in approaches not be conducted, even if the straight-in approach would otherwise satisfy CASR 91.375? If CASA is making that suggestion, what is the source of the aerodrome operator's power to give those "directions"?

Answer 3: No - an aerodrome operator may not 'direct' on its own accord prohibiting a straight in approach which would normally be allowable in accordance with regulation 91.395. However, in the interest of safety, an aerodrome operator may request CASA to provide a direction in relation to certain procedures at an aerodrome.

Further information is available in Advisory Circular AC 91-10 – operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes. Section 7.2 of the AC refers to traffic circuit direction and Section 7.9 refers to straight-in approaches.

Your enquiry will close automatically after 5 days. If you have any follow-up questions or have been asked to provide more information, you can access your enquiry and send us a message here.

If you have more questions after your enquiry has closed, please send us a new enquiry here.

Regards,

CASA\Regulatory Guidance
www.casa.gov.au

MTF me thinks?? - P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence reappointed while McDermott Air tankers grounded - 

Further proof that this lazy Miniscule and the Albanese Socialist Govt hates innovation, aspiration in small business, including in the aviation industry, a career bureaucrat with NFI about aviation gets reappointed for a further 2 years and a highly respected and innovative Australian GA operator, McDermott Aviation is put on indefinite hold for CASA AOC approval of their fire fighting tankers - FFS??

Courtesy Oz Flying:

Firefighting tankers face long road to certification
18 May 2026


A specialist aerial firefighting organisation says ongoing certification delays are preventing four Transall C-160 fixed-wing tankers from being deployed in Australia, despite the aircraft completing comprehensive flight evaluations.

However, CASA has pushed back strongly, revealing the aircraft have never been approved for civil operations anywhere in the world and that the company did not engage with the regulator before purchasing them.

Transall Tankers Founder John McDermott said one aircraft was fully prepared and ready for deployment, with a second in the final stages of modification, but federal government sign-off on certification remained outstanding nearly 12 months after the program was announced.

"The capability is ready now," Mr McDermott said. "Significant private investment has already been made, the aircraft have been extensively evaluated, and they should already be supporting firefighting operations."

The company has invested heavily in the program, including the development of a world-first fixed-wing firefighting tank system in partnership with Queensland-based Helitak Firefighting Equipment, engineered specifically for Australian firefighting conditions.

McDermott said the delays were also forcing the company to seek approvals in overseas jurisdictions while Australian certification remained outstanding, adding significant costs to the program.

"We are now incurring significant costs to secure overseas approvals because the aircraft are still not certified here in Australia," he said. "But beyond the commercial impact, the bigger issue is that these aircraft are unavailable to support firefighting operations despite being fully prepared and evaluated."

CASA, however, has offered a markedly different account of the situation.

"CASA does not compromise safety in response to the commercial decisions of operators," a spokesperson told Australian Flying. "McDermott Aviation did not engage with CASA before purchasing ex-military aircraft which are more than 50 years old and not approved for firefighting anywhere in the world."

CASA confirmed it has not been involved in any flight evaluations to date, and that Transall Tankers submitted a certification plan only last month. By the company's own estimates, the earliest the aircraft could be certified is the end of 2027.

The regulator also explained that certifying the C-160 requires amendments to existing regulations, which are currently subject to public consultation. CASA said it is working in parallel with McDermott Aviation on the engineering assessment required to determine whether the aircraft meets the necessary civil aviation standards.

The challenge, CASA noted, is significant. Military aircraft are not designed to recognise civil aviation safety standards, but rather to the specific contractual requirements of individual military purchase orders, which may prioritise capability over safety. The age and condition of the aircraft after years of military service adds further complexity to the certification process.

CASA also disputed the suggestion that Australia faces a firefighting capability gap, noting that the country has access to more than 500 aircraft from over 150 operators for aerial firefighting.

Transall Tankers said it remained committed to completing the certification process and was continuing to work closely with relevant agencies to finalise approvals.

Plus via 7 News Sunshine Coast, via FB:

New planes built to battle fires are ready to roll out, but are grounded due to delays in approvals. McDermott Aviation's founder says the holdup is costing the company significantly, and preventing critical firefighting capabilities.

MTF...P2