[MrPeaBody]

3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width

The summary of CASA’s response is as follows:

• The 180m strip width was consistent with the aerodrome standards that applied at the time when Essendon became a domestic airport following the opening of Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport (circa early 1970s).
  

• It was also consistent with the Manual of Standards for Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (MOS Part 139) until November 2014, subject to landing minima adjustments.
  

• A landing minimum penalty applies on the Runway 26 instrument landing system procedures.
  

• Accordingly, based on the 180m wide runway strip and associated OLS in 2004, the DFO complex did not infringe the OLS.
  

• The November 2014 version of MOS Part 139 removed the provision for a lesser strip widths to be provided subject to landing minima adjustments.
  

Here is the 2004 version of the MOS requirement.



Interesting to note however that in 2003 the strip width met the 300m MOS requirement.



So why the need for landing minima adjustments?

Why was it not practicable to provide the full runway strip width if it already met the requirement?

Maybe, just maybe; the landing minima adjustments were needed because of the DFO!



And from that same 2004 MOS:

6.2.18.4          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.

So where is the safety case Mr Carmody?