[Peetwo]

Popinjay's DFO cover-up report: Part II 

Mr PB said:

And on page 61 of the report we find this from the 2014 Audit:

Runway 26, which was a code 4 precision approach runway, did not have a 300 m wide
strip as required by the standards (notice ‘708937’).

Runway 17/35, which was a code 3 non-precision approach runway, did not have a 300 m
wide strip as required (although beyond the scope of this investigation).

WHY Beyond the scope of this investigation!! Because it would take another 5 years or because it would inconveniently interfere with a previous bullshit report!

Apologies Mr PeaBody I have been offline for a number of days (due too a dopey backhoe operator running his bucket through the street's NBN cable) so I'm a bit slow to respond but IMO your reference to that part of the report is key to revealing the extent of the cover-up of incompetence and total disconnection of compliance with the ICAO safety standards as documented in Annex 14.

To begin let's start (above your reference) on pg 60 under the heading CASA surveillance:

Surveillance 2005 to 2012

In February 2005, when EAPL was seeking certification for Essendon Fields Airport, CASA conducted an audit of the airport. At the time, the aerodrome manual was found to require substantial revision for it to be in compliance with that required of a certified aerodrome. EAPL subsequently submitted a revised aerodrome manual to CASA for approval. This was assessed as being compliant with the regulations and standards, and accepted by CASA.

Part of CASA’s process included the completion of a checklist. Included within that checklist was a requirement to check that the physical characteristics of the aerodrome (including the runway strip) were compliant with MOS Part 139. These were marked as acceptable.

A 2007 CASA audit also included a checklist for verifying aerodrome data against MOS Part 139. This aerodrome data covered both the physical characteristics of the aerodrome and the OLS. Both items were marked as acceptable. CASA completed 2 further audits prior to 2012. There were no compliance issues noted with the runway strip or the OLS.

To the above the ATSB investigator(s) made this (blue box) observation:

ATSB observation

Following the letter provided by CASA in 2003 that was used by EAPL to form the view that they could retain a 180 m runway strip for runway 08/26, there were further opportunities for the regulator to address the standards against which the strip width was based to assure compliance.

No shit Sherlock - so why didn't they??

Then the 2012 audit where this CASA AO was made:

Notwithstanding previous CASA advice [the 2 October 2003 letter], MOS Part 139 paragraph 2.1.2.2 requires (that) an aerodrome facility must comply with the standard applicable to it. Audit Observation 720 147 advises that unless the historic standard that preceded MOS Part 139 can be identified [‘grandfathering’], MOS Part 139 is deemed to apply. In the latter case, a request can be made to CASA to draft a legislative instrument of exemption. Any such request will need to be supported by a suitable safety case...

 
When the ATSB investigators (in 2019) put these historical disconnections to CASA. this was their response:

In March 2019, CASA advised the ATSB that the 2012 audit observation was raised as a result of a ‘mismatch’ between the information contained in the EAPL aerodrome manual and the existing aerodrome infrastructure. The purpose of the observation was to provide EAPL with the ‘opportunity to analyse the identified deficiency through their Safety Management System (SMS) and update their manual accordingly’. However, EAPL chose not to ‘grandfather’ the runway and runway strip at that time.

 
  'Update their manual accordingly'?? - FDS!   

This was followed by Mr PB's reference for 2014 audit which followed up with this soft soap response from CASA:

On 8 November 2022, in response to a draft of this report, CASA emphasised they now consider that the non-compliance notice was incorrectly issued in 2014. CASA said it should have been issued as an administrative non-compliance to EAPL for not having documented information in the aerodrome manual about the standards the runway strip and OLS complied with.

    
Regardless of all that word weasel confection the actual ICAO Annex 14 standard for a code 4 Precision approach runway has not changed - Quote from CAAS (CAA Singapore):

7.2.4.3   A strip including a precision approach runway shall extend laterally to a distance of at least:
— 150 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and
— 75 m where the code number is 1 or 2;
on each side of the centre line of the runway and its extended centre line throughout the length of the strip.[/b]

And as Mr PeaBody quite rightly points out, Runway 17/35 as a code 4 non-precison runway also has to meet those standards:
 

7.2.4.4   A strip including a non-precision approach runway shall extend laterally to a distance of at least:
— 150 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and
— 75 m where the code number is 1 or 2;
on each side of the centre line of the runway and its extended centre line throughout the length of the strip.

Even if EAPL had proposed to downgrade to a code 3 or lower runway standard for RW 17/35 the MOS 139 introduced in 2019 reset RW strip width to a higher standard: Link - https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-u...-standards

Why have the standards changed?

Australia is a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) which established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). ICAO’s mandate is to achieve as much as possible, international uniformity in civil aviation regulations, standards and procedures.

The changes have been made to ensure that Australian aerodromes are in line with international standards.

Impact on runway strip widths

The changes to the CASR and the new MOS in some cases will require the widening of the area adjacent to either side of the centreline of the aerodrome runway known as the ‘runway strip’. This determines the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) which area needs to be clear of obstacles.

Airports are coded having regard to the runway width. For example a code 3 non-precision runway strip, which is quite common for smaller aerodromes, previously had to be 150m wide but is now required to be 280m wide.

Finally on the 'Grandfathering' clause, I note the following from CASA June 2020 advisory circular, titled  'Application of Aerodrome Standards':

8.1 What is grandfathering?

8.1.1 Grandfathering allows the operator of an existing certified, or an existing registered aerodrome, to maintain their aerodrome facility and the OLS of an existing runway, to the standard that applied: − at the time the facility was constructed or − if the facility had been replaced or upgraded since it was constructed, to the standard that applied to the facility at the time it was replaced or upgraded.

8.1.2 Grandfathering may be applied to any previous aerodrome standard such as: − previous revisions of the Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes (Part 139 MOS) − Rules and Practices for Aerodromes (RPA) − Airways Engineering Instructions (AEI) − Airport Instructions (API) − Airport Engineering Instructions (APEI)

8.1.3 A grandfathered facility is an existing aerodrome facility (and for a runway, its associated obstacle limitation surfaces) that complies with the aerodrome standards that were in force immediately before commencement of the MOS, as long as the aerodrome manual documents how the facility does not comply with the MOS.

8.1.4 For these physical aerodrome facilities, including existing runways and their associated obstacle limitation surfaces, the standards in the revised Part 139 MOS only apply if the grandfathered facility is replaced, or upgraded, or not maintained in accordance with the requirements under the MOS for the same kind of facility. Until then, the standards that previously applied to the aerodrome facility continue to apply. However, for processes that are not physical aerodrome facilities, the standards in the revised Part 139 MOS apply to the operators of all existing aerodromes from the commencement date of the MOS.

8.1.5 Provided the grandfathering provision has been correctly applied and the required information is documented in the aerodrome manual, CASA will continue to recognise the standard that was in place at the time the facility was first built, or the standard which otherwise applied at the time it was last replaced or upgraded.

8.1.6 Grandfathered facilities will continue to have grandfathered status until they are next upgraded or replaced by the aerodrome operator

Clear as mud?? - Err...maybe not - 

Much MTF...P2