Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour - Civil Aviation ... · Office of Airspace Regulation Page 3 of...

Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour

March 2010

(Draft for industry consultation)

Office of Airspace Regulation of 39

Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour - March 2010 Version: 0.4

DOCUMENT SPONSOR: OFFICE OF AIRSPACE REGULATION PROJECT NUMBER: 08 – 42 TRIM REFERENCE: ED10/20121 FILE REF: EF10/824

Document control:

Version Issue/Nature of Revision Date 0.1 Draft 14 Sep 09 0.2 Circulated for internal review 5 Nov 09 0.3 Incorporation of internal feedback;

data validation 22 Jan 10

0.4 Incorporation of management feedback; update of data; update to reflect regulatory changes; transition to new document template.

5 Mar 10



1. Executive Summary This aeronautical study was commissioned in response to the Government’s expectation under the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS1) for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to undertake regular and ongoing studies to meet its obligations under Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007 (Act). The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) undertakes a risk based approach in determining which locations are studied. The purpose of the study is to review the airspace classification above Coffs Harbour aerodrome in New South Wales (NSW). Particular emphasis is placed on the safety of Passenger Transport2 (PT) operations.

1.1 Operational Context Coffs Harbour is a popular year-round tourist destination located approximately halfway between Brisbane and Sydney on the mid north coast of NSW. It is situated on the coast north of Port Macquarie and south of Grafton. Coffs Harbour aerodrome is operated by Coffs Harbour City Council. The aerodrome services both business and tourist travellers with major Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations provided by Brindabella Airlines, QantasLink Airways, and Virgin Blue Airlines. In 2008/2009 Coffs Harbour aerodrome supported in excess of 320,0003 passengers. In the financial year 2008/2009 Coffs Harbour aerodrome had a decrease in passenger movements of approximately 5% on the 2007/2008 financial year, which can most likely be attributed to the recent global financial crisis. Regular aircraft types into the Coffs Harbour aerodrome include jet aircraft such as the Boeing 737, Airbus A-320 and the Embraer 170/190, turbo propeller aircraft such as the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8, British Aerospace Jetstream, and the Fairchild Metroliner. Air Traffic Services (ATS) are provided by Airservices Australia (Airservices) with Coffs Harbour aerodrome commonly referred to as operating as a Class D Tower. During Tower hours the aerodrome operates within Class D terminal airspace up to 4,500 feet (ft) above mean sea level (AMSL) extending in steps out to 22 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). The Class D airspace is controlled by the Coffs Harbour Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower. Class C airspace steps, which extend from 4,500 ft AMSL up to the base of Class A airspace at Flight Level (FL) 180, are controlled by ATC in the Brisbane Control Centre. Outside of Tower hours the Class D airspace 4,500 ft AMSL and below is reclassified as Class G airspace, with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (Radio required) (CTAF(R))4 procedures applicable within the vicinity of the aerodrome. This procedure requires all aircraft operating within the vicinity to be equipped with a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio.

1 A full list of acronyms used within this report can be found at Annex A. 2 For the purposes of this study, PT services can be defined as activities involving Regular Public Transport (RPT) and all non-freight-only Charter operations. 3 From Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics at: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/91/Files/WebAirport_FY_1986-2009.xls Note: BITRE only records Regular Public Transport movements whereas this study is concerned with total aircraft movements at the location aerodrome. 4 CASA is in the process of amending Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 166 – operating in vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome, which will result in the removal of the CTAF(R) designation for all so designated aerodromes. These changes are planned to become effective on 3 June 2010.



1.2 Issues The following issues were identified during the course of the study: a. Violations of controlled airspace (VCA) are the most reported airspace related

concern. b. Parachute operations account for 15 “Failure To Comply with an Air Traffic

Instruction or Procedure” incidents. The incidents can be categorised as: dropping jumpers without a clearance (Two events); changing flight level without a clearance (Three events) and parachutists landing in the wrong drop zones at the aerodrome (10 events).

c. Some airspace users reported that the Class D airspace is over-serviced by the air traffic controllers in the Tower.

d. Concerns were raised that after Tower hours the PT operators did not comply with the circuit rules published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). CASA has received additional information regarding these reports, and will be making further enquiries, then addressing the issue.

e. Concerns were raised by stakeholders that increased skydiving activity could interfere with PT and other traffic in future.

f. Instrument approaches may not be fully contained within controlled airspace as required under the design parameters of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 173.

g. Instrument approach profiles - VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range (VOR) and Area Navigation (RNAV) - to Runway 21. When flown by Virgin Blue aircraft it leads to activation of the aircraft Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS).

h. Class C and D airspace to the south west of Coffs Harbour does not encompass the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) track W192 (Mount Sandon – Coffs Harbour).

i. Having an Automatic Weather Information Service (AWIS) broadcast on a radio frequency, outside Tower hours, would benefit operations during marginal weather.

In general all airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace above Coffs Harbour aerodrome is safe and efficient for its current use.

1.3 Findings / Conclusions The study revealed: a. Analysis of Aviation Safety Incident Reports (ASIRs) and Electronic Safety

Incident Reports (ESIRs) show that VCAs are the most frequently reported airspace related concern. Investigation failed to reveal if the high number of reported VCAs was as a result of the reporting culture or airspace architecture.

b. OAR representatives were unable to determine if the Class D airspace is being over-serviced by the air traffic controllers in the Tower.



c. PT operators not complying with circuit direction.5 CASA has received additional information regarding these reports, and will be making further enquiries, prior to addressing the issue.

d. Relative modelling results obtained for Coffs Harbour aerodrome confirmed the airspace users feeling that the airspace is safe and efficient for its current use.

e. Investigation revealed that the RNAV approaches to Runway 03 and Runway 21 are not fully contained within controlled airspace.

f. CASA’s Airways and Aerodrome Flight Operations have been notified of possible discrepancies with the Coffs Harbour Instrument approaches to Runway 21 (RNAV and VOR). The investigation should be concluded and the results included in the final aeronautical study.

g. The IFR track W192 runs along the boundary of Class C/D steps and Class E and G airspace south west of Coffs Harbour.

1.4 Recommendations

It is important to note that the study may make recommendations based on existing and projected data. The following comment as summarised by Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs of the High Court of Australia has been considered while conducting the study:

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.6

The report makes the following seven recommendations: 1. CASA to liaise with Airservices to investigate and where necessary address

the perception that ATC staff are over servicing Class D airspace. 2. The aerodrome operator to develop a plan on how to manage future

skydiving activity. 3. Airservices to consider extending the aerodrome control service to cover all

scheduled PT operations. 4. Airservices to undertake a design assessment of the airspace at Coffs

Harbour to confirm that all instrument procedures are contained within controlled airspace.

5. OAR to approach RPT operators reference proposed submission of an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to widen the Class C and D steps south west of Coffs Harbour to encompass the IFR track, W192, taking into account weather diversions.

6. CASA Aviation Safety Advisors to conduct aviation safety seminars at Coffs Harbour and the surrounding areas, to educate pilots in the required procedures for flying in and around controlled airspace.

5 PT operations are regulated under CAO 20.7.1B – Aeroplane Weight And Performance Limitations — Specified Aeroplanes Above 5 700 Kg — All Operations (Turbine and Piston-Engined) http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/200701b.pdf This CAO means that the pilots of PT aircraft may have additional considerations when determining runway selection: the decision for a PT pilot to operate with a downwind component for arrival, and in the case of departure increasing the required take off distance and accelerate stop distance, may provide an overall increased safety margin when terrain clearance is taken into consideration. This may result in the pilot of such an aircraft needing to land in the opposite direction from the circuit traffic at the aerodrome. 6 Gibbs, Chief Justice Sir Harry. Turner v State of South Australia (1982). High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.



7. The aerodrome operator to undertake a feasibility study to provide the AWIS on a radio frequency outside Tower hours.

1.5 Next Step Stakeholders are requested to provide feedback on the study to [email protected] no later than 7 April 2010. CASA will consider feedback received to be public information and will normally attribute feedback, however requests to remain anonymous will be considered. Following the consultation and feedback period CASA will finalise and publish their final recommendations including, where applicable, an action plan for the airspace in the vicinity of Coffs Harbour aerodrome. This action plan will be made available upon request to the OAR.



Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................3

2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................8

3. AIRSPACE .............................................................................................................9

4. AERODROME.......................................................................................................11

5. CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................13

6. SUMMARY OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS..............................................................18

7. AIRSPACE REFORM..............................................................................................19

8. MODELLING METHODOLOGY AND RISK ASSESSMENT..............................................21

9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...........................................................................................26

10. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................26

11. CASA RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................27

12. NEXT STEP..........................................................................................................27

13. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................28

ANNEX A – ACRONYMS................................................................................................30

ANNEX B – AUSTRALIAN AIRSPACE STRUCTURE............................................................32

ANNEX C – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...................................................................33

ANNEX D – AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA (ARA) DATA ........................................................34

ANNEX E – BITRE DATA .............................................................................................36

ANNEX F – RPT SCHEDULE – CURRENT AS OF 11 FEBRUARY 2010.................................38

ANNEX G – DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS..................................................39



2. Introduction

2.1. Overview of Australian Airspace CASA’s OAR has sole carriage of the regulation of Australian-administered airspace, in accordance with section 11 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act requires CASA to foster both the efficient use of Australian-administered airspace and equitable access to that airspace for all users. CASA must also take into account the capacity of Australian-administered airspace to accommodate changes to its use. In line with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 11 and as described in the AAPS, Australian airspace is classified as Class A, C, D, E and G depending on the level of service required to manage traffic safely and effectively. Class B and F are not currently used in Australia. The classification determines the category of flights permitted and the level of ATS provided. Annex B provides details of the classes of airspace used in Australia. Within this classification system aerodromes are either controlled (i.e. Class C or Class D) or non-controlled. Non-controlled aerodromes in Australia are subject to either Common Traffic Area Frequency (CTAF) or designated CTAF (radio required) (CTAF(R)) procedures; the latter requiring all aircraft operating at the aerodrome to be equipped with a serviceable Very High Frequency (VHF) radio.

2.2. Purpose The purpose of this aeronautical study was to conduct a risk assessment of the airspace within 15 nautical miles (NM) of Coffs Harbour aerodrome, NSW. The study forms part of the OAR Work Program as required by the Act. The outcome of the study is to demonstrate that all sensible and practicable precautions are in place to reduce the risk to acceptable levels. For the purpose of this study, a multifaceted approach was used including quantitative and qualitative analysis consisting of:

stakeholder interviews, airspace risk modelling (relative modelling), site visits, and previous studies.

2.3. Scope The scope of the study includes identification and consultation with stakeholders to gather necessary data and information related to airspace issues around the Coffs Harbour aerodrome. As a minimum, this includes consultation with RPT operators, Charter operators, Flying Training Schools, Defence, Emergency Services operators and the Aerodrome Operator. The study’s scope must also consider CASA’s responsibilities in adopting a proactive approach to assessing the Australian airspace system and its operations, and to identify and pursue reform opportunities. The AAPS offers very clear guidance to CASA on the Government’s priorities and principles and processes to be followed when changing the classification or designation of particular volumes of Australian administered airspace.



The scope of this study is not intended to examine aerodrome facilities and infrastructure issues unless any weakness or failings in these areas have a significant impact on the safety of airspace operations in the vicinity of Coffs Harbour aerodrome.

2.4. Objective The objective of this study is to examine the airspace around Coffs Harbour aerodrome to determine the appropriateness of the current airspace classification. This was accomplished by:

a. Investigating through stakeholder consultation, the appropriateness of the current airspace classification, access issues, expected changes to the current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations within the existing airspace;

b. Assessing the opportunity to adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s aviation environment as required by the AAPS7;

c. Analyses of current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations within the existing airspace in relation to the level of services provided;

d. Identifying any threats to the operations, focussing as a priority on the safety and protection of PT services;

e. Carrying out a qualitative and quantitative risk assessment of the current airspace environment and the expected impact of any changes;

f. Identifying appropriate and acceptable risk mitigators to the known threats; g. Reviewing extant AIP entries for applicability; h. Ensuring that the issues are passed onto the relative stakeholder group for

their consideration; and i. Providing assurance to the Executive Manager (EM) OAR of the levels of

airspace risk associated with Coffs Harbour aerodrome. Recommendations where applicable will be supported by a Cost: Benefit Analysis (CBA). The OAR issues a review of its Permanent Legislative Instruments on a bi-annual basis. Any changes to airspace determined by this study with respect to airspace classifications, air routes, prohibited, restricted or danger areas will be reflected in these Instruments.

3. Airspace

3.1. Airspace Structure and Management ATS are provided by Airservices with Coffs Harbour aerodrome commonly referred to as operating as a Class D Tower. The air traffic control Tower is staffed Monday to Saturday from 0645 hours (hrs) to 1730 hrs local, and on Sunday from 0935 hrs to 1700 hrs local. During Tower hours the aerodrome operates within Class D terminal airspace up to 4,500 ft AMSL extending in steps out to 22 DME. The Class D airspace is controlled by the Coffs Harbour ATC Tower. Class C airspace steps, which extend from 4,500 ft AMSL up to the base of Class A airspace at FL180, are controlled by ATC in the

7 To view the AAPS (2010) visit http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90462



Brisbane Control Centre. The control area steps are predominantly to the south west and north of the aerodrome to capture tracking of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft. Outside of Tower hours the Class D airspace 4,500 ft AMSL and below is reclassified as Class G airspace, with CTAF(R) procedures applicable within the vicinity of the aerodrome. The airspace around Coffs Harbour aerodrome is depicted in Figure 1. There are no Prohibited, Restricted or Danger Areas within 15NM of Coffs Harbour aerodrome. An explanation of terminology can be found in Annex G.

Figure 1: Extract from Coffs Harbour Visual Terminal Chart (VTC) effective 19 November 2009



3.2. Airspace Surveillance Radar coverage prediction charts8 from Airservices indicate that surveillance at Coffs Harbour is marginal below 5,000 ft AMSL due to terrain shielding created by the Great Dividing Range to the west of the aerodrome. Coffs Harbour Tower has a Tower Situational Awareness Display (TSAD) located within the Tower cabin. The information displayed is sourced from Eurocat in Brisbane. A Coffs Harbour geographical filter is applied to Brisbane Radar Data Records (RDR) with the resultant RDRs relayed to Coffs Harbour Tower and displayed on the TSAD. The Coffs Harbour TSAD does not have Bypass (fallback) functionality (i.e. direct radar feed) and cannot be used for traffic separation purposes.

4. Aerodrome

4.1. Background Coffs Harbour is a major resort town located on NSW’s holiday coast where the mountains are nearby. The town is 570 kilometres (km) north of Sydney and approximately 350 km south of Brisbane. The town has a population of 20,000. The aerodrome is operated by Coffs Harbour City Council and services both business and tourist travellers.

4.2. Aerodrome Location The Coffs Harbour aerodrome, depicted in Figure 2, is situated 5 km south of the Coffs Harbour town centre on the coast.

Figure 2: Aerial photograph of Coffs Harbour aerodrome (source Google Earth)

8 Chart dated 15 January 2008



4.3. Airspace Users Major RPT operations are provided by Virgin Blue Airlines, QantasLink Airways, and Brindabella Airlines. Regular aircraft types into the Coffs Harbour aerodrome include jet aircraft such as the Boeing 737, Airbus A-320 and the Embraer E170/190, and turbo propeller aircraft such as the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8, British Aerospace Jetstream, and the Fairchild Metroliner. The aerodrome has the capacity to operate aircraft up to the size of a Boeing 767. RPT operators offer direct flights between Coffs Harbour and Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Port Macquarie. Flight schedules show 132 RPT flights per week operating to and from the aerodrome, as well as charter flights and General Aviation (GA) training and recreational flights. An RPT Schedule – current as of 11 Feb 2010 is located at Annex F. In 2008/2009 financial year, Coffs Harbour aerodrome supported 321,678 RPT passengers; this was a decrease of approximately 5% from the 2007/2008 financial year.9 Figure 3 shows the layout of taxiways and runways at Coffs Harbour aerodrome.

Figure 3: Diagram of Coffs Harbour aerodrome

(from the Departure and Approach Procedures (DAP) Chart – effective date 27 August 2009)

9 From Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics at: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/91/Files/WebAirport_FY_1986-2009.xls Note: BITRE only records Regular Public Transport movements whereas this study is concerned with total aircraft movements at the location aerodrome.



4.4. Review of Aeronautical Information and Previous Studies A review of the Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP) reveals that the Area Navigation (RNAV) Approaches to Runway (RWY) 03 and RWY 21 are not fully contained within controlled airspace. Furthermore, a previous study conducted by Airservices in 2008 identified a problem with the containment of aircraft tracking for the VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range (VOR) approach to RWY 21.10 The following recommendation was made in the study:

Recommendation 3 - Airservices, CASA (OAR) and industry stakeholders jointly conduct a review of airspace in the vicinity of Class D locations with a focus on providing positive and appropriate control area protection for RPT operations.11

Airservices also noted that in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) 139H an Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service is required when passenger movements are more than 350,000 per annum.12 The following recommendation was made: Recommendation 12. Airservices and CASA to monitor the number of

passenger movements at Coffs Harbour to ensure capability for an ARFF service is achieved by the time the criterion within CASR 139H is reached.13

5. Consultation A list of stakeholders who provided input can be found at Annex C.

5.1. CASA CASA employs Aviation Safety Advisors (ASA) throughout Australia as an integral mechanism for providing safety promotion and educational material to the various industry segments. CASA ASAs liaise with local operators, discuss airspace issues and deliver an annual nationwide program of aviation safety forums. Recently, CASA ASAs conducted an aviation safety evening for operators at Coffs Harbour aerodrome discussing operations at non-controlled aerodromes. Feedback received from the ASAs, as reported to them by local operators supported the issues raised by this study. The main issue raised by local operators was a perception that PT pilots are displaying poor airmanship outside of Tower hours through the use of early estimated times of arrival (ETA) in order to force GA aircraft operators into premature landings or out of the circuit. This is perceived as common practice. Furthermore, radio calls on the CTAF are not being used to give 'alerted see and avoid' or to improve situational awareness, but rather to act as a means for a quasi-control service. PT pilots are stating that they will be in the circuit in 5 minutes and demand that other traffic should get on the ground. This is causing inexperienced students to look in the wrong area for the aircraft (poor lookout) and also to push them to do a tight, rushed circuit, with poor pre-landing checks.

10 Airservices Australia. 2008. Preliminary Risk Assessment 10 Class D Towers. p. 86. 11 Ibid, p. 5. 12 Ibid, p. 86. 13 Ibid.



Local pilots have also reported that the PT operators appeared to adopt an over bearing expectation of the local GA operators in expecting circuit traffic to give way. It was stated that PT operators were not requesting that GA pilots extend downwind, but rather demanding it.

5.2. Aerodrome Operator The aerodrome operator completed an informal OAR airspace issues questionnaire and provided information about operations at Coffs Harbour. The aerodrome operator also assisted in providing stakeholder contact information and arranged a meeting of local operators in October 2009. They provided comment that they would like to see the Tower hours extended to ensure that all PT services were covered by an aerodrome control service. Effective from November 2009, the Coffs Harbour Tower hours have been extended to cover more RPT services. However, 26 RPT flights per week continue to occur outside of the hours of Tower coverage.14 This is an improvement from previous situation, in which 31 RPT flights occurred outside of Tower hours. The aerodrome operator also raised concerns with regard to the perceived growth of local skydiving operations at Coffs Harbour and the potential impact it will have on local traffic management processes. The aerodrome operator stated that the aerodrome is only experiencing minor delays at the moment (as a result of skydiving activities) and there has not been a request for an additional skydiving company to conduct activities into the area. A review of the landing zones is being conducted by the aerodrome operator in an effort to reduce the impact skydiving activities has on other airport users. The aerodrome operator advised that a proposed land development on the northern side of the aerodrome has been submitted. The proposed development will include light industrial, aviation industrial, residential zones (including airpark and flying school accommodation requirements) and aviation focused development.

5.3. Passenger Transport (PT) services Passenger operations are provided by Virgin Blue Airlines, QantasLink Airways and Brindabella Airlines. All operators completed the informal OAR airspace questionnaires however no representatives were available to attend the stakeholder meeting.

5.3.1 QANTASLINK AIRWAYS The airline has had issues with aircraft conducting instrument approach training causing a delay to operations, as passenger transport services no longer has priority. English language is increasingly becoming an issue, particularly with student or low-time pilots. Occasional issues with local traffic (training and private) not communicating on the radio, outside Tower hours. The local airmanship is generally good, but there have been some (minimal but) notable out of hours exceptions - with traffic not transmitting or responding on the radio. Some aircraft have been slow to taxi and exit the runway.

14 Refer to Annex F.



Coffs Harbour is geographically and radio aid centric and as such tends to draw aircraft along the coast which causes a concentration of traffic over the airport. The airline prefers to avoid the 4,000 ft AMSL to FL120 frequency if it can be done. The DHC8-400 aircraft climbs well and crew transferring to Brisbane Centre for a short period causes an increase in cockpit workload. The airline have no plans to increase services to Coffs Harbour, however, there may be a possible increase in use of DHC8-400 and frequency to meet demand. The design of the airspace must ensure all operations are in either Class C or Class D. The airline would strongly prefer the Class D airspace (lower) to become Class E when Tower is not active. A move towards Class E over Class D (replacing Class C) is not acceptable to QantasLink at Coffs Harbour due the propensity for significant Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic into and out of the aerodrome and overflying traffic due in part to geographic "funnelling". Outside Tower hours the carriage and use of VHF radio must be mandatory. The Class C and D steps to the south west should be widened to include track from and to Mount Sandon including the required boundary tolerance to allow for the usual diversions in summer to avoid thunderstorm activity that hangs around Coffs Harbour and to the west (See figure 4). Tower hours encompass the majority of the airline’s operations. Where possible, an extension should be available under operational requirements conditions (using Coffs Harbour as an alternate aerodrome or holding due to intermittent weather conditions). The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather observation data should be made available on a VHF outlet outside of Tower hours. This is a significant issue for the airline and is applicable for all regional Tower locations.



Figure 4: Extract from the Enroute Chart Low #3 – effective date 19 November 2009 – showing the IFR route from Mount Sandon to Coffs Harbour

5.3.2 VIRGIN BLUE AIRLINES The company has an issue with the instrument approaches to RWY 21. The crew receive ground proximity warning system (GPWS) alerts due to terrain on short final approaches. The alerts necessitates go-arounds in conditions other than visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Virgin Blue request CASA re-assess the approach procedures. There is currently no on-field Fire Service. Coffs Harbour use the local fire brigade which requires a 15 minute notification. The airline believes that the fire service does not have VHF communication capability with aircraft. There is no published information available in either the En-Route Supplement of Australia (ERSA) or the Jeppesen publications regarding the local training area (location / upper limit / times of activation). Virgin have no issues with Coffs Harbour when the Tower is active. 5.3.3 BRINDABELLA AIRLINES The early morning flight conflicts with freight aircraft and jet RPT. The morning arrival coincides with the opening of the Tower. Having the Tower open 30 minutes earlier would assist traffic co-ordination. The airline is satisfied with the airspace and service provided at Coffs Harbour.

During the stakeholder meeting the issue of local traffic not communicating on the radio outside of Tower hours was raised. The attendees believed that the problem had been addressed at a local level and had not occurred recently.



It was also stated that communication problems due to English as a second language was not a problem at Coffs Harbour which is in contrast with other aerodromes where flying training is conducted.

5.4. Defence Military aircraft use Coffs Harbour aerodrome only occasionally, with movements approximating 400 per annum. The stakeholders did not report any concerns regarding military flying activities at Coffs Harbour.

5.5. Emergency Services The aerodrome operator indicated that during emergencies all appropriate measures were taken to incorporate the immediate requirements. Chief Pilot - Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter indicated that there have been no complaints or issues in relation to airspace at Coffs Harbour over the past 8-9 years. Comments from the Royal Flying Doctor Service had not been received at the time of this report.

5.6. Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) Representatives from Airservices were present at the stakeholder meeting. Airspace users were appreciative of the service provided at Coffs Harbour and believed that every effort was made to consider the users’ needs. Stakeholders appreciated the effort undertaken to incorporate the skydiving operations at the aerodrome and avoiding conflicts between these operations and the PT traffic. However, with the increased traffic and a possible increase in skydiving activities, stakeholders were concerned about deconfliction of the operations in the future.

5.7. Skydiving Operators Coffs City Skydivers is the largest and longest established skydiving centre on the mid-north coast of NSW. The centre operates one Cessna C182 and one C206; both aircraft are transponder equipped. Skydiving operations are scheduled with the assistance of ATC around the arrival and departure of PT aircraft. To address the issue of unplanned landing areas, the skydiving club has made provision to establish correct wind directions by equipping the pilot with more reliable equipment and requiring the pilot to establish, as accurately as possible before take-off, the wind the skydivers will encounter once exiting the aircraft.

5.8. Coffs Harbour and District Aero Club The Coffs Harbour and District Aero Club operate two aircraft; one Jabiru J160 and a Piper Cherokee 180. The aero club provides recreational training services, charter services and conducts air work including joy flights, photographic and survey flights, fire spotting and shark watch patrols. Unfortunately no aero club representative was available to attend the stakeholder meeting.

5.9. Professional Pilot Training The Professional Pilot Training school trains students with English as a second language. The main student population is currently from India. The training school goes to great effort to ensure that the students’ English language skills do not create any radio communication problems. Local stakeholders have confirmed that the issue with language is not a problem at Coffs Harbour.



6. Summary of Incidents and Accidents

6.1. Electronic Safety Incident Reports (ESIRs) ESIRs are an electronically submitted air safety occurrence report, which forms part of the Electronic Safety Incident Report system (ESIR), maintained by Airservices, which permits systemic analysis and trend monitoring. During the period 01 January 2008 to 31 December 2009, 158 ESIR reports were recorded by Airservices with regards to incidents in the airspace surrounding Coffs Harbour. Incidents relating to airspace have been defined by the OAR into the following groups:

Type of Incident Number of Incidents

Failure to comply with ATS instructions or procedures 53 Violation of Controlled Airspace 47 Runway Incursions 9 Loss of Separation Assurance 3 Go around 1 TCAS Resolution Advisory 0

Table 1: ESIRs at Coffs Harbour (01 January 2008 to 31 December 2009) A more comprehensive breakdown summarising ESIRs for the reporting period is available from the OAR upon request.

6.2. Aviation Safety Incident Reports (ASIRs) All accidents and incidents involving Australian registered aircraft, or foreign aircraft in Australian airspace must be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The ATSB maintains its own database, the Safety Investigation Information Management System (SIIMS), in which all reported occurrences are logged, assessed, classified and recorded. The information contained within SIIMS is dynamic and subject to change based on additional and/or updated data. Each individual report is known as an Air Safety Incident Report (ASIR) and for identification purposes is allocated its own serial number. During the period 01 January 2008 to 31 December 2009, 109 ASIRs were submitted to the ATSB for the airspace surrounding Coffs Harbour. Incidents relating to airspace have been defined by the OAR into the following groups:

Type of Incident Number of Incidents

Violation of Controlled Airspace 34 Failure to comply with ATS instructions or procedures 30 Runway Incursions 4 Loss of Separation Assurance 3 Go around 1 TCAS Resolution Advisory 0

Table 2: ASIRs at Coffs Harbour (01 January 2008 to 31 December 2009)

A more comprehensive summarising ASIRs for the reporting period is available from the OAR upon request.



7. Airspace Reform As required by the AAPS, this study takes into account the Governments requirement that CASA will continue the reform of Australia’s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of international best practice. This includes adopting of proven international airspace systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government’s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate by CASA. The NAS characteristics that remain outstanding and require consideration are as follows: Class D: 7 – Introduce VFR implied clearance into Class D airspace: procedures for

VFR aircraft will follow the North American model in respect of clearances where establishment of communication with ATC constitutes a clearance (Class D Control Zones (CTRs)).

16 – Establish North American model Class D airspace at non-radar controlled Terminal Control Areas where an Aerodrome Control service is provided.

18 – The lateral and vertical dimensions of the Class D airspace will be individually tailored. Generally the CTR will extend to 2,500ft AGL.

Class E: 23 – Class E Terminal Airspace: Class E terminal airspace to be introduced at

specific locations. 25 – Low Level Class E corridors: this NAS characteristic deals with low level

Class E corridors, where required, above 1,200ft AGL and above 8,500ft AGL. 44 – Non-radar Class E to base of FL145. Under this characteristic the base

of Class E could be lowered to FL145 in less dense airspace within Australian territorial limits.

7.1 Class D Implementation of NAS characteristic 7 may further assist in gaining improved accessibility to the Coffs Harbour Class D airspace. NAS Characteristic 7, to introduce VFR implied clearance into Class D airspace would follow the North American model in respect of clearances where establishment of communication with ATC constitutes a clearance (at Class D CTRs). In accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 91—General Operating and Flight Rules, sub-section 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace, and the Aeronautical Information Manual Chapter 3 Section 2 Controlled Airspace, 3-2-5, establishment of two-way communications with ATC provides an authorisation for arriving VFR aircraft to enter and/or transit the airspace as advised by the pilot in the initial transmission. This does not constitute a clearance and deviations are to be notified to ATC. Any positive control instruction given by air traffic control is deemed a clearance and must be read back/acknowledged.

In February 2010, CASA released a Notice of Proposed Change (NPC 172/04) Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures. This NPC contains a proposal to adopt a



new method of clearing aircraft into any Class D airspace (including existing Class D airspace) by establishment of two-way radio communications. This method is used in the National Airspace System of the United States of America. Where an aircraft contacts ATC at a Class D aerodrome and provides sufficient information about track/position, level, and intentions for ATC to make an informed decision, ATC may clear the aircraft to enter the airspace by simply acknowledging the transmission with the aircraft's callsign. ATC will generally include an executive instruction (such as join ..., overfly ..., report ...) with this acknowledgement. The acknowledgement authorises the aircraft to enter the Class D airspace following the stated track and level or any alternative instruction given by ATC. ATC may also issue a full ATC clearance or entry instruction as is currently the case. In addition, specific clearances will still be required to taxi or enter, cross or back-track a runway. CASA plans to implement this change, along with other procedural changes associated with the transition of GAAP to Class D, effective 3 June 2010. The majority of the North American Class D airspace characteristics are already met at Coffs Harbour with the exception of the following differences:

• Minimum airspeed operational limitations vary between the North American and Australian models.

• Class D airspace is marked differently on charts. • In Australian Class D airspace, VFR aircraft receive separation services

during take off and landing. • At Coffs Harbour, Class C airspace overlies the existing Class D CTR and

steps to contain any extensions to instrument approach procedures. In the North American model approach extensions are contained within Class E airspace. These differences do not impact the safety of the Coffs Harbour airspace.

Any changes to the dimensions of Class D CTR would need to take into account NAS Characteristic 18. The OAR is reviewing the dimensions of all Class D CTRs. 7.2 Class E The OAR will shortly release consultation papers on the following NAS characteristics in relation to Class E airspace: • Characteristic 23 – Class E terminal airspace at non-continuous Class C and D

CTRs and at non-controlled aerodromes with Passenger Transport (PT) operations (i.e. Regular Public Transport and all non-freight-only Charter operations).

• Characteristic 25 – Low-level Class E corridors where required, either at 1,200

feet (ft) Above Ground Level (AGL) or above 8,500 ft AGL. Additionally, the OAR is progressing an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to lower the base of non-radar Class E from Flight Level (FL) 180 to FL145 in line with NAS Characteristic 44. This ACP addresses the airspace titled YBBB / YMMM / Continental Australia CTA E1 in the Designated Airspace Handbook.



8. Modelling Methodology and Risk Assessment

8.1 Present Modelling Methodology Outline CASA has developed ‘acceptable risk’ criteria with regards to the risk of midair conflicts within regional aerodrome terminal areas. The ARM, developed by CASA in 1996, is focused on a non-radar controlled terminal area and no significant changes have been made since its development and presentation to the Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel, now the Separation and Airspace Safety Panel of the ICAO. The OAR uses the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), a cause:consequence model, to calculate the probability of midair collisions (MAC) in various airspace environments. The ARM and a FN-curve were developed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and are the primary modelling tools utilised by the OAR. This method is used to calculate benefits in terms of fatalities avoided by implementing safety measures. The ARM presumes that there is a ‘Potential Conflict Pair’, i.e. a pair of aircraft whose manoeuvres are such that if no intervening action is taken, the aircraft will reach a point where it will be too late to take evasive action and chance becomes the determining factor in whether the aircraft collide or not. This is called the Loss of Control (LOC) point in this study. The ARM model is based on the Linear Criterion concept which stipulates that the frequency of an accident should be inversely proportional to its severity, i.e. an accident involving at least one fatality may happen ten times as often as an accident involving at least ten fatalities. Using the ARM, the existing scenario was modelled for Coffs Harbour aerodrome. Conflict pairs for this study were calculated applying the CASA regression formula. It was established that this formula over estimates conflict pairs therefore it is reasonable to assume that the real risk figures calculated for this study could be lower.

8.2 Airspace Risk Assessment

8.2.1 Assumptions

For the Coffs Harbour study a total number of 30,560 movements were estimated. This number is based on information supplied by Airservices and all reasonable attempts were made to validate the data. The validation process entailed requesting inputs by operators and aerodrome managers (see stakeholders).

The model assumes that the operational environment is uncontrolled non-radar, Class G terminal area. It has a radius of 15 NM and extends to 5,000 ft above ground level (AGL).

In addition based on the FAA study (Establishment and Discontinuation Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers) CASA assumes that a tower reduces the risk by a factor of three when compared to a CTAF (R) procedural environment.



8.2.2 Summary of Movement Data

A summary of aerodrome operator passenger movements is given in Table 3. Aircraft movement data and passenger movements in charter or private aircraft are not recorded by the aerodrome operator. The total passenger numbers recorded by the aerodrome operator each year only represents those passengers that transit through the aerodrome on RPT, this data being provided by the airlines on a monthly basis.

Therefore the aerodrome operator passenger movement data is statistically very similar to the BITRE data recorded for the same periods.

Passenger aircraft movement data figures and passenger numbers for the past 5 years of operation have been confirmed through Coffs Harbour Council’s Aerodrome Manager. These passenger movement figures are similar, however slightly lower than the figures reported by the BITRE.

BITRE passenger movement and aircraft movement numbers summarised in Table 3 and 4 was sourced from their website, an extract of which can be found at Annex E. This data is similar to the aerodrome operator data in that it only captures passenger and aircraft movement numbers from scheduled RPT services at the subject aerodrome. As with the aerodrome operator it is not thought that this data accurately takes into account private or charter passenger aircraft movements. Airservices data was sourced using their ARA tool. Detailed ARA data for the 12 months ending June 2009 can be found at Annex D.

The ARA data differs from the previously mentioned sources in that it involves a more comprehensive data gathering process that includes assessment and use of BITRE data. ARA data captures passenger and traffic movements involved in private and charter flights, plus includes circuit movements in the overall movement totals.

Year Passenger Passenger

Growth Scheduled Movements

Movement Growth

Passenger Numbers (YCFS)

Airport

1997-98 181,182 N/A 10,289 N/A

1998-99 175,957 -3% 8,807 -14%

1999-00 176,078 0% 11,881 35%

2000-01 172,550 -2% 12,464 5%

2001-02 134,393 -22% 9,931 -20%

2002-03 212,435 58% 8,101 -18% 2003-04 238,906 12% 5,784 -29% 2004-05 273,449 14% 7,011 21% N/A 2005-06 322,206 18% 7,768 11% 318,508 N/A 2006-07 323,565 0% 7,478 -4% 322,734 1% 2007-08 337,698 4% 7,048 -6% 335,045 4%

2008-09 321,678 -5% 6,787 -4% 318,279 -5% Table 3: Passenger and Movement Growth Figures for Coffs Harbour

Table 3 shows clearly the increase in passenger numbers whilst the RPT movements declined over a period of 11 years. The scheduled passenger numbers as measured by BITRE have increased by approximately 6% pa. The BITRE data indicates that RPT movements have decreased with more than 3,000 over an 11 year period which represents a RPT movement’s decline of approximately 5%. It is therefore assumed that the aircraft capacity operating into Coffs Harbour has increased during the last 11 years.



For the purpose of this study the Airservices data set for the 12 months up to June 2009 has been used. This data makes assumptions with regard to charter and circuit movements and the figures represented in this data set are larger than the BITRE numbers.

For comparison purposes passenger numbers from Coffs Harbour City Council and BITRE were compared (see Table 3) and found to be similar.

8.2.3 Estimated Traffic Mix A brief summary of the estimated traffic mix utilising Airservices ARA data at Coffs Harbour is shown in Table 4 and Figure 5 shows a graphical breakdown of the traffic mix using the following traffic types: Key: VFR including gliders and helicopters IFR (L) = IFR Light with less than 10 passengers IFR (M) = IFR Medium with 10 to 38 passengers

IFR (H) = IFR High with more than 38 passengers

Traffic Type No of Movements % of movements VFR 18,453 60.38% IFR L 3,652 11.95% IFR M 3,887 12.72% IFR H 4,568 14.95% Total 30,560 100.00%

Table 4: Estimated Traffic mix at Coffs Harbour as at Jun 2009

Traffic Mix for

VFR

IFR - L

IFR - M

IFR - H

Coffs Harbour

Figure 5: Graphical breakdown of traffic mix at Coffs Harbour aerodrome

VFR IFR - L

IFR - M IFR - H



8.2.4 Conflict pair calculation Conflict pairs are grouped into 16 categories based on traffic type and weather conditions – Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).The conflict pairs are listed below in Table 5:

Conflict Types Conflict Pairs

VFR – VFR 244.60 IFR( L) – VFR 43.03 IFR(L) – IFR(L) in VMC 7.67 IFR(L) – IFR(L) in IMC 1.92 IFR (M) – VFR 45.79 IFR(M) - IFR(L) in VMC 7.25 IFR(M) - IFR(L) in IMC 1.81 IFR(M) –IFR(M) in VMC 8.68 IFR(M) –IFR(M) in IMC 2.17 IFR(H) – VFR 26.91 IFR(H) - IFR(L) in VMC 8.52 IFR(H) - IFR(L) in IMC 2.13 IFR(H) - IFR(M) in VMC 9.07 IFR(H) - IFR(M) in IMC 2.27 IFR(H) - IFR(H) in VMC 11.99 IFR(H) - IFR(H) in IMC 3.00

Table 5: Estimated conflict pairs for Coffs Harbour

As part of the aerodrome conflict risk calculation process the conflict pairs were grouped in proportion to traffic. In addition, the following calculations were applied to the traffic pairs, assuming each aircraft type has an equal probability of conflicting with any other aircraft type:

• Factor up like pairs by 1 ½.

• Factor down unlike pairs by 2/3.

• IFR-IFR pairs are 80% in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and 20% in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

• In total 426.8 conflict pairs were estimated.

8.2.5 Evaluation of Airspace Models and Data Analysis Results

The following scenarios were analysed:

• Base Case: Class D tower with annual movements 30,560 and 426.8 conflict pairs.

• Traffic envelope with 30,560 ± 10%.



10.1

0.010.001

0.00010.00001

0.000001

Tower Service ±10% Confidence Envelope

Middle ALARP Line

Acceptable Risk Line

Acceptable Risk Criteria

Estimated total Movements 30,560 Conflicts ±427

Coffs Harbour

Scrutiny Risk Line

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

1 10 100 1000

Fatalities (Consequence)

Ann

ual F

requ

ency

of N

or M

ore

Fata

litie

s (L

ikel

ihoo

d)

Figure 6: FN Curve for Coffs Harbour with 30,560 movements and Tower service



9. Summary of Issues The following issues were identified during the course of the study: a. Violations of controlled airspace are the most reported airspace related

concern. b. Parachute operations account for 15 “Failure To Comply with an Air Traffic

Instruction or Procedure” incidents. The incidents can be categorised as: dropping jumpers without a clearance (Two events); changing flight level without a clearance (Three events) and parachutists landing in the wrong drop zones (10 events) at the aerodrome.

c. Some airspace users reported that the Class D airspace is over-serviced by the air traffic controllers in the Tower.

d. Concerns were raised that after Tower hours the PT operators did not comply with the circuit rules published in the AIP. CASA has received additional information regarding these reports, and will be making further enquiries, then addressing the issue.

e. Concerns were raised by stakeholders that increased skydiving activity could interfere with PT and other traffic in future.

f. Instrument approaches may not be fully contained within controlled airspace as required under the design parameters of CASR MOS Part 173.

g. Instrument approach profiles - VOR and RNAV - to Runway 21. When flown by Virgin Blue aircraft it leads to activation of the aircraft GPWS.

h. Class C and D airspace to the south west of Coffs Harbour does not encompass the IFR track W192 (Mount Sandon – Coffs Harbour).

i. Having an AWIS broadcast on a radio frequency, outside Tower hours, would benefit operations during marginal weather.

In general all airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace above Coffs Harbour aerodrome is safe and efficient for its current use.

10. Findings and Conclusions The study revealed: a. Analysis of ASIRs and ESIRs show that VCAs are the most frequently reported

airspace related concern. Investigation failed to reveal if the high number of reported VCAs was as a result of the reporting culture or airspace architecture.

b. OAR representatives were unable to determine if the Class D airspace is being over-serviced by the air traffic controllers in the Tower.

c. PT operators not complying with the active circuit direction. CASA has received additional information regarding these reports, and will be making further enquiries, prior to addressing the issue.

d. Relative modelling results obtained for Coffs Harbour aerodrome confirmed the airspace users feeling that the airspace is safe and efficient for its current use.

e. Investigation revealed that the RNAV approaches to Runway 03 and Runway 21 are not fully contained within controlled airspace.



f. CASA’s Airways and Aerodrome Flight Operations have been notified of possible discrepancies with the Coffs Harbour Instrument approaches to Runway 21 (RNAV and VOR). The investigation should be concluded and the results included in the final aeronautical study.

g. The IFR track W192 runs along the boundary of Class C/D steps and Class E and G airspace south west of Coffs Harbour.

11. CASA Recommendations The report makes the following seven recommendations: 1. CASA to liaise with Airservices to investigate and where necessary address the

perception that ATC staff are over servicing Class D airspace. 2. The aerodrome operator to develop a plan on how to manage future skydiving

activity. 3. Airservices to consider extending the aerodrome control service to cover all

scheduled PT operations. 4. Airservices to undertake a design assessment of the airspace at Coffs Harbour

to confirm that all instrument procedures are contained within controlled airspace.

5. OAR to approach RPT operators reference proposed submission of an ACP to widen the Class C and D steps south west of Coffs Harbour to encompass the IFR track, W192, taking into account weather diversions.

6. CASA Aviation Safety Advisors to conduct aviation safety seminars at Coffs Harbour and the surrounding areas, to educate pilots in the required procedures for flying in and around controlled airspace.

7. The aerodrome operator to undertake a feasibility study to provide the AWIS on a radio frequency outside Tower hours.

12. Next step Stakeholders are requested to provide feedback on the study to [email protected] no later than 7 April 2010. CASA will consider feedback received to be public information and will normally attribute feedback, however requests to remain anonymous will be considered. Following the consultation and feedback period CASA will finalise and publish their final recommendations including, where applicable, an action plan for the airspace in the vicinity of Coffs Harbour aerodrome. This action plan will be made available upon request to the OAR.



13. References Aeronautical Information Publication, revised 19 November 2009 Airservices Australia Data Validation Report – Jun 2008 to Jun 2009 ATSB Air Safety Incident Reports – 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2009 Airspace Act 2007 AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk Management CASA Legal Instrument 443/05 Designation of non-controlled aerodromes, 9 November 2005 CASA’s modelling tool - Airspace Risk Model CAR 1988, Regulation 166. Airservices Electronic Safety Incident Reports – 24 months to December 2009 ICAO Annex 11 ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP) 1996 presentation on ARM.



Annexes: A. Acronyms B. Australian Airspace Structure C. Stakeholders D. Airservices Australia Airspace Research Application (ARA) Data E. Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) Data F. RPT Schedule – current as of 11 Feb 2010 G. Definitions and Explanation of Terms



Annex A – Acronyms Acronym Explanation AAPS Australian Airspace Policy Statement ACP Airspace Change Proposal Act Airspace Act 2007 ADS-B Automatic Dependant Surveillance Broadcast system AGL Above Ground Level AIP Aeronautical Information Publication AIRPROX A close proximity event between two aircraft Airservices Airservices Australia AMSL Above Mean Sea Level ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ARA Aerodrome Research Application ARFF Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting ARM Airspace Risk Model ASA Aviation Safety Advisor ASIR Aviation Safety Incident Report (recorded by ATSB) ATC Air Traffic Control ATI Air Transport Inspector ATIS Aerodrome Traffic Information Service ATS Air Traffic Services ATSB Australian Transport Safety Bureau BITRE Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics BOM Bureau of Meteorology CAR Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 CBA Cost:Benefit Analysis CTAF Common Traffic Advisory Frequency CTAF(R) Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (Radio required) CTR Control Zone DAP Departure and Approach Procedures Department Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local

Government DME Distance Measuring Equipment DTI Directed Traffic Information EM Executive Manager ERSA En-Route Supplement Australia ESIR Electronic Safety Incident Report (recorded by Airservices) ETA Estimated Time of Arrival FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIS Flight Information Service FL Flight Level FNA Fly Neighbourly Agreement FN Curve Frequency / Severity Risk curve FOI Flying Operations Inspector FPL Flight Plan ft Feet GA General Aviation GAAP General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System IAS Indicated Air Speed ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IFR Instrument Flight Rules IFR (H) IFR Heavy – more than 38 passengers IFR(L) IFR Light – less than 10 passengers IFR (M) IFR Medium – between 10 and 38 passengers IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions kg kilograms Km kilometres



Acronym Explanation LoC Loss of Control LoA Letter of Agreement LL Lower Limit m metre(s) MAC Mid Air Collision MHz megaHertz MOS Manual of Standards NAS National Airspace System NDB Non-Directional Beacon (navigation aid) NM Nautical Miles NOTAM Notice to Airmen NSW New South Wales OAR Office of Airspace Regulation OCTA Outside of Controlled Airspace PT Passenger Transport QNH An altimeter sub-scale to obtain local elevation or altitude R/T Radio Telephony RAAA Regional Aviation Association of Australia RDR Radar Data Records RNAV Area Navigation RPT Regular Public Transport RWY Runway SAR Search and Rescue SARTIME Search and Rescue Time SFC Surface SIIMS Safety Investigation Information Management System SVFR Special Visual Flight Rules TCAS Traffic Collision Avoidance System (a generic term used in lieu of ACAS) TSAD Tower Situational Awareness Display VCA Violation of Controlled Airspace VFR Visual Flight Rules VHF Very High Frequency VIS Visibility VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions VOR VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range (navigation aid) VTC Visual Terminal Chart WAC World Aeronautical Chart WDI Wind Direction Indicator WG Wing



Annex B – Australian Airspace Structure Class Description Summary of Services/Procedures/Rules

A All airspace above Flight Level (FL) 180 (east coast) or FL 245

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) only. All aircraft require a clearance from Air Traffic Control (ATC) and are separated by ATC. Continuous two-way radio and transponder required. No speed limitation.

B Not currently used in Australia

C

In control zones (CTRs) of defined dimensions and control area steps generally associated with controlled aerodromes

All aircraft require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace. All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and transponder.

IFR separated from IFR, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Special VFR (SVFR) by ATC with no speed limitation for IFR operations.

VFR receives traffic information on other VFR but are not separated from each other by ATC. SVFR are separated from SVFR when visibility (VIS) is less than Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC).

VFR and SVFR speed limited to 250 knots (kt) Indicated Air Speed (IAS) below 10,000 feet (ft) Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL)*.

D Regional locations such as Hobart and Alice Springs

All aircraft require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace. As in Class C airspace all aircraft are separated on take off and landing. All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and are speed limited to 250 kt IAS below 10,000 ft AMSL*.

IFR are separated from IFR, SVFR, and are provided with traffic information on all VFR. VFR receives traffic on all other aircraft but are not separated by ATC. SVFR are separated from SVFR when VIS is less than VMC.

General Aviation

Aerodrome Procedures

(GAAP)

High density General Aviation aerodromes

All aircraft require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace. All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and are speed limited to 250 kt IAS.

In VMC all operations are VFR, traffic information only provided. In Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), IFR are separated from all traffic. SVFR are separated from SVFR when VIS is less than VMC.

E Controlled airspace not covered in classifications above

All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and transponder. All aircraft are speed limited to 250 kt IAS below 10,000 ft AMSL*,

IFR require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace and are separated from IFR by ATC, and provided with traffic information as far as practicable on VFR.

VFR do not require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace and are provided with a Flight Information Service (FIS). On request and ATC workload permitting, a Radar / ADS-B Information Service (RIS) is available within surveillance coverage.

F Not currently used in Australia

G Non-controlled

Clearance from ATC to enter airspace not required. All aircraft are speed limited to 250 kt IAS below 10,000 ft AMSL*.

IFR require continuous two-way radio and receive a FIS, including traffic information on other IFR. VFR receive a FIS. On request and ATC workload permitting, a RIS is available within surveillance coverage. VHF

radio required above 5,000 ft AMSL and at aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required. * Not applicable to military aircraft



Annex C – Stakeholder Consultation Position Organisation Consultation Method

Representative District Aero Club Telephone interview

Manager Technical Support Flight Operations

Virgin Blue Questionnaire

Manager Regulatory Affairs

QantasLink Questionnaire

Operations Manager Brindabella Airlines Questionnaire

Representative Professional Pilot Training Telephone interview and stakeholder meeting

Representative from Coffs Harbour Tower

Airservices Australia Stakeholder meeting

Representative Strathair Helicopters Stakeholder meeting

Representative Precision Helicopters Stakeholder meeting

Representative Coffs City Skydivers Telephone interview and stakeholder meeting

Representative Coffs Harbour City Council Telephone interview and stakeholder meeting

Chief Pilot Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter

Email correspondence

Position CASA

Aviation Safety Advisor (ASA) Safety Analysis and Education Division

Flying Operations Inspector (FOI) Operations Division

Aerodrome Inspector (ATI) Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division

Senior Defence Advisor Military Office of Office of Airspace Regulation

Air Traffic Services Specialist Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division

Airspace Specialist Office of Airspace Regulation



Annex D – Airservices Australia (ARA) Data


Airspace Review of Coffs Harbour - March 2010 Version: 0.4



Annex E – BITRE Data

COFFS HARBOUR - TOTAL PASSENGER MOVEMENTS - Financial Years

Movements Annual Growth1985-86 88,357 1986-87 92,196 4.3%1987-88 98,607 7.0%1988-89 114,299 15.9%1989-90 80,667 -29.4%1990-91 120,962 50.0%1991-92 124,912 3.3%1992-93 132,382 6.0%1993-94 161,498 22.0%1994-95 164,479 1.8%1995-96 168,626 2.5%1996-97 167,809 -0.5%1997-98 181,182 8.0%1998-99 175,957 -2.9%1999-00 176,078 0.1%2000-01 172,550 -2.0%2001-02 134,393 -22.1%2002-03 212,435 58.1%2003-04 238,906 12.5%2004-05 273,449 14.5%2005-06 322,206 17.8%2006-07 323,565 0.4%2007-08 337,698 4.4%2008-09 321,678 -4.7%

Average annual growth:5 years 2003-04 to 2008-09: 6.1%10 years 1998-99 to 2008-09: 6.2%20 years 1988-89 to 2008-09: 5.3%

TOTAL PASSENGERFinancial Year

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1985

‐86

1986

‐87

1987

‐88

1988

‐89

1989

‐90

1990

‐91

1991

‐92

1992

‐93

1993

‐94

1994

‐95

1995

‐96

1996

‐97

1997

‐98

1998

‐99

1999

‐00

2000

‐01

2001

‐02

2002

‐03

2003

‐04

2004

‐05

2005

‐06

2006

‐07

2007

‐08

2008

‐09


Airspace Review of Coffs Harbour - March 2010 Version: 0.4

COFFS HARBOUR - TOTAL AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS - Financial Years

Movements Annual Growth1985-86 8,307 1986-87 10,167 22.4%1987-88 9,918 -2.4%1988-89 9,015 -9.1%1989-90 8,511 -5.6%1990-91 8,410 -1.2%1991-92 8,674 3.1%1992-93 12,308 41.9%1993-94 14,635 18.9%1994-95 11,376 -22.3%1995-96 10,010 -12.0%1996-97 10,788 7.8%1997-98 10,289 -4.6%1998-99 8,807 -14.4%1999-00 11,881 34.9%2000-01 12,464 4.9%2001-02 9,931 -20.3%2002-03 8,101 -18.4%2003-04 5,784 -28.6%2004-05 7,011 21.2%2005-06 7,768 10.8%2006-07 7,478 -3.7%2007-08 7,048 -5.8%2008-09 6,787 -3.7%

Average annual growth:5 years 2003-04 to 2008-09: 3.2%10 years 1998-99 to 2008-09: -2.6%20 years 1988-89 to 2008-09: -1.4%

TOTAL AIRCRAFTFinancial Year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1985

‐8619

86‐87

1987

‐8819

88‐89

1989

‐9019

90‐91

1991

‐9219

92‐93

1993

‐9419

94‐95

1995

‐9619

96‐97

1997

‐9819

98‐99

1999

‐0020

00‐01

2001

‐0220

02‐03

2003

‐0420

04‐05

2005

‐0620

06‐07

2007

‐0820

08‐09



Annex F – RPT schedule – current as of 11 February 2010

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

06:0006:1506:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:30 QL - SYD (Depart) 06:3006:4507:0007:15

07:30VB - SYD (Arrive) 07:30BA - PMQ (Arrive) 07:35

VB - SYD (Arrive) 07:30BA - PMQ (Arrive) 07:35



VB - SYD (Arrive) 07:30BA - PMQ (Arrive) 07:35 VB - SYD (Arrive) 07:30 VB - SYD (Arrive) 07:30

07:45

08:00VB - SYD (Depart) 08:00BA - BN (Depart) 08:00

VB - SYD (Depart) 08:00BA - BN (Depart) 08:00



VB - SYD (Depart) 08:00BA - BN (Depart) 08:00 VB - SYD (Depart) 08:00 VB - SYD (Depart) 08:00

08:1508:3008:4509:0009:1509:3009:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 09:4510:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 10:1010:1510:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 10:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 10:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 10:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 10:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 10:3010:45 BA - PMQ (Depart) 10:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 10:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 10:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 10:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 10:5511:0011:1511:3011:45 VB - MEL (Arrive) 11:4512:00

12:15VB - MEL (Depart) 12:15BA - BN (Arrive) 12:20

12:3012:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 12:4513:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:10 QL - SYD (Depart) 13:1013:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:30 BA - BN (Depart) 14:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 14:3014:45 QL - SYD (Depart) 14:5015:0015:1515:30 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:35 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:35 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:35 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:35 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:35 BA - PMQ (Arrive) 15:3515:45 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:50 VB - SYD (Arrive) 15:5016:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:00 BA - BN (Depart) 16:0016:15 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:20 VB - SYD (Depart) 16:2016:30 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:35 QL - SYD (Arrive) 16:3516:4517:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:00 QL - SYD (Arrive) 17:00 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:0017:15 QL - SYD (Depart) 17:2517:3017:4518:0018:1518:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:30 BA - BN (Arrive) 18:3018:45 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:55 BA - PMQ (Depart) 18:5519:0019:1519:3019:45 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:50 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:50 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:50 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:50 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:50 QL - SYD (Arrive) 19:5020:0020:1520:3020:4521:00

No of flights/day 20 20 20 20 20 15 17 132

BA = Brindabella Airlines BN = BrisbaneQL = QantasLink SYD = SydneyVB = Virgin Blue PMQ = Port Macquarie

MEL = Melbourne

RPT Schedule - Coffs Harbour

Tower HoursMon - Sat 06:45 - 17:30 (Local)

Sun 09:35 - 17:00 (Local)



Annex G – Definitions and Explanation of Terms

Prohibited Area: The declaration of a Prohibited Area (PA) defines an area through which aircraft may not fly. PAs have activity times and lateral and vertical limits.

Restricted Area: The declaration of a Restricted Area (RA) creates airspace of defined dimensions within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with specified conditions. Clearances to fly through an active RA are generally only withheld when activities hazardous to the aircraft are taking place, or when military activities require absolute priority. RAs are mainly declared over areas where military operations occur. However, RAs have also been declared to cater for communications and space tracking operations or to control access to emergency or disaster areas. RAs are generally promulgated at specified times and dates. For example, a temporary RA may be declared for special events where there may be a public safety issue – such as the Avalon Air Show or the Commonwealth Games.

Danger Area: The declaration of a Danger Area (DA) defines airspace within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at specified times. Approval for flight through a DA outside controlled airspace is not required. However, pilots are expected to maintain a high level of vigilance when transiting DAs. DAs are primarily established to alert aircraft on the following:

Flying training areas where student pilots are learning to fly and / or gather in large numbers;

Gliding areas where communications with airborne gliders might be difficult; Blasting on the ground at mine sites; Parachute operations; Gas discharge plumes; and Small arms fire from rifle ranges.

Aerodrome Frequency Confirmation: At all non-controlled aerodromes subject to CTAF procedures which are used not less than 5 times per week by aircraft engaged in air transport operations that have a maximum passenger seating capacity greater than nine, a ground-based frequency confirmation system is required. The frequency confirmation system must comply with the standards for frequency confirmation systems set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS). This requirement may be practically satisfied by one of the following facilities:

a. an Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit (AFRU) b. a Unicom (Universal Communications) service. c. a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS)

Automatic Frequency Response Unit: An Automatic Frequency Response Unit (AFRU) is an electronic, ground based, aviation safety enhancement device, intended for use on the CTAF frequency at non-controlled aerodromes. AFRU transmissions are triggered when the Unit detects aircraft transmissions on the correct aerodrome frequency. This response capability is intended to reduce the incidence of incorrect VHF radio frequency channel selection by pilots. The confirming AFRU transmission will be either a short pre-recorded voice message (e.g. aerodrome name followed by CTAF, or a short (300 millisecond) tone burst. An AFRU may also have an optional facility incorporated to allow pilot activation of the runway lights during hours of reduced light and darkness

Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour - Civil Aviation ... · Office of Airspace Regulation Page 3 of...

Documents

Transcript of Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour - Civil Aviation ... · Office of Airspace Regulation Page 3 of...