6 June 2008

Mr Dick Smith AO

PO Box 418

TERREY HILLS  NSW    2084

Cc:       Mark O’Brien

            Johnson, Winter and Slattery Lawyers

Dear Mr Smith

Dispensation from CAR 166 (4)(a) regarding operations at non-controlled aerodromes

I refer to your letter of 15 January 2008 and facsimile of 15 April 2008 regarding approval to use a base leg entry or non-standard straight-in approach procedure at non-controlled aerodromes.  Your legal representatives wrote to us on the same subject on 23 May 2008.  On behalf of the CEO, I sincerely apologise for the delay in responding.

As you would be aware, the base leg entry procedure was activity considered and supported by CASA during the NAS implementation project.  However, it was not implemented because the NAS Implementation Group (NASIG) did not include the procedure in the implementation safety case.  In fact, at a discussion of proposed procedures in March 2005, the NASIG indicated that the procedure would not be included in proposals for Characteristic 29.  The then Department of Transport and Regional Services also specifically advised CASA that no hazard identification or risk assessment had been undertaken on the procedure.

CASA has a consistent position on changes to existing regulations.  That is, that approval will be subject to the development of a safety case.  To obtain approval for base leg circuit entry, you will need to develop a satisfactory safety case to support the application.  Such a safety case should include:

• hazards identified, the identification process and associated documentation;
• an assessment of the risks and proposed risk mitigation action; and
• the operational procedures proposed (radio use, runway identification, right of way, etc).

If you would like CASA to proceed with the application you will need to submit a safety case and associated documentation to:

Mr Greg Vaughan

Group General Manager

General Aviation Operations Group

PO Box 836

Fortitude Valley  QLD  4006

We have concerns in relation to your request for approval for a less than 5 nautical mile final on straight-in approaches.  Such an approach would reduce the opportunity for all pilots in the area to make a comprehensive assessment of the traffic and achieve appropriate separation and to enable the pilot flying the straight-in approach to give way to aircraft flying a standard circuit.  I understand you also raised this issue with the Hawke Taskforce last year, after which your request to consider reducing the 5 nautical mile final for a straight-in approach was considered by the Standards Consultative Committee’s Part 91 Control Board.  The Control Board rejected the suggestion that this distance could be reduced without having a detrimental effect on safety.  Given this decision, your request for a less than 5 nautical mile approach is not approved.

Yours sincerely

Mick Quinn

Deputy Chief Executive Officer

Operations