#34: CASA’s role

60 Reasons to Protest: Reason #34 – CASA’s role

We have been mainly focussing our attention on Minister Catherine King as the overall person responsible for upholding the aviation legislation, for her Department’s Aviation branch, for the regulatory oversight over Airservices, for being the landlord of the Crown land leased by Brisbane Airport Corporation. What about CASA – the Civil Aviation Safety Authority? How do they fit into the mess that is Brisbane’s airspace architecture?

You may have heard about CASA recently as they (again) rejected BAC / Airservices request to increase the tailwind limitation at Brisbane Airport from 5 to 7 knots, but that’ll be fodder for another protest reason.

CASA has not been corporatised the same way that Airservices have been. CASA is still a government-controlled statutory authority that regulates aviation safety in Australia guided by the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Notably, Section 9A of the Act (Performance of functions) nearly verbatim repeats the same community protection obligations that are also found in the Air Services Act 1995.

CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment [that is, communities like us] is protected from the effects of and associated with the operation and use of aircraft.

Civil Aviation Act 1988, Section 9A

Additionally, every three years the Minister issues the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), which tells CASA how to do its job. The current AAPS even includes an explicit explanation of what is meant by “Environment protection” in Section 9A – just in case there was any doubt. It says:

Environment protection: Meaning, as far as practicable, that airspace should be administered in a manner that contributes to the protection of the environment, including for example the minimisation of noise, gaseous emissions and other environmental issues. If it will have a significant impact, CASA will consider the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2021

So, has CASA met its legislated obligations under Section 9A and the AAPS? Senator Larissa Waters asked them in Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023:

Airservices submitted two so-called Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs) about the proposed changes in Brisbane to CASA for review and assessment on 29/10/2018 and 26/08/2019.

As per their own website, this should entail:

Stakeholder consultation
We will also review evidence that appropriate stakeholder consultation has occurred.
If appropriate, we may also conduct our own consultation or instruct the proponent to conduct more.

Airspace change process, Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), CASA

So Sen. Waters asked, who did CASA consult and when? What noise minimisation was factored into these consultations as required by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, s9A(2) and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement? What were the outcomes of these consultations?

CASA’s answer:

29 October 2018 (ACP045-18 – OP18/278): CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise. The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise minimisation.

26 August 2019 (amendment to ACP045-18 – OP18/278): CASA did not conduct its own consultation for the amendment of ACP045-18, approved on 26 August 2019, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. During Airservices’ Stakeholder Engagement Program, CASA requested that Airservices conduct further consultation with specific airspace user groups [= the aviation industry]. The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise. The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise minimisation.

So, did CASA meet its legislated obligations to protect communities? Tell us in the comments.