Aviation safety issues and actions
Regulatory oversight of military air traffic services
Issue number: | AR-2012-034-SI-02 |
---|---|
Who it affects: | All civilian aircraft operations into military controlled airspace |
Issue owner: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Transport function: | Aviation: Airspace management |
Background: | Investigation Report AR-2012-034 |
Issue release date: | 18 October 2013 |
Current issue status: | Adequately addressed |
---|---|
Issue status justification: | The agreement between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Department of Defence should provide CASA with adequate oversight to assure itself of the safety of civilian operations in military controlled airspace. |
Safety issue description
Regulatory oversight processes for military air traffic services do not provide independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civilian aircraft operations.
Response to safety issue by: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.
The ATSB [draft] recommendation …. does not appear to take into consideration the benefit of joint work (such as that described in the bullet point above) that Airservices Australia (AsA), the Department of Defence (DoD) and CASA could undertake, without the need for CASA to assume formal oversight of DoD air traffic services.
ATSB comment in response
The ATSB acknowledges that CASA does have a standing invitation to attend operational evaluations of military ATC units conducted by the military ANSP's auditors, and have participated and plan to continue to participate in these. Such cooperation is important, but CASA remains limited in the level of influence it has over military ATS in relation to the safety of civilian aircraft using military airspace. This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted. As a result, the ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.
Recommendation
Action number: | AR-2012-034-SR-015 |
---|---|
Action organisation: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Date: | 18 October 2013 |
Action status: | Closed |
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority should review the results of this report and determine whether its current level of involvement with Military air traffic services (ATS) is sufficient to assure itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military ATS control is adequate.
Additional correspondence
Response date: | 08 January 2014 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | CASA partially accepts the recommendation in as much as CASA has reviewed the report and will take action as detailed below. CASA is limited in its ability to influence military ATS in relation to the safety of civil aircraft using military airspace as regulation 172.005 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 provides Part 172 does not apply to a person providing an ATS for the Defence Force, or any ATS provided by the Defence Force. CASA undertakes many activities in its regulation of civil aviation in Australia. CASA activities include coordinated activity with Defence, the lead regulatory role in the OneSky Australia project (a joint civil military project), observing Defence audits, providing advice to Defence on specific operational matters where requested and the conduct of aeronautical studies of Australian airspace including Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown. Future actions that will be undertaken include the conduct of a joint aeronautical study of the airspace around RAAF Base Williamtown and working with Defence and Airservices Australia to address issues relating to traffic growth, airspace complexity, airspace efficiency and airspace design. The provision of ATS in this airspace, including Restricted Areas, will be within scope of the study. In carrying out these actions, CASA seeks to be assured that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under military control is adequate. CASA will continue to engage with the Department of Defence, Airservices Australia and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to ensure that safe services are provided.
|
ATSB comment: | The ATSB welcomes CASA’s intention to participate in a joint safety study of Williamtown, and notes that part of the aim for this study is for CASA ‘to be assured that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under military control is adequate’. The Safety Recommendation will be set to ‘monitor’. The ATSB will seek CASA’s advice, subsequent to the completion of the Williamtown study, as to whether CASA considers its current level of oversight of civilian operations while under military control is adequate.
|
Response date: | 15 April 2014 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) notes the Safety Recommendation will be set to 'monitor' in the ATSB database tracking system and ATSB will seek CASA's advice, subsequent to the completion of the Williamtown study, as to whether CASA considers its current level of oversight of civilian operations while under military control is adequate. When that is completed, CASA will provide a brief to ATSB on the outcomes of the Williamtown aeronautical study.
|
Response date: | 27 January 2015 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | CASA has reviewed the outstanding agreed actions list and believes we are in a position to update and close Safety Recommendation AR-2012-034-SR-015.
In concluding this work CASA assured itself that the safety of civil aircraft operations while under military control was adequate.
|
ATSB comment date: | 13 March 2015 |
ATSB comment: | The ATSB has been monitoring the outcome of this safety recommendation based on CASA's initial advice (8 January 2014):
|
Response date: | 02 July 2015 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | CASA reviewed the report and undertook to assure itself within the limits of its powers of the safety of civil aircraft operations while under Military A TS control. This was the subject of CASA's letter of 27 January 2015.
|
ATSB comment date: | 07 September 2015 |
ATSB comment: | That letter [from CASA on 2 July 2015] stated: 'The ATSB report stated that the rate of Loss of Separation (LOS) and Loss of Separation Assurance (LOSA) was higher for RAAF Base Williamtown than any other ATC unit in the country. However, A TSB does not indicate whether this rate is acceptable. There will always be one A TC unit with the highest rate and this fact must be considered in relation to whether that rate is acceptably safe. As the A TSB has not stated that the r.ate is unacceptable, the conclusion is drawn that ATSB considers the rate acceptable.' The ATSB research investigation report actually concluded that the rate of LOS across all military aerodromes was higher than civil aerodromes, and that both Williamtown and Darwin were particularly notable examples of this. This conclusion was based not only on the rate of LOS at the Tower and Terminal Area environments, but also based on collision risk, event risk (taking into account the size of aircraft), the involvement of contributing errors by air traffic controllers, and the reliance on controllers to employ tactical separation in lieu of strategic separation. Therefore, the ATSB believes it is inappropriate for CASA to consider Williamtown simply as the aerodrome that happened to have the highest LOS rate. The ATSB has not commented on whether the risk concerning LOS in military airspace is acceptable, but has noted that military air traffic services do not appear to assure the same level of safety to civilian aircraft as do civil air traffic services. 'CASA is only permitted to observe Defence audits of Defence ATC units with the agreement of the Department of Defence. CASA has no powers to carry out, "a systematic evaluation of all military ATS involvement with civil aircraft". CASA has taken the only action it is empowered to take under the legislation. The ATSB acknowledges that, as current policy and regulations stand, CASA has limited opportunity to assure itself of the safety of civil aircraft in military airspace. However, given that the safety of the travelling public is a primary function of CASA, and that the ATSB has identified through a comprehensive and sound analysis of the data that military air traffic services do not appear to assure the same level of safety to civilian aircraft as do civil air traffic services, it is hard to reconcile CASA's apparent reluctance to engage with the issue. If CASA cannot assure itself of the safety of the travelling public under current legislation, it would seem that it is within CASA's powers to consider altering current regulations to enable it to have that assurance.
|
Response date: | 21 January 2016 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority records |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | As you are aware, this matter is being dealt with through the Aviation Policy Group (APG). Discussions have taken place at the highest levels (APG) between CASA, Defence and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. The Department is drafting a paper which will include options for different levels of oversight. It is my understanding discussions on this matter will continue in 2016. |
ATSB comment date: | 02 February 2016 |
ATSB comment: | The ATSB believes the discussions held by the Aviation Policy Group are very encouraging and show that all parties involved are working together to find a long-term solution to this safety issue. The ATSB will continue to monitor this recommendation while this work continues. |
Response date: | 30 September 2016 |
---|---|
Response from: | Civil Aviation Safety Authority records |
Action status: | Closed |
Response text: | Since this safety recommendation was issued, CASA and Defence have been collaborating and through the Aviation Policy Group (APG) have jointly developed a policy covering the safety oversight of civil operations into joint user and military airports. |
ATSB comment: | The ATSB welcomes this landmark agreement between CASA and Defence as a positive and transparent approach to cooperation that should ensure that CASA can assure itself of the safety of civilian aircraft in military airspace. The ATSB has closed this recommendation. |