Reporter's deidentified concern
The reporter (a qualified and experienced pilot) has raised safety concerns regarding the newly created VFR outbound corridor to the south-east of Bankstown aerodrome.
This corridor and the transiting WORONORA OUTBOUND lane were introduced by AIP Supplement H87/26, effective 8 July 2026.
The reporter states, 'Since its implementation, there has been a consistent pattern of aircraft either flying below legal minimum heights over populated areas or climbing above the 1,500 ft AMSL limit and infringing Sydney Class C airspace'. They note that, 'These issues are occurring on a near‑daily basis and appear to be systemic rather than isolated pilot error'.
At the root of the reporter's concern is the airspace design, which they note creates 'extremely tight vertical margins' and that 'pilots must remain below 1,500 ft AMSL to avoid controlled airspace while also maintaining legal obstacle and populated‑area clearance'.
To this, they also have concerns that 'no comprehensive survey of obstacles within 600 metres of the possible flight paths was conducted, despite this being necessary for pilots to legally maintain minimum heights'.
In the context of operational awareness, the reporter believes that 'Pilot education and communication prior to implementation were insufficient. Many operators were unaware of the corridor’s constraints, altitude requirements, or the consequences of minor deviations'.
In the ATC environment, the reporter holds concerns that controllers have been instructed to limit the reporting of minor (less than 300 ft) Class C airspace incursions from aircraft transiting the corridors, and notes that many low-time and inexperienced VFR pilots may encounter difficulties in complying with the airspace constraints - particularly in the vicinity of the Woronora Cemetery outbound waypoint (WORC). To this, they state 'The outbound point near Sutherland, WORC, is 368 ft AMSL for terrain, without taking into account the height of obstacles on top of that terrain. There are 6 storey apartment blocks within 600 meters of WORC which puts the highest obstacles at approximately 430 ft AMSL (not taking into account cranes, etc), leaving pilots with a 70 ft margin between busting airspace and/or breaking low flying regulations.'
Emergency management aspects were also noted in the reporter's concerns, with the observation that, 'With less than 1,000 ft AGL over the Royal National Park, pilots are faced with a very dangerous environment where there are little to no forced landing options. If they avoid the princess highway (heavy vehicle traffic between Waterfall to Sutherland), then their only option is to force land on top of the tree canopy, which is primarily made up of large gum trees on terrain described as ravines and gullies. The risk of serious injury and death is high to extreme in such a circumstance. As such, we are witnessing pilots following the highway and then crossing East Heathcote which breaches low flying regulations.'
The reporter provided a number of examples of airspace infringements and low-flying behaviours relating to these concerns, drawn from publicly available ADS-B tracking data.
Ultimately, the reporter is concerned that, 'The result is an airspace design that is not operationally practical and is generating predictable safety risks for aircraft using the corridor, aircraft in adjacent controlled airspace, and people living and working beneath the route'.
Named party's response
The reporter states, 'Since its implementation, there has been a consistent pattern of aircraft either flying below legal minimum heights over populated areas or climbing above the 1,500 ft AMSL limit and infringing Sydney Class C airspace'. They note that 'These issues are occurring on a near-daily basis and appear to be systemic rather than isolated pilot error'.
The area of the new corridor was identified by CASA and extensively engaged with industry. It is a single altitude area with known obstacles. If there are systemic violations of Class C airspace, we expect our controllers will follow current procedures and raise a CIRRIS for CASA to investigate.
'extremely tight vertical margins' and that 'pilots must remain below 1,500 ft AMSL to avoid controlled airspace while also maintaining legal obstacle and populated-area clearance'.
There is no obligation for pilots to utilise this route. It was designed as an option for anyone wishing to exit the Bankstown CTR and fly coastal. Any pilot or operator wishing to take this path is expected to undertake the necessary preparation and assess the route as suitable for their operation and experience. It is suggested CASA also respond to this query.
‘no comprehensive survey of obstacles within 600 metres of the possible flight paths was conducted, despite this being necessary for pilots to legally maintain minimum heights'.
This is incorrect. There was analysis done of the obstacles inside the South East VFR corridor and the Visual Terminal Chart (VTC) clearly marks the appropriate obstacles.
'Pilot education and communication prior to implementation were insufficient. Many operators were unaware of the corridor’s constraints, altitude requirements, or the consequences of minor deviations'
The South East corridor was engaged in one form or another since 2024. There were several AVSEF entries and many Industry in-person engagement sessions and Webinars. The last Webinar is available via CASA on their website and YouTube channel. It is suggested CASA also respond to this query.
‘The outbound point near Sutherland, WORC, is 368 ft AMSL for terrain, without taking into account the height of obstacles on top of that terrain. There are 6 storey apartment blocks within 600 meters of WORC which puts the highest obstacles at approximately 430 ft AMSL (not taking into account cranes, etc), leaving pilots with a 70 ft margin between busting airspace and/or breaking low flying regulations.'
It is up to the pilot in command to adhere to Part 91 – 12.01 (1) and Note: “For an aeroplane and a rotorcraft, paragraphs 91.265 (2) (b) and (3) (b) respectively permit flight over a populous area or a public gathering below 1000ft above the highest feature or obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600m or 300m respectively of the point on the ground or water immediately below the aircraft.” It is suggested CASA also respond to this query.
'With less than 1000 ft AGL over the Royal National Park, pilots are faced with a very dangerous environment where there are little to no forced landing options. If they avoid the princess highway (heavy vehicle traffic between Waterfall to Sutherland, then their only option is to force land on top of the tree canopy, which is primarily made up of large gum trees on terrain described as ravines and gull[ies]. The risk of serious injury and death is high to extreme. As such, we are witnessing pilots following the highway and then crossing East Heathcote which breaches low flying regulations.'
There is no obligation for any pilot or operator to choose to fly this corridor. Regarding following the highway, it is Class G airspace and pilots must plan and fly as per their assessed safety margins. It is suggested CASA also respond to this query.
‘The result is an airspace design that is not operationally practical and is generating predictable safety risks for aircraft using the corridor, aircraft in adjacent controlled airspace, and people living and working beneath the route'.
Noting that it is a CASA-led proposal, it is appropriate to request CASA respond to this and other related queries.
Regulator's response
CASA has reviewed the REPCON and provides the following:
The Bankstown Southeast VFR Corridor was established following a multi-year design and consultation process and introduced as an additional departure option for aircraft operating from Bankstown Airport to address identified safety issues within the Bankstown operating environment.
In approving the corridor, CASA considered matters including constrained vertical limits, potential airspace incursions, congestion, emergency landing considerations, and broader Sydney Basin traffic integration.
The approved design incorporates risk controls, including operation as a one-way outbound route within Class D controlled airspace, supported by air traffic control services, surveillance coverage, transponder requirements, and coded clearances.
CASA approved the corridor on the basis that the identified risks were understood and managed to an acceptable level.
The corridor is a VFR Route, and pilots retain the ability to manoeuvre within the available airspace and remain responsible for operating in accordance with the applicable operating rules, including the minimum height requirements in CASR Part 91.
Where operationally necessary, pilots may vary their track within the available airspace to maintain compliance with those requirements.
As part of the approval, CASA directed the Office of Airspace Regulation to undertake post-implementation monitoring to assess operational outcomes, occurrence data, and any emerging safety issues.
CASA considers the matters raised in the REPCON appropriate for consideration through this monitoring process and will consider any additional mitigations, procedural changes or airspace amendments should the evidence indicate they are required.
The implementation of the corridor was supported by a comprehensive pilot education and awareness program, including targeted Sydney Basin airspace guidance material, pre-flight planning resources, operational checklists, and the Stay OnTrack Flying the Sydney Region guide and video series.
CASA will continue to promote these resources and consider stakeholder feedback as part of its ongoing safety assurance and education activities.
REPCON details
| Date reported | 03/08/2026 |
|---|---|
| Published date | 09/10/2026 |
| Affected operation/industry | Airspace |
| Concern subject type | Operating Procedures |
| Transport mode | Aviation |