Reporter's deidentified concern
The reporter has raised safety concerns relating to low altitude requirements for general aviation aircraft inbound to Bankstown following the recent Sydney Basin airspace changes.
The reporter is concerned the new airspace layout near Sydney, as a result of the opening of Western Sydney Airport, has brought with it the requirement for general aviation aircraft to be at excessively low altitudes while still far from landing at Bankstown (YSBK).
New airspace design
The reporter states that the current flight planning requirement is to be at or below 3,500 ft while still 35 NM north of Sydney. The inbound track first passes directly over Mangrove Mountain gliding field at about 2,500 ft above ground level. This is exactly where a glider will be thermalling, having just launched from the winch.
The track then crosses the inbound VFR (visual flight rules) lane from Brooklyn at a shallow angle. The reporter advised they were recently instructed by Air Traffic Control (ATC) (YSBK Approach) to descend to 2,000 ft, and then to sight a [low-performance single engine aircraft] at its correct level of 1,800 ft. To expect us to see and avoid a significantly slower aircraft 200 ft below, is difficult at best. Furthermore, it is conceivable that we could still be in cloud at 2,000 ft, while the VFR aircraft is legally in the clear at 1,800 ft, and we will have no chance of seeing them.
The reporter further advised that attempts on several flights to obtain a clearance from ATC into Class C airspace, and therefore descend later, have been denied. The reporter states, 'Not only are my passengers and I exposed to far greater risk of a midair collision, as described above, however descent has to begin about 30 NM earlier than optimal. This in turn involves another 30 NM flying low in turbulence, along with the inefficiency of greater fuel burn'.
The reporter acknowledges the reason for such low altitude restrictions is to clear the inbound track to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport (YSSY). This being the case, the reporter queries, 'then why are we even forced to fly this route? Tracking into Bankstown could be far more safely achieved by flying over Richmond, as has been the case until now'.
New airspace changes - industry consultation
The reporter finally states, 'These issues were raised when the airspace changes were first announced. Despite input from many pilots who actually fly in this area, the new procedures were introduced regardless. The current requirements are, in my opinion, a serious safety concern, and will result in an airprox or worse if not addressed'.
Named party's response
Airservices undertook consultation on the Sydney Basin airspace design changes and considered stakeholder feedback received.
In response to concerns raised, Airservices engaged CASA through a series of discussions to assess the operational and safety implications of the airspace design.
The purpose of these discussions was to ensure the airspace remained both safe and equitable for all users and allowed Airservices to provide use of the airspace in accordance with the priorities outlined in AIP ENR 1.4 ATS Airspace Classification and Description, Section 6 – Regulation of Flight: Assessment of Priorities.
The resulting arrangements reflected a collaborative Airservices-CASA assessment of stakeholder concerns rather than a unilateral Airservices decision.
Airservices is reviewing the new airspace usage and expects to be able to provide additional options for Bankstown procedures as per our Post-Implementation Review process.
Regulator's response
CASA has reviewed the REPCON and provides the following response:
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, and Airservices undertook a program of industry consultation during the design phases and in the lead up to the implementation of the airspace change.
Following the implementation of the changes, industry have provided feedback about several concerns about the airspace changes in the Sydney Basin.
Ahead of Post Implementation Review actions, CASA has requested Airservices to develop and implement an interim flight planning solution for high-performance aircraft, particularly pressurised turbine-powered IFR operations, arriving at Bankstown Airport from the north and to ensure that the interim solution permits such aircraft to remain within controlled airspace for longer during the arrival phase than provided for under the current flight planning requirements.
ATSB comment
The reporter provided feedback in relation to the new airspace change concerns that were raised at various industry consultation forums in particular arrivals into Bankstown from the north. This feedback was passed on to both Airservices Australia and CASA neither of which provided a further response.
Additionally, the ATSB REPCON confidential reporting scheme has received a number of submissions detailing safety concerns relating to the operation of high-performance turbine powered aircraft conducting IFR arrivals into Bankstown Airport from the north.
These submissions relate to the airspace design changes introduced on 9 July 2026 and generally centre upon the tightened vertical and lateral constraints imposed for separation from controlled airspace and VFR operations.
The concerns convey the common perception that these tightened navigational constraints and requirements create significant additional safety risk, through the increased likelihood of:
- unintended airspace infringements
- separation issues with other aircraft
- separation issues with terrain and obstacles.
Ahead of the post-implementation review, the ATSB encourages all parties responsible for the safety of aircraft operations within this airspace to consider the concerns raised within this and all related REPCONs in the context of their areas of control.
REPCON details
| Date reported | 27/07/2026 |
|---|---|
| Published date | 09/11/2026 |
| Affected operation/industry | Airspace |
| Concern subject type | Design |
| Transport mode | Aviation |