Safety issue
| Safety issue description |
Category I runways that are wider than 50 m and without centreline lighting are over-represented in veer-off occurrences involving transport category aircraft landing in low visibility conditions. The installation of centreline lighting on wider category I runways is recommended but not mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 14. |
|---|---|
| Issue number | AO-2016-166-SI-01 |
| Issue owner | International Civil Aviation Organization |
| Transport function | Aviation: Airports |
| Issue status | Closed – Not addressed |
| Date issue released | 15/05/2019 |
| Issue status justification |
The ATSB acknowledges that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) sent the ATSB safety recommendation to a relevant ICAO Panel of experts for consideration. However, as the panel recommended no change to the Annex (due to several concerns such as cost), the safety issue remains not addressed. |
| Issue finalisation date | 15/11/2024 |
Safety action
| Action type | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Action number | AO-2016-166-SR-013 |
| Organisation | International Civil Aviation Organization |
| Action date | 15/05/2019 |
| Action description |
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the International Civil Aviation Organization review the effectiveness of Annex 14, recommendation 5.3.12.2 (for the installation of runway centreline lighting on Category I runways that are wider than 50 m), given that Category I runways that are wider than 50 m and without centreline lighting are over-represented in veer-off occurrences involving transport category aircraft landing in low visibility conditions. |
| Action status | Closed |
Organisation response
| Date received | 22/07/2019 |
|---|---|
| Organisation | International Civil Aviation Organization |
| Response text |
On 19 July 2019, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stated: The Visual Aids Working Group (VAWG) of the Aerodrome Design and Operation Panel (ADOP) discussed the issue and concluded that the proposal to upgrade the requirement in paragraph 5.3.12.2 from a Recommendation to a Standard may not be the best solution in light of several concerns such as the cost benefit of such a proposal. Some States, including Australia, had adopted ICAO Recommendations into their national regulations such as the provision in question. In addition, being a joint civil/military aerodrome, there was concern if facilities and services had, in fact, been provided in accordance with Annex 14, Volume I requirements. Giving due cognizance that coordination is paramount between the civil and military components of joint-use civil/military aerodromes, the Manual on Certification of Aerodromes (Doc 9774) specifies that the regulations of a State should include provisions for the use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft as part of its regulatory framework for aerodrome certification. |
| ATSB response |
The ATSB acknowledges that ICAO sent the ATSB safety recommendation to a relevant ICAO Panel of experts for consideration. However, as the panel recommended no change to the Annex (due to several concerns such as cost), the safety issue remains not addressed. |
| ATSB response date | 14/11/2024 |