Key Findings Examination of Legislative, Regulatory – and Administrative Arrangements Introduction Infrastructure, in conjunction with CASA, Airservices and Defence, has reviewed the Commonwealth airspace protection arrangements around the leased federal airports regulated the Airports Act and aerodromes regulated under the CA Act. Infrastructure found a number of regulatory gaps mainly associated with outdated regulatory approaches, including regulations which may not provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision-making and/or creating uncertainty where regulations were absent or ambiguous, to regulatory overlap due to legacy regulations still being in force, and considerable scope for improvement in regulatory oversight. Lack of Transparency and Accountability The current airspace regulations under the Airports Act need to be modernised and streamlined to enable the future safe and efficient growth of these nationally important transport hubs in conjunction with facilitating appropriate urban density policies of State, Territory and Local governments. Under the Airports Act, the process for the establishment of prescribed airspace by the operator of a leased federal airport is not clearly defined and should be prescribed in order to provide greater clarity for future land use initiatives on and off airport. Ideally, Infrastructure considers that this process should be led by the airport operator and provide for greater stakeholder engagement with the aviation industry in relation to impacts on flight operations, including, amongst others, with State and Territory urban planners in relation to the potential impact of prescribed airspace on metropolitan building height limits. Neither the Airports Act nor the CA Act obliges the proponent of an application for intrusion into prescribed airspace to demonstrate an understanding of the implications of the intrusion. The proponent seems to bear a disproportionately small responsibility for introducing a hazard into navigable airspace, whilst the operator of the airport and Commonwealth aviation agencies are expected to undertake detailed and resource intensive assessments of such proposals within short timeframes. Regulatory Overlap In some cases, under the Airports Act and the CA Act, there are multiple sets of airspace protection regulations applicable to a single airport. In accordance with best practice regulation, such regulatory overlap should be avoided.
Key Findings – Examination of Legislative, Regulatory and Administrative Arrangements Introduction Infrastructure, in conjunction with CASA, Airservices and Defence, has reviewed the Commonwealth airspace protection arrangements around the leased federal airports regulated the Airports Act and aerodromes regulated under the CA Act. Infrastructure found a number of regulatory gaps mainly associated with outdated regulatory approaches, including regulations which may not provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision-making and/or creating uncertainty where regulations were absent or ambiguous, to regulatory overlap due to legacy regulations still being in force, and considerable scope for improvement in regulatory oversight. Lack of Transparency and Accountability The current airspace regulations under the Airports Act need to be modernised and streamlined to enable the future safe and efficient growth of these nationally important transport hubs in conjunction with facilitating appropriate urban density policies of State, Territory and Local governments. Under the Airports Act, the process for the establishment of prescribed airspace by the operator of a leased federal airport is not clearly defined and should be prescribed in order to provide greater clarity for future land use initiatives on and off airport. Ideally, Infrastructure considers that this process should be led by the airport operator and provide for greater stakeholder engagement with the aviation industry in relation to impacts on flight operations, including, amongst others, with State and Territory urban planners in relation to the potential impact of prescribed airspace on metropolitan building height limits. Neither the Airports Act nor the CA Act obliges the proponent of an application for intrusion into prescribed airspace to demonstrate an understanding of the implications of the intrusion. The proponent seems to bear a disproportionately small responsibility for introducing a hazard into navigable airspace, whilst the operator of the airport and Commonwealth aviation agencies are expected to undertake detailed and resource intensive assessments of such proposals within short timeframes. Regulatory Overlap In some cases, under the Airports Act and the CA Act, there are multiple sets of airspace protection regulations applicable to a single airport. In accordance with best practice regulation, such regulatory overlap should be avoided.