CASA clarifies runway width standard for Australia's airports

CASA chief John McCormick clarified his organisation’s stance on narrow runways at today’s Australian Airports Association’s annual convention in Brisbane.

The issue arose some time ago when CASA decided it would remove a double standard on runway widths in Australia by settling on the ICAO standard.

This left some significant airports (Sunshine Coast and Ayers Rock amongst others) with the possibility that operations by B737 and A320 aircraft would be banned from their 30 metre-wide runways, with obvious consequences.

The issue has been discussed with CASA by the AAA over several months; and it appears that McCormick’s team is taking a soft line while still insisting on the single standard.

“We are taking a very liberal view of this,” he told assembled delegates. “If people are having difficulties with this we will issue an exemption.

“If the aircraft type being operated onto your runway… is authorized to operate on those width of runways then there is no difficulty.

“If however it does not have a flight manual supplement or such for narrow runway operations then the issue arises not only of liability but of who authorizes that operation.

“Now it’s OK to say ‘we’ve been doing it for 25 years and nothing’s happened’, but that is not the basis of a safety case. That is certainly a good factor in a safety case, but it’s certainly not where you would start.

“If you have a runway where the manufacturer of the aircraft operating on to that runway has not been approached about operating on narrow runways then what we are saying to operators of those aircraft is that you should go to the OEM and you should request a no-technical-objection to operate on that runway, or their opinion.

“Now that gives you two (possible) outcomes. If they come back and say ‘we have no technical objection’ then you are fine as far as that goes. You will still be outside of 139 but we would view that on the basis that the liability is taken by the operator.

“If however the aircraft manufacturer comes back and declines to issue a no-technical-objection then you will find that we will not permit that operation. And I don’t think that’s stretching the bounds of logic…

“If you have never asked the manufacturer that’s one thing; but if you ask and they say ‘yes’ then that’s great, but if they say ‘no’ then you have a problem.

“But we will work with people as we go through this… We are not rushing at this, so you don’t have to dig up the runway tomorrow. We are taking a measured approach based on experience.

“But when you think of upgrading this, when you get into the master planning stages etc, it is best to be reminded that 139 is the standard.”

Sounds like the problem hasn’t gone away for those threatened airports, but at least the pressure’s off for the time being.