Aeronautical Study of Port Macquarie - Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Airspace Review of 

Port Macquarie 

(Incorporates stakeholder comments) 

May 2010 

Airspace Review of Port Macquarie (YPMQ) May 2010 Version: 1.0

Office of Airspace Regulation Page 2 of 69 

DOCUMENT SPONSOR: OFFICE OF AIRSPACE REGULATION 

PROJECT No: 08/14 

TRIM REF: ED10/134994 

FILE REF: EF10/4919 

Document control: 

Version Issue/Nature of Revision Date 

0.0 Report for Industry comment August 2009 

1.0 Incorporates stakeholder feedback November 2010 



1 Executive Summary 

The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR 1 ) within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

(CASA) commissioned Hyder Consulting (Hyder) to conduct an independent review 

of the airspace as defined by the area marked on Aeronautical Information 

Publication (AIP) charts as the Port Macquarie (PMQ) Common Traffic Advisory 

Frequency (Radio Required) 2 (CTAF(R)) procedural broadcast area (inclusive of 

Taree (TRE) aerodrome), New South Wales (NSW). 

The review of the airspace within the PMQ CTAF(R) (hereafter referred to as PMQ 

CTAF) procedural broadcast area has addressed the type and frequency of 

operations, with particular emphasis on passenger transport. The review provided 

recommendations to CASA to address any short-comings of current airspace 

architecture and of the services and facilities provided by air navigation service 

providers, based on identified risk factors and to increase the safety and efficiency of 

that airspace. 

By identifying and engaging with stakeholders, Hyder have focused on equitable 

access for all airspace users with particular attention to the safety of Passenger 

Transport (PT). 

Hyder have engaged in and facilitated extensive industry consultation. Input was 

sought from all stakeholders including, but not limited to: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

the aerodrome operator; 

any PT operators - that use the airspace within the scope of the review 

(normally only those who use the aerodrome); 

Emergency services - that frequent the aerodrome; 

Flying schools based at the aerodrome; 

Local aeroclubs; 

Charter organisations - that are based at the aerodrome or frequently use the 

airspace; 

CASA - local inspectors and safety advisors; 

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) - for incident data local to the 

airspace; and 

Airservices Australia (Airservices) - for traffic movement data and where 

applicable feedback on level of service provided (if any). 

The required outcomes of the proposed review were: 

a. A review of the airspace within the PMQ CTAF procedural broadcast area to 

determine the appropriateness of the current airspace classifications and the 

air traffic services (ATS) provided that has reviewed access for all types of 

airspace users and provided recommendations to CASA to address any 

documented short-comings of the current airspace architecture. 

Recommendations are supported by risk assessment evaluation and 

analysis consistent with Australian and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 

4360:2004 Risk Management standard. 

1 A list of acronyms is in Annex A. 

2 From 03 June 2010, changes to Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 166 removed the CTAF(R) designation. As Port Macquarie is 

a certified aerodrome, the carriage and use of radio is required at or in its vicinity. 

Airspace Review of Port Macquarie (YPMQ) May 2010 Version 1.0


b. A vehicle for industry consultation in relation to the appropriateness of the 

current airspace classifications and the ATS provided. 

c. A third-party, objective review of the current airspace architecture within the 

PMQ CTAF procedural broadcast area. 

The review considered the findings of the above enquiries in terms of the following 

key policy principles from the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 3 (AAPS) released 

in 2007: 

� Safety, 

� Efficiency, 

� 

� 

� 

� 

National security, 

Environmental protection, 

Equitable access, and 

Global harmonisation. 

This report is structured on the OAR’s Airspace Review template, detailing: 

a. An analysis of the current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations within 

the existing airspace in relation to the level of services provided; 

b. Identification of any threats to the operations, focussing as a priority on the 

safety and protection of PT services; 

c. Identification of appropriate and acceptable risk mitigators to the known 

threats, including recommendations to reduce those risks coupled to the 

expected impact of any proposed improvements; 

d. A qualitative and quantitative risk assessment of the current airspace 

environment and the expected impact of any changes. The quantitative data 

was assessed for accuracy and consistency and analysed using CASA’s 

modelling tool; 

e. Transfer of ownership of the quantitative data to CASA in Excel spreadsheet 

format; 

f. Stakeholder consultation with the aerodrome operator, PT providers, local 

flying schools and training organisations, and where applicable military and 

emergency services, to establish and assess their opinion of the 

appropriateness of the current airspace classification, access issues, 

anticipated changes to the current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations 

within the existing airspace; 

g. A review of extant AIP entries for applicability, inclusive of any stakeholder 

feedback; and 

h. Assurances to CASA’s OAR on the levels of airspace risk associated with 

the subject aerodrome’s airspace. 

1.1 Findings 

Key points in relation to the PMQ aerodrome are: 

� 

� 

there is generally good weather at PMQ; 

PMQ aerodrome would need upgrading to increase PT capacity; 

3 

The AAPS 2007 has been superseded by the AAPS 2010, however the key principles from the AAPS 2007 are still relevant to 

the AAPS 2010. 



� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

an increase in General Aviation (GA) capacity is possible and likely; 

Runway (RWY) 22 is the preferred runway direction for PT arrivals/departures; 

Non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB) and Area Navigation (RNAV) Global 

Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) arrivals and approaches are suitable for 

traffic and conditions at both PMQ and TRE; 

the lack of full length taxiways at both RWY 03/21 at PMQ and RWY 04/22 at 

TRE cause aircraft to backtrack and limit airspace capacity; 

simultaneous use of multiple runways at PMQ is a concern; and 

the single CTAF frequency (118.1) covering three major aerodromes (PMQ, 

TRE and Kempsey (KMP)) is an operational concern leading to overtransmissions 

and difficulty for pilots in their ability to transmit/receive calls. 

In respect of the airspace it was found that: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

there is a problem between conflicting instrument approaches at PMQ and 

TRE; 

there is a problem of little manoeuvring room for Global Positioning System 

(GPS) approaches adjacent to Restricted Area (RA) R574 (formally R595) 

Boundary; 

there is a two-way route structure to Sydney (SY) but not to Coffs Harbour 

(CH); 

lack of access to Williamtown (WLM) RAs forces late descents into TRE; 

clearances through RAs requested due to bad weather are often still not 

available; 

coastal Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic (on area frequency) may not call on 

CTAF frequency. While the designated broadcast area has defined lateral 

limits, upper limits are pilot determined; 

there is a capacity issue with the CTAF frequency; and 

a study will be required for the Class E airspace corridor, including 

consideration of an appropriate lower limit (LL) suitable to the radar coverage. 

In respect of the local operators it was found that: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

there are several PT companies operating to and from Sydney (including 

Virgin Blue E170 jets) and one PT to and from Coffs Harbour; 

there is only one significant aircraft operator at PMQ aerodrome; 

there is no PT scheduled hub and spoke system (i.e. no scheduled PT light 

twins servicing outlaying areas); and 

there is a mix of aircraft types – from jets on straight in landing to microlights in 

the circuit. 

In respect of the validation data it was found that: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Aerodrome movements (landings and take-offs) are around 26,000 per annum; 

Touch and Go circuit movements (estimated by Airservices Australia 

(Airservices) at 30,000 per annum) are additional to the 26,000 total but cannot 

be verified and seem optimistic given the runway configuration. The Review 

Snapshot suggests a figure of 11,000 per annum; 

PT passenger numbers appear to be in the vicinity of 168,000 to 180,000 per 

annum; 

by comparison, BITRE data shows 167,200 passengers between PMQ and 

Sydney year on year to Jan 2009; and 



� the aerodrome operator reported growth in passenger numbers over the last 

few months. 

In respect of the traffic assessment it was found that: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

there is an issue of frequency congestion, and sometimes confusion, on the 

single large CTAF frequency; 

circuit area operations and arrivals into the circuit area have been reported as 

the highest risk area (due to volume of traffic, mix of types and pilot 

competencies); whereas conflict between IFR aircraft generally occurs in a 

lower traffic environment; 

some operators recommended restriction of grass RWY 10/28 to arrivals and 

departures and only when operationally necessary; and 

some operators have suggested a limitation on the number of aircraft that can 

safely be allowed simultaneously in the circuit area. However, it is not clear 

how this would be managed. 

It was found in respect of some points and issues that: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

radio frequency congestion occurs on the CTAF frequency; 

Parachute Jumping Exercises (PJE) occur on the PMQ aerodrome. Several 

operators indicated that it should be banned from the aerodrome. However, 

neither the Aerodrome Operator nor an examination of Aviation Safety Incident 

Reports/Electronic Safety Incident Reports (ASIR/ESIR) have reported 

problems; 

there is a lack of a parallel full length taxiway to RWY 03/21; 

simultaneous use of two runways occurs at PMQ; 

the number of aircraft in the circuit area is uncontrolled; and 

the proximity of RA R595 boundary is an issue for GPS approaches. 

Stakeholders have requested that CASA liaise with the military to review the 

extent of the boundary and its impact upon the existing approaches 4 . 

In respect of Incidents at PMQ it was found that: 

� 

� 

� 

a total of 39 incidents were filed over two years of which 10 related to airspace; 

and 

the 10 airspace incidents comprised two AIRPROX events in 2007 (which 

were investigated by the ATSB); two Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 

System (TCAS) Resolution Advisory (RA) events; one landing on an occupied 

runway; one go around; and four failures to broadcast correctly. 

1.2 Recommendations 

The report makes the following recommendations: 

The PMQ procedural broadcast area to remain subject to CTAF procedures. 

4 Defence OAR has subsequently investigated the PMQ GPS approaches in relation to the boundary of RA R574 (formally 

R595), and found that they are appropriately separated laterally. This issue has been raised and closed at the New South Wales 

(NSW) Regional Airspace User’s Advisory Committee (RAPAC). More information can be found at Annex F. 



� 

� 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments: 

o Qualitative feedback received by Hyder during compilation of the Report 

indicated that the level of service within the airspace of the PMQ 

procedural broadcast area was acceptable to most stakeholders. 

o The Report’s risk modelling analysis also reflected that the level of risk 

was within acceptable parameters. The movement data used during the 

modelling process was a mixture of Airservices arrival and departure 

movement data plus a revised figure thought to more accurately represent 

circuit movements. The revised circuit movement figure was based upon 

traffic observations made during the Report’s data gathering phase. The 

use of this revised figure was thought to more accurately reflect the actual 

circuit movements with its use for modelling purposes agreed upon after 

consultation with the OAR. 

o Since publication of the report, traffic movement data has been revised 

significantly by Airservices. Further modelling of the revised data by the 

OAR has indicated that the risk of conflict between an IFR (RPT) and VFR 

aircraft has reduced from the original assessment made by Hyder utilising 

the same modelling methodology. This offers support to the qualitative 

feedback that no airspace change is required based on the existing traffic 

numbers and mix of operations. 

o Outside of the original scope of the Report and as part of its work program 

the OAR is carrying out a review of Australian-administered airspace in 

accordance with the principles of the Airspace Act 2007, guided by the 

AAPS. This review will include investigations into the introduction of a 

regional solution (including PMQ) that will assess the safety benefit offered 

by the introduction of Class E airspace corridors, and the possible 

lowering of Class E terminal airspace. In the interim the OAR will continue 

to monitor traffic mix and movements at PMQ over the next 12 months. 

Should any feedback received or data trends suggest that the level of 

airspace risk is approaching unacceptable, it will be acted upon by the 

OAR. 

The OAR to maintain a watch of activity at PMQ and TRE aerodromes during 

its bi-annual review of movement data, and, if total aircraft movements 

significantly increase, or after five years, whichever occurs first, an airspace 

review or aeronautical study should be conducted to reassess the risk to 

passenger transport. 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments - Regular monitoring 

and review of aircraft and passenger movement numbers, analysis of accident 

and incident data trends and analysis of feedback from stakeholders either by 

direct communication or various consultative forums, is part of the OAR’s dayto-day 

business. No additional action is required on this recommendation.) 

Suggestion for airport operator on limiting operations on the grass runway at 

PMQ and restricting number of simultaneous circuit aircraft, particularly at 

night, possibly through charging policies. 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments - requires further 

investigation by the Aerodrome Operator to establish the level of risk posed by 

grass runway operations.) 



� 

� 

CASA to further consider/investigate the safety of parachuting operations onto 

a secure aerodrome serviced by three PT operators and a busy GA area. 


consultation between the Aerodrome Operator and parachute operators to 

establish the level of risk posed by parachuting operations in the vicinity of 

PMQ.) 

Review the options of either splitting the CTAF frequency in a safe fashion or 

complete a more in-depth study for the possibility of lowering Class E airspace 

where radar coverage permits and/or introducing a Class E airspace corridor 

along the main TRE/PMQ IFR routes. Other considerations for such a study 

could include other means of surveillance such as Wide Area Multilateration 

(WAM). 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments - the OAR has no 

intention of investigating the option of splitting the CTAF procedural area 

however it is progressing investigation into the benefit of implementing Class E 

airspace to lower levels to afford greater protection to RPT operations. 

Additional surveillance methods such as the use of WAM will be considered, if 

appropriate, as part of this study.) 



Contents 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 3 

2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 10 

3 AERODROME AND INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................................ 12 

4 AIRSPACE....................................................................................................................................... 21 

5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION........................................................................................................ 28 

6 SUMMARY OF MOVEMENT DATA ...................................................................................................... 35 

7 SUMMARY OF INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS ........................................................................................ 39 

8 MODELLING METHODOLOGY AND RISK ASSESSMENT........................................................................ 41 

9 EVALUATION................................................................................................................................... 45 

10 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................49 

11 CASA FINAL COMMENT AND ACTIONS FOR PORT MACQUARIE.......................................................... 51 

12 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 52 

ANNEXES: ............................................................................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX A – ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 54 

ANNEX B – AUSTRALIAN AIRSPACE STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 58 

ANNEX C – STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................................................... 59 

ANNEX D – AERODROME OPERATOR DATA ............................................................................................... 61 

ANNEX E – DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS.............................................................................. 62 

ANNEX F – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION / FEEDBACK REGISTER............................................................. 65 



2 Purpose 

The purpose of this Airspace Review was to conduct a risk assessment of the 

airspace within the Port Macquarie (PMQ) 5 CTAF(R) 6 procedural broadcast area 

(inclusive of Taree (TRE) aerodrome), New South Wales (NSW). The review forms 

part of the office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) Work Program as required by the 

Airspace Act 2007 (Act). 

2.1 Scope 

The scope of the review includes identification and consultation with stakeholders to 

gather necessary data and information related to airspace issues within the 

PMQ CTAF(R) (hereafter referred to as PMQ CTAF) procedural broadcast area 

(inclusive of TRE). As a minimum this includes consultation with passenger transport 

(PT) operators, charter operators, flying training schools, military operators, 

emergency services operators and the aerodrome operator 

The scope of this review is not intended to examine aerodrome facilities and 

infrastructure issues unless any weakness or failings in these areas have a 

significant impact on the safety of airspace operations in the vicinity of PMQ and TRE 

aerodromes. 

2.2 Objective 

The objective of this Review is to examine the airspace within the PMQ CTAF 

procedural broadcast area (inclusive of TRE aerodrome) to determine the 

appropriateness of the current airspace classification. This was accomplished by: 

a. Analyses of current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations within the 

existing airspace in relation to the level of services provided; 

b. Identifying any threats to the operations, focussing as a priority on the safety 

and protection of PT services; 

c. Identifying appropriate and acceptable risk mitigators to the known threats; 

d. Carrying out a qualitative and quantitative risk assessment of the current 

airspace environment and the expected impact of any changes; 

e. Investigating through stakeholder consultation, the appropriateness of the 

current airspace classification, access issues, expected changes to the 

current traffic levels and mix of aircraft operations within the existing 

airspace; 

f. Reviewing extant Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) entries for 

applicability; 

g. Ensuring that the issues are passed onto the relative stakeholder group for 

their consideration; and 

h. Providing assurance to the Executive Manager OAR of the levels of airspace 

risk are within acceptable tolerances for PMQ aerodrome. 

5 A list of acronyms is in Annex A. 

6 From 03 June 2010, changes to Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 166 removed the CTAF(R) designation. As Port Macquarie is 

a certified aerodrome, the carriage and use of radio is required at or in its vicinity. 



The review considered the findings of the above enquiries in terms of safety, 

efficiency, national security, environmental protection and equitable access. 

2.3 Due Diligence 

The review was conducted within a due diligence framework. The work was 

conducted in three phases: 

a. The Concept and Scope phase demonstrated understanding of the subject 

matter and was expressed in terms of: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Airspace description; 

Aerodrome and Infrastructure; and 

Stakeholder Consultation (encouraging discussion of issues and options). 

b. The Identification and Analysis phase commenced with a summary of 

incidents and accidents and application of the Airspace Risk Model (ARM) 

base case. The documentation included: 

Modelling Methodology; and 

Airspace Risk Assessment. 

c. The Evaluation phase employed a range of qualitative and quantitative risk 

assessment techniques and cost:benefit analyses (as required) to establish 

effectiveness of precautionary options. The outputs comprised: 

� Findings; and 

� Recommendations 

The approach was based on an understanding of CASA requirements and the Key 

Policy Principles behind them. Regard has been given to other recent airspace 

reviews including Adelaide and Maroochydore by Hyder and Ayers Rock and 

Bathurst internally reviewed by CASA. The approach considered relevant standards 

and methodologies for Stakeholder consultations, options analyses and 

recommendations. 

2.4 Overview of Australian Airspace 

The OAR within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has sole carriage of the 

regulation of Australian-administered airspace, in accordance with section 11 of the 

Act. Section 12 of the Act requires CASA to foster both the efficient use of Australianadministered 

airspace and equitable access to that airspace for all users. CASA must 

also take into account the capacity of Australian-administered airspace to 

accommodate changes to its use. 

In line with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 11 and as 

described in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), Australian airspace is 

classified as Class A, C, D, E and G depending on the level of service required to 

manage traffic safely and effectively. Class B and F are not currently used in 

Australia. The classification determines the category of flights permitted and the level 

of air traffic services (ATS) provided. Annex B provides details of the classes of 

airspace used in Australia. Within this classification system aerodromes are either 

controlled (i.e. Class C or Class D) or non-controlled. 



3 Aerodrome and Infrastructure 

3.1 Background 

3.1.1 Port Macquarie 

PMQ is a large town on the mid-North Coast of NSW, Australia, located 

about 390 kilometres (km) North of Sydney, and 570 km South of Brisbane. 

The town is located on the coast, at the mouth of the Hastings River. The 

nearest railway town is Wauchope, 19 km to the West. 

PMQ is a popular retirement location and tourist destination. It is known for 

its extensive beaches and waterways. 

The residential suburbs stretch to Lighthouse Beach in the South, Thrumster 

to the West and to the so-called "North Shore" on the North bank of the river. 

In the 2006 Census the wider area of the Hastings Valley had a total 

population of 68,429 up 9.5% from the 2001 Census. 

The PMQ Aerodrome is located 5 km West of the town, near the Southern 

bank of the Hastings River as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 - PMQ Location 



PMQ has predominantly fine weather – Visual Metrological Conditions 

(VMC). The annual average cloud cover at PMQ (Bellevue Gardens) is just 

under four eights coverage and the average number of cloudy days is 114 

per annum (source Bureau of Meteorology (BOM):1957 – 2003). The mean 

0900 local time wind speed is 14 km/hr (BOM: 1957 – 2003) and the 

prevailing direction is South West to West. The mean 1500 local wind speed 

is 20.1 km/hr and the prevailing direction is North Easterly to South Easterly. 

PMQ can experience fog as it is close to the coast. 

Figure 2 presents 0900 and 1500 local Wind Roses for PMQ (Bellevue 

Gardens). (Note: Observed data for PMQ aerodrome started in 1995 and 

only mean wind speed of 12.9 km/hr is available on the BOM website). 

Figure 2 – 0900 and 1500 local time Wind Roses for PMQ (Bellevue Gardens) 

Figure 3 shows the location of the aerodrome to the west of the town of 

PMQ. 



3.1.2 Taree 

Figure 3 – PMQ Area 

TRE is a city on the Mid North Coast, NSW, Australia. TRE and nearby 

Cundletown were settled in 1831 by William Wynter. It is 16 km from the sea 

coast, 317 km North of Sydney and 33 nautical miles (NM) by air to PMQ. 

Taree can be reached by train via the North Coast Railway, and by the 

Pacific Highway. 

TRE has predominantly fine weather (VMC). The annual average cloud cover 

at TRE (Robertson Street) at 0900 local is just under four eights, and the 

average number of cloudy days is 121 per annum (BOM - 1965 – 2006). The 

mean 0900 local time wind speed is 6.6 km/hr and the mean 1500 local wind 

speed is 20.1 km/h (1965 – 2006). The prevailing direction is not given in the 

BOM Weather statistics for TRE. 

Figure 4 shows the location of TRE aerodrome to the East of the town. 



Taree Aerodrome 

Figure 4 – TRE Area 

In the following sections the PMQ and TRE aerodromes and their runways 

and facilities are first described and then an overview of airspace architecture 

is given. 

3.2 PMQ Aerodrome 

PMQ is a security controlled airport. 

3.2.1 Runways 

There are two runways (RWY) at PMQ: 

� 

� 

RWY 03/21 sealed 1,600 metres x 30 metres; and 

RWY 10/28 grass runway 696 metres x 18 metres. 

There is Low Intensity Runway Lighting on RWY 03/21 and Illuminated 

windsocks. The aerodrome lighting is controlled by a Pilot Activated Lighting 

(PAL) system (Frequency 122.3 MegaHertz (MHz)). 

Figure 5 gives the aerodrome layout. 



3.2.2 Taxiways and Aprons 

Figure 5 – PMQ Aerodrome Layout 

Two taxiways (TWY) enter the main runway. TWY A, near the Northern end 

of the runway, and TWY C further South. There is no full length taxiway to 

RWY 03/21. Aircraft using RWY 03/21 need to enter the runway at either 

TWY A or TWY C and backtrack. There are taxiway sideline blue lights and 

apron lighting. 

The Apron area has 4 parking bays that can simultaneously accommodate 

the current types of PT aircraft regularly operating into PMQ (Embraer jet 

ERJ170; Dash 8-300 and 400; and Jetstream J41). 

There is a General Aviation (GA) area, with two aprons, located along TWY 

C adjacent to the grass runway. Parking on the grass for GA aircraft is also 

available adjacent to TWY C. 

3.2.3 AWIS/AFRU 

The following services are provided: 

� 

� 

Aerodrome Weather Information Service (AWIS). This is available by 

telephone and is also transmitted on frequency 128.45 MHz; and 

Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit (AFRU) (”Beep-Back”). 



3.2.4 Navigational Aids 

A Non Directional Beacon (NDB) (Frequency 395 KHz) is located South of 

the grass runway. 

The closest civil radar head to PMQ is located at The Round Mountain (TRM) 

which is located west of Coffs Harbour. This Secondary Surveillance Radar 

(SSR) gives radar coverage down to approximately 3,000 feet (ft) Above 

Mean Sea Level (AMSL) to 2,000 ft AMSL (depending upon location) in the 

vicinity of PMQ. 

The Airservices Australia (Airservices) radar coverage diagram for TRM 

indicates coverage at 2,000 ft AMSL near PMQ. Refer Figure 6. 

The radar coverage over the PMQ/TRE CTAF procedural area could possibly 

permit additional radar services to be applied in this area (such as Radar 

services in E Class airspace with a base lower than the present 

8,500 ft AMSL). A more in depth study of the feasibility of suggestions such 

as this would need to be undertaken including specific modelling of conflict 

pairs. 

3.2.5 Landing Aids 

Figure 6 – Radar Coverage – PMQ at 2,000 ft 

There are Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) on RWY 03 and 

RWY 21. 



3.2.6 Instrument Approaches 

PMQ has a Global Position System (GPS) arrival procedure, using the NDB, 

which is divided into three Sectors covering all tracks within 360 degrees. 

The Category C (Cat C) aircraft circling minima is 1,030 ft AMSL for the GPS 

Arrival procedure. Cat C aircraft are heavy turboprop and medium jet aircraft 

e.g. B737 and DHC-8. 

In addition to the GPS Arrival Procedure, PMQ has three instrument 

approaches for pilots to choose from: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

NDB RWY 21 approach (Cat C minima Straight In RWY 21 is 

770 ft AMSL); 

Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) 

RWY 21 approach (Cat C minima Straight In RWY 21 is 550 ft 

AMSL); and 

RNAV (GNSS) RWY 03 approach (Cat C minima Straight In RWY 03 

is 680 ft AMSL). 

3.2.7 Radio Communications/Facilities 

Aircraft operating at PMQ can access the following radio communication 

facilities: 

Flight Information Area (FIA) from Brisbane Centre on 120.55 MHz. 

Only available within the circuit area (1,000 ft AMSL); 

Ground communications contact Brisbane Centre on 126.6 MHz; and 

CTAF 118.1 MHz. 

3.2.8 Improvements/developments 

The PMQ-Hasting Council is the owner and operator of the PMQ aerodrome. 

The council has published a Discussion Paper (2009) regarding the PMQ 

airport master plan. 

The discussion paper (Executive Summary page 6) states that ’…in order to 

cater for larger jet aircraft up to B737-800 and A320 series aircraft, a 

significant upgrade of the main RWY 03/21 will be required, including an 

extension in length to 1,800 metres and an increase in pavement strength’. 

Two primary options are presented in the Discussion Paper: ‘either to 

upgrade the existing runway on its current alignment (and construct a new 

parallel taxiway); or to construct a new runway (1,800 m long x 30 m wide) 

parallel to and 101 m to the West of the existing runway (with the existing 

runway being converted to a parallel taxiway)’. 

The existing grass RWY10/28, used by light aircraft, has been identified as ‘a 

potential constraint to the long-term development of the airport and 

surrounding area’. One of the key issues for the Discussion Paper and 

subsequent master plan is ‘to determine whether it will be necessary to close 

the existing RWY 10/28 in the medium to long-term to make way for future 

airport development, and to determine the potential impact that this would 

have on general aviation stakeholders’. 



3.3 Taree Aerodrome 

TRE is a security controlled aerodrome. 

3.3.1 Runways 

� 

� 

RWY 04/22, sealed 1,504 metres x 30 metres; and 

RWY 12/30, grass 564 metres x 18 metres. 

There is Low Intensity Runway Lighting on RWY 04/22 together with an 

illuminated windsock. The aerodrome lighting is controlled by PAL (frequency 

122.4 MHz). 

The aerodrome layout is given below in Figure 7. 

3.3.2 Taxiways and Aprons 

Figure 7 – TRE Aerodrome Layout 

There is one TWY that enters the RWY 04/22 near the southern end. 

There is no taxiway to RWY 22. Aircraft using RWY 22 need to enter the 

runway at the TWY near the southern end and back track the entire length of 

the RWY. 

The apron area, and TWY width are very limited in size. The apron can 

accommodate the current scheduled PT operation of a Regional Express 

SF340 aircraft. The taxiway has sideline blue lights and apron lighting. 

3.3.3 AWIS/AFRU 

The following services are provided at TRE: 

� 

� 

AWIS is available by telephone only; and 

TRE does not have AFRU. 



3.3.4 Navigational Aid 

The only navigational aid provided is a NDB (frequency 371 KHz) located 

near the terminal building. 

3.3.5 Landing Aids 

TRE does not have any visual landing aids (e.g. no PAPI). 

3.3.6 Instrument Approaches 

TRE has a GPS Arrival Procedure, using the NDB, which is divided into three 

Sectors covering all tracks within 360 degrees. The Cat C aircraft circling 

minima is 1,000 ft AMSL for the GPS Arrival procedure. 

In addition to the GPS Arrival Procedure, TRE has two instrument 

approaches for pilots to choose from: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

NDB-A approach (Cat C circling minima is 890 ft AMSL); and 

RNAV (GNSS) RWY 22 approach (Cat C minima Straight In RWY 22 

is 640 ft AMSL). 

3.3.7 Radio Communications/Facilities 

Aircraft operating at TRE can access the following radio communication 

facilities: 

Flight Information Area (FIA) from Brisbane Centre on 120.55 MHz 

on the ground. 

CTAF frequency of 118.1 MHz. 

3.3.8 Improvements/Developments 

The TRE airport is owned and operated by the Greater Taree/Manning Valley 

City Council. The council has published commercial development plans for 

aerodrome land however there is no current published airport master plan for 

additional runway development. 

The council states that it has been negotiating with State and Federal 

Government Agencies with a view to attracting large scale grant(s) to assist 

with providing the infrastructure for the development plans. 



4 Airspace 

The PMQ and TRE broadcast area is depicted on aviation charts as a large CTAF 

area and is classified as Class G airspace. For ease of description in this section this 

large CTAF broadcast area will be referred to as the “PMQ/TRE CTAF” area and 

each aerodrome will be referred to separately by its acronym. 

The airspace surrounding PMQ and TRE aerodromes is Class G airspace from the 

surface (SFC) to an altitude of 8,500 ft AMSL. In this location Class E airspace exists 

between 8,500 ft AMSL and Flight Level (FL) 180. Class A airspace exists above 

FL 180. 7 

A CTAF is essentially a broadcast procedure normally used as an air/ground/air VHF 

radio frequency and not an ICAO Class of airspace or a defined volume of airspace. 

A CTAF can be used at any landing area and not just a purpose built aerodrome. As 

such, it generally has no defined vertical or lateral boundary. 

Where aerodromes are situated close together, and have traffic patterns that are of 

mutual interest to pilots at these aerodromes, there has often been a single CTAF 

frequency allocated to a particular area, which is marked on aeronautical charts. This 

single CTAF frequency allocated to a number of adjacent aerodromes is a different 

frequency to the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Area Frequency that is used in the wider 

area. The Area Frequency is not related to any particular aerodrome and it is used 

for pilot communications over a wide geographical area and to provide the relevant 

ATS services from Airservices. 

In the case of the PMQ/TRE CTAF area, the Area Frequency in the surrounding 

Class G airspace (and up to FL125) is 120.55 MHz and is provided from Brisbane 

Centre’s radio facility at Berrico. 

In addition to PMQ and TRE aerodromes all aerodromes and landing areas 

contained within the geographical area marked on the aeronautical charts (10 NM 

radius from PMQ and TRE aerodromes) have been allocated CTAF 118.1 MHz. 

Refer to Figure 8 below. 

7 Refer to Annex B for a description of Australian Airspace Structure. 



Figure 8 - Visual Navigation Chart (VNC) indicating the location of the PMQ/TRE CTAF 

and the Military Restricted Areas R587B, R583B and R595 8 . 

8 Airspace configuration at time of draft report. The northern section of R574 (formally R595) has been amended, however, the 

changes have no impact on the study. 



Aerodromes (AD) and other private Aircraft Landing Areas (ALA) within this large 

CTAF area which are marked on aeronautical charts include: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

PMQ AD, 

Camden Haven (CMH) ALA, 

The Lakes (LKS) ALA, 

TRE AD, and 

Old Bar (OBR) ALA. 

Kempsey aerodrome (KMP) is located only 23 NM from PMQ and is not within the 

PMQ/TRE CTAF area boundary marked on maps. However, KMP has also been 

allocated the CTAF 118.1 MHz. 

Issues identified by stakeholders with both the PMQ/TRE CTAF area and general 

CTAF radio frequencies and procedures are discussed below in the Stakeholder 

Consultation of this review. 

4.1 Restricted Areas 

The PMQ/TRE CTAF has three military RAs nearby that are relevant to operations 

within the subject CTAF procedural area. A number of issues were raised in the 

consultation with stakeholders but, apparently, have never been brought forward at 

any other forums. 

4.1.1 R587B 

RA R587B is located above the PMQ/TRE CTAF. This area is from FL125 to 

FL600 and is activated by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). This area is 

designated for military flying training. Hours of activity are published by 

NOTAM. 

When R587B is active, aircraft inbound to the aerodromes in the PMQ/TRE 

CTAF need to reach a level under FL125 prior to reaching the southern 

boundary of R587B if they cannot get a clearance. As this RA boundary is 

located only approximately 10 NM from TRE aerodrome, aircraft need to 

commence descent early in order to get under this airspace prior to the 

boundary. 

4.1.2 R583B 

RA R583B is located immediately adjacent to the South of the PMQ/TRE 

CTAF area and is from surface (SFC) to 10,000 ft AMSL. This area is used 

for military flying training and is activated by NOTAM. It was reported as 

frequently active. 

Aircraft inbound to TRE or PMQ from Sydney are often restricted on descent 

until clear of R538B. This restriction on descent, in turn prevents the PT 

aircraft from conducting a straight in approach to RWY 04 at TRE. 

Consequently the PT aircraft may choose to conduct a GNSS Approach to 

RWY 22 at TRE. However, aircraft tracking for the TRE RWY 22 approach 

can come into conflict with other aircraft using the PMQ RWY 03 GNSS 

approach. 

4.1.3 R574 (formally R595) 

RA R574 is located to the East of the PMQ/TRE CTAF. This area is SFC to 

FL600 and is declared for military intercept training. It is activated by 

NOTAM. It was reported as frequently active. The Western boundary of R574 

is located approximately (under) 5 NM from the intercept positions of: 



� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

PMQ Runway 03 RNAV points of PMQSA, and PMQSH 

PMQ Runway 21 RNAV points PMQNG and PMQNH 

TRE Runway 22 RNAV point TRENG 

There have been five restricted area incursions of R595 since January 2007. 

These incidents have involved scheduled PT aircraft conducting RNAV 

approaches. 

It is recognised that the RNAV approaches have been designed in 

accordance with international PANS-OPS instrument design criteria and 

comply with the CASR Part 173 Manual of Standards (MOS). 

4.2 Aircraft tracking 

4.2.1 IFR tracks 

The busiest IFR route through the PMQ/TRE CTAF area used by PT aircraft 

is the route between Sydney and PMQ. The next busiest routes for 

scheduled PT aircraft through the PMQ/TRE CTAF area are the PMQ – Coffs 

Harbour – Brisbane route, and the Sydney to TRE route. 

Virgin Blue Airlines and QantasLink operate the route between 

Sydney and PMQ; 

Brindabella Airlines operate the route between PMQ and Brisbane, 

via Coffs Harbour; and 

Regional Express Airlines operate the route between Sydney and 

TRE. 

IFR aircraft proceeding from Sydney to PMQ, or TRE, may flight plan to track 

from Williamtown (WLM) direct to TRE or PMQ provided the WLM Restricted 

areas are not active. Refer Figure 9 below for tracks W603 and W223. 

If, however, the WLM Restricted areas are active then IFR aircraft must plan 

from WLM via W182 to the turning point of NICLA thence PMQ (W106) or 

TRE (W223). NICLA is a position bearing 237 degrees magnetic from TRE at 

28 NM (W223). 

IFR aircraft departing from PMQ or TRE to Sydney, must flight plan to track 

respectively via the turning point of “SORTI” thence Singleton (SGT) via 

W214 and Sydney via W180. “SORTI” is a position bearing 233 degrees 

magnetic PMQ at 56 NM (W768). 

This route structure (inbound via NICLA or WLM and outbound via SORTI) 

produces a race track route structure to/from Sydney that assists with the 

segregation of aircraft, both inside and outside controlled airspace. 

IFR aircraft proceeding between PMQ and Coffs Harbour may flight plan to 

track on the direct route between these aerodromes. The current traffic levels 

on this route are such that a two way route structure has not been required at 

this point. 

Other IFR tracking within the PMQ/TRE CTAF area is not as regular or as 

predictable as the PT routes. Other IFR tracking involves a mixture of IFR 

training and travel flights between the navigation aids at PMQ, TRE, KMP 

and other aerodromes further afield such as Coffs Harbour and Western 

locations such as Armidale and Tamworth. 



W214 

W180 

W608 

SORTI 

W768 

NICLA 

Figure 9 - En route Low Chart depicting various air routes relevant to the PMQ/TRE CTAF 

Airspace Review of Port Macquarie (YPMQ) May 2010 Version 1.0 

W182 

W603 

W106 

W223 

W223


4.2.2 Instrument Approach confliction 

Figure 10 depicts the confliction between instrument approaches at PMQ and 

TRE. 

Figure 10 - Approximation of the TRE & PMQ RNAV Approaches 

Aircraft using the PMQ RNAV RWY 03 approach and other aircraft using the 

TRE RNAV RWY 22 approach can come into lateral conflict with each other. 

Stakeholders reported that these two instrument approaches are sometimes 

required to be used at the same time period during scheduled PT arrivals at 

both TRE and PMQ. 

IFR aircraft conducting these instrument approaches receive a traffic 

information service from ATS on other IFR traffic and any known VFR aircraft 

in the area. 

The pilots are also required to broadcast their positions and intentions to 

allow other aircraft in the CTAF area to determine appropriate separation, 

particularly during these instrument approaches. In this regard it is important 

that TRE and PMQ are on the same CTAF frequency. 

4.2.3 VFR tracks 

In addition to aircraft operating within the circuit areas of aerodromes within 

the PMQ/TRE CTAF area, VFR tracking to and from these aerodromes is 

essentially in directions as required by the pilot. When flying training was 

previously occurring at high levels at PMQ, VFR flights were often tracking 



to/from the local flying training areas that are not specifically published on 

aviation charts. Some VFR circuit area training has also been conducted at 

KMP in order to reduce the amount of traffic in the circuit at PMQ. 

GA flights at PMQ include local joy flights (often coastal); travel flights to 

other destinations; training flights; parachuting activity; ultra light and microlight 

flights (fitted with radio). A float plane also conducts VFR operations 

from a location nearby on the river. There is also a significant amount of VFR 

coastal traffic overflying the vicinity of the aerodrome, tracking North to South 

and vice versa at various altitudes, generally below 5,000 ft AMSL. 



5 Stakeholder Consultation 

The review set out to consult widely and engage with stakeholders on identification of 

issues. The review team sought input from a number of stakeholders who operate in 

and around PMQ and TRE aerodromes. Generative stakeholder interviews were 

conducted during June 2009. 

Comments were sought and received from the following organisations: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Resident Operators: 

Johnston Aviation 

Hastings District Flying Club 

Pacific Coast Flying School and Seaplane Flights 

Coastal Skydivers Port Macquarie 

Arena International Aviation College 

Non Resident Operators: 

Qantas Link 

Brindabella Airlines 

Virgin Blue Airlines 

Regional Express Airlines (REX) 

Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) Eastern Section 

At the time of this review, PMQ’s previous largest local operator (Coast Jet) was no 

longer trading. Coast Jet had operated a large fleet of Cessna 152, 172, and Piper 

aircraft. The company has been replaced by Arena International Aviation College 

which intends to establish a significant flying school for foreign students at the airport 

and initially operate a fleet of C172s. Johnston Aviation is now the largest operator at 

PMQ and was previously part of Coast Jet. 

5.1 CASA 

The review team consulted internally within the various functional areas of CASA, 

including Flying Operations Inspectors (FOI) and Aviation Safety Advisors (ASA). 

CASA employs ASAs throughout Australia as an integral mechanism for providing 

safety promotion and educational material to the various industry segments. An ASA 

had visited PMQ to liaise with local operators, and discuss airspace issues. FOI 

feedback to the review team on airspace issues at PMQ was limited to noting that an 

Airservices enhanced UNICOM trial had recently ended there. 

5.2 Aerodrome Operator 

PMQ Airport is owned and operated by the PMQ-Hastings Council. The Review team 

interviewed the airport General Manager concerning current operations and airport 

development plans. 

The TRE Airport is owned and operated by the Greater TRE/Manning Valley City 

Council. The Airport General Manager was invited to contribute to the airspace 

review. 

5.3 Aerodrome Users 

5.3.1 Passenger Transport 

Passenger Transport (PT) includes regular public transport and all 

non-freight-only charter operations. 



The scheduled PT at PMQ and TRE include QantasLink, Brindabella Airlines, 

Virgin Blue Airlines and Regional Express Airlines (REX). The review team 

conducted generative interviews with the following: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

QantasLink – Deputy Chief Pilot and Regulatory Affairs Manager; 

Brindabella Airlines – Chief Pilot and PMQ Base pilot; 

Virgin Blue Airlines – Flight Operations Manager and Embraer pilot; 

and 

Regional Express Airlines – Group Safety Manager and Flight 

Operations Manager. 

In addition to interviewing pilots in management positions within the airlines, 

a questionnaire produced by the review team was distributed to many line 

pilots that regularly operate into the PMQ/TRE CTAF in order to obtain their 

views on various airspace matters. At the time of writing no questionnaire 

feedback had been received from Brindabella Airlines. 

Non-Resident PT operators operate the following aircraft into PMQ and TRE: 

QantasLink 

� QantasLink operate DHC-8-315 (50 seats) and DHC-8-Q400 (74 seats) 

on scheduled flights to and from PMQ and Sydney. Between 

September and May, scheduled flights are also operated to Lord Howe 

Island. 

Virgin Blue 

� Virgin Blue operate Embraer ERJ170-100 (78 seats) with two return 

flights daily between Sydney and PMQ. 

Brindabella Airlines 

� Brindabella Airlines operate Jetstream J41 (30 seats) and Metro 111 

(18 seats) with two return flights daily between PMQ and Coffs Harbour; 

and two return flights daily between PMQ and Brisbane. 

Regional Express (REX) Airlines 

� REX operate SAAB SF340 (34 and 36 seat models) with three flights 

per day between TRE and Sydney and three flights daily between TRE 

and Grafton. 

5.3.2 Other Aviation Activities 

Consultation conducted with the other operators who operate Charter and 

Aerial Work operations at PMQ that involve passengers included the 

following resident operators and their aircraft fleet: 

Johnston Aviation 

� Johnston Aviation operates twin engine aircraft and 10 single engine 

aircraft namely C152; C172; C182; BE58; and PA31. 

Hastings District Flying Club 

� Hastings District Flying Club operate C172; Recreational Aviation 

Australia (RA-Aus) Foxbat and Eurofox. 

Pacific Coast Flying School and Seaplane flights 

� Pacific Coast Flying School and Seaplane Flights operate a C182 

Floatplane from the Hastings River. 



Coastal Skydivers Port Macquarie 

� Coastal Skydivers Port Macquarie conduct parachute jumping 

exercises (PJE) from a C206 at PMQ aerodrome. They carry out 200 to 

300 drops per year and time releases to avoid PT operations. 

5.4 Military 

Consultation was conducted with Defence OAR (Defence members within the OAR) 

and also with the Detachment Commander 44 Wing Detachment Williamtown 

(RAAF). 

5.5 Airservices 

Consultation was conducted with the nominated point of contact for Airservices (the 

Air Navigation Service Provider – ANSP). Receipt of various Airservices reports and 

data is gratefully acknowledged. 

Airservices had conducted a UNICOM (Universal Communications Frequency) trial at 

PMQ from October 2008 until the trail was terminated on 31 March 2009. 

Staff from Airservices’ Safety Management Group had conducted a Site visit to PMQ 

in February 2009 as part of their Airspace Risk Assessment Process (ARAP). Their 

ARAP determined that the traffic levels at the time of the site visit did not indicate the 

need for an enhanced traffic service beyond a CTAF. 

5.6 Points and Issues 

The various points and issues (concerns) that were raised by stakeholders were wide 

ranging. They have been categorised under some common headings of: Aerodrome, 

Facilities and Equipment, Airspace and Procedures, and Concerns/General 

Feedback. 

5.6.1 Aerodrome 

The following points were raised in respect of the PMQ and TRE 

aerodromes: 

� 

� 

The lack of full length taxiway creates backtrack problems on 

RWY 03 at PMQ and RWY 22 at TRE. Backtracking requires other 

aircraft to extend down wind adding to aircraft in the circuit which in 

turn adds to frequency congestion in the CTAF during peak hours. 

The lack of visual slope guidance (PAPI) at night at TRE. 



5.6.2 Facilities and Equipment 

The following points were raised in respect of the PMQ and TRE facilities 

and equipment: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Several PT operators stated that “Everybody should have a 

transponder on” i.e. they are of the opinion that the PMQ/TRE CTAF 

area should be a DTA. 

PT Operators stated that they believed that TCAS provides essential 

situational awareness, in addition to radio broadcasts. This enhanced 

situational awareness is only available to TCAS equipped aircraft, 

normally larger aircraft (greater than 30 seats) and is reliant on other 

aircraft being equipped with serviceable transponders. 

5.6.3 Airspace and Procedures 

The following points were raised in respect of the PMQ and TRE airspace 

and procedures: 

PMQ CTAF – without Unicom – was reported as working 

satisfactorily at the moment, but this may change if there is a 

significant increase in flying training or upgrading for larger jet 

operations. 

The proximity of R574 (formally R595) boundary is an issue. It was 

requested that the military review and try to move the boundary 

slightly. 

(OAR makes the following additional comments - The NSW 

Regional Airspace Procedural Advisory Committee (RAPAC) 

discussed the issue at the June 2010 meeting. Defence advised the 

meeting that the existing volume of the area is completely required 

for operations. The Restricted Area boundary aligns with other 

Restricted Areas. By moving the R574 boundary, all the other 

Restricted Area boundaries would also need to be moved. The 

Instrument Approach meets PANS-OPS standards and is clear of 

R574. RAPAC formed the view that with five VCAs within the past 

three years, generally of PT origin, it was seen as an issue to be 

addressed through the respective company's Safety Management 

Systems procedures in the short term.) 

5.6.4 Concerns/General Feedback 

The following concerns were raised in respect of the PMQ and TRE 

aerodromes and/or airspace: 

there is radio frequency congestion on the CTAF; 

PJE occur on the PMQ aerodrome. Several operators indicated that 

it should be banned from the aerodrome. Examination of Aviation 

Safety Incident Reports/Electronic Safety Incident Reports 

(ASIR/ESIR) has reported no problems. The Aerodrome Operator 

reported an incident where a parachutists failed to comply with 

dropping procedures when PT aircraft movements in progress; 

there is a lack of a parallel full length taxiway to PMQ RWY 03/21; 

simultaneous use of two runways occurs at PMQ; 

the number of aircraft in the circuit area is uncontrolled; 



� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

the proximity of R574 (formally R595) boundary is an issue for GPS 

approaches. Stakeholders have requested that the military review 

and try to move the boundary slightly to accommodate the 

approaches; 

clearance through military restricted areas should be available for PT 

aircraft when essential due to severe weather conditions (other than 

having to declare an emergency); 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments - Expedition 

of clearances through Restricted Airspace is already managed by the 

airspace controlling authority in accordance with procedures detailed 

within the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS). These procedures 

take into account diversion requests through Restricted Areas due to 

severe weather.) 

the LSALT (Lowest Safe Altitude) within 25 NM of PMQ is 

5,300 ft AMSL, and 4,500 ft AMSL within 25 NM of TRE; 

the possibility of a Class E airspace corridor, using BN Radar, (Lower 

Limit of 4,500 ft AMSL), would provide IFR to IFR separation within 

this area; directed traffic information-radar information service (DTI- 

RIS) about known VFR aircraft to IFR; and a VFR traffic (on request) 

service to VFR aircraft above the Class E base; 

Class E airspace LL (base) 4,500 ft AMSL would still not provide 

additional services in the CTAF procedural area or at the 

aerodromes. However it would provide additional services from the 

current Class E airspace base of 8,500 ft AMSL (an additional 

4,000 ft AMSL of protection); and 

if a Class E airspace corridor was considered it could possibly be 

confined to an arc that encompasses the standard arrival and 

departures tracks to/from PMQ/TRE (i.e. in via NICLA and out via 

SORTI). 

5.7 PMQ/TRE CTAF Frequency Congestion 

The VHF allocated to the PMQ CTAF is 118.1 MHz. This frequency is also allocated 

to operations at TRE aerodrome located South of PMQ and also allocated to 

operations at KMP aerodrome which is located 23 NM North West of PMQ. 

There have been numerous reports by pilots of frequency congestion occurring on 

the CTAF 118.1 MHz. 

Aircraft on the ground at any one of the three aerodromes in this location (PMQ, TRE 

or KMP) are generally unable to hear other aircraft transmitting on the ground at any 

of the other two aerodromes and consequently can unintentionally broadcast on the 

frequency at the same time as another aircraft is broadcasting. A pilot may be 

unaware that the transmission just made was over transmitted by another aircraft. 

It was also reported that pilots operating at PMQ, TRE or KMP need to determine 

which broadcasts are pertinent to the aerodrome that they are operating at. The 

irrelevant traffic can be discounted only if the location is contained in the broadcast. 

The use of both TRE and PMQ at similar times gives rise to considerations of 

splitting the CTAF frequency (118.1 MHz) between the ports. However, this would 

create problems with situational awareness of possible conflictions between the two 

ports. 



The NSW RAPAC meeting held at Bankstown on June 25th 2009 discussed the 

PMQ CTAF area frequency. The conclusion or desired outcome was that the main 

users of the airspace would not like to see a change to the frequencies that would 

result in TRE or PMQ being on separate frequencies. 

5.8 PMQ Survey of Airline Pilots 

A survey was conducted amongst a sample of PT pilots that operate regularly into 

PMQ. Seven airline pilots responded. The survey sought their views on the current 

airspace architecture; provision of ATS; air traffic density and complexity; radio 

communications, navigation aids; weather conditions; aerodrome facilities and any 

perceived safety issues in the PMQ/TRE CTAF. 



The following results were obtained: 

a. Airspace and ATS 

Most PT respondents did not believe that the current CTAF procedures provided 

suitable protection for their operations. They showed a preference for a UNICOM, or 

a CA/GRO, or a Control Tower service. An explanation of terminology can be found 

in Annex E. 

b. Traffic 

The PT respondents indicated that the traffic volume and/or complexity is often high 

or complex and that was normal for this CTAF during peak times. 

c. Radio 

Respondents very strongly reported that it is often difficult to get calls in on the radio 

due to frequency congestion, and there is often traffic that does not appear to be on 

the radio frequency. 

d. Navigation Aids and weather conditions 

The pilots agreed that the radio navigation aids currently provided are sufficient for a 

safe and efficient operation. Some pilots commented that the current PT levels would 

warrant a VHF Omni-directional Radio Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment 

(DME); and that the lack of visual slope guidance and the state of the runway at TRE 

is a concern. They also commented that a VOR at TRE would be useful, plus a 

RNAV approach from the South. 

Respondents agreed that the weather conditions are often such that instrument 

approaches are required at both aerodromes and there is other IFR traffic also 

arriving or departing at the same time. They also agreed that there can be a lot of 

VFR traffic operating below the cloud base, providing little time for visual acquisition. 

e. Aerodrome facilities 

The pilots expressed concerns about the physical condition of the runways and 

taxiways, particularly at TRE. It is recommended that CASA follow this up with further 

consultation to establish the level of dissatisfaction 

f. Safety 

The pilots expressed concerns regarding CTAF procedures. They indicated that they 

believed that the current airspace design only provided the minimum safety standard, 

and that this area should have improved air traffic services due to the traffic numbers 

and mix of operations. 

5.9 Stakeholder comments and feedback 

Stakeholder comments in response to the draft Airspace Review can be found in 

Annex F. 



6 Summary of Movement Data 

Movement data was sourced from Airservices, the Airport operator and a Review 

snapshot. 

6.1 Airservices 

The OAR supplied Airservices Data Validation Report and Trigger Criteria Snapshot 

for the 12 months reported to February 2009: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Arrivals – 13,324. Departures – 13,392 = 26,716. Circuits – 29,800; 

Total movements as per count – 56,516 per annum (i.e. 155 per day); 

Air Transport Movements – 9,571; 

VFR Movements Factor = 2; and, from their Trigger Criteria Snapshot 

o Movements 56,516 (155 per day), 

o Air Transport 9,571 (26 per day), and 

o Passenger counts 212,666 (582 per day). 

In addition, the Airservices ‘Aircraft Types By Port’ data was analysed as to the type 

of aircraft that frequented PMQ as per the ARM categories. 

6.2 Airport operator 

The airport operator supplied movement data for May 2008 to April 2009 listed 

13,108 landings. Doubling this figure to represent both take-offs and landings results 

in a total movement figure of 26,216 per annum. This figure is 500 less than the 

Airservices figure of 26,716 stated above. 

The monthly distribution is shown in figure 11 with a linear line of best fit. 

Figure 11 – Movements (Take/offs(T/O) and Landings) from Aerodrome Operator Records 

April 09 (Total movements 26,216 per annum). Linear line of best fit. 

The peak of movements in September 2008 may be an artefact of the UNICOM trial 

commencing and capturing more data, and the downward trend after September 

2008 may be a result from Coast Jet which ceased trading in January 2009. 

6.3 Review Snapshot 

A review snapshot was taken during daylight hours on Monday 8 th June 2009 

(Queens Birthday long weekend). 61 movements were observed and another 10 



added for PT operations morning and night, totalling 71 movements for that day. This 

is consistent with total movements of approximately 26,000 per annum, but is only 

half of the total movements inclusive of estimated circuits reported by Airservices 

above. 

During this day there were six cases observed of VFR aircraft overflying below 

5,000 ft AMSL. Some tracked coastal others via overhead. 

During the snapshot there was one Ultralight conducting circuits. 30 movements from 

the Ultralight and another 30 movements from traffic arriving and departing were 

observed. If this is indicative of normal circuit activity then it would equate to 

approximately 11,000 circuit movements per annum. This number of circuits would 

need to triple to reach the 30,000 predicted by Airservices data. For ARM modelling 

purposes a figure of 11,000 was adopted for the circuit. Added to the previous 

Airservices figure of 26,716 gives a revised total movement figure of 37,716. 

6.4 Passengers 

Airservices Data Validation Report for the 12 months to February 2009 reported 

passenger aircraft arrivals – 16,247. Passenger aircraft departures – 16,871 

Total passenger count labelled by Airservices Data Validation Report as ‘DOTARS 

Passenger count’ was 179,548 for 12 months to February 2009. 

Airport operator supplied information indicated around 168,000 airline passengers in 

2008. 

6.5 Traffic assessment 

This section presents information on traffic patterns and traffic density and 

complexity. 

6.5.1 Traffic Patterns 

The IFR pattern to and from Sydney is a race track pattern; in from the South 

and out to the West. The traffic pattern to the North is direct to and from 

Coffs Harbour. 

The complexity for IFR traffic patterns in the CTAF would occur when there 

are a number of instrument approaches to be conducted around the same 

time at both PMQ and TRE. 

The current PT schedules at PMQ are designed to produce a gap between 

the competing companies and their route schedules (arrivals and 

departures). However, conflicts in scheduling still occur due to weather 

and/or other reasons. 

The VFR traffic patterns are predominately up and down the coast and travel 

flights to destinations North, South and West. This VFR traffic pattern could 

rapidly change with an increase in local area flying training activity. 

The greatest number of confliction pairs seemed to occur within the circuit 

area and joining the circuit area (IFR to VFR, and VFR to VFR). 

The Airservices provided movement data presented in Figure 12 indicated a 

peak time, in February, of around 0900 hrs local. This timing seems to be 

consistent with our snapshot where between 0700 and 0945 hrs local, three 

PT flights arrived and departed (QantasLink; Virgin Blue; and Brindabella) 

and a number of GA aircraft departed. 

However the predicted peak numbers at around 100/hour seems high. Single 

runway operations and backtrack required produced a circuit time around 



6 minutes for a GA aircraft; so the maximum number of circuits is 10 per 

hour. At this point in time it seems reasonable to predict a maximum of 

around 20 movements per hour with the single runway and perhaps 30 per 

hour if both runways were operational. 

Figure 12 - PMQ Airservices movements (arrivals by hour for Feb 2009 

6.5.2 Traffic density and complexity 

Although at times during the day it was reported that the traffic density in the 

circuit area can get high, this level of traffic does not always persist 

throughout the day, unlike at some other locations that are currently serviced 

by a Tower or a CA/GRO. 

Also the complexity of the traffic mix and patterns is not as high as some 

other locations that may involve issues such as high terrain; high lowest safe 

altitudes; frequent poor weather conditions; limited navigation aids; lack of 

visual features; noise abatement or other local procedural issues. 

The two real challenges reported by pilots here were circuit area conflictions, 

particularly when the circuit is busy with arrivals and departures, and the 

issue of frequency congestion on the single CTAF frequency. Traffic in the 

circuit at PMQ can hear traffic at TRE and it was reported by pilots that they 

need to sort out in their minds who is local and who is not. 

When the grass runway at PMQ is serviceable there have been instances of 

multiple aircraft conducting circuits on both runways (grass runway and main 

sealed runway) simultaneously, creating a confliction where the circuit 

patterns cross. This has been perceived as too risky and there have been 

instances where a pilot has had to request everybody make a full stop 

landing and sort it out on the ground. 

It was recommended by several operators that the aerodrome operator place 

restrictions on the grass runway so that it is only available for takeoff or 

landings (no circuit training) and only when weather conditions prohibit the 



use of the main runway. Aircraft can land on the grass strip whenever they 

want to, including during PT arrivals. This leads to conflicts between the two 

different circuit patterns (e.g. downwind on the main RWY crosses final 

approach (or departure leg) on the cross runway. This remains a concern. 

Also other operators have suggested that the aerodrome operator place a 

limit on the number of aircraft that can conduct circuits simultaneously, 

particularly at night. 

6.5.3 Estimated Traffic Mix 

The data provided by the Aerodrome operator comprised individual landing 

call-signs recorded over a 12 month period. For commercial and privacy 

reasons, the details are not reported here. However, the summary 

information provides a valuable understanding of the operations at PMQ 

aerodrome. 

In line with the ARM, four categories are considered: 

VFR including gliders and helicopters, or simply (V), 

IFR(L), IFR Light – up to 9 passengers (L), 

IFR(M), IFR Medium – 10 to 38 passengers (M), and 

IFR(H), IFR High – more than 38 passengers (H). 

2,810 IFR(H) movements were evident from the Airservices ‘Aircraft Types 

By Port’ data with 138,400 passengers (assuming 70% occupancy) and an, 

average of 49 passengers per aircraft. 

The IFR(M) group comprised 2,164 movements with 29,760 passenger 

passengers at an average of 14 per aircraft. 

The data did not readily distinguish between IFR(L) and VFR, the flight mode 

depending on the pilot and the weather rather than the aircraft type. 

However, for the purposes of this review, a boundary was drawn at 6 seats 

for fixed wing aircraft. 

Thus, the IFR(L) group comprised 4,819 movements with 18,270 passengers 

at four average per aircraft plus 50% of 11,000 circuits = 10,319. 

The VFR group, including helicopters made 16,923 movements with 2.3 

persons average occupancy plus 50% of 11,000 circuits = 22,423. 

Total movements for consideration in the ARM therefore amount to 

37,716 per annum. 



7 Summary of Incidents and Accidents 

There were 32 ASIRs filed relating to PMQ aerodrome or airspace in the vicinity of 

PMQ, during the period 1 January 2007 to December 2008. In addition there were 

also 7 ESIRs filed between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2009. These are 

discussed below. 

7.1 Electronic Safety Incident Reports (ESIRs) 

ESIRs are an electronically submitted air safety occurrence report, which forms part 

of the ESIR system, maintained by Airservices, which permits systemic analysis and 

trend monitoring. 

Airservices had filed 7 ESIRs in the 12 months to February 2009. Only 1 of these 

ESIRs related to occurrences in the PMQ CTAF area (TCAS RA) and it was a 

duplicate of the ASIR on 8 August 2008. 

7.2 Aviation Safety Incident Reports 

All accidents and incidents involving Australian registered aircraft, or foreign aircraft 

in Australian airspace must be reported to the Australian Transport Safety 

Bureau (ATSB). The ATSB maintains its own database, the Safety Investigation 

Information Management System (SIIMS), in which all reported occurrences are 

logged, assessed, classified and recorded. The information contained within SIIMS is 

dynamic and subject to change based on additional and/or updated data. Each 

individual report is known as an Aviation Safety Incident Report (ASIR) and for 

identification purposes is allocated its own serial number. 

The 32 ASIRs regarding PMQ that were filed over a 2 year period (January 2007 – 

December 2008) included the following type of occurrences which are shown in 

Figure 13. 

Figure 13 - ASIR by Category/Type of Occurrence 

From the total of 32 ASIRs filed, there were 12 occurrences that were considered to 

have involved aircraft operating in or around the PMQ/TRE CTAF area. 

7.3 Issues and Options Arising from Incident and Accident Data 

The PMQ incident data (ASIRs, ESIRs, operator records) examined from 

January 2007 until April 2009 indicates an incident tends to occur on average 

approximately every 2 to 3 months (12 airspace incidents in 28 months). 



An examination of the 12 airspace/aerodrome type incidents suggests a number of 

recurring themes, or possible contributory factors, such as: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

frequency congestion on the CTAF, 

the need for active listening on the CTAF, 

the need for vigilant visual look out, 

the need to understand the AFRU response, 

reliance on TCAS, 

inaccurate and inadequate communications by pilots. 

It is suggested that many of the issues above are generic in nature to operations in 

non-controlled airspace and the only location specific issues at PMQ are: 

the lack of a taxiway to RWY 03/21, causing additional runway occupancy time 

and subsequent circuit area problems; 

the occasional simultaneous use of several intersecting runways (03/21 and 

grass 10/28); and 

frequency congestion on the CTAF 118.1. 

The incident data, and the anecdotal evidence from pilots, also suggests that the 

majority of conflict pairs occur either in the circuit area; joining the circuit; or by 

aircraft over flying or in the vicinity of the aerodrome. There is little evidence from the 

incident records to date that there is a problem occurring in the volume of airspace 

further out from the circuit area. 

7.4 Aerodrome operator records 

The PMQ airport operator’s internal safety records support the ATSB data as most of 

the occurrences detailed were reported by pilots to the ATSB and an ASIR was filed. 

However there were three events during 2007 and 2008 listed in the operator’s 

records that do not seem (or require) to have a matching ASIR report: 

11/8/2007. Parachutists failed to comply with dropping procedures when PT 

aircraft movements in progress, 

18/6/2008. A Eurobat was on base when a turbo prop established on final 

requested by radio to land in front. The turbo prop performed a missed 

approach passing over the top of the Eurobat on the runway, 

26/8/2008. Go around. A Metro called 20 NM final for a straight in approach. 

A Cessna 150 made a short approach in front of the Metro and occupied the 

runway (causing a go-around). 



8 Modelling Methodology and Risk Assessment 

8.1 Methodology Outline 

CASA has developed ‘acceptable risk’ criteria with regards to the risk of midair 

conflicts within regional aerodrome terminal areas. The ARM, developed by CASA in 

1996, is focused on a non-radar controlled terminal area model and no significant 

changes have been made since its development and presentation to the Review of 

the General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP), now the Separation and 

Airspace Safety Panel (SASP) of ICAO. 

The OAR uses the ARM, a cause:consequence model, to calculate the probability of 

midair collisions (MAC) in various airspace environments. The ARM and a FN-curve 

were developed by CASA and are the primary modelling tools utilised by the OAR. 

This method is used to calculate benefits in terms of fatalities avoided by 

implementing safety measures. The ARM presumes that there is a ‘Potential Conflict 

Pair’, i.e. a pair of aircraft whose manoeuvres are such that if no intervening action is 

taken, the aircraft will reach a point where it will be too late to take evasive action and 

chance becomes the determining factor in whether the aircraft collide or not. This is 

known as the Loss of Control (LoC) point in this review. 

The ARM model is based on the Linear Criterion concept which stipulates that the 

frequency of an accident should be inversely proportional to its severity, i.e. an 

accident involving one or more fatality may happen ten times as often as an accident 

involving ten or more fatalities. 

Using the ARM, the existing scenario was modelled for PMQ aerodrome – CTAF(R) 

with an AFRU. Collision pairs for this review were calculated applying the CASA 

regression formula. It was established that this formula over estimates collision pairs 

therefore it is reasonable to assume that the real risk figures calculated for this 

review could be lower. 

8.2 Airspace Risk Assessment 

8.2.1 Assumptions 

The ARM is configured for various aviation operational environments. The 

relevant case for PMQ is uncontrolled non-radar, Class G terminal area 

operating as CTAF(R). For the purpose of estimating conflict pairs, it has a 

radius of 15 NM and extends to 5,000 ft above ground level (AGL). 

8.2.2 Conflict Pairs 

The conflict pairs were grouped in proportion to traffic and in addition, the 

following assumptions were made: 

� 

� 

� 

Factor up like pairs by 1.5. 

Factor down unlike pairs by 0.67. 

IFR-IFR pairs are 80% in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and 

20% In Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). 



8.3 Results 

The ARM considered the following protection barriers: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Ground control: - Not provided, no claim made e.g. failure rate =1 

1st aircraft considered action based on CTAF frequency and protocols (e.g. 

H-V pair 3.23% failure) 

2nd aircraft considered action based on CTAF frequency and protocols (e.g. 

H-V pair 16.4% failure) 

Common mode failure (no working radio or wrong frequency) ( e.g. H-V pair 

1.11% failure) 

Combination of mutual considered action or common mode leads to 

avoidance action failure (e.g. H-V pair 1.63% failure) 

1st aircraft evasive action VMC based on unalerted see and avoid protocols 

(e.g. H-V pair 31.2% failure) 

2nd aircraft evasive action VMC based on unalerted see and avoid protocols 

(e.g. H-V pair 25.5% failure) 

Combination of mutual evasive action in VMC (e.g. H-V pair 7.95% failure) 

Note evasive action fails in IMC. No claim made 

Conflict geometry – collision avoided due to chance (e.g. H-V pair 0.2%) 

The model assumes that a mid-air collision will occur if a conflict pair exists and all 

six barriers fail. (e.g. H-V pair VMC 2.6 chances in a million). 

Table 3 presents the results for all ten pairs for VMC and IMC (expressed in terms of 

chances per million). MAC probabilities are then given, also on chances per million, 

as the composite of likelihood per pair times the number of pairs derived from the 

movement data for PMQ. 

1 st aircraft V L L M M M H H H H 

2 nd aircraft V V L V L M V L M H 

VMC generic 2.24 1.07 0.17 1.96 0.13 0.04 2.6 0.15 0.04 0.13 

IMC generic 2.48 1.84 0.84 3.177 1.31 2.18 

PMQ MAC probability 718 141 43 54 6 0.6 93 12 1 3 

Table 3 – Mid air collision probability as generic likelihood multiplied by no. of conflict pairs for 

PMQ 



Table 4 completes the model analysis by assuming a range of consequences 

depending on aircraft type: 

� IFR(H) are assumed to carry 69 persons at risk, 

� IFR(M) 30, 

� IFR(L) 6 and 

� VFR 2. 

The consequences to PT operations (H, M and L) comprise average seating capacity 

modified by a 70% occupancy factor. It is also assumed that only one aircraft is lost 

in a MAC. The other flies away. 

First aircraft V L L M M M H H H H 

Second aircraft V V L V L M V L M H 

Consequences 

(N or more 

fatalities) 

Cumulative 

frequency 

2 4 6 16 18 30 36 39 57 69 

1.07 

E-03 

3.53 

E-04 

2.12 

E-04 

1.69 

E-04 

1.15 

E-04 

1.09 

E-04 

1.09 

E-04 

1.61 

E-05 

Table 4 – Cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities in a mid-air collision 

3.76 

E-06 

2.73 

E-06 

Figure 14 presents an XY log-log graph of the last two lines of Table 4, namely: 

cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities plotted in comparison with CASA interim 

risk criteria lines. 

The criteria are presented in five regions. 

• Below the bottom ‘Acceptable Risk’ line, in the bottom left corner, risks are 

said to be trivial. 

• Between the bottom ’Acceptable Risk’ and second bottom ‘Middle ALARP’ 

lines, risks are in the bottom part of the As Low As Reasonable Practicable 

(ALARP) region. Risks in this region are tolerable only if the cost of risk 

reduction would exceed the improvement gained. 

• Between the middle two lines – the ‘Middle ALARP’ line and the ‘Scrutiny’ 

line, risks are in the top part of the ALARP region, tolerable only when 

reduction is impractical or if cost is grossly disproportionate to the 

improvement gained 

• Between the second top ‘Scrutiny’ line and the top lines, risks above the 

scrutiny level are possibly unjustifiable 

• Above the top line, in the top right corner, risks are considered intolerable 

except in extraordinary circumstances. 



1.00E-01 

1.00E-02 

1.00E-03 

1.00E-04 

1.00E-05 

1.00E-06 

1 10 100 

Acceptable 

Figure 14 - Cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities in a mid-air collision 

Scrutiny 

Undesirable 

Tolerable 

Series1 

For PMQ, the IFR(H)-VFR conflict pair represents by far the greatest risk. This risk at 

1.09 E-4 likelihood of 36 fatalities is certainly undesirable, but does not yet approach 

the scrutiny line. A significant increase in total movements, to 50,000 per annum for 

example, is expected to exceed the scrutiny line. 



9 Evaluation 

This section presents the sensitivity analysis of the options including AFRU, Unicom, 

CA/GRO, Class E airspace and Class D tower. It considers options to reduce risks at 

CTAF(R) where the ARM results are in the undesirable upper part of the ALARP 

region approaching the scrutiny line. 

As above, for 37,716 movements per annum there were 623.3 conflict pairs at PMQ 

and the highest risk was IFR(H) - VFR at N =>36 fatalities with frequency F=1.9 E-4, 

scrutiny being at F=2.6 E-4 for that value of N. This is closer to scrutiny than 

tolerable. 

The ARM ‘Grand Table’ comprises a number of fault tree models including CTAF and 

Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ) - now CTAF(R) with and without DTI, AFRU and 

CA/GRO. 

In the ARM Grand Table, there are numerous options. These have been collated in 

the following Table 5 for all 16 conflict pairs, focussed on the loss of control point. 

A/c1 (V, L, M or H) V L L L M M M M M H H H H H H H 

A/c2 (V, L, M or H) V V L L V L L M M V L L M M H H 

VMC or IMC V V V I V V I V I V V I V I V I 

Basic CTAF 95 15765 6217 228 3373 6685 94 1319 17 365 4945 62 1319 12 365 3 365 

CTAF 95 with DTI 15664 6114 172 2552 6626 65 902 15 333 4903 43 902 11 333 2 333 

CTAF 95 with AFRU 

& CAGRO 8582 3040 150 2220 2990 46 647 7 152 2212 31 647 5 152 1 152 

Basic MBZ 6014 2031 228 3373 1755 94 1319 17 365 1299 62 1319 12 365 3 365 

MBZ with DTI 6019 1975 172 2552 1733 65 902 15 333 1282 43 902 11 333 2 333 

MBZ with AFRU & 

CAGRO 4232 1191 150 2220 810 46 647 7 152 599 31 647 5 152 1 152 

MBZ with AFRU, 

CAGRO & DTI 4232 1191 134 1980 810 37 520 7 142 599 25 520 5 142 1 142 

Table 5 – Sensitivity of ARM 

Numbers are given in chances per million and must be multiplied by both the collision 

geometry probability and collisions pairs at the aerodrome to give an absolute 

estimate. 

The highest numbers, expressed in thousands per million involve VFR as one part of 

a pair. IFR-IFR pairs have very low probabilities in VMC and somewhat higher in IMC 

(where see-and-avoid does not work). In this model, the basic MBZ (CTAF(R)) case 

for IFR(H) – VFR in VMC (HVV) carries a loss of control number of 1299 chances per 

million. Note that CTAF is 4,945 per million. 

Further consideration was given to which assumptions vary with each option – 

increased effectiveness of radio calls is apparent between CTAF and CTAF(R), but 

DTI, AFRU and CA/GRO act in different ways for different conflict pairs as shown in 

Table 6: 



A/c1 (V, L, M or H) V L L L M M M M M H H H H H H H 

A/c2 (V, L, M or H) V V L L V L L M M V L L M M H H 

VMC or IMC V V V I V V I V I V V I V I V I 

RISK REDUCTION SERIES 1 (Percentage compared to base case = 100 (98 is little reduction 12 is much risk reduction)) 

Basic CTAF 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

CTAF 95 wirth DTI 99 98 76 76 99 68 68 91 91 99 68 68 91 91 91 91 

CTAF 95 with AFRU 

& CAGRO 54 49 66 66 45 49 49 42 42 45 49 49 42 42 42 42 

Basic MBZ 38 33 100 100 26 100 100 100 100 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 

MBZ with DTI 38 32 76 76 26 68 68 91 91 26 68 68 91 91 91 91 


CAGRO 27 19 66 66 12 49 49 42 42 12 49 49 42 42 42 42 


CAGRO & DTI 27 19 59 59 12 39 39 39 39 12 39 39 39 39 39 39 

RISK REDUCTION SERIES 2 (Percentage compared to base case = 100 ((98 is little reduction 12 is much risk reduction)) 

Basic MBZ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

MBZ with DTI 100 97 76 76 99 68 68 91 91 99 68 68 91 91 91 91 


CAGRO 70 59 66 66 46 49 49 42 42 46 49 49 42 42 42 42 


CAGRO & DTI 70 59 59 59 46 39 39 39 39 46 39 39 39 39 39 39 

Table 6 – Risk Reduction Series Note Mandatory Broadcast Zone (MBZ) now known as CTAF(R) 

In Table 6, Risk reduction Series 1 commences with the Basic CTAF 95 set at = 100 

and calculates the risk reduction from various cases. For IFR(H)-VFR in VMC (HVV) 

for example: 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Basic CTAF 95 100; 

with DTI 99; 

with AFRU and CAGRO 45; and 

with CTAF(R) 26. 

Taking MBZ-CTAF(R) as the base case, note that all of the CTAF options are less 

safe than CTAF(R). 

For CTAF(R) base case: 

CTAF(R) 100; 

with DTI 99; 

with AFRU and CAGRO 46; and 

with AFRU and CAGRO and DTI 46. 

The DTI case applies only to IFR-IFR pairs and provides reasonable risk reductions 

by ensuring that IFR(L) are known to IFR(M) and IFR(H) especially in IMC 

AFRU & CA/GRO essentially reduce risk across the board by 50%. This would 

reduce the IFR(H) – VFR point on the graph to closer to tolerable than scrutiny. 

A more detailed examination of the ARM would be required to determine the 

individual contributions of AFRU and CA/GRO. 

The ARM also provides insights into the operation of TCAS and transponders. TCAS 

is a particular implementation of Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS). ACAS 

is designed to provide a Traffic Advisory (TA) alert at 45 seconds from closest point 

of approach (CPA); a mandatory Resolution Advisory (RA) at 25 seconds and, if the 

threat persists, a reversal. 



These timeframes are well inside both separation and segregation standards and 

explain three things: 

� 

� 

� 

why ACAS is a last line of defence; and 

the ACAS safety net is outside the normal ATS system; 

ICAO has stated that the ‘carriage of ACAS by aircraft in a given area shall 

not be a factor in determining the need for air traffic services in that area’ 

(Annex 11.2.4.2) 

Nevertheless, large aircraft are required to have TCAS and any aircraft entering 

controlled airspace must have a transponder. Pilots can and do use the system for 

long range detection to enhance radio calls and visual acquisition, the latter being 

improved by as much as a factor of eight. 

A recent cost: benefit and risk study of ‘ACAS and Transponders’ for Department of 

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 

recommended to extend the existing mandate covering Class A, C and E airspace 

and above 10,000 ft AMSL to new transponder designated areas such as Class D 

and CTAF(R). The latter is supported by this review. 

With respect to Class E, the National Airspace System experience was that 

exhaustive safety assessments need to be conducted on both the design of airspace 

and its implementation into an Australian NAS. The suggestion of installing Class E 

airspace in order to simply have aircraft equipped with transponders would require a 

full safety assessment and would meet much resistance. Most pilots should already 

have transponders. It is a case of education to get them to turn them on and make 

the correct broadcasts. 

Figure 15 presents the cumulative risk curve (FN curve) of annual frequency (F) of N 

or more fatalities plotted against the number of fatalities (N). The risk criteria lines are 

as given on Figure 14. 

Figure 15 further presents the sensitivity of the risk analysis to a +/- 10% movement 

envelope. 



Annual Frequency of N or More Fatalities (Likelihood) 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.0001 

0.00001 

0.000001 

Cumulative Risk Line (FN Curve) 

± 10% Movement Envelope 

Port Macquarie 

Acceptable Risk 

Criteria 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.0001 

0.00001 

0.000001 

0.0000001 

1 10 100 1000 

Fatalities 

Figure 15 - Cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities in a mid-air collision 

Scrutiny Risk Line 

Middle ALARP Line 

Acceptable Risk Line 



10 Conclusions 

a. According to stakeholders and a recent review by Airservices, the current traffic 

levels and complexity at PMQ aerodrome did not indicate the need for a higher 

level of service beyond the present CTAF. However, the ARM shows 

undesirable risks levels which could approach scrutiny levels with only a modest 

increase in aircraft movements. In the words of Charles Perrow’s book on 

‘Normal Accidents’, constant vigilance is indicated. A number of options are 

available to address the issues raised. These include: 

• Unicom or CA/GRS; 

• Lowering of Class E airspace; and 

• Provision of Class D tower procedural services 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments: 

o The Report’s risk modelling analysis reflected that the level of risk 

was within acceptable parameters. The movement data used during 

the modelling process was a mixture of Airservices arrival and 

departure movement data plus a revised figure thought to more 

accurately represent circuit movements. The revised circuit 

movement figure was based upon traffic observations made during 

the Report’s data gathering phase. The use of this revised figure 

was thought to more accurately reflect the actual circuit movements 

with its use for modelling purposes agreed upon after consultation 

with the OAR. 

o Since publication of the report, traffic movement data has been 

revised significantly by Airservices. Further modelling of the revised 

data by the OAR has indicated that the risk of conflict between an 

IFR (RPT) and VFR aircraft has reduced from the original 

assessment made by Hyder utilising the same modelling 

methodology. This offers support to the qualitative feedback that no 

airspace change is required based on the existing traffic numbers 

and mix of operations. Accident 

o Feedback received by CASA on the content of the Report has since 

highlighted certain levels of stakeholder dissatisfaction with the level 

of ATS provided, with one stakeholder specifying that introduction of 

Class E airspace corridor, or as a minimum, introduction of a 

Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) should be considered 

before further growth in traffic is allowed. 

o Outside of the original scope of the Report and as part of its work 

program the OAR is carrying out a review of Australian-administered 

airspace with the intention of implementing a new structure 

developed in accordance with the principles of the AAPS. This 

review will include investigations into the introduction of a regional 

solution (including PMQ) that will assess the safety benefit offered 

by the introduction of Class E airspace corridors, and the possible 

lowering of Class E terminal airspace. In the interim the OAR will 

continue to monitor traffic mix and movements at PMQ over the next 

12 months. Should any feedback received or data trends suggest 

that the level of airspace risk is approaching unacceptable, it will be 

acted upon by the OAR.) 



b. If there is any significant increase in movement numbers in the PMQ CTAF, 

(such as the introduction of a large flying school operation), or any increase in 

the complexity of the traffic mix (such as the introduction of a larger PT jet 

service), it is recommended that CASA conducts an aeronautical study 

regarding risk levels in the ‘scrutiny’ region and the need for increased 

airspace services. 

(The OAR makes the following additional comments - Regular monitoring 

and review of aircraft and passenger movement numbers, analysis of accident 

and incident data trends and analysis of feedback from stakeholders either by 

direct communication or various consultative forums, is part of the OAR’s dayto-day 

business.) 

c. In order to lower potential risk during simultaneous use of the main and grass 

runways the PMQ airport operator is to impose operating limitations (via 

ERSA) on the grass runway 10/28 (e.g. not to be used for circuit training or 

during PT arrival and departures). The aerodrome operator may also wish to 

consider placing a restriction in ERSA on the number of aircraft that can 

simultaneous use the circuit area for circuit training, particularly at night. CASA 

Operations are able to assist in the development of any procedural changes. 


investigation by the Aerodrome Operator to establish the level of risk posed by 

grass runway operations.) 

d. While there have been no formal incident reports or complaints, consideration 

should still be given to the safety of the parachuting jumping operation onto a 

secure aerodrome that is serviced by three PT operators and a busy GA area. 


consultation between the Aerodrome Operator and parachute operators to 

establish the level of risk posed by parachuting operations in the vicinity of 

PMQ.) 



11 CASA Final Comment and Actions for Port Macquarie 

CASA makes the following final recommendations for PMQ: 

1. As part of its normal business the OAR will maintain a watch of activity at PMQ 

aerodrome. This will include monitoring traffic levels and complexity, and will 

focus particularly on the frequency and type of operations. Should any 

significant change to movements or type of operations occur a further 

aeronautical study will be conducted by the OAR to reassess the risk to any PT 

operations. 

2. That the existing airspace classification in the vicinity of the aerodrome remains 

Class G, subject to CTAF procedures. 

3. That QantasLink and Virgin Blue consult with Airservices, Airport Relations to 

discuss their issue with regards the close proximity of the RNAV approach fix of 

PMQNG to R574. 

4. That the aerodrome operator carry out further investigation to quantify grass 

runway operations and assess the impact of these operations in opposition to 

passenger transport operations using the main runway. 

5. That the aerodrome operator carries out consultation with the parachute 

operator to establish the risk posed by their activities to passenger transport 

operations. 

6. That CASA Aviation Safety Advisors (ASAs) consult and coordinate with the 

aerodrome operator to establish a regular program of aviation safety seminars 

and encourages attendance by PMQ aerodrome stakeholders. This will enable 

the aviation community to provide feedback to CASA and to receive updates on 

regulatory reform that may impact on their business or recreational activities. 

The ASAs will also be able to provide the aerodrome operator with guidance on 

the reduction of risks posed to passenger transport activity by grass runway and 

parachuting operations. 



12 References 

Aeronautical Information Publication, revised 4 th June 2009 

Airservices Australia Data Validation Report – February 2008 to February 2009 

ATSB Air Safety Incident Reports – 1 st January 2007 to 31 st December 2008 

Airspace Act 2007 

Airspace Reviews by Office of Airspace Regulation including Adelaide, Ayers Rock, 

Bathurst and Maroochydore. 

AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk Management 

Bureau of Meteorology 

CASA Instrument number CASA 443/05 of 9 November 2005 

CASA’s modelling tool - Airspace Risk Model 

CAR 1988, regulation 166. 

Airservices Electronic Safety Incident Reports – 12 months to February 2009 

ICAO Annex 11 

ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP) 1996 

presentation on ARM. 



Annexes: 

A. Acronyms 

B. Australian Airspace Structure 

C. Stakeholders 

D. Aerodrome Operator Data 

E. Definitions and Explanation of Terms 

F. Stakeholder Consultation / Feedback Register 



Annex A – Acronyms 

Acronym Explanation 

AAPS Australian Airspace Policy Statement, 28 June 2007 

ACAS Airborne Collision Avoidance System 

ACP Aircraft Change proposal 

Act Airspace Act 2007 

AD Aerodrome 

ADF Australian Defence Force 

AGL Above Ground level (in feet) 

AFRU Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit 

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication 

Airservices Airservices Australia 

Airprox Two or more aircraft in close proximity 

ALA Aircraft Landing Area 

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable 

AMSL Above Mean Sea Level 

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider 

AOC Air Operators’ Certificate 

ARAP Airspace Risk Assessment Process 

ARFSS Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Service 

ARM Airspace Risk Model 

AS/NZS Australian/New Zealand Standard 

ASA Aviation Safety Advisor 

ASIR Aviation Safety Incident Reports 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATS Air Traffic Services 

ATSB Australian Transport Safety Bureau 

AWIS Automated Weather Information System 

BOM Bureau of Meteorology 

CAR Civil Aviation Regulation 

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 

CA/GRS Certified Air/Ground Radio Service 




CH Coffs Harbour 

CMH Camden Haven 

CPA Closest Point of Approach 

CTA Controlled Airspace 

CTAF Common Traffic Advisory Frequency 

CTAF(R) Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (Radio Required) 

CTR Control Zone 

DA Danger Area 

DME Distance Measuring Equipment 

DTA Designated Transponder Area 

DTI Directed Traffic Information 

ERSA En Route Supplement Australia (AIP) 

ESIR Electronic Safety Incident Report 

FAF Final Approach Fix 

FIA Flight Information Area 

FIS Flight Information Service 

FL Flight Level 

FOI Flying Operations Inspector 

FN-curve Frequency (F) of N or more fatalities 

FNA Fly Neighbourly Agreement 

ft feet 

FTC Failure to Comply 

GA General Aviation 

GAOG General Aviation Operations Group, CASA 

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System (Navigational Aid) 

GPS Global Positioning System (Navigational Aid) 

H24 24 hours a day 

HEL Helicopter 

Hyder Hyder Consulting 

IAS Indicated Air Speed 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 




IFR(H) IFR heavy - more than 38 passengers 

IFR(L) IFR light - less than 10 passengers 

IFR(M) IFR medium – 10 to 38 passengers 38 passengers 

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

KMP Kempsey 

KT Knot 

LKS The Lakes 

LL Lower Limit 

LSALT Lowest Safe Altitude 

MAC Mid air collision 

MATS Manual of Air Traffic Services 

MBZ Mandatory Broadcast Zone 

MED Medical 

MEL Minimum Equipment List 

MHz MegaHertz 

Mode C Transponder mode relaying information about aircraft identity, position and 

altitude 

MOS Manual of Standards 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NDB Non-directional Radio Beacon (Navigational Aid) 

NM Nautical mile 

NOTAM Notice to Airmen 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

OAR Office of Airspace Regulation 

OBR Old Bar 

PA Prohibited Area 

PAL Pilot Activated Lighting 

PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator (Navigational Aid) 

PJE Parachute Jumping Exercise 

PMQ Port Macquarie 

PT Passenger Transport (encompassing regular public transport and all 

non-freight-only carrying charter operations) 

RA Resolution Advisory (ACAS) 




RA Restricted Area 

RAAF Royal Australian Air Force 

RAPAC Regional Airspace Procedural Advisory Committee 

RFDS Royal Flying Doctor Service 

RIS Radar Information Service 

RNAV Area Navigation (Navigational Aid) 

RWY Runway 

SAR Search and Rescue 

SFAIRP So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable, also SFAP (So far As Practicable) 

SFC Surface 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SP Special Procedure 

SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar 

SY Sydney 

TA Traffic Advisory (ACAS) 

TAF Terminal Aerodrome Forecast 

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

TRE Taree 

TRM The Round Mountain 

TWY Taxiway 

UNL Unlimited 

VCA Violation of Controlled Airspace 

VFG VFR Flight Guide 

VHF Very High Frequency radio 

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions 

VOR VHF Omni-directional Radio Range (Navigational Aid) 

WAM Wide Area Multilateration 

WLM Williamtown 



Annex B – Australian Airspace Structure 

Class Description Summary of Services/Procedures/Rules 

A 

All airspace above 

Flight Level (FL) 180 (east 

coast) or FL 245 

B Not currently used in Australia 

C 

D 

E 

In control zones (CTRs) of 

defined dimensions and 

control area steps 

generally associated with 

controlled aerodromes 

Towered locations such 

as Bankstown, Jandakot, 

Archerfield, Parafield and 

Alice Springs. 

Controlled airspace not 

covered in classifications 

above 

F Not currently used in Australia 

G Non-controlled 

*Not applicable to military aircraft 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) only. All aircraft require a clearance from Air Traffic Control (ATC) and are separated by 

ATC. Continuous two-way radio and transponder required. No speed limitation. 

� All aircraft require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace. All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and 

transponder. 

� IFR separated from IFR, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Special VFR (SVFR) by ATC with no speed limitation for 

IFR operations. 

� VFR receives traffic information on other VFR but are not separated from each other by ATC. SVFR are separated 

from SVFR when visibility (VIS) is less than Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). 

� VFR and SVFR speed limited to 250 knots (kt) Indicated Air Speed (IAS) below 10,000 feet (ft) Above Mean Sea 

Level (AMSL)*. 

� All aircraft require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace. For VFR flights this may be in an abbreviated form. As 

in Class C airspace all aircraft are separated on take off and landing. All aircraft require continuous two-way radio 

and are speed limited to 200 kt IAS at or below 2,500 ft within 4 NM of the primary Class D aerodrome and 250 kt 

IAS in the remaining Class D airspace. 

� IFR are separated from IFR, SVFR, and are provided with traffic information on all VFR. 

� VFR receives traffic on all other aircraft but are not separated by ATC. 

� SVFR are separated from SVFR when VIS is less than VMC. 

� All aircraft require continuous two-way radio and transponder. All aircraft are speed limited to 250 kt IAS below 

10,000 ft AMSL*, 

� IFR require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace and are separated from IFR by ATC, and provided with traffic 

information as far as practicable on VFR. 

� VFR do not require a clearance from ATC to enter airspace and are provided with a Flight Information Service 

(FIS). On request and ATC workload permitting, a Radar / ADS-B Information Service (RIS) is available within 

surveillance coverage. 

� Clearance from ATC to enter airspace not required. All aircraft are speed limited to 250 kt IAS below 10,000 ft 

AMSL*. 

� IFR require continuous two-way radio and receive a FIS, including traffic information on other IFR. 

� VFR receive a FIS. On request and ATC workload permitting, a RIS is available within surveillance coverage. VHF 

radio required above 5,000 ft AMSL and at aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required. 

Table 7- Australian Airspace Classifications 



Annex C – Stakeholders 

Position Organisation 

Aviation Safety Advisor (ASA) Operations, CASA 

Aerodrome Operator – General 

Manager 

Aerodrome Operator – General 

Manager 

Resident Operator Johnston Aviation 

Port Macquarie Airport, Port Macquarie-Hastings 

Council 

Taree Airport – Greater Taree/Manning Valley City 

Council 

Resident Operator Hastings District Flying Club 

Chief Pilot Pacific Coast Flying School and Seaplane Flights 

Resident Operator Coastal Skydivers Port Macquarie 

Resident Operator Arena International Aviation College 

Deputy Chief Pilot and Manager 

Regulatory Affairs 

Qantas Link (Eastern) 

Chief Pilot and PMQ Base Pilot Brindabella Airlines 

Non-resident operator Virgin Blue Airlines 

Group Safety Manager 

Sydney and Flight Operations 

Manager 

Regional Express (REX) Airlines 


Office of Airspace Regulation 

Page 60 of 69 

Eastern Section Royal Flying Doctor Service 

Table 8 – List of Stakeholders 



Annex D – Aerodrome Operator Data 

The Aerodrome Operator provided data on landings over a 12 month period. 

Table 9 below analyses movements in terms of landings made by particular aircraft. 

. 

Description 

Average 

capacity 

Landings 

Passenger 

capacity 

IFR(H) e.g.DHC-8 43 2032 88051 

IFR(M) e.g. SA227 14 1643 22,253 

IFR(L) e.g. PA31 5 2,016 9,431 

VFR e.g. Cessna 172 2 4,821 11,322 

Total Landings/seats 10,512 131,058 

Movements (landings x 2) 21,024 261,116 

Passengers (70% occupancy) 238,501 

Table 9 - Aircraft landings at PMQ (12 months) by group and frequency 



Annex E – Definitions and Explanation of Terms 

The below explanation of terms are based upon information found within the 

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2007, CASR Part 139 and CASR Part 139 

Manual of Standards (MOS). 

Prohibited Area The declaration of a Prohibited Area (PA) defines an area over 

which aircraft may not fly. PAs have activity times and lateral and vertical limits. 

Restricted Area The declaration of a Restricted Area (RA) creates airspace of 

defined dimensions within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with 

specified conditions. Clearances to fly over an active RA are generally only withheld 

when activities hazardous to the aircraft are taking place, or when military activities 

require absolute priority. RAs are mainly declared over areas where military 

operations occur. However, RAs have also been declared to cater for 

communications and space tracking operations or to control access to emergency or 

disaster areas. RAs are generally promulgated at specified times and dates. For 

example, a temporary RA may be declared for special events where there may be a 

public safety issue – such as the Avalon Air Show or the Commonwealth Games. 

Danger Area The declaration of a Danger Area (DA) defines airspace within which 

activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at specified times. Approval for 

flight over a DA outside controlled airspace is not required. However pilots are 

expected to maintain a higher level of vigilance in when transiting DAs. DAs are 

primarily established to alert aircraft on the following: 

� Flying training areas where student pilots are learning to fly and/or gather in 

large numbers; 

� Gliding areas where communications with airborne gliders might be difficult; 

� Blasting on the ground at mine sites; 

� Parachute operations; 

� Gas discharge plumes; and 

� Small arms fire from rifle ranges. 

Special Procedure A Special Procedure (SP) is a mutually agreed 'procedure' for 

aircraft operations in a particular area. Like a FNA, a SP is negotiated between 

aircraft operators and communities or authorities (e.g. a National Park) that have an 

interest in reducing the disturbance caused by aircraft within that area. 

Aerodrome Frequency Confirmation At all non-controlled aerodromes subject to 

CTAF procedures which are used not less than 5 times per week by aircraft engaged 

in air transport operations that have a maximum passenger seating capacity greater 

than nine, a ground-based frequency confirmation system is required. The frequency 

confirmation system must comply with the standards for frequency confirmation 

systems set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139 Manual of 

Standards (MOS). This requirement may be practically satisfied by one of the 

following facilities: 

a. an Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit (AFRU) 

b. a Unicom (Universal Communications) service. 

c. a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) 



Automatic Frequency Response Unit (AFRU) An AFRU is an electronic, ground 

based, aviation safety enhancement device, intended for use on the CTAF frequency 

at non-controlled aerodromes. AFRU transmissions are triggered when the Unit 

detects aircraft transmissions on the correct aerodrome frequency. This response 

capability is intended to reduce the incidence of incorrect VHF radio frequency 

channel selection by pilots. The confirming AFRU transmission will be either a short 

pre-recorded voice message (e.g. aerodrome name followed by CTAF, or a short 

(300 millisecond) tone burst. An AFRU may also have an optional facility 

incorporated to allow pilot activation of the runway lights during hours of reduced light 

and darkness. 

Unicom Unicom is a non-regulated, third party, radio information service used at 

non-controlled aerodromes. Unicom services are non-Air Traffic Service (ATS) which 

enhance the value of information normally available about a non-controlled 

aerodrome. The primary function of the CTAF frequency is to provide the means for 

pilots operating in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome to exchange traffic 

information for separation purposes. Unicom services, being a secondary use of 

these frequencies, must not inhibit the exchange of aircraft to aircraft traffic 

information. Participation in Unicom services by an aerodrome operator, whether for 

the purposes of a frequency confirmation system or otherwise, is to be limited to the 

exchange of radio messages concerning: 

a. confirmation of the CTAF frequency selected by aircraft; 

b. general aerodrome weather reports; 

c. aerodrome information; 

d. estimated times of arrival and departure; 

e. passenger requirements; 

f. aircraft refuelling arrangements; 

g. maintenance and servicing of aircraft including the ordering of urgently 

required parts; 

h. unscheduled landings by aircraft. 

General aerodrome weather reports provided by a Unicom operator are to be limited 

to simple, factual statements about the weather, unless the Unicom operator is 

authorised by CASA to make meteorological observations. 



Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS). A CA/GRS is a non-controlled 

aerodrome based, third party radio information service, certified by CASA under Civil 

Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139. The primary purpose of a CA/GRS is to 

enhance the safety of air transport aircraft operations at a particular non-controlled 

aerodrome by the provision of relevant traffic information. Unless operating under an 

exemption from CASA the CA/GRS must be operating during the arrival and 

departure of aircraft engaged in PT or charter operations where the passenger 

seating capacity is greater than 29 seats. In accordance with CASR Part 139 Manual 

of Standards (MOS) a CA/GRS must provide the following services to aircraft within 

airspace as a designated non-controlled aerodrome: 

a. advice of relevant air traffic in the vicinity of the non-controlled aerodrome; 

b. aerodrome weather and operational information, including: 

(i) wind speed and direction; 

(ii) the runway preferred by wind or noise abatement requirements; 

(iii) runway surface conditions; 

(iv) QNH; 

(v) temperature; 

(vi) cloud base and visibility; 

(vii) present weather; 

(viii) other operational information; 

(ix) for departing aircraft, a time check; 

(x) call-out of the aerodrome emergency services; 

(xi) provide aerodrome information to pilots who telephone the service. 

A CA/GRS operator may also provide other information requested by pilots. The 

decision to use, or not to use, information provided by a CA/GRS rests with the pilot 

in command. 



Annex F – Stakeholder Consultation / Feedback Register 

No. 

1 

2 

Stakeholder / 

Commentator 

Airservices Australia, 

dated 4 th December 

2009 

TRIM ED10/134259 



2009 

TRIM ED10/134259 

Reference Comment CASA response Action Response 

Editorial 

corrections 

and 

comments on 

Draft 

Aeronautical 

Study. 

Editorial 

corrections 

and 

comments on 

Draft 



Section 1.1 Findings: the report 

found that there was no two way 

route structure between Port 

Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. As 

a statement of fact it is correct, but 

we are unable to determine the 

relevance of the finding to the 

Airspace Review. 

Section 5.6.4, dot point 9:”(LSALT)” 

should be removed. The lower 

limit of airspace is not necessarily 

the LSALT and given the LSALT in 

the Port Macquarie area is 5,300 

feet this is definitely incorrect. 

Agreed. Information was 

included to provide an 

overall description of the 

airspace and air routes. 

No issues were raised by 

stakeholders regarding 

the air route. 

Agreed. 

Reference to “LSALT” in 

the dot point has been 

removed. 

None 

Removed “(LSALT)“ from 

dot point. 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/136498 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/136498 



Stakeholder / 

No. Reference Comment CASA response Action Response 

Commentator 

3 

4 



2009 

TRIM ED10/134259 

Johnston Aviation dated 

1 st October 2009 

TRIM ED10/143445 

Editorial 

corrections 

and 

comments on 

Draft 



Frequency 

congestion 

Although not noted in the report, 

there is a similarity of the 

frequencies for Port Macquarie 

(118.1) and Coffs Harbour (118.2) 

is material. In addition to the 

frequency congestion on 118.1, 

Coffs Harbour Tower also have a 

number of aircraft completing their 

all stations call on 118.2. Most of 

these aircraft have departed Coffs 

Harbour. 

Flight crew who have to operate in 

the Port Macquarie airspace everyday 

are becoming increasingly 

concerned of aircraft at Taree overtransmitting 

radio transmissions 

between aircraft attempting to 

maintain separation in the Port 

Macquarie CTAF(R), and I’m sure 

Taree CTAF users would be 

experiencing the same problems. 

The Taree over-transmitting 

problem is a continuing and everincreasing 

risk, and currently there 

is heavy fire fighting activity 

operating out of the Taree CTAF 

which is causing some very 

concerning problems for all 

airspace users at Port Macquarie. 

Agreed. 

Changes to CAR 166 

should reduce frequency 

congestion. Industry have 

requested that Port 

Macquarie and Taree 

remain on the one 

frequency. Kempsey will 

be given a discrete 

frequency to reduce 

congestion. 

A Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) is 

being developed between 

the Kempsey Shire 

Council (KSC) and 

the Port Macquarie 

Hastings Council (PMHC) 

regarding the use of each 

aerodrome. It is expected 

that the MOU will lead to 

an expansion of jet 

services at Port 

Macquarie and general 

aviation (training) at 

Kempsey airport. 

Ongoing surveillance 

Ongoing surveillance 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/136498 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/136803 



Stakeholder / 


Commentator 

5 

VirginBlue Airlines 

dated 6 November 2009 

TRIM ED09/166599 

Frequency 

congestion 

The Review details the level of 

congestion on the CTAF frequency, 

the high and complex traffic volume 

and the opinion of most Airline 

pilots surveyed that the current 

level of service is inadequate. I 

think these factors are not given 

sufficient weight in the review. 

Port Macquarie sits in a large 

CTAF(R) area, containing five 

aerodromes and landing areas, 

with the addition of Kempsey very 

close by on the same CTAF 

frequency. Instrument approaches 

for Port Macquarie and Taree 

conflict and adjacent military 

airspace further complicates the 

situation. All these factors 

combined with bad weather 

produce an extremely high 

workload for an PT pilot who also 

has to provide own separation from 

small and slow GA aircraft possibly 

in a conflicting circuit. 

Consideration should also be given 

to the fact that the current airspace 

design actually hampers an 

increase in traffic. 

Changes to CAR 166 

should reduce frequency 

congestion. Industry have 

requested that Port 

Macquarie and Taree 

remain on the one 

frequency. 

Kempsey will be given a 

discrete frequency to 

reduce congestion. 

A MOU is being 

developed between the 

KSC and the PMHC 

regarding the use of each 

aerodrome. 

It is expected that the 

MOU will lead to an 

expansion of jet services 

at Port Macquarie and 

general aviation (training) 

at Kempsey airport. 

Ongoing surveillance. 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/155318 



Stakeholder / 


Commentator 

6 

VirginBlue Airlines 

dated 25 February 2010 

TRIM ED10/37796 

Proximity of 

the waypoint 

PMQNG to 

the boundary 

of Restricted 

area R595. 

The Initial Approach Fix (PMQNG) 

is 1.49nm from the 

boundary of Restricted Area R595. 

The first proposed solution is to 

request that the military move the 

boundary of R595 to the East. 

The second proposed solution 

might be to suggest removal of the 

PMQNG waypoint altogether. 

If PMQNG is removed, the only 

way to commence another 

approach after conducting the 

missed approach would be to track 

to PMQND and enter the holding 

pattern. This would involve tracking 

across the inbound section of the 

approach inside the Intermediate 

Approach Fix at about the same 

altitude (2,000ft AMSL) as inbound 

aircraft. 

If PMQNG is removed, publishing a 

holding pattern at the waypoint 

PMQNE would allow crews to track 

there to commence another 

approach after a missed approach. 

Noted. 

R595 has been renamed 

R574. The NSW 

Regional Airspace 

Procedural Advisory 

Committee (RAPAC) 

discussed the issue at the 

June 2010 meeting. 

Defence advised the 

meeting that the existing 

volume of the area 

is completely required for 

operations. The Restricted 

Area boundary aligns 

with other Restricted 

Areas. By moving the 

R574 boundary, all the 

other Restricted Area 

boundaries would also 

need to be moved. The 

Instrument Approach 

meets PANS-OPS 

standards and is clear of 

R574. RAPAC formed the 

view that with five VCA’s 

within the past three 

years, generally of PT 

origin, it was seen 

as an issue to be 

addressed through the 

respective 

company's Safety 

Management Systems 

procedures in the short 

term. 


Report updated. 

Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/155318 



Stakeholder / 


Commentator 

7 

QantasLink Airways 

dated 26 February 2010 

Proximity of 

the waypoint 

PMQNG to 

the boundary 

of Restricted 

area R595. 

The location of Port Macquarie on 

the coast means that, more often 

than not, the best bad weather 

approach is from over the sea as 

the thunderstorms are mainly 

inland. If the PMQNG waypoint is 

removed aircrew will not have this 

(better) option. 

The airline would therefore prefer 

the Restricted Area be moved east 

by a few miles. 

Noted. 

The NSW RAPAC 

discussed the issue at the 

June 2010 meeting. 

Defence advised the 

meeting that the existing 

volume of the area 

is completely required for 

operations. The Restricted 

Area boundary aligns 

with other Restricted 

Areas. By moving the 

R574 boundary, all the 

other Restricted Area 

boundaries would also 

need to be moved. The 

Instrument Approach 

meets PANS-OPS 

standards and is clear of 

R574. RAPAC formed the 

view that with five VCA’s 

within the past three 

years, generally of PT 

origin, it was seen 

as an issue to be 

addressed through the 

respective 

company's Safety 

Management Systems 

procedures in the short 

term. 


Response sent 

TRIM 

ED10/155370

Aeronautical Study of Port Macquarie - Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?