{"id":"F2024L01557","name":"CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024","slug":"casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":105502,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2024L01557-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Div 1","sectionType":"division","heading":"Preliminary","content":"Division 1—Preliminary\n\n1 Name\n\n(1) This instrument is the CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024.\n\n(2) This instrument may also be cited as instrument CASA 68/24.\n\n> Note Section 26 repeals this instrument at the end of 30 November 2027.\n\n","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"3 Definitions\n\n> Note In this instrument, certain terms and expressions have the same meaning as they have in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. These include aircraft and state aircraft, as defined in the Act, and IFR, military aerodrome and terminal instrument flight procedure, as defined in the CASR Dictionary.\n\nIn this instrument:\n\n> Act means the Civil Aviation Act 1988.\n\n> AIP-ERSA: see section 13.\n\n> CASR means the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.\n\n> certified designer has the meaning given by regulation 173.015 of CASR.\n\n> Note Regulation 173.015 provides that a certified designer is a person who holds a procedure design certificate that is in force. Procedure design certificates are issued by CASA under Subpart 173.B of CASR.\n\n> chief designer has the meaning given by regulation 173.010 of CASR.\n\n> design work, in relation to a terminal instrument flight procedure, means any of the following work:\n\n(a) designing the procedure or a part of the procedure;\n\n(b) verifying, maintaining, reviewing or amending the procedure;\n\n(c) supervising a person carrying on any work mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).\n\n> employee, of a relevant designer, includes a person who carries on design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure for the designer in the course of performing services for the designer.\n\n> ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS) means Doc.8168‑OPS/611 Volume II (Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures) approved and published by decision of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, as in force from time to time.\n\n> joint user aerodrome means an aerodrome that is a joint-user airport (within the meaning of the Airports Act 1996).\n\n> Note At the commencement of this instrument, Darwin (YPDN) and Townsville (YBTL) were joint user aerodromes.\n\n> listed military aerodrome: see section 5.\n\n> obstacle limitation surfaces: see section 13.\n\n> PANS-OPS surface: see section 13.\n\n> Part 139 Manual of Standards means the Part 139 (Aerodromes) Manual of Standards 2019.\n\n> Part 173 Manual of Standards means the document mentioned in the definition of Manual of Standards in regulation 173.010 of CASR, as that document is in force from time to time.\n\n> permitted design work: see subsection 6(3).\n\n> procedure design certificate has the meaning given by regulation 173.020 of CASR.\n\nrelevant designer means any of the following certified designers:\n\n(a) Airservices Australia (ARN 202210);\n\n(b) Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd (ARN 826936);\n\n(c) GE Flight Efficiency Services LLC (ARN 1236199) of 10801-2 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 140, Austin, TX, 78759, United States of America.\n\nservice provider has the meaning given in regulation 171.010 of CASR.\n\n> type of terminal instrument flight procedure means a type of terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"Div 2","sectionType":"division","heading":"Directions","content":"Division 2—Directions\n\n","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Scope of Division 2","content":"4 Scope of Division 2\n\n(1) This Division:\n\n(a) is made for the purposes of regulation 11.245 of CASR; and\n\n(b) makes directions in relation to the design of terminal instrument flight procedures for use by aircraft, other than state aircraft, operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of, listed military aerodromes.\n\n(2) The Division does not apply:\n\n(a) in relation to the design of terminal instrument flight procedures for use by aircraft (other than state aircraft) operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of, a listed military aerodrome in circumstances where one or more engines of the aircraft become inoperative while it is on an IFR flight; or\n\n(b) to a person who carries on design work on such procedures.\n\n> Note The directions cease to be in force at the end of 30 November 2027: see sections 23 and 26.\n\n","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Meaning of listed military aerodrome","content":"5 Meaning of listed military aerodrome\n\nIn this instrument:\n\n> listed military aerodrome means any of the following military aerodromes:\n\n(a) Amberley (YAMB);\n\n(b) Curtin (YCIN);\n\n(c) Darwin (YPDN);\n\n(d) East Sale (YMES);\n\n(e) Edinburgh (YPED);\n\n(f) Learmonth (YPLM);\n\n(g) Nowra (YSNW);\n\n(h) Oakey (YBOK);\n\n(i) Pearce (YPEA);\n\n(j) Point Cook (YMPC);\n\n(k) Richmond (YSRI);\n\n(l) Scherger (YBSG);\n\n(m) Tindal (YPTN);\n\n(n) Townsville (YBTL);\n\n(o) Williamtown (YWLM);\n\n(p) Woomera (YPWR).\n\n","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Designers of terminal instrument flight procedures—listed military aerodromes","content":"6 Designers of terminal instrument flight procedures—listed military aerodromes\n\n(1) Subsection (2) applies to a relevant designer who carries out, or intends to carry out, design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure for use by an aircraft, other than a state aircraft, operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of, a listed military aerodrome.\n\n(2) The designer must comply with each of the following requirements when carrying out the design work:\n\n(a) the terminal instrument flight procedure must be of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate;\n\n(b) any conditions set out in the procedure design certificate that are applicable to the type of terminal instrument flight procedure;\n\n(c) the design work must not be carried out by a person other than the designer or an employee of the designer who carries out the design work in the course of the employee’s duties.\n\n(3) In this instrument:\n\n> permitted design work means design work for a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection (1):\n\n(a) that is of a type that is covered by a relevant designer’s procedure design certificate; and\n\n(b) to which the conditions (if any), set out in the designer’s procedure design certificate, that are applicable to the type of terminal instrument flight procedure, apply.\n\n","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Design work at listed military aerodrome for aircraft other than state aircraft","content":"7 Design work at listed military aerodrome for aircraft other than state aircraft\n\n(1) A person must not carry out design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure for use by an aircraft, other than a state aircraft, operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of a listed military aerodrome, unless the person is a relevant designer, or the employee of a relevant designer, who carries out the design work in accordance with subsection 6(2).\n\n(2) A person must not review or amend a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection (1) unless the person is:\n\n(a) a relevant designer carrying out permitted design work; or\n\n(b) an employee of the designer mentioned in paragraph (a) who reviews or amends the procedure in the course of the employee’s duties.\n\n","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"section","heading":"Designing instrument flight procedures other than terminal instrument flight procedures","content":"8 Designing instrument flight procedures other than terminal instrument flight procedures\n\nA person who designs an instrument flight procedure that is not a terminal instrument flight procedure, for use by an aircraft, other than a state aircraft, operating under the IFR at, or in the vicinity of, a listed military aerodrome must, in designing the procedure, meet any standards for the design of such a procedure set out in the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Operations manual requirements","content":"9 Operations manual requirements\n\n(1) A relevant designer carrying on permitted design work must ensure that it maintains an operations manual, that meets the standards for operations manuals set out in the Part 173 Manual of Standards, in relation to the design work.\n\n(2) Despite subsection (1), the standard in paragraph 2.1.1.1(oa) of the Manual of Standards only applies to the designer if:\n\n(a) the design work is for a listed military aerodrome that is a joint user aerodrome; and\n\n(b) the aerodrome operator that operates the aerodrome for civil aircraft operations holds an aerodrome certificate granted by CASA under regulation 139.030 of CASR.\n\n> Note Paragraph 2.1.1.1(oa) requires the operations manual to include a statement that a design for a terminal instrument flight procedure may only be completed and given for verification, validation or publication for a certified aerodrome.\n\n> Note: Regulation 139.025 of CASR requires the operator of an aerodrome to have an aerodrome certificate if there is a terminal instrument flight procedure for the aerodrome.\n\n> Note: The regulations generally do not apply in respect of military aerodromes (see subregulation 3(5) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988). However, at the commencement of this instrument, the civilian aerodrome operators of the joint user aerodromes, Darwin and Townsville, were the holders of an aerodrome certificate granted by CASA under regulation 139.030 of CASR, under the scheme established by the Airports Act 1996.\n\n(3) Subsection (4) applies to a relevant designer carrying on permitted design work if the design work is for a listed military aerodrome other than a joint user aerodrome mentioned in subsection (2).\n\n(4) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the designer must also comply with the requirements of subsection 13(2) (arrangements with aerodrome operator regarding obstacles data).\n\n(5) A relevant designer must comply with the requirements in subregulations 173.075(2) and (3) of CASR, as if the reference in paragraph 173.075(2)(b) to “design work under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”.\n\n","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Compliance with operations manual","content":"10 Compliance with operations manual\n\nA relevant designer must, in carrying on permitted design work, comply with the designer’s operations manual as it applies to the design work.\n\n","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"section","heading":"Standards for design of terminal instrument flight procedure for civil aircraft at military aerodromes","content":"11 Standards for design of terminal instrument flight procedure for civil aircraft at military aerodromes\n\n(1) A relevant designer designing a terminal flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1) that is of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate, must ensure the procedure is designed in accordance with:\n\n(a) subject to section 15, any applicable standards set out or referred to in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS); and\n\n(b) any applicable standards set out in the Part 173 Manual of Standards, subject to section 15 and any provision in this Division that modifies a standard.\n\n(2) If, apart from this subsection:\n\n(a) the designer would be required to ensure that a terminal instrument flight procedure is designed in accordance with a standard set out or referred to in the ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS) and a standard of the Part 173 Manual of Standards mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); and\n\n(b) it is not possible to comply with both standards;\n\nthe designer is only required to ensure that the procedure is designed in accordance with the Manual of Standards.\n\n","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"section","heading":"Obstacle clearance advice to aerodrome operators—Part 173 Manual of Standards requirements","content":"12 Obstacle clearance advice to aerodrome operators—Part 173 Manual of Standards requirements\n\n(1) Paragraph 6.1.5 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards (Obstacle clearance advice to aerodrome operators) applies to a relevant designer in relation to a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1) that is of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate:\n\n(a) as if:\n\n(i) the words “the aerodrome operator’s” were inserted before “obligations”; and\n\n(ii) the words “as required under CASR Part 139” were omitted; or\n\n(b) if CASA has granted an aerodrome certificate under regulation 139.030 of CASR to a civilian aerodrome operator in respect of a joint user aerodrome—as if the reference in paragraph 6.1.5 to “as required under CASR Part 139” were a reference to “in accordance with the requirements of CASR Part 139”.\n\n> Note Paragraph 6.1.5 requires the certified designer to provide diagrams and obstacle data to an aerodrome operator sufficient to enable the operator to fulfil obligations to report and monitor obstacles in the vicinity of an aerodrome, as required under Part 139 of CASR.\n\n> Note: The regulations (and therefore Part 139) generally do not apply to military aerodromes (see subregulation 3(5) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988). However, at the commencement of this instrument, the civilian aerodrome operators of the joint user aerodromes, Darwin and Townsville, were the holders of an aerodrome certificate granted by CASA under regulation 139.030 of CASR, under the scheme established by the Airports Act 1996.\n\n(2) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, or paragraph 6.1.5 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards as modified by subsection (1), if the listed military aerodrome is a joint user aerodrome, the relevant designer of a terminal instrument flight procedure for the aerodrome must comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.1.5 in respect of each aerodrome operator of that aerodrome.\n\n(3) A relevant designer must provide details to CASA on any arrangements the designer makes with the aerodrome operator of a listed military aerodrome for the purposes of:\n\n(a) subsection (2) of this section; or\n\n(b) paragraph 2.1.1.1(h) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards (including arrangements required by subsection 13(2) of this instrument); or\n\n(c) paragraph 2.1.1.1(i) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n(4) The designer must provide the information about an arrangement, required by subsection (3), to CASA in writing, within 60 days after:\n\n(a) this instrument commences; or\n\n(b) the arrangement is made;\n\nwhichever occurs later.\n\n> Note Under paragraph 6.1.5 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards, the designer must forward the information required by the standard for a procedure to the operator before the effective publication date of the procedure.\n\n(5) Subsection (6) applies if, for the purposes of paragraph 6.1.5 of the Manual of Standards:\n\n(a) the relevant designer provides information to an aerodrome operator for the purposes of the operator’s obligations in relation to reporting and monitoring obstacles in the vicinity of the aerodrome; and\n\n(b) the operator is the Defence Force, or a part of the Defence Force; and\n\n(c) the aerodrome is a joint user aerodrome.\n\n(6) The designer must also provide the information to the other aerodrome operator of the joint user aerodrome.\n\n","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"13","sectionType":"section","heading":"Arrangements—monitoring of obstacles associated with instrument runways","content":"13 Arrangements—monitoring of obstacles associated with instrument runways\n\n(1) This section does not apply in relation to a joint user aerodrome if the civilian operator of the aerodrome holds an aerodrome certificate granted by CASA under regulation 139.030 of CASR.\n\n> Note An aerodrome operator of a joint user aerodrome who is complying with Part 139 of CASA is required to monitor any object or structure that may infringe upon the aerodrome’s obstacle limitation surfaces and PANS-OPS airspace associated with instrument approaches: see subsection 7.20(3) of the Part 139 Manual of Standards.\n\n(2) For the purposes of paragraph 9(4), the arrangements mentioned in paragraph 2.1.1.1(h) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards must include an arrangement the relevant designer makes with an aerodrome operator of a listed military aerodrome, under which the aerodrome operator monitors any object or structure that may infringe the aerodrome’s obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) and PANS-OPS surfaces associated with instrument approach procedures.\n\n(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the monitoring of obstacles should include a check of:\n\n(a) the approach, take-off, and transitional surfaces to ensure published aerodrome information is accurate to within 0.05% of the published gradient in the AIP-ERSA; and\n\n(b) the other surfaces associated with the OLS; and\n\n(c) the critical obstacles nominated by the designer for any terminal instrument flight procedures published for the aerodrome.\n\n(4) The arrangement:\n\n(a) must require the aerodrome operator to notify the designer of any change in relation to obstacles, in accordance with the requirements of subsection 7.20(3) of the Part 139 Manual of Standards; and\n\n(b) must be agreed to in writing by the aerodrome operator.\n\n(5) In this instrument:\n\n> AIP-ERSA means Aeronautical Information Publication – En Route Supplement of Australia.\n\n> obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) has the same meaning as in Part 139 Manual of Standards.\n\n> PANS-OPS surface, in relation to an aerodrome, is a surface ascertained in accordance with the procedures in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS).\n\n","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"14","sectionType":"section","heading":"Notifying CASA—arrangements for notifying change in obstacles","content":"14 Notifying CASA—arrangements for notifying change in obstacles\n\nIf a relevant designer to whom section 13 applies is unable to enter into an arrangement mentioned in subsection 13(2), the designer must notify CASA, in writing, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that such an arrangement cannot be made.\n\n","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"15","sectionType":"section","heading":"Circumstances in which a standard, regulation, etc. does not apply—Schedule 1","content":"15 Circumstances in which a standard, regulation, etc. does not apply—Schedule 1\n\nStandards set out in Part 173 Manual of Standards or ICAO Doc. 8168\n\n(1) Schedule 1 sets out circumstances in which a standard:\n\n(a) set out in a provision of the Part 173 Manual of Standards (as applied or modified under this Division); or\n\n(b) set out or referred to in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS);\n\ndoes not apply to a relevant designer.\n\n","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Part 173","sectionType":"part","heading":"regulations","content":"Part 173 regulations\n\n(2) Despite a provision in this Division that requires a relevant designer to comply with a provision in Part 173 of CASR (whether or not modified under this Division), Schedule 1 sets out circumstances in which the designer is not required to comply with the provision.\n\nResponsibilities of chief designer—section 22\n\n(3) Despite section 22, Schedule 1 may set out circumstances in which a relevant designer’s chief designer is not required to comply with the section.\n\nDirection that Schedule 1 requirements must be met\n\n(4) If Schedule 1 sets out requirements to be met by a person in relation to circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), (2) or (3), the person must meet the requirements.\n\n","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"16","sectionType":"section","heading":"Verification of terminal instrument flight procedures","content":"16 Verification of terminal instrument flight procedures\n\nA relevant designer must establish procedures for verifying terminal instrument flight procedures for which the design work is permitted design work, that comply with the requirements of subregulations 173.090(2), (3) and (4) of CASR.\n\n","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"17","sectionType":"section","heading":"Validation of terminal instrument flight procedures","content":"17 Validation of terminal instrument flight procedures\n\nA relevant designer must ensure that each terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1) of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate, that it designs for a listed military aerodrome, is validated by a CASA pilot (within the meaning of subregulation 173.095(2) of CASR) in accordance with any applicable standards set out in the Part 173 Manual of Standards (as applied or modified under this Division).\n\n","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"18","sectionType":"section","heading":"Compliance with provisions of Part 173","content":"18 Compliance with provisions of Part 173\n\nA relevant designer must, in relation to:\n\n(a) designing a terminal instrument procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1) of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate for a listed military aerodrome; or\n\n(b) carrying out permitted design work;\n\ncomply with a provision of Part 173 of CASR set out in column 1 of an item of the following table in accordance with the modifications (if any) of the provision mentioned in column 2 of the item.\n\n

Compliance with Part 173 provisions

Item

Column 1
Provisions of Part 173

Column 2
Modification (if any)

1

Regulation 173.100 (publication of terminal instrument flight procedures)

as if:

(a) the reference in subregulation 173.100(1) to “each terminal instrument flight procedure designed under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “each terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1), of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate, designed for a listed military aerodrome”; and

(b) the reference in subregulation 173.100(3) to “all procedures designed under its procedure design certificate” were a reference to “all procedures designed for a listed military aerodrome, of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate”

2

Regulation 173.115 (certified designer to provide facilities etc)

as if:

(a) the reference in subregulation 173.115(1) to “design work on terminal instrument flight procedures under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”; and

(b) the reference in subregulation 173.115(2) to “under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “mentioned in subsection 6(1), of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate”

3

Regulation 173.120 (certified designer to have appropriate organisation)

as if:

(a) the reference to “design work on terminal instrument flight procedures under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”; and

(b) the reference to “these Regulations” were a reference to “this instrument”

4

Regulation 173.125 (certified designer to have sufficient personnel)

as if:

(a) the reference to “design work on terminal instrument flight procedures under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”; and

(b) the reference to “these Regulations” were a reference to “this instrument”

5

Regulation 173.130 (supervisory personnel)

as if the reference to “design work on terminal instrument flight procedures carried on under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”

6

Regulation 173.135 (certified designer to appoint chief designer)

as if the reference to “design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”

7

Regulation 173.140 (certified designer to provide training and checking program)

(not modified)

8

Regulation 173.145 (safety management system)

as if the reference to “design work on terminal instrument flight procedures carried on under the designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”

9

Regulation 173.150 (certified designer to maintain reference materials)

as if the reference to “design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure under the certified designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”

10

Regulation 173.155 (certified designer to keep documents and records)

(not modified)

11

Regulation 173.160 (certified designer to have document and record control system)

as if:

(a) the reference to “design work under the certified designer’s procedure design certificate” were a reference to “permitted design work”; and

(b) the reference to “this Division” in subregulation 173.160(3) were a reference to “sections 6 to 22 of this instrument”

12

Regulation 173.195 (advice on organisational change)

as if the words “under the certified designer’s procedure design certificate” were replaced with the words “mentioned in subsection 6(1), of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate”

13

Regulation 173.200 (discontinuing work on terminal instrument flight procedures of a particular type)

(not modified)

14

Regulation 173.205 (notifying the AIS of a variation to a procedure design certificate)

(not modified)

15

Regulation 173.210 (discontinuing maintenance of particular terminal instrument flight procedures)

(not modified)

\n```\n\n","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"19","sectionType":"section","heading":"Radio navigation aids","content":"19 Radio navigation aids\n\n(1) Subject to subsection (2), a relevant designer must ensure that a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1), of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate that it designs for a listed military aerodrome, does not require the use of a ground-based radio-navigation aid other than one that is operated and maintained by a person certificated to do so under Part 171 of CASR.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:\n\n(a) subclause 2(1) or 3(1) of Schedule 2 applies to the ground-based radio‑navigation aid; and\n\n(b) the radio-navigation aid is operated by, or for, the Defence Force; and\n\n(c) if the relevant designer is Airservices Australia—the flight inspection requirements mentioned in clause 2 of Schedule 2 are met in relation to the navigation aid; and\n\n(d) if the relevant designer is Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd—the flight inspection requirements mentioned in clause 3 of Schedule 2 are met in relation to the navigation aid.\n\n","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"20","sectionType":"section","heading":"Maintenance of terminal instrument flight procedures","content":"20 Maintenance of terminal instrument flight procedures\n\n(1) Subject to subsection (2), a relevant designer is responsible for maintaining, in accordance with the standards for the maintenance of terminal instrument flight procedures set out in the Part 173 Manual of Standards a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1), of a type covered by the designer’s procedure design certificate:\n\n(a) that it designs for a listed military aerodrome; or\n\n(b) for which that responsibility is transferred to the designer under section 21.\n\n(2) The designer ceases to be responsible for the maintenance of the procedure:\n\n(a) if the designer has notified CASA and, if the procedure is published in the AIP, the AIS, under regulation 173.210 (as applied by section 18) that the designer has ceased to have that responsibility:\n\n(i) on the day when the notice is given; or\n\n(ii) if a later day is specified in the notice—on the later day; or\n\n(b) if the designer has notified CASA and, if the procedure is published in the AIP, the AIS, under regulation 173.200 (as applied by section 18) that the designer has ceased to design the type of terminal instrument flight procedure concerned:\n\n(i) on the day when the notice is given; or\n\n(ii) if a later day is specified in the notice—on the later day; or\n\n(c) if the relevant designer ceases to be a certified designer—on the day when the designer ceases to be a certified designer.\n\n(3) To avoid doubt, the requirements of paragraph 6.1.4.1A of the Part 173 Manual of Standards do not apply in relation to the maintenance of a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1).\n\n> Note Paragraph 6.1.4.1A requires a terminal instrument flight procedure design to be withdrawn in the event that CASA is notified under Part 139 of CASR that an aerodrome ceases to be registered or certified.\n\n","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"21","sectionType":"section","heading":"Transfer of maintenance responsibility","content":"21 Transfer of maintenance responsibility\n\n(1) A relevant designer may transfer the designer’s responsibility for maintaining a terminal instrument flight procedure under section 20 to another certified designer whose procedure design certificate authorises that designer to design terminal instrument flight procedures of the same type as the procedure concerned.\n\n(2) Despite subsection (1), a relevant designer must not transfer the designer’s responsibility for maintaining a terminal instrument flight procedure without the written approval of CASA.\n\n(3) Before granting an approval mentioned in subsection (2), CASA must be satisfied that the proposed transferee would be able to comply with the directions in this Division in relation to the procedure.\n\n> Note Directions in this Division include the requirements of section 11 as subject to section 15 (which provides for the circumstances set out in Schedule 1), and any requirements set out in Schedule 1 for the purposes of the direction in subsection 15(4).\n\n(4) If a certified designer accepts responsibility for the maintenance of a terminal instrument flight procedure under this section, the designer:\n\n(a) must give written notice to the transferor to that effect; and\n\n(b) must give written notice of the transfer to CASA and, if the procedure is published in the AIP, to the AIS, within 14 days after the transfer.\n\n(5) A transfer takes effect on the day when the certified designer accepting responsibility for maintaining the procedure gives notice to the transferor under paragraph (4)(a) or, if a later day is specified in the notice, on the later day.\n\n","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"22","sectionType":"section","heading":"Chief designer’s functions and duties under this instrument","content":"22 Chief designer’s functions and duties under this instrument\n\nThe chief designer for a relevant designer’s organisation must (in addition to the functions and duties the person has under regulation 173.180 of CASR) be responsible to the designer for the following:\n\n(a) ensuring that any design work on a terminal instrument flight procedure mentioned in subsection 6(1) for a listed military aerodrome is carried on in accordance with this instrument;\n\n(b) appointing persons as employees of the certified designer to carry on design work on such a terminal instrument flight procedure;\n\n(c) effectively managing work done in relation to those terminal instrument flight procedures by those persons;\n\n(d) issuing certificates as required by regulation 173.100 of CASR, as that provision is modified by section 18.\n\n","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"23","sectionType":"section","heading":"When directions cease to have effect","content":"23 When directions cease to have effect\n\nFor the purposes of paragraph 11.250(a) of CASR, each direction in a provision of this Division ceases to be in force at the end of 30 November 2027.\n\n","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"Div 3","sectionType":"division","heading":"Prescribed authorised instrument procedures","content":"Division 3—Prescribed authorised instrument procedures\n\n","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"24","sectionType":"section","heading":"Prescribed matters for definition of authorised instrument approach procedure","content":"24 Prescribed matters for definition of authorised instrument approach procedure\n\nFor the purposes of regulation 201.025 of CASR, an instrument approach procedure that is, under Division 2:\n\n(a) designed for a listed military aerodrome by a relevant designer; and\n\n(b) published in the AIP or given to CASA;\n\nis prescribed for paragraph (a) of the definition of authorised instrument approach procedure in Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR.\n\n","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"25","sectionType":"section","heading":"Prescribed matters for definition of authorised instrument departure procedure","content":"25 Prescribed matters for definition of authorised instrument departure procedure\n\nFor the purposes of regulation 201.025 of CASR, an instrument departure procedure that is, under Division 2:\n\n(a) designed for a listed military aerodrome by a relevant designer; and\n\n(b) published in the AIP or given to CASA;\n\nis prescribed for paragraph (a) of the definition of authorised instrument departure procedure in Part 1 of the Dictionary to CASR.\n\n","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"Div 4","sectionType":"division","heading":"Repeal of this instrument","content":"Division 4—Repeal of this instrument\n\n","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"26","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repeal of this instrument","content":"26 Repeal of this instrument\n\nThis instrument is repealed at the end of 30 November 2027.\n\n","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"Sch 1","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Applicable circumstances for certain procedures and procedure designers","content":"Schedule 1—Applicable circumstances for certain procedures and procedure designers\n\n> Note See section 15.\n\n","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"Part 1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Airservices Australia: Nowra procedures","content":"Part 1—Airservices Australia: Nowra procedures\n\n","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions for Part 1, Schedule 1","content":"1 Definitions for Part 1, Schedule 1\n\n> Nowra procedure means a terminal instrument flight procedure published as:\n\n(a) Nowra (YSNW) ILS-Z or LOC-Z RWY 21; or\n\n(b) Nowra (YSNW) NDB RWY 21.\n\n> Shellharbour Airport procedure means a terminal instrument flight procedure published as Shellharbour Airport (YSHL) RNP RWY 34.\n\n","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Overlapping terminal instrument flight procedures at Nowra (with Shellharbour)","content":"2 Overlapping terminal instrument flight procedures at Nowra (with Shellharbour)\n\nOverlapping procedures\n\n(1) For subsection 15(1), AA is not required to comply with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards, to the extent that a Nowra procedure does not comply with the standards due to the design and publication of the Shellharbour Airport procedure.\n\n(2) For subsection 15(2), AA is not required, for regulation 173.100, as modified by section 18, to ensure that the certificate by AA’s chief designer, for a Nowra procedure is to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n(3) For subsection 15(3), AA’s chief designer is not required, in relation to a certificate issued for a Nowra procedure, to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n3 Nowra procedures—requirements\n\nAA must ensure that design work in relation to a Nowra procedure is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the phrases “Caution: procedure is overlaid by procedures at YSHL. Aircraft separation is not assured after NOWRA APP HRS.”.\n\n","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"Part 2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Airservices Australia: Williamtown procedures","content":"Part 2— Airservices Australia: Williamtown procedures\n\n4 Definitions for Part 2, Schedule 1\n\n> Williamtown procedure means a terminal instrument flight procedure designed for Williamtown aerodrome that includes holding patterns at a waypoint that is:\n\n(a) IPMED; or\n\n(b) LAXUM; or\n\n(c) UPVID; or\n\n(d) DOXAP; or\n\n(e) ENVIR; or\n\n(f) IGLUM.\n\n5 Williamtown procedures\n\n(1) For subsection 15(1), AA is not required to comply with paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and 8.1.1.4(b) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards to the extent that a Williamtown procedure is not designed in accordance with the standards in those provisions.\n\n(2) For subsection 15(2), AA is not required, for regulation 173.100, as modified by section 18, in relation to a certificate issued for a Williamtown procedure, to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards in paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and 8.1.1.4(b) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n(3) For subsection 15(3), AA’s chief designer is not required, in relation to a certificate issued for a Williamtown procedure, to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards in paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and 8.1.1.4(b) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"Part 3","sectionType":"part","heading":"GE: Darwin and Townsville aerodromes","content":"Part 3—GE: Darwin and Townsville aerodromes\n\n6 Definitions for Part 3, Schedule 1\n\n> direct supervision has the meaning given by paragraph 3.1.4.2 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n> GE means the relevant designer (GE Flight Efficiency Services LLC) mentioned at paragraph (c) of the definition relevant designer in section 3 of Division 1.\n\n> GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria means the design criteria mentioned in:\n\n(a) the document titled GE Flight Efficiency Services, LLC Design Criteria Manual, Volume A4A, Issue 7, Revision 0, as existing from time to time; and\n\n(b) the document titled GE Flight Efficiency Services, LLC DCM Regulatory Supplement – CASA, Volume A4B.02, Issue 9, Revision 0, containing the Multi‑variant Design Specification, as existing from time to time.\n\n> GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria TIFP means an RNP AR APCH designed by GE in accordance with the GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria.\n\n> ICAO Doc 9905 means ICAO Document 9905-AN/471 (Required Navigation Performance Authorisation Required (RNP AR) Procedure Design Manual) as approved and published by decision of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, as in force from time to time.\n\n> operations manual means the manual maintained by GE as a relevant designer under section 9 of Division 2.\n\n> qualified designer has the meaning given by subregulation 173.090(4) of CASR.\n\n> Note Clause 10 provides for circumstances in which compliance with subparagraph 173.090(4)(b)(i) of CASR (about ICAO training requirements for qualified designers) is not required.\n\n> remote supervision, of an unqualified designer or a qualified designer, means supervision of the designer, in circumstances where the supervisor is not in the same premises as the designer, by means of various processes and technology.\n\n> RNP AR APCH means the type of terminal instrument flight procedure known as Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required Approach.\n\n> unqualified designer means a designer of a terminal instrument flight procedure who is not a qualified designer.\n\n7 GE—requirements about supervision of design work\n\n(1) For subsection 15(1), GE is not required to comply with paragraph 3.1.4.1(a) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards, to the extent that:\n\n(a) a terminal instrument flight procedure is designed by an unqualified designer, for GE and either Darwin or Townsville aerodrome; and\n\n(b) the procedure is not designed under direct supervision in accordance with paragraph 3.1.4.1(a).\n\n(2) For subsection 15(1), GE is not required to comply with paragraph 3.1.7 of the Manual of Standards to the extent that:\n\n(a) a terminal instrument flight procedure for either Darwin or Townsville aerodrome (the relevant TIFP) is designed for GE by a qualified designer who has not carried out design work in relation to a terminal instrument flight procedure of the same type within the year immediately before the design of the relevant TIFP; and\n\n(b) the relevant TIFP is not designed under direct supervision in accordance with paragraph 3.1.7.\n\nRequirements about direct supervision—regulation 173.100\n\n(3) For subsection 15(2), GE is not required to comply with subregulation 173.100(1) of CASR, as modified by section 18, to the extent that a certificate issued by the chief designer for GE’s organisation, for a terminal instrument flight procedure designed by an unqualified designer for GE for Darwin or Townsville aerodrome is not to the effect that the procedure is designed under direct supervision in accordance with paragraph 3.1.4.1(a) of the Manual of Standards.\n\n(4) Subclause (5) applies to the issue, by GE’s chief designer, of a certificate for a terminal instrument flight procedure for Darwin or Townsville aerodrome (the relevant TIFP) that is designed by a qualified designer who has not carried out design work in relation to a terminal instrument flight procedure of the same type within the year immediately before the design of the relevant TIFP.\n\n(5) For subsection 15(3), GE’s chief designer is not required to comply with paragraph 3.1.7 of the Manual of Standards to the extent that the certificate is not to the effect that the relevant TIFP is designed under direct supervision in accordance with paragraph 3.1.7.\n\n8 Requirements for GE’s operations manual—remote supervision\n\nGE’s operations manual must include procedures for the remote supervision by a qualified designer employed by GE of:\n\n(a) an unqualified designer in relation to the design by the designer of a terminal instrument flight procedure for GE for Darwin or Townsville aerodrome; and\n\n(b) a qualified designer in relation to the design by the designer of a terminal instrument flight procedure TIFP (the relevant TIFP), for GE, if the designer has not carried out design work in relation to a terminal instrument flight procedure of the same type within the year immediately before the design of the relevant TIFP.\n\n> Note Section 10 in Division 2 requires a relevant designer, in carrying on permitted design work (see the definition in subsection 6(3) in Division 2), to comply with the designer’s operations manual.\n\n9 Design criteria for RNP AR APCH\n\n(1) Subclause (2) applies in relation to design work on an RNP AR APCH conducted by GE, for Darwin or Townsville aerodrome, that is in accordance with:\n\n(a) ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS); and\n\n(b) the Part 173 Manual of Standards; and\n\n(c) ICAO Doc 9905.\n\n(2) For subsection 15(2), GE is not required to comply with subparagraph 173.125(b)(ii) of CASR, as modified by section 18:\n\n(a) to the extent that the provision requires GE to ensure that a person appointed by it as chief designer for its organisation meets the qualification standards mentioned in paragraphs 3.1.2.1(c) and 3.1.2.2(b) of the Part 173 Manual of Standards; and\n\n(b) to the extent that subparagraph 173.125(b)(ii) requires GE to ensure that a person employed by it as a qualified designer meets the qualification standard stated in paragraph 3.1.3.1(a) of the Manual of Standards.\n\n> Note GE’s operations manual includes a training program in relation to certain design criteria mentioned in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS), which is required to be completed by a person employed by it as a qualified designer, or the chief designer for its organisation.\n\n10 GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria TIFP\n\nFor subsection 15(1) or (2), GE, in relation to design work on a GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria TIFP for Darwin or Townsville aerodromes, is not required to comply with a provision mentioned in column 1 of the table, to the extent mentioned for the provision in column 2 of the table.\n\n

GE Flight Efficiency Service Design Criteria TIFP

Item

Column 1
Provision

Column 2
extent

1

Subsection 9(1)

The standard stated in paragraph 2.1.1.1(m) of the Manual of Standards, except to the extent that the standard is in relation to the Manual of Standards.

2

Paragraph 11(1)(a)

The standards stated in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS), other than those incorporated by reference in the GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria.

3

Paragraph 11(1)(b) and subsection 11(2)

The standards stated in the following provisions of the Manual of Standards:

(a) paragraphs 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2 and 1.1.5;

(b) chapter 8, other than paragraphs 8.1.1.3, 8.1.1.4, 8.1.1.5, 8.1.1.6 and 8.1.5, and section 8.9.

4

Subparagraph 173.090(4)(b)(i), as applied by section 16

All

5

Subparagraph 173.125(b)(ii), as modified by section 18

The requirement about training in accordance with the standards stated in the following provisions of the Manual of Standards:

(a) paragraph 3.1.2.1(c);

(b) paragraph 3.1.2.2(b);

(c) paragraph 3.1.3.1(a)

\n```\n\n11 GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria TIFP—requirements\n\n(1) GE must give written notice to CASA at least 14 days before making an amendment to a document mentioned in the definition of GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria in clause 6, unless the amendment is only of an editorial or clerical nature and does not affect technical or procedural matters.\n\n(2) GE must provide the current version of the document titled GE Flight Efficiency Services, LLC Operational Guidance for GE RNP AR Procedures, Volume C3B, Issue 3 Revision 0, as existing from time to time, to each operator licensed by GE to fly a GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria TIFP.\n\n(3) GE must comply with the requirements stated in regulation 173.150 of CASR, as modified be section 18, in relation to the GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria, as if the criteria were specified in paragraph 4.1.1.1 of the Manual of Standards for the purposes of subregulation 173.150(1).\n\n12 GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria—operations manual\n\nGE must ensure that its operations manual includes:\n\n(a) copies of the following:\n\n(i) this instrument;\n\n(ii) any other directions under regulation 11.245 of CASR given to GE in relation to its design work;\n\n(iii) the GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria; and\n\n(b) a description of the processes and documents used to present to GE’s personnel the standards, rules, procedures and drafting conventions mentioned in the GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria.\n\n","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"Part 4","sectionType":"part","heading":"GAS procedures at Nowra, Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley","content":"Part 4—GAS procedures at Nowra, Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley\n\n13 Definitions for Part 4, Schedule 1\n\n> GAS means the relevant designer (Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd) mentioned at paragraph (b) of the definition relevant designer in section 3 of Division 1.\n\n> GAS procedure means a terminal instrument flight procedure published as:\n\n(a) Nowra (YSNW) RNP RWY 21; or\n\n(b) Nowra (YSNW) ILS-Y or LOC-Y RWY 21; or\n\n(c) Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10; or\n\n(d) Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28; or\n\n(e) Edinburgh (YPED) RNP RWY 18; or\n\n(f) Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 05; or\n\n(g) Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 18L; or\n\n(h) Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 23; or\n\n(i) Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 36R; or\n\n(j) Pearce (YPEA) ILS-W OR LOC-W RWY 36R; or\n\n(k) Pearce (YPEA) ILS-X OR LOC-X RWY 36R; or\n\n(l) Pearce (YPEA) NDB-A; or\n\n(m) Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 15; or\n\n(n) Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 33.\n\n14 Overlapping GAS terminal instrument flight procedures at Nowra and Richmond\n\nOverlapping procedures\n\n(1) For subsection 15(1), GAS is not required to comply with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards, to the extent that a GAS procedure mentioned in column 1 of an item of the following table does not comply with the standards due to the design and publication of the procedure mentioned in column 2 of the item.\n\n

GAS TIFP: overlapping procedures

Item

Column 1
The GAS procedure:

Column 2
… overlaps with the terminal instrument flight procedure published as…

1

Nowra (YSNW) RNP RWY 21

Shellharbour Airport (YSHL) RNP RWY 34

2

Nowra (YSNW) ILS-Y or LOC-Y RWY 21

Shellharbour Airport (YSHL) RNP RWY 34

3

Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10

Westmead (YWST) RNP 127

4

Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28

Westmead (YWST) RNP 127

\n```\n\n(2) For subsection 15(2), GAS is not required, for regulation 173.100, as modified by section 18, to ensure that the certificate by GAS’s chief designer, for a GAS procedure mentioned in column 1 of the table is to the effect that the procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n(3) For subsection 15(3), GAS’s chief designer, in relation to a certificate issued for a GAS procedure mentioned in column 1 of the table, is not required to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in paragraph 8.1.1.3 of the Part 173 Manual of Standards.\n\n15 Requirements for GAS procedures at Nowra and Richmond aerodromes—overlapping procedures\n\nNowra procedures\n\n(1) GAS must ensure that design work in relation to a GAS procedure mentioned in column 1 of item 1 or 2 of the table in clause 14 is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the phrases “Caution: procedure is overlaid by YSHL RNP RWY 34. Aircraft separation is not assured after NOWRA APP hours.”.\n\nRichmond procedures\n\n(2) GAS must ensure that design work in relation to the GAS procedure Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10 is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the phrases “Caution: RNP RWY 10: procedure is overlaid by YWST RNP 127. Aircraft separation is not assured.”.\n\n(3) GAS must ensure that design work in relation to the GAS procedure Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28 is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the phrases “Caution: RNP RWY 28: procedure is overlaid by YWST RNP 127. Aircraft separation is not assured.”.\n\nDefinition\n\n(4) In this clause:\n\n> NOWRA APP hours means approach control hours at Nowra aerodrome.\n\n> YWST means Westmead Hospital.\n\n16 GAS procedures—airspace buffers and prohibited and restricted areas at Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley aerodromes\n\n(1) For subsection 15(1), GAS is not required to comply with the standards set out in a provision of the Part 173 Manual of Standards, set out in column 1 of an item in the table, to the extent that the GAS procedure set out in column 2 of the item, is not designed in accordance with the standards in those provisions.\n\n

GAS TIFP: airspace buffers and prohibited and restricted areas

Item

Column 1
Provisions of the Part 173 Manual of Standards

Column 2
Terminal instrument flight procedure

1

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10

2

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 28

3

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Edinburgh (YPED) RNP RWY 18

4

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 05

5

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 18L

6

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 23

7

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 36R

8

Paragraph 8.1.1.4

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) ILS-W OR LOC-W RWY 36R

9

Paragraph 8.1.1.4

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) ILS-X OR LOC-X RWY 36R

10

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Pearce (YPEA) NDB-A

11

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 15

12

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(a)(i)(A) and (B)

Paragraphs 8.1.1.4(b) and (c)

Paragraph 8.1.1.5(a)

Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 33

\n```\n\nChief designer’s certificate—regulation 173.100 and section 22\n\n(2) Subclauses (3) and (4) apply in relation to a GAS procedure mentioned in column 2 of an item of the table in subclause (1).\n\n(3) For subsection 15(2), GAS is not required, for regulation 173.100 as modified by section 18, in relation to a certificate issued for the GAS procedure, to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in a provision mentioned in column 1 of the item for the procedure.\n\n(4) For subsection 15(3), GAS’s chief designer is not required, in relation to a certificate issued for the GAS procedure, to comply with the requirement that the certificate be to the effect that the flight procedure is designed and validated in accordance with the standards set out in a provision mentioned in column 1 of the item for the procedure.\n\n17 Requirements for GAS procedures—phrases to be marked on designs, for airspace buffers, prohibited or restricted areas\n\n(1) GAS must ensure that design work, in relation to the GAS procedure mentioned in column 1 of an item of the table, is carried out so that the design is clearly marked with the phrases set out in column 2 of the item for the procedure.\n\n| Item | Column 1GAS procedure | Column 2Design to be clearly marked with phrases: |\n| ---- | ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1 | Richmond (YSRI) RNP RWY 10 | “Caution: RNP RWY 10: holding not contained within MIL restricted areas when active” |\n| 2 | Edinburgh (YPED) RNP RWY 18 | “ATC requirement: during CTAF hours, missed approach following a practice approach requires clearance from AD ATC” |\n| 3 | Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 05 | “PROC not AVBL during CTAF hours unless cleared by PERTH approach” |\n| 4 | Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 18L | “ATC requirement: during CTAF hours, airways clearance is to be obtained prior to commencing approach in periods of marginal WX or when a missed approach is intended following a practice approach” |\n| 5 | Pearce (YPEA) RNP RWY 23 | “ATC requirement: during CTAF hours, airways clearance is to be obtained prior to commencing approach in period of marginal WX or when a missed approach is intended following a practice approach” |\n| 6 | Pearce (YPEA) RNP Z RWY 36R | “Note: PROC not AVBL during CTAF hours unless cleared by PERTH approach” |\n| 7 | Pearce (YPEA) ILS-W OR LOC-W RWY 36R | “Note: PROC not AVBL during CTAF hours unless cleared by PERTH approach” |\n| 8 | Pearce (YPEA) ILS-X OR LOC-X RWY 36R | “Note: PROC not AVBL during CTAF hours unless cleared by PERTH approach” |\n| 9 | Pearce (YPEA) NDB-A | “Note: PROC not AVBL during CTAF hours unless cleared by PERTH approach” |\n| 10 | Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 15 | “Note: holding not contained within MIL RSTD areas when active” |\n| 11 | Amberley (YAMB) RNP RWY 33 | “Note: straight initial and missed approach not contained within MIL RSTD areas when active” |\n\n(2) In this clause:\n\n> AD means Adelaide.\n\n> AVBL means available.\n\n> CTAF means Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.\n\n> MIL means military.\n\n> PROC means procedure.\n\n> RSTD means restricted.\n\n> WX means weather.\n\n18 GAS operations manual\n\nGAS must ensure that its operations manual includes copies of:\n\n(a) this instrument; and\n\n(b) any other directions under regulation 11.245 of CASR given to GAS in relation to its design work for a GAS procedure.\n\n","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"Sch 2","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Ground-based radio-navigation aids used by relevant designer: military aerodromes","content":"Schedule 2—Ground-based radio-navigation aids used by relevant designer: military aerodromes\n\n> Note See section 19.\n\n1 Definitions for Schedule 2\n\nIn this Schedule:\n\n> DME means distance measuring equipment.\n\n> GP means glide path, as used for vertical guidance in an ILS.\n\n> ILS means instrument landing system.\n\n> LOC means localiser, as used for lateral guidance in an ILS.\n\n> NAVAID means a navigation aid.\n\n> NDB means non-directional beacon.\n\n> TACAN means a UHF tactical air navigation aid.\n\n> VOR means very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional radio range.\n\n2 Ground-based radio-navigation aids—Airservices Australia\n\n(1) For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(a), this clause applies to a ground-based radio-navigation aid that is:\n\n(a) located at, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome mentioned in column 1 of an item in Table 1; and\n\n(b) identified in column 2 and described in column 3 of the item; and\n\n(c) required to be used for a terminal instrument flight procedure designed by AA for the aerodrome.\n\n(2) For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(c), a navigation aid mentioned in an item of the table must be flight-inspected by AA, acting in its capacity as a service provider under Part 171 of CASR, at intervals of not more than the period mentioned in column 4 of the item, after the previous flight inspection of the radio-navigation aid by AA in that capacity.\n\n(3) Despite subsection (2), the flight inspection may be conducted at an interval of one month less than or greater than the relevant interval mentioned in column 4 of the table.\n\n

Table 1: Flight check requirements for NAVAIDs used by AA

Item

Column 1
Location

Column 2
Identification

Column 3
NAVAID

Column 4
Flight check period

1

Edinburgh

IED

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7)

6 months

2

Edinburgh

EDN

TACAN (112.7)

12 months

3

Amberley

IAM

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7);

6 months

4

Amberley

AMB

TACAN (112.5)

12 months

5

East Sale

IES

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7)

6 months

6

East Sale

ESL

NDB (350)

36 months

7

East Sale

ESL

TACAN (108.1)

12 months

8

Williamtown

IWN

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.5);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.5)

6 months

9

Williamtown

WLM

NDB (365)

36 months

10

Williamtown

WLM

TACAN (112.8)

12 months

11

Nowra

INA

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (108.5);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (108.5)

6 months

12

Nowra

NWA

NDB (359)

36 months

13

Nowra

NWA

TACAN (116.4)

12 months

14

Nowra

NWR

TACAN (112.4)

12 months

15

Oakey

IOK

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.5);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.5)

6 months

16

Oakey

OK

Each of the following:

(a) VOR (112.9);

(b) DME (112.9)

36 months

17

Pearce

IPE

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7);

6 months

18

Pearce

IPC

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (111.9);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (111.9);

6 months

19

Pearce

PEA

NDB (340)

36 months

20

Pearce

PEA

TACAN (112.8)

12 months

21

Richmond

IRI

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (111.9);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (111.9)

6 months

22

Richmond

RIC

TACAN (110.7)

12 months

23

Tindal

ITN

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7)

6 months

24

Tindal

TDL

TACAN (112.3)

12 months

25

Townsville

TVL

NDB (276)

36 months

\n```\n\n3 Ground-based radio-navigation aids—Global Airspace Solutions\n\n(1) For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(a), this clause applies to a ground-based radio-navigation aid that is:\n\n(a) located at, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome mentioned in column 1 of an item in table 2; and\n\n(b) identified in column 2 and described in column 3 of the item; and\n\n(c) required to be used for a terminal instrument flight procedure designed by Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd for the aerodrome.\n\n(2) For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(d), Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a navigation aid mentioned in an item of Table 2 is flight-inspected by AA, acting in its capacity as a service provider under Part 171 of CASR, at intervals of not more than the period mentioned in column 4 of the item, after the previous flight inspection of the radio-navigation aid by AA in that capacity.\n\n

Table 2: Flight inspection requirements for NAVAIDs used by Global Airspace Solutions

Item

Column 1

Location

Column 2

Identification

Column 3
NAVAID

Column 4
Flight check period

1

Amberley

AMB

TACAN (112.5)

12 months

2

Nowra

INA

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (108.5);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (108.5)

6 months

3

Nowra

NWA

NDB (359)

36 months

4

Nowra

NWA

TACAN (116.4)

12 months

5

Nowra

NWR

TACAN (112.4)

12 months

6

Pearce

IPE

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (110.7);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (110.7)

6 months

7

Pearce

IPC

Each of the following:

(a) LOC (111.9);

(b) GP;

(c) DME (111.9)

6 months

8

Pearce

PEA

TACAN (112.8)

12 months

9

Pearce

PEA

NDB (340)

36 months

10

Richmond

RIC

NDB (347)

36 months

\n```\n\n> Notes to CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024\n\n> Note: CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024 (in force under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998) as shown in this compilation is amended as indicated in the Tables below.\n\n> Note: > Note: Table of Orders\n\n| Year andnumber | Date of FRLregistration | Date ofcommencement | Application, saving ortransitional provisions |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |\n| CASA 68/24—Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) Instrument 2024 | 29 November 2024(F2024L01557) | 4.47 pm (A.C.T.)29 November 2024 (s. 2) | — |\n| CASA 28/25 — Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (Military Aerodromes) (GAS Pty Ltd) Amendment Instrument 2025 | 14 May 2025(F2025L00574) | 4.19 pm (A.C.T.)14 May 2025 (s. 2) | — |\n\n

Table of Amendments

ad. = added or inserted am. = amended rep. = repealed rs. = repealed and substituted

Provision affected

How affected

section 2

rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48D

section 2A

rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48C

subsection 13(4)

rs. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 1, heading

rs. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 2, heading

rs. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, subclause 5(2)

am. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 13

ad. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 14

ad. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 15

ad. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 16

ad. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 17

ad. F2025L00574

Schedule 1, Part 4, clause 18

ad. F2025L00574

\n```","sortOrder":36}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"provider":"moonshot","completionTokens":4013},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The instrument has expanded significantly beyond its original coverage. The initial 2024 instrument primarily covered Airservices Australia procedures at Nowra and Williamtown, plus GE Flight Efficiency Services procedures at Darwin and Townsville. The 2025 amendment (CASA 28/25) added Part 4 to Schedule 1, introducing extensive new exemptions, design criteria, and requirements for Global Airspace Solutions (GAS) at five additional military aerodromes (Nowra, Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce, and Amberley), effectively more than doubling the scope of covered airports and specific flight procedures."},"complexity_factors":["Extensive cross-referencing to multiple regulatory frameworks: Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (Parts 139, 171, 173), ICAO documents (Doc 8168/PANS-OPS, Doc 9905), and external design criteria manuals (GE Flight Efficiency Services volumes)","18 defined terms in the interpretation section (section 3), with additional local definitions in each Part of Schedule 1 (e.g., 'Nowra procedure', 'remote supervision', 'GE Flight Efficiency Services design criteria')","Heavily conditional structure with nested exceptions: Section 15 and Schedule 1 create circumstances where standards don't apply, which are then subject to further specific requirements","Procedure-specific exemptions: Schedule 1 creates bespoke rules for individual named procedures at individual airports (e.g., 'Nowra (YSNW) ILS-Z RWY 21' has different rules than 'Nowra (YSNW) NDB RWY 21')","Section 18 contains a table modifying 15 different Part 173 regulations with complex 'as if' textual substitutions","Multiple detailed tables specifying navigation aids, frequencies, and flight inspection periods for specific locations (Schedule 2 contains 35 separate items across two tables)","Technical aviation terminology used without lay definitions (e.g., RNP AR APCH, TACAN, PANS-OPS surfaces, obstacle limitation surfaces, CTAF hours)","Bifurcated obligations depending on aerodrome type: different rules apply to 'joint user aerodromes' (Darwin/Townsville) versus other military aerodromes"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument sets safety rules for designing Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (TIFPs) at 16 Australian military aerodromes so civilian IFR flights can use those bases safely while accommodating Defence operational needs. It limits design to three certified providers, requires PANS‑OPS/Part 173‑based standards (with specified exemptions), mandates safety and obstacle-monitoring systems, and expires 30 November 2027."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The instrument began as a general set of directions under CASR 11.245 about design and maintenance standards for terminal instrument flight procedures at military aerodromes. Subsequent drafting (notably the CASA 28/25 amendment) widened and made the scope more prescriptive and bespoke by: (a) naming three specific designers and effectively confining permitted design work for the listed military aerodromes to those entities (sections 3, 6–7); (b) adding extensive, designer‑ and aerodrome‑specific exemptions and mandatory cautions in Schedule 1 (Parts 1–4) rather than applying uniform standards across all sites; and (c) allocating concrete operational tasks (flight inspection schedules, NAVAID responsibilities and arrangement obligations with aerodrome operators) in Schedule 2. Those additions move the instrument from a broad regulatory framework toward a granular, site‑and‑provider specific regulatory regime that both authorises particular private firms and sets firm‑level obligations (see Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 and the Table of Amendments indicating the GAS additions)."},"complexity_factors":["16 listed military aerodromes defined (section 5) with site‑specific rules in Schedule 1","Three named 'relevant designers' (Airservices, GAS, GE) with designer‑specific obligations and exceptions (section 3; Schedule 1 Parts 1–4)","Extensive cross‑references to CASR Part 173 regulations, the Part 173 Manual of Standards and ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS) (sections 3, 11, 18)","Section 18 modifies or re‑applies around 15 separate Part 173 regulatory provisions with bespoke wording","Schedule 1 contains multiple, nested, site‑ and designer‑specific exceptions and mandatory markings (many conditional branches)","Schedule 2 lists many ground‑based NAVAIDs with different flight‑inspection intervals and split responsibilities between AA and private designers","Conditional logic linked to joint‑user aerodrome status and whether a civilian aerodrome certificate is held (sections 9, 12–13)","Multiple administrative obligations with deadlines and notice requirements (e.g. provide arrangement details to CASA within 60 days (section 12(4)); GE to notify CASA 14 days before amendments (Schedule 1, cl.11(1)))","Time limitation (directions cease 30 Nov 2027) and repeal clause, which interacts with maintenance/transfer timing (sections 23, 26)","Amendments and a recent amendment instrument (CASA 28/25) adding GAS‑specific provisions, increasing branching and site specificity (Table of Amendments / Schedule 1 Part 4 additions)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- Creates a time-limited set of legal directions (rules) about who may design, verify, validate and maintain terminal instrument flight procedures (TIFPs) for civilian (non‑state) aircraft at a specified list of military aerodromes in Australia (the \"listed military aerodromes\"). See section 4 and section 5.\n\n- Names three authorised procedure designers (\"relevant designers\"): Airservices Australia (AA), Global Airspace Solutions Pty Ltd (GAS) and GE Flight Efficiency Services LLC (GE). Only those entities, or their employees acting in the course of duty and within their certificate scope, may carry out the permitted design work for these listed aerodromes. See sections 3, 6 and 7.\n\n- Requires those designers to meet many of the technical standards in ICAO Doc. 8168 (PANS‑OPS) and CASA's Part 173 Manual of Standards when designing TIFPs, but allows a set of specified departures/exemptions and modifications in particular cases listed in Schedule 1. See sections 11 and 15 and Schedule 1.\n\n- Imposes organisational and process controls on the designers: maintain an operations manual meeting Part 173 standards; follow verification and validation procedures (including validation by a CASA pilot); keep records and provide certain notices to CASA. See sections 9, 16, 17 and 18.\n\n- Allocates maintenance responsibility for published procedures to the designer who created them (with a formal transfer process requiring CASA approval). See sections 20 and 21.\n\n- Sets rules about the use and inspection of ground‑based radio‑navigation aids (NAVAIDs) that TIFPs rely on, and specifies which NAVAIDs are acceptable and who must undertake flight inspections and at what intervals (tables in Schedule 2). See section 19 and Schedule 2.\n\n- Contains many site‑specific, designer‑specific and procedure‑specific rules and caveats in Schedule 1 (for AA at Nowra and Williamtown; GE at Darwin and Townsville; GAS at Nowra, Richmond, Edinburgh, Pearce and Amberley). Those include required caution text to appear on designs, special supervision or training regimes, exemptions from particular Manual of Standards clauses, and operational caveats (e.g. ATC or CTAF conditions). See Schedule 1 (Parts 1–4).\n\n- Is time‑limited: the directions in Division 2 cease to have effect at the end of 30 November 2027 (sections 23 and 26).\n\nWho this affects and who decides\n\n- Primary regulated parties: the three named certified designers (AA, GAS, GE). They bear the compliance obligations (operations manuals, verification/validation, maintenance responsibility, flight‑inspection coordination). (Sections 3, 6–11, 16–22; Schedule 2).\n\n- Secondary affected parties: aerodrome operators (including Defence where relevant) who must enter written arrangements with designers on obstacle monitoring and notification, and may have to carry extra monitoring duties if they are not already covered by a civilian aerodrome certificate. (Sections 9(2)–(4), 12, 13 and 14.)\n\n- CASA (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) retains decision authority for approvals (for example, approving transfers of maintenance responsibility, accepting notices and ensuring validation by CASA pilots) and for oversight of compliance. (Sections 16–17, 20–21.)\n\nWhy it matters (claimed purpose and practical test)\n\n- The instrument claims to ensure that instrument procedures used by civil IFR aircraft at military aerodromes meet appropriate technical and safety standards while recognising operational realities at military sites (this is the stated rationale implicit in the technical rules and the use of exemptions/conditions in Schedule 1). (Sections 4, 11, 15 and Schedule 1.)\n\nTesting that claim against concrete mechanisms and trade‑offs:\n\n- Implementation mechanism: it concentrates design and maintenance authority in three certified designers and prescribes detailed design, verification, validation and maintenance processes (sections 6, 16, 17, 20). That centralisation simplifies regulatory oversight but limits who can supply procedure‑design services for the listed aerodromes.\n\n- Who pays / compliance burden: the named designers must fund and run the required organisational systems (operations manuals, staff training, verification/validation processes, flight inspections where specified) and bear liability for maintenance unless approved transfers occur. Aerodrome operators (including Defence) must carry out obstacle monitoring and enter written arrangements, or the designer must notify CASA if arrangements cannot be made (sections 9, 12–14, 20). These are recurring administrative and operational costs.\n\n- Incentives and concentrated benefits: the instrument grants de facto exclusivity to the three named designers for the listed aerodromes (sections 6–7). Those designers gain the economic opportunity to design and maintain TIFPs at those sites; other certified designers are excluded. This concentrates benefits and reduces competition for those specific services.\n\n- Regulatory discretion and approval points: CASA's approval is required to transfer maintenance responsibility and CASA pilots must validate procedures (sections 21 and 17). Those are discrete points of regulator control that affect how easily responsibilities can change hands and how quickly procedures become operational.\n\n- Trade‑offs and substitution effects: by allowing specified departures from Manual of Standards or PANS‑OPS in Schedule 1, the instrument trades uniform conformity for pragmatic operation in constrained airspace (e.g. overlapping procedures, restricted military areas). That reduces the need to redesign procedures in difficult environments but means the published procedures may include operational caveats and extra ATC/airspace constraints (Schedule 1 Parts 1–4).\n\n- Implementation risk / coordination costs: several provisions rely on co‑operation with Defence (joint‑user aerodromes), written arrangements about obstacle monitoring, and, for some NAVAIDs, flight‑inspection responsibilities shared between AA and private designers (sections 12–14 and Schedule 2). Those dependencies risk delays or gaps if parties do not coordinate timely notifications or inspections.\n\n- Effect on aircraft operators and private choice: pilots and airlines use published TIFPs; the instrument mandates design, publication and markings (e.g. caution phrases) for certain procedures, and prescribes when procedures are unavailable or constrained (Schedule 1, clauses 3, 15 and 17). Operators therefore face operational constraints determined by the designer/CASA disclosures rather than broader market alternatives.\n\nKey procedural, market and administrative facts (short list)\n\n- The instrument is limited to civilian IFR operations at the 16 listed military aerodromes (section 5).\n- Only three named designers may carry out permitted design work for those aerodromes; other designers are excluded (sections 3, 6–7).\n- Designers must follow Part 173 standards and PANS‑OPS except where Schedule 1 provides specific exceptions or modifications (sections 11 and 15; Schedule 1).\n- Designers must maintain and follow operations manuals, verify and have procedures validated by CASA pilots, and maintain responsibility for published procedures unless CASA approves a transfer (sections 9, 16–21).\n- The instrument specifies flight‑inspection regimes for ground radio‑navigation aids used by those procedures and allocates flight‑inspection responsibilities between AA and the private designers (section 19; Schedule 2).\n\nPractical immediate consequences for regulated parties\n\n- Designers: update operations manuals, establish verification/validation workflows involving CASA, ensure flight inspection arrangements for any NAVAIDs relied upon, and include specified cautionary text or operational caveats in designs where Schedule 1 requires it.\n- Aerodrome operators (including Defence): enter written obstacle‑monitoring arrangements if not already covered by Part 139 certification, and expect to receive obstacle data and diagrams from designers (sections 12–13).\n- CASA: exercise approval and oversight functions (procedure validation, transfers, notifications).\n\n(References in parentheses are to the relevant sections or Schedules of the instrument.)"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024","history":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024/history","analysis":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/casa-68-24-terminal-instrument-flight-procedures-military-aerodromes-instrument-2024/documents"}}