{"id":"F2005B00799","name":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R18) 2004 - Civil Aviation Order 20.17 - Air service operations - Use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft (02/12/2004)","slug":"civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":32223,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005B00799-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R18) 2004 - Civil Aviation Order 20.17 - Air service operations - Use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft (02/12/2004)","content":"Civil Aviation Amendment Order\n\n(No. R18) 2004\n\nI, WILLIAM BRUCE BYRON, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, issue the following Civil Aviation Order under subregulation 92 (2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.\n\n\\[Signed Bruce Byron\\]\n\nBruce Byron\n\nDirector of Aviation Safety and\n\nChief Executive Officer\n\n2 December 2004\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n1 Name of Order\n\nThis Order is the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R18) 2004.\n\n2 Commencement\n\nThis Order commences on gazettal.\n\n3 Replacement of section 20.17 of the Civil Aviation Orders\n\nSection 20.17 of the Civil Aviation Orders is omitted and a new section substituted as set out in Schedule 1.\n\nSchedule 1 Substitution of section 20.17 of the Civil Aviation Orders\n\nSECTION 20.17\n\nAIR SERVICE OPERATIONS — USE OF MILITARY AERODROMES BY CIVIL AIRCRAFT\n\n2 GENERAL\n\nAircraft shall not use a Military aerodrome except in accordance with the provisions specified in this Section.\n\n3 MILITARY AERODROMES APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE\n\nThe following Military aerodromes are approved for use by aircraft engaged in all classes of Air Service Operations:\n\nRoyal Australian Air Force Aerodromes:\n\nCanberra\n\nDarwin\n\nTownsville\n\nWagga\n\n4 OTHER MILITARY AERODROMES\n\nA Military aerodrome other than those specified in paragraph 3 may be used under the following conditions:\n\n4.1 When the operation has been authorised by CASA and specified in an Airline Licence; or\n\n4.2 When an Aerial Work or Charter operation at a particular Military aerodrome has been authorised by CASA; or\n\n4.3 When permission has been granted by the appropriate Military Authority.\n\n5 OPERATING CONDITIONS\n\n5.1 Operations at Military aerodromes shall be conducted in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 except that:\n\n    (a) when any conditions, rules or instructions issued by the appropriate Military Authority differ from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988; or\n    (b) when any additional conditions, rules or instructions have been issued by the appropriate Military Authority;\n\noperations shall be conducted in accordance with such conditions, rules or instructions issued by the Military Authority.\n\n5.2 A pilot in command shall comply with instructions issued by the Airport Control Unit at a Military Aerodrome.\n\n5.3 Notwithstanding the requirements specified in paragraph 5.1, when the weather minima prescribed by CASA are more restrictive than the minima prescribed by the Military Authority for a particular aerodrome, operations at that aerodrome shall be conducted in accordance with the minima prescribed by CASA.\n\nNote: When the minima prescribed for a particular aerodrome by the appropriate Military Authority are more restrictive than those prescribed by CASA, the Military Authority may, in special circumstances, permit Civil aircraft operations in accordance with the minima prescribed by CASA","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Order replaces and restates section 20.17 rather than expanding into new regulatory domains. It formalises which military aerodromes are available for general civil use, sets the three specific authorisation routes for access to other military aerodromes, and clarifies the priority of military instructions versus Civil Aviation Regulations with a specific carve‑out for CASA weather minima (Sections 3–5). The changes appear administrative and clarificatory — specifying approved aerodromes and the decision routes — rather than materially broadening the regulatory scope beyond the original purpose of controlling civil access to military aerodromes."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument replacing a single section (20.17) with 4 substantive parts (prohibition, list of approved aerodromes, other aerodromes authorisation pathways, operating conditions).","Clear list of four RAAF aerodromes approved for general use (Section 3).","Three alternative authorisation pathways to use other military aerodromes (CASA via Airline Licence, CASA authorisation for Aerial Work/Charter, or permission from appropriate Military Authority) (Section 4).","Cross-references to external instruments and actors: Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, CASA-prescribed weather minima, Airline Licence, Airport Control Unit, and the 'appropriate Military Authority' (Sections 5.1–5.3).","A narrowly framed precedence rule with an exception (military instructions generally prevail, except CASA weather minima prevail if more restrictive) (Section 5.1 and 5.3).","Some discretionary decision-making left to CASA and military authorities without elaborated criteria, creating conditional outcomes but limited statutory complexity."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- Replaces the existing Civil Aviation Order 20.17 with a new version that sets the rules for when civil aircraft may operate at military aerodromes.\n- Establishes a default prohibition: civil aircraft shall not use a military aerodrome except under the specific permissions and conditions listed in the Order (Section 2).\n- Lists four Royal Australian Air Force aerodromes that are approved for general use by civil aircraft engaged in any class of air service operations: Canberra, Darwin, Townsville and Wagga (Section 3).\n- Permits use of other military aerodromes only if one of three authorisations applies: (a) the operation is authorised by CASA and specified in an Airline Licence; or (b) CASA has authorised an Aerial Work or Charter operation at that aerodrome; or (c) the appropriate Military Authority has granted permission (Section 4).\n- Sets the operating conditions: civil operations must normally follow the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 but, where military rules or instructions differ or add requirements, the military instructions take precedence (Section 5.1). A pilot in command must comply with instructions from the Airport Control Unit at a military aerodrome (Section 5.2).\n- Provides a specific exception on weather minima: if CASA's weather minima are more restrictive than the military authority's minima for an aerodrome, operators must follow CASA's minima (Section 5.3). The Order notes the military authority can in special circumstances permit operations in accordance with CASA minima even when the military minima are more restrictive.\n\nWho this affects and how\n\n- Affected parties: civil air operators (airlines, charter and aerial work operators), pilots in command, CASA (the regulator), and the relevant military authorities that control military aerodromes.\n- What changes for them: civil operators lose a general right to use military aerodromes and must either operate at the four named RAAF aerodromes (which are approved for all classes of air service operations) or obtain one of the specified authorisations to operate at other military aerodromes. Pilots must follow airport control instructions at military aerodromes and comply with whichever rules (Civil Aviation Regulations or military instructions) apply by the priority rules in the Order.\n\nWhy it matters (practical effects and implementation issues)\n\n- Decision-makers and discretion: CASA decides whether to authorise airline, aerial work or charter operations at non-listed military aerodromes (Sections 4.1–4.2). The \"appropriate Military Authority\" can grant permission, issue operating conditions or overrule some regulatory provisions (Sections 4.3 and 5.1). That creates two layers of approval and operational control.\n- Compliance burden and transaction costs: operators that previously used military aerodromes without formal approval now must seek CASA authorisation or military permission (Section 4). Obtaining approvals produces paperwork, processing time and potential licence changes for airlines (Section 4.1 refers to Airline Licence conditions).\n- Safety and operational coordination: the Order requires pilots to follow Airport Control Unit instructions and reconciles conflicting rules by generally deferring to military instructions except where CASA prescribes more restrictive weather minima (Sections 5.1–5.3). This allocates responsibility between civil regulator and military controllers for day-to-day aerodrome management.\n- Effects on commercial behaviour and market choices: operators may shift operations to the four approved RAAF aerodromes to avoid authorisation steps, or elect to use civilian airports instead if permission is uncertain or slow. Charter and aerial work businesses that rely on ad hoc access to military aerodromes will face higher transaction costs and potential loss of flexibility (Sections 3–4).\n- Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs: benefits are concentrated for operators who gain formal access (either to the four listed aerodromes or who obtain military permission). Costs are diffuse — administrative burdens on many operators and potential delays or operational restrictions that affect scheduling and pricing. CASA and military authorities absorb administrative costs of processing and enforcing permissions.\n- Legal hierarchy and potential conflict points: the Order cross-references the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and allows military instructions to govern operational detail where they differ (Section 5.1). That cross-jurisdictional interaction creates scope for operational and legal friction; the weather-minima rule (Section 5.3) is a narrowly stated escape valve that preserves CASA’s more restrictive safety standard where it applies.\n\nDirect mechanics cited: Sections 2–5 (replacement Section 20.17).\n\nAnalyst's note on trade-offs and implementation risks\n\n- Implementation risk: uncertainty and delay may arise from the need to coordinate CASA authorisations with military permission; the Order does not specify processing times or criteria the military will apply, leaving substantive discretion to those authorities (Sections 4 and 5).\n- Opportunity costs: operators may incur additional costs (licence amendments, administrative work) and may opt for alternative airports, with knock-on effects for service coverage and cost structure for some routes or charter services (Sections 3–4).\n- Enforcement and compliance: the Order relies on pilot compliance with Airport Control Unit instructions (Section 5.2). Non-compliance could expose operators and pilots to enforcement action under the Civil Aviation Regulations or military orders.\n\nOverall summary sentence\n\nThe Order removes a general entitlement for civil aircraft to use military aerodromes, designates four RAAF aerodromes for general civil use, permits other military aerodrome use only with CASA authorisation or military permission, and sets a hierarchy of operating rules that generally defers to military instructions except where CASA’s weather minima are stricter (Sections 2–5)."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment appears to maintain the original scope of regulating civil access to military aerodromes. It replaces an existing section 20.17 with updated provisions, suggesting continuity of purpose rather than expansion into new regulatory areas."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose instrument (approximately 500 words)","Only 5 defined operational paragraphs with clear hierarchical structure","Minimal cross-referencing (only references Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Airline Licences without section numbers)","Simple conditional logic using 'shall not... except' and straightforward numbered alternatives (4.1, 4.2, 4.3)","Single interpretive note clarifying weather minima hierarchy","No nested exceptions or defined terms section"],"plain_english_summary":"This legislation sets the rules for when and how civilian aircraft can use military airfields in Australia.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Creates a permit system** for civil aircraft (airlines, charter flights, aerial work) to use RAAF bases and other military aerodromes\n- **Lists four airfields open to all civil operations:** Canberra, Darwin, Townsville, and Wagga\n- **Sets up three pathways** for using other military airfields:\n  - Having it written into an airline's operating licence\n  - Getting specific CASA approval for charter or aerial work flights\n  - Getting direct permission from the military\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Commercial pilots and airlines wanting to use military facilities\n- Charter operators and aerial work companies (crop dusting, surveying, etc.)\n- RAAF and military authorities who control the airfields\n\n**Why it matters:**\nMilitary airfields often have better facilities or strategic locations than civilian airports. This Order creates a clear framework so civil operators know when they can access these facilities, while ensuring military commanders retain control over their bases. It also establishes a hierarchy of rules: normally civil aviation law applies, but military instructions take precedence when they differ—except CASA's weather safety standards always win if they're stricter."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-","history":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-/history","analysis":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/civil-aviation-amendment-order-no-r18-2004-civil-aviation-order-20-17-air-service-operations-use-of-/documents"}}