CASA 270/14 - Determination — meteorological minima for landing or taking-off at aerodrome

The instrument introduces a series of defined terms that are essential to understanding which minima apply. "Qualifying multi-engine aeroplane" is defined in Part A of Schedule 1 and requires the aeroplane to be I.F.R., multi-engine, and either two-pilot operated, a single-pilot jet, or a single-pilot propeller aircraft with operative auto feather. Additional performance hurdles apply depending on MTOW. For aeroplanes with MTOW exceeding 5 700 kg, the aircraft must meet the obstacle clearance requirements of CAO 20.7.1B. For those at or below 5 700 kg, the gross climb gradient performance must be at least 1.9% under ambient conditions with the critical engine inoperative, and the engine-out climb gradient must be at least 0.3% greater than the obstacle free gradient for the runway length required. The pilot in command must also use published obstacle free gradients only if they are surveyed to at least 7 500 m from the end of TODA. A separate concept is "defined point after take-off" for helicopters, which is the point in the take-off and initial climb before which a helicopter's ability to continue safely with one engine inoperative is not assured and a forced landing may be required. Performance class 1 (PC1) and performance class 2 (PC2) are defined: in PC1 the helicopter can land within the rejected take-off distance available or continue safely, depending on when failure occurs; in PC2 a forced landing may be required if failure occurs early in take-off or late in landing. These performance class distinctions directly affect the take-off minima for helicopters. Part C applies only to helicopters operating in PC1 or PC2 that also meet the definition of qualifying multi-engine helicopter. "RVR" (runway visual range) is measured by instrument and reported by ATC, and "LSALT" (lowest safe altitude) and "MSA" (minimum sector altitude) are standard aviation terms used in the conditions for terrain clearance. The concept of "clear of cloud" appears for helicopter take-off minima, and the instrument ties the minima to whether the aircraft is operating in visual or instrument meteorological conditions after departure. The interplay between these definitions creates a cascading structure: an aircraft that does not satisfy the qualifying criteria defaults to a higher minima Part (B for aeroplanes, D for helicopters), with fewer conditions but worse weather allowances.

The determination directly affects every pilot in command of an I.F.R. aircraft operating in Australian airspace when taking off from or landing at an aerodrome. It also affects the operators who employ those pilots, because the conditions embedded in the schedules often require the operator to have established procedures, published obstacle free gradients, and fuel planning policies that comply with the minima. Aircraft manufacturers and type certificate holders are not directly named, but the performance criteria in Part A (especially the climb gradient requirements) reference data from the manufacturer’s documentation. Aerodrome operators are affected insofar as the lower visibility minima (550 m) are available only if the runway has illuminated edge lighting at spacing intervals not exceeding 60 m and centreline lighting or centreline markings. For non-controlled aerodromes, an additional restriction applies: the take-off must be conducted by day and radio carriage must be mandatory. Air Traffic Control is affected where the lower minima are used because RVR reporting is required, and for controlled aerodromes the ATC must be in operation for the 550 m minima to be available (implied by the condition that if ATC is not in operation, the aerodrome is treated as non-controlled). CASA itself is affected as the regulator that must enforce the minima and may grant exemptions. The instrument also has a subtle effect on the insurance and liability landscape. An operator who uses the minima without satisfying the attached conditions exposes the pilot and the company to a strict liability offence under reg 257. This creates a compliance cost burden that falls disproportionately on smaller operators who may not have the procedural documentation or crew training to qualify for the lower minima. For example, a single-pilot operator flying a multi-engine propeller aeroplane without operative auto feather cannot meet the definition of qualifying multi-engine aeroplane and must use the higher Part B minima (ceiling 300 ft, visibility 2 000 m). That operator is therefore at a competitive disadvantage compared to a two-pilot operator with auto feather, because the latter can dispatch in lower visibility and ceiling, reducing delays and cancellations.

The primary duty imposed by the instrument falls on the pilot in command. For take-off, the pilot must ensure that the aircraft and the operation meet the conditions specified in the relevant Part of Schedule 1 before using the minima. These conditions are not optional. For qualifying multi-engine aeroplanes under Part A, the pilot must ensure three things. First, if a return to the departure aerodrome will be necessary in the event of an engine failure, the meteorological conditions at that aerodrome must be at or above instrument approach and landing minima or such as to allow a visual approach. Second, if engine failure occurs at any time after V1, lift-off, or encountering non-visual conditions, terrain clearance must be assured until reaching en route LSALT or departure aerodrome MSA. Third, if a return to the departure aerodrome is not possible, the aeroplane’s performance and fuel availability must each be adequate to proceed to a suitable aerodrome, considering terrain, obstacles, and route distance. For non-qualifying multi-engine aeroplanes under Part B, the duties are similar but less onerous: terrain clearance must be assured, and if the aeroplane is multi-engine, the same return-or-proceed conditions apply. For helicopters in Part C, the pilot must ensure that after entering instrument meteorological conditions, the take-off is conducted in accordance with published I.F.R. departure procedures or, if none exist, such that terrain clearance is assured. The engine failure conditions mirror those for aeroplanes. For helicopters in Part D, the pilot must ensure that after entering IMC the take-off is conducted via published departure procedures or terrain clearance, and if a return to the departure aerodrome is necessary the weather must be at or above landing minima. The duty for landing under Schedule 2 is simpler: the pilot must use the minima published on the instrument approach chart for the aerodrome, subject to the floor of 200 ft height above threshold and 800 m visibility or 550 m RVR. For aerodromes without an approved instrument approach procedure, the pilot must use visual approach requirements by day or VMC from the lowest safe altitude within 3 nautical miles by night. The rights granted are mainly the right to use the lower minima if the conditions are satisfied. There is no right to ignore the minima; the instrument is mandatory. An operator also has the right to apply to CASA for an exemption from the minima under reg 257, but the instrument does not elaborate on that process.

The instrument itself does not prescribe a penalty. Instead, it operates through the strict liability offence in regulation 257 of CAR 1988. The note under section 4 makes this explicit: “unless exempted by CASA, it is a strict liability offence if an aircraft takes off or lands below any of the minima determined for the aircraft.” Strict liability means that the prosecution does not need to prove fault, intention, or negligence by the pilot or operator. It is enough to show that the aircraft was below the minima at the relevant time. This is a significant enforcement lever for CASA. The maximum penalty for a strict liability offence under CAR 1988 varies depending on whether the offence is dealt with as a civil penalty or a criminal prosecution. Typically, a strict liability offence under the CARs carries a penalty of up to 50 penalty units for an individual (currently $9,600 as of 2024) and up to 250 penalty units for a body corporate ($48,000). CASA can also issue infringement notices (on-the-spot fines) for breaches of reg 257, though the instrument itself does not specify the amount. Enforcement is likely to occur through routine ramp checks, incident investigations, and analysis of flight data. If an aircraft departs in weather below the minima and later has an incident, CASA will examine whether the minima were observed. The conditions attached to the minima create additional avenues for enforcement. For example, if a pilot uses the 550 m visibility minima but the runway did not have centreline lighting or markings, the take-off was below the legal minima even if the visibility was exactly 550 m. Similarly, if the pilot did not ensure that, in the event of an engine failure, terrain clearance was assured, the use of the minima was invalid. These conditions convert what might otherwise be an operational judgment into a hard legal requirement. The practical effect is that CASA can enforce not only the numerical minima but also the procedural and performance conditions. There is no provision in the instrument for a defence of reasonable mistake or due diligence, given the strict liability framework. The only relief is an exemption from CASA or, possibly, a court finding that the determination itself was invalid (which would be a rare challenge).

CASA 270/14 is made under subregulation 257(1) of CAR 1988, so it sits within the broader CAR 1988 framework. It also invokes subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which allows a power to make an instrument to be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. The instrument directly references CAO 20.7.1B for obstacle clearance requirements for aeroplanes with MTOW exceeding 5 700 kg. That means an operator of such an aeroplane must comply with both CASA 270/14 and CAO 20.7.1B to use the Part A minima. The instrument also references the AIP for survey information: all runways with strip widths of 150 m or greater are surveyed to 7 500 m unless otherwise annotated in the AIP. This ties the determination to the publicly available aeronautical information publication. The interaction with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) is not explicit in this instrument, but in practice, many operators now operate under CASR Part 91 (general operating rules) or Part 135 (air transport operations). The instrument does not say whether it prevails over or is subject to CASR. However, since CAR 1988 is being phased out and replaced by CASR, the instrument’s future applicability may depend on transitional provisions. The instrument also interacts with the operator’s own manuals and procedures. For instance, an operator’s approved operations manual may impose higher minima than those in the determination. The determination sets a floor; the operator can always be more conservative. Conversely, if the operator has an exemption from CASA, that exemption modifies the minima for that operator. The instrument’s definition of “qualifying multi-engine aeroplane” references “operative auto feather” for single-pilot propeller aeroplanes, which is a technical requirement that may interact with airworthiness directives or maintenance requirements under the Civil Aviation Regulations. The landing minima in Schedule 2 refer to “approved instrument approach procedure”, which is established under other CASA instruments and standards. There is no reference to international standards such as ICAO Annex 6, but the minima are broadly consistent with ICAO recommendations. The repeal of CASA 70/11 means any prior interpretations or administrative practices under that instrument are no longer authoritative.

The only amendment history disclosed in the instrument is the repeal of CASA 70/11. The instrument itself was made on 21 November 2014 and commenced on the day of registration. There is no indication of subsequent amendments within the text provided. It is possible that later instruments have amended or replaced CASA 270/14, but those are not part of this source. Users should check the Federal Register of Legislation for any amending instruments registered after 2014. The instrument does not include a sunset date or a review clause. Because it is made under CAR 1988, which is being progressively replaced by CASR, the instrument may eventually be repealed or remade under CASR. The original CASA 70/11 is not provided, so it is not possible to compare the changes. However, the existence of a replacement suggests that CASA considered the earlier minima to be out of date or insufficiently tiered. The instrument uses the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 power to allow variation, so CASA could amend or replace it without primary legislation. For the practitioner, it is important to verify that the current version of CASA 270/14 is still in force, as CASA frequently updates these determinations. The instrument’s numbering (270/14) indicates it is the 270th instrument made by CASA in 2014. This does not convey any substantive legal significance.

The instrument itself does not mention any litigation. No cases are cited in the text, and the instrument does not appear to have been the subject of reported judicial review or prosecution appeals in the public domain as of early 2025. The strict liability nature of reg 257 means that most enforcement is likely resolved by infringement notice or administrative action rather than court proceedings. However, any challenge to the determination would likely be made on administrative law grounds, such as whether CASA exceeded its power under reg 257(1) or whether the determination was made without proper consideration of relevant matters. The instrument was signed by the Acting Director of Aviation Safety, which may be subject to challenge if the delegation of power was defective. The note about strict liability under reg 257 could be tested in a criminal prosecution where the defendant argues that the minima were not actually determined or that the conditions were not part of the determination. The instrument is drafted to avoid that by making the conditions part of the schedules. There is no indication in the source of any interpretative disputes or inconsistent application. Users should search for decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or Federal Court involving CASA 270/14 or reg 257, but this deep dive must rely solely on the source text. The absence of litigation history in the source does not confirm that no litigation exists; it simply means the instrument does not reference any. Given the technical nature of the determination and the strict liability regime, litigation is likely rare because the factual question (whether the aircraft was below the minima) is usually clear from flight data and weather reports.

Several provisions in CASA 270/14 are easy to overlook but carry significant legal and operational risk. First, the 550 m visibility take-off minima for aeroplanes is available only if the runway has illuminated edge lighting at spacing intervals not exceeding 60 m and centreline lighting or centreline markings. Many smaller aerodromes lack centreline lighting, only having edge lights. A pilot who mistakenly believes that edge lighting alone suffices for 550 m take-offs will be in breach. Second, for non-controlled aerodromes or controlled aerodromes without ATC in operation, the 550 m minima can only be used by day, and the aerodrome must be one where carriage of radio is mandatory. This traps pilots flying into uncontrolled strips where radio is not mandatory (e.g., many private airstrips). Third, the note about survey distance: all runways with strip widths of 150 m or greater are surveyed to 7 500 m unless otherwise annotated in the AIP. If the AIP annotates a shorter survey distance, the pilot cannot rely on published obstacle free gradients beyond that distance. This is easy to miss during pre-flight planning. Fourth, for helicopters in Part C, the minima require being clear of cloud until attaining the greater of Vyse or Vmin I.M.C., and for PC2 also until passing the defined point after take-off. A pilot who enters cloud before that point is in breach, even if visibility is 800 m. Fifth, the landing minima in Schedule 2 include a floor of 200 ft height above threshold, but that floor may be overridden by the approach chart if the chart specifies a higher minimum. The instrument says “being” a height of not less than 200 ft, which suggests the chart cannot go below that, but it can go higher. Pilots must use the chart minima, not the instrument floor, if the chart is higher. Sixth, the definition of “qualifying multi-engine aeroplane” includes a requirement that single-pilot propeller aeroplanes have operative auto feather. If the auto feather system is inoperative (e.g., deferred defect under MEL), the aeroplane arguably no longer qualifies, and the pilot must use Part B minima (300 ft ceiling, 2 000 m visibility). Many MELs allow flying with inoperative auto feather for a period, but that does not satisfy the determination’s definition. Seventh, the instrument does not explicitly address what happens if one condition is met but another is not. For example, if the runway lighting is compliant but the pilot is not multi-crew proficiency checked within 13 months, the aircraft is not a qualifying multi-engine aeroplane. Each condition is cumulative. Eighth, the requirement in Part A and Part C that if a return to the departure aerodrome is necessary the weather must be at or above landing minima means that a pilot cannot depart into low visibility if the departure aerodrome’s weather is below landing minima, unless the pilot plans to go to an alternate without needing to return. This condition effectively closes the aerodrome for departures in poor weather unless the pilot is certain the flight can proceed to a suitable alternate.

Compliance with CASA 270/14 requires a systematic approach that integrates pre-flight planning, aircraft performance data, crew qualification records, and aerodrome information. The first step is to classify the aircraft correctly. Determine whether the aeroplane or helicopter meets the definition of “qualifying” under Part A or Part C of Schedule 1. For aeroplanes, this demands checking whether it is multi-engine I.F.R., whether it is two-pilot operated, a single-pilot jet, or a single-pilot propeller with operative auto feather. For aeroplanes over 5 700 kg MTOW, the operator must have documentation showing compliance with CAO 20.7.1B obstacle clearance. For aeroplanes at or below 5 700 kg, the pilot or operator must calculate the gross climb gradient under ambient conditions with the critical engine inoperative and confirm it is at least 1.9%. The engine-out climb gradient must be at least 0.3% greater than the obstacle free gradient. These calculations should be performed before each departure, or a generic performance analysis must be on file for the specific runway and conditions. If using published obstacle free gradients, verify that the survey distance extends to at least 7 500 m from the end of TODA; cross-check the AIP for any annotation indicating a shorter survey. If using operator-established gradients, ensure they meet the 12.5% splays and 30° heading limitation. Crew qualification is often overlooked: for two-pilot operations under Part A, each pilot must be endorsed on type, multi-crew trained, multi-crew proficiency checked within the previous 13 months, and instrument rated. Maintain a log of these checks. If any pilot’s proficiency check is overdue, the aircraft loses its qualifying status for that flight. For helicopters in Part C, ensure the helicopter is operating in PC1 or PC2; confirm that the determined performance class is documented in the flight manual. For take-off, select the appropriate visibility minima. If using 550 m, confirm that the runway has edge lighting at spacing intervals not exceeding 60 m and centreline lighting or markings. For non-controlled aerodromes, verify that the take-off is by day and that radio carriage is mandatory at that aerodrome (check AIP). Before take-off, assess the engine failure scenarios: if a return to departure is planned, check that the weather at the departure aerodrome is at or above instrument approach and landing minima or that a visual approach is possible. If no return is planned, confirm that fuel and performance permit diversion to a suitable aerodrome considering terrain and obstacles. For landing, consult the current instrument approach chart and use the minima specified. If the aerodrome has no approved approach procedure, landing is only permitted under day visual approach conditions or at night in VMC from the lowest safe altitude within 3 nautical miles. Document all checks in the flight folio or operations record. Operators should also consider whether their operations manual imposes higher minima; the determination sets a floor, not a ceiling. Finally, ensure that no employee or contractor attempts to use minima lower than those determined. The strict liability offence means that a single mistake, such as inadvertently using Part B minima when the aircraft qualified for Part A but the pilot lacked a current proficiency check, is still an offence. Regular internal audits and pilot training on the precise conditions of CASA 270/14 are recommended.