Part 77 - Consultation

Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 77. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.

Background to the Rules

In April 1988 the Swedavia-McGregor Report on civil aviation regulation in New Zealand was completed. Following the recommendations contained in that report, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (formerly the Air Transport Division of the Ministry of Transport) commenced a complete review of all existing civil aviation legislation. The existing legislation that is still appropriate is being rewritten into the new Rules format. New legislation is being generated where necessary for the areas not presently covered.

Considerable research was carried out to determine the format for the new legislation. It was decided that the legislative framework should incorporate the advantages of the regulatory system of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of United States of America and the system being developed by the European Joint Aviation Authorities and published as Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).

The new rules are structured in a manner similar to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) of the FAA, and aim to achieve maximum harmonisation whilst allowing for national variations. Close co-operation is also being maintained with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia to ensure maximum harmonisation with their regulatory code.

New Zealand's revised legislation is published as Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) which is divided into Parts. Each Part contains a series of individual rules which relate to a particular aviation activity.

Accompanying most Parts will be at least one associated Advisory Circular (AC) which will expand, in an informative way, specific requirements of the Part and acceptable means of compliance. For instance an AC may contain examples of acceptable practices or procedures which would meet the requirements of a particular rule.

The CAR numbering system is based on the FAR system. As a general principle the subject matter of a rule Part will be the same or similar to the FAR although the title may differ to suit New Zealand terminology. Where a CAR Part does not readily equate with a FAR number code, a number has been selected that does not conflict with any existing FAR Part.

The objective of the new rules system is to strike a balance of responsibility between the State authority and those who provide services and exercise privileges in the civil aviation system. This balance must enable the State authority to set standards for, and monitor performance of, aviation participants whilst providing the maximum flexibility for the participants to develop their own means of compliance.

Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 requires participants in the aviation system to carry out their activities safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices. Section 28 of the Act allows the Minister to make ordinary rules.

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

To provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on the proposed new rules, the Authority issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 96-3 under Docket Number 1056 on 11 May 1996. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 77 to provide a regulatory safety boundary for Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace.

Supplementary Information

All comments made on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are available in the rules docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarising each substantive contact with the Civil Aviation Authority contact person concerning this rule making has been filed in the docket.

Availability of the Document

Any person may view a copy of these rules at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140. Copies may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, PO Box 3555, Wellington 6140.

Summary of Comments on Docket Number 1056 NPRM

1. General comments on the NPRM

1.1 From the 109 submissions received, 81 companies or individuals gave very strong support for the line marking requirement while 13 power companies were against the requirement because of cost implications.

CAA response: After receiving comments from the various power companies it became evident that the line marking requirement, as stated in the NPRM, might impose an unreasonable cost burden on the power companies. A meeting between representatives of the Authority and the power industry was held at Transpower's offices in Wellington on 20 August 1996 to discuss the comments received. At this meeting it was decided to form a 'working group' consisting of representatives of the Authority, the AIA, Transpower, and certain electricity distribution companies. The purpose of the 'working group' would be to carry out preliminary investigative work into the line marking issue and determine a set of criteria that could be used to assess whether a line needs to be marked or not. Recommendations will then be made to all interested or affected parties by way of another NPRM dealing specifically with the marking of hazardous lines. The criteria will have to comply with the Act's requirement of the benefit to the nation outweighing the cost. This process is likely to take some time and, so as to not hold up the rest of the rule, all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM when agreement on the criteria has been reached. Several 'working group' meetings have already taken place and some progress has been made.

Although all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 a summary of the comments received on the NPRM, as well as the Authority's initial response, will be given in the following paragraphs for record purposes.

2. Specific comments on the NPRM

Specific comments received from the 109 submissions are discussed as follows:

1. NPRM aim

One commenter misunderstood the aim of the new rules to be the aim of Part 77.

CAA response: The purpose of the aim was to explain the aims of all the rules and not just those contained in Part 77.

Auckland Federated Farmers stated that since one of the aims was to establish an environment where the participants in the civil aviation system assume responsibility for their safety actions the participants should bear the cost of marking or illuminating obstacles, especially if this obstacle does not penetrate navigable airspace.

Auckland Federated Farmers also expressed concern that with changes in the power reticulation industry, as well as OSH regulations, they could be deemed to be the persons responsible for all overhead wires and cables and must therefore bear the cost of notification and marking such hazards.

CAA response: The Authority's view is that the person responsible for the obstacle should bear the cost of marking or illuminating the obstacle.

A joint submission, submitted by Trans Power, TheElectricity Supply Association of NZ and The Electricity Engineers Association of NZ Ltd., generally supported the aim (a) but did not see themselves as participants in the civil aviation system. A very broad definition, which would cover many others besides themselves, is likely to impose unfair financial and accountability burdens and could be considered as an abrogation of responsibility of the civil aviation business.

CAA response: The Authority does not consider that it would be imposing unfair financial or accountability burdens by asking the power industry to commence with a reasonable marking program. This will be discussed with the power companies.

The above joint submission also stated that there was uncertainty as to what aim (b) meant as it was not clear what aspects were covered by compliance. Excessive is a subjective evaluation and they do not see why any necessary costs should be removed from the civil aviation system simply because they are considered high.

CAA response: The intention of (b) is to remove the excessive cost of complying with aviation regulations so that we can achieve 'safety at a reasonable cost'.

The above joint submission generally supported aims (c) and (d) which would seem to benefit the country and are in line with the general move towards performance based rather than prescriptive legislation. However, the proposed rules seem to be highly prescriptive and in conflict with aim (d).

CAA response: The proposals might well be prescriptive but are seen as necessary requirements that are being introduced in the interests of safety. Provided they do not result in unreasonable cost there is no reason why they should not be implemented.

The above joint submission expressed concern about the limitation of the powers of the Director in purpose (c). The issues of fairness or right of appeal through an appropriate arbitration system do not seem to have been addressed.

CAA response: Part 77 does include a right for review on each determination that the Director has made.

2. Economic Analysis

Mount Cook Airline stated that the economic analysis was incomplete and does not allow for proper evaluation as to the economic effects on the nation.

CAA response: The economic analysis stated clearly that the Authority did not have sufficient information on the cost implications of the line marking proposal and was relying on the persons responsible for such wires or cables to include information on the costs involved when they submitted comments on the NPRM. A thorough assessment of the economic consequences would then be made.

3. 77.1

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force recommended that Part 77 should not apply to –

  1. any member of the New Zealand Defence Force or any aircraft operated by the NZDF acting in connection with –
  2. any war or other like emergency; or
    1. the defence of NZ and other NZ interests; or
    2. aid to civil power; or
    3. other specific operations as agreed between the Authority and NZDF.

CAA response: 77.1 has been amended as recommended except for (4) which can be dealt with through the normal exemption process.

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force also recommended that a statement be added to limit applicability to 'within territorial limits'.

CAA response: 77.1 has been amended as recommended.

4. 77.1(2)

Mount Cook Airline suggested that paragraph 77.1(2) be added to the opening sentence.

CAA response: The Authority does not agree. However, all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM when agreement on the criteria has been reached as stated above in the Authority response to 1.1.

2.5 77.3

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force recommended that Navigable Airspace be defined. This commenter added that the Authority had advised in previous correspondence that Restricted, Danger, and Military Operations areas activated for use by NZDF are not navigable airspace, yet this is not stated within the rule.

CAA response: Navigable airspace has now been defined as meaning airspace at or above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under the Civil Aviation Rules, including all legitimate low level operations but not including restricted, danger, and military operations areas activated for use by the New Zealand Defence Force.

2.6 77.4

Mount Cook Airline disagreed with this requirement and said that we should start at 500 feet which is also the lawful requirement. Pilots operating lawfully below 500 will be involved in aerial work or in a low flying area and should be totally responsible for obtaining detail of potential obstacles including wires and taking the necessary steps for avoidance.

CAA response: The Authority does not agree with this, pre flight preparation and training are important elements but the marking of lines is also a very important element that should be considered. It is also worth remembering that the Authority's role is to promote safety at a reasonable cost, not to say 'too bad' about the person flying below 500 ft. However, all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM to enable further consultation and consideration of the issues.

The New Zealand Gliding Association strongly supported the marking of lines but felt that the height above ground level should be 20m and not 45m. Their reason is that they are permitted by CASO 17 3.2.2 and the proposed 104.113 to do ridge soaring.

CAA response: It appears that the 45 metre requirement without reference to any other criteria might involve unreasonable cost. All reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM when agreement on the criteria has been reached as stated above in the Authority response to 1.1.

Mercury Energy Management stated that the 400/45 marking proposal could well cause problems for a number of power companies in rural areas where the compliance cost could be quite significant.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies and will not be done unless an economic analysis shows that the benefit will exceed the cost.

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd stated that with respect to a structure that comprises overhead wires or cables the word 'and' is used to link the two criteria. It was suggested that a better word would be 'or' as the structure may have a smaller than 400m span but cable height in excess of 45m and will be as big a hazard because of the height factor.

CAA response: This would mean that all spans longer than 400m would have to be marked regardless of height, as well as all spans higher than 45m above ground or water, regardless of span length. This would be far more strict than the present proposal. This will be discussed with the power companies and will not be done unless an economic analysis shows that the benefit will exceed the cost.

A joint submission, submitted by Trans Power, TheElectricity Supply Association of NZ, and The Electricity Engineers Association of NZ Ltd, stated that inadequate evidence was provided to support the reduction to 45m.

CAA response: There was only one comment on this issue after the draft comments closed and this company asked for the reduction to 45m. In the absence of any other comment, the requirement was lowered as requested. Also, according to the Electricity Division study (done after the Tory channel crash) 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into this category - almost 41%. Appendix F of the ED study also says the following –

  1. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the span lengths involved – 182, 184, 190, 361, 383, 396, 409, 411, 450, 450, 533, 641, 744, 1083. (57% of these accidents involved spans of more than 400 metres)
  2. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the available span heights involved – 21, 22, 36, 37, 43, 46, 49, 50, 62, 100, 100. (54% of these accidents involved spans higher than 45 metres)

The above joint submission also stated that a conservative cost estimate of the proposed rule to the electricity industry is $25 million with an annual maintenance cost of $2 - 3 million.

CAA response: This will be discussed with the power companies. It is not known how this figure was arrived at but at an approximate cost of $600 to buy and fit a marker by helicopter, the $25 million would be sufficient for 41666 markers. Assuming an average of 13 markers per span that would make 3205 spans. (This would probably cover a very large proportion of the hazardous spans) $25 Million is a lot of money but it is a lot less than the loss of $62 million to the nation over the last 16 years. Of the $62 million almost $40 million was due to powerline strikes (64.5% of the fatalities). It would also be interesting to know how the figure of $2 - 3 million annual maintenance cost was arrived at as the lines have to be inspected on a regular basis anyway.

The above joint submission also stated that no consideration had been given to other legislation that impacts on the proposed rules.

CAA response: Further consultation will take place, under a revised NPRM for the marking of overhead wires or cables, with persons that are considered to have a possible impact on, or a possible legal interest in, the proposal to require marking of overhead wires or cables.

The above joint submission also stated that they do not believe there is a case to change the current line marking criteria.

CAA response: The Authority does not agree. Since the Tory Channel crash another 7 people have died as a result of flying into powerlines. The Authority feels that there is a need to reconsider the situation.

The above joint submission also stated that there was a lack of consultation prior to the proposed rule and apparently no review of the 1987 ED study.

CAA response: The NPRM is the method of consulting with industry; it is an effective means of stating a view and getting written comment. The 1987 ED study has been considered as part of that consultation once it was raised as a consequence of the NPRM.

The above joint submission also stated that there was an arbitrary reduction from the present guidelines to new spans and conductor heights.

CAA response: The present guidelines need to be revisited. There were 26 wirestrike accidents since CAIC GEN A13/87 was sent out on 7/12/87 - Half of these were due to powerlines. 13 powerline strikes in 8 and a half years is a matter of concern. The ED study carried out in 1987 indicated that 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into the 400/45 category - almost 41%. A 41% decrease in the strike rate would be a significant achievement but if all spans longer than 400m were marked regardless of height (according to the same graph in Appendix F of the ED study) it would affect 15 of the 22 accidents - 68%. The economic analysis will determine where the line is to be drawn. This will be discussed with the power companies.

The above joint submission also stated that, according to information extracted from past wirestrike data, the number of wirestrikes peaked in the 1970's and has been trending down ever since under the present height/span criteria. It is now less than 2 per year, and this has been achieved without marking.

CAA response: In 1979 there were 5 powerline strikes, in the 5 years 1980 - 1984 there were 7 powerline strikes (average of 1.4 per year). In the 5 years 1985 - 1989 there were 13 powerline strikes (average of 2.6 per year). In the 5 years 1990 - 1994 there were 10 powerline strikes (average of 2 per year). The present height/span criteria that the submitter refers to does not exist. The total wirestrike rate (all wires) over the last 3 five year periods has never been less than 3 per year.

The above joint submission also stated that applying the proposed 45/400 span criteria on the spans that had been hit in the past indicates that only 14% of the spans would have been marked. They assume that if the strike rate is constant at 2 per year, the effect would be to prevent 1 strike every 4 years and this has to be weighed against $25-30 million and the ongoing $2-3 million per year for maintenance.

CAA response: The ED study carried out in 1987 indicated that 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into the 400/45 category - almost 41%. A 41% decrease in the strike rate would be a significant achievement. Assuming that the PL strike rate is constant at 2 per year, the effect of a 41% decrease would be to prevent over 3 strikes every 4 years. But if we marked all spans longer than 400m regardless of height (according to the same graph in Appendix F of the ED study) it would affect 15 of the 22 accidents - 68%. The effect of this would be to prevent 5.4 accidents every 4 years. The economic analysis will determine where the line is to be drawn. Another way of looking at this is that over the period 1979 - 1994 there were 68 strikes total of which 35 were powerline strikes and 20 lives were lost during the 35 powerline strikes. We have therefore lost more than 1 life for every 2 powerline strikes over this period. 20 lives equals $40 million at $2 million per life - a lot of marking could be done with $40 million. This will be discussed with the power companies.

The above joint submission also stated that the proposed rules ignore the other relevant NZ legislation which impacts on the issue of line marking.

CAA response: Refer to the comment made at page 7.

The above joint submission also stated that there was inadequate supporting information for the line marking requirement in the NPRM. They also refer to the Swedavia McGregor report's concerns about night flying and wirestrikes and state that ball marking does not assist for night flying.

CAA response: The NPRM would be too bulky if it contained all the supporting information for all the proposals contained therein. The submitter misunderstands the statement in the Swedavia McGregor report. Paragraph 7.2.3 of the Swedavia - McGregor Report (Page 75) discusses SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN and states that there are too many accidents during night flying, and as a result of hitting (unmarked) wires - wire marking is particularly unsatisfactory. Two issues are mentioned in this sentence, the one that we are concerned with has been highlighted . The Authority is well aware that standard line markers will not help during night flying. The authors of this joint submission are perhaps not aware of the fact that the Swedavia McGregor report was a catalyst to rewrite NZ Aviation legislation.

The above joint submission also stated that the economic argument was inadequate. Without an economic argument the change cannot be supported.

CAA response: The Economic Analysis, on page 7 of the NPRM, stated that the Authority does not have sufficient information on the cost implications of the line marking proposal. The Authority is relying on the persons responsible for such wires or cables to include information on the costs involved when they submit comments on the NPRM. A thorough assessment of the economic consequences will then be made.

The above joint submission also stated that there was a lack of international comparison in the NPRM. They also stated that their review of the Australian standards indicated that the minimum height for marking is 90 metres. This confirms their opinion that not enough consideration had been given to the marking criteria.

CAA response: The NPRM is not the place for detail such as international comparisons. However, Eskom South Africa marks every structure higher than 165 ft (50m) above ground level with day and night markings. Powerlines that span a valley shall be marked if the lines are higher than 45m above ground level. The Australian Standard recommends markers above 90 metres and markers and lights above 150 metres (also when spans exceed 1500 metres). The Australians have additional standards for the marking of cables for low level flying such as agricultural, mustering, media and ballooning. If New Zealand were to adopt the Australian standard only 18% of the wirestrike accidents would be prevented, compared to 54% if we were to mark from 45 metres upwards. The FAA recommends marking of lines that cross the end of a runway, regardless of height. Otherwise they use a 200 ft criteria i.e. over rivers etc they take into consideration the height of the lines above the river or valley. They don't consider the length of the span, they are only concerned with the height from the bottom of the catenary. It is not clear what the FAA achieves with only marking from 200 feet (60 m) upwards as, according to NTSB statistics, nearly all their rotary wing strikes occur below 200 feet.

The above joint submission also stated that there was no evidence that ball marking reduces the wirestrike record. A statistically significant reduction (30%) should be demonstrated before consideration should be given to ball marking. A smaller % would be within the limits of statistical probability.

CAA response: During the same period in which New Zealand lost 31 lives, the Bonneville Power Administration in the USA did not have a single wirestrike at a marked crossing. They have been marking for 30 or 40 years, with the only major change being to the size of the markers from 24 inches to 36 inches in the mid 1980's.

The above joint submission also stated that the evidence from the Tory Channel enquiry and the subsequent incidents supported the premise that wirestrikes cannot be eliminated altogether as pilot error and inattention were significant contributors to accidents.

CAA response: Pilot error and inattention are, and always will be, significant contributors to accidents, but that does not mean that we should not take every reasonable precaution to try to reduce accidents as much as is humanly possible.

The above joint submission also stated that according to their evidence there had been a very substantial downward trend in wirestrike accidents since 1987, yet there has been no additional line marking.

CAA response: During the period January 1979 up to the end of 1987 there were 22 powerline strikes (a 9 year period). During the period January 1988 to the end of 1994 there were 13 powerline strikes (a 7 year period). The Authority does not regard this decrease as very substantial. In fact, since the Tory Channel crash another 7 people have died as a result of flying into powerlines.

The above joint submission also stated that there had been no consideration of where the burden of costs will lie. Reasonable costs can be passed on to the consumer but what about the farmer who will have to absorb all their costs?

CAA response: It is the Authority's view that the owner of the obstacle should bear the cost of marking or illuminating obstacles.

Power New Zealand asked for clarification regarding spans 100m wide and 55m above water, and 800m wide and 55m above water? The submitter stated that this clause is not clear and should be clarified.

CAA response: The Authority considers the clause quite clear, if a span is greater than 400m and the height of the cable above water exceeds 45m then it must be marked. If either of these two requirements do not exist then there is no need to mark. However, all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM when agreement on the criteria has been reached as stated above in the Authority response to 1.1.

Power New Zealand stated that if 1300mm markers were installed then 9 items would be necessary on a 400m span. The only satisfactory method of installing these would be by lowering the conductors and fitting the markers before re-erection or erect new conductors with markers prefitted.

CAA response: The markers can be fitted by helicopter.

Marlborough Electric stated that all attempts to mark have been unsuccessful, totally ineffective, impossible to mount, and too costly to design for. They are completely against any form of marking.

CAA response: The Authority feels that marking, if it is considered a reasonable requirement and is imposed, can be successful and effective. Other parts of the of the world do have marking requirements that do appear effective, for example, Mr R Melzer of the Bonneville Power Administration in the USA states that in the 17 years that he has been with the BPA they have not had a single strike on a marked span.

Marlborough Electric states that areas where there are limitations on land use due to navigable airspace should be identified in the appropriate district plan.

CAA response: The Authority is not laying down limitations on land use, merely stating that certain lines should be marked.

Alpine Energy stated that half of their long spans (about 20 would exceed 400m) would be over 45m agl and are operating near their maximum capacity and could not accommodate marker balls. They would need to reconductor and restay at a cost of some $250 000. Another $250 000 for marker balls. Plus there would be an annual cost of $50 000 to inspect and maintain.

CAA response: The strength of the conductors and the restaying of structures as well as the inspection of the markers will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies. $250 000 for markers would pay for about 416 markers at $600 per marker installed by helicopter. 416 markers, 24 inch (600mm) would be sufficient for 32 spans. At $600 per marker installed the 20 spans that they are talking about (13 markers per span) would cost $156 000, not $250 000.

Alpine Energy wanted to know how many of the 31 deaths related to the 400m span and 45m height requirement.

CAA response: According to the Electricity Division study, 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into this category - almost 41%.

Alpine Energy also wanted to know how many of the 31 accidents (deaths) were due to electric fence lines rather than powerlines?

CAA response: The Authority does not believe that much will be achieved by determining how many deaths were due to electric fence lines rather than powerlines. However, it is worth noting that 46% of all strikes and 64.5% of all strike fatalities over the period 1979 - 1994 were due to powerline strikes.

Alpine Energy stated that it is likely that the increased cost will be passed on to farming customers in rural areas which would make the supply to these people uneconomic.

CAA response: This will be discussed at the meeting with the power companies.

Alpine Energy suggests that if the Authority did the funding then the project (marking of lines) may be viable.

CAA response: The Authority does not believe it should be responsible for the funding of line marking and neither does it believe that it should be a cost on aviation.

Bay of Plenty Electric assumes that balls are only required on the portions of the spans that exceed 45m?

CAA response: A line that requires marking would have to have markers along the entire length of the span, at the required spacing according to the size of the marker, to make the entire catenary visible.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they are concerned about wind loading as some towers are only designed to a safety factor of 2. It would be necessary to consider the effects, using NZS 4203 as a guide.

CAA response: The Authority appreciates the fact that some of the smaller lines would have difficulty coping with the increased wind loading. This will be discussed at the meeting with the power companies.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that it is likely that lines have been erected so that maximum design tension will be neared during adverse conditions. Balls may well exceed this tension. Some wires are only 13mm with 1 or 3 wire spans (maximum span width 1200 metres).

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they have 113 spans of either 1 or 3 wires that exceed 400m.

CAA response: If these spans meet or exceed the agreed upon criteria for marking of lines then they will have to be marked. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they are concerned that markers will require replacement after a few years due to ball movement, disintegration or colour fade.

CAA response: The Authority does not believe that there is much cause for concern. Wiremarkers NZ's PAM markers have a 10 year replacement warranty and can be expected to last more than 20 years in the most inhospitable situations. Heliflite are promoting aluminium balls designed to last 30 years.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they are concerned about the environmental impact, there may even be pressure from landowners to remove lines.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Bay of Plenty Electric suggested only one marker per 400m and added that it is likely that existing hazardous spans would accept this additional loading with minimal rebuilding.

CAA response: The Authority believes that only marking a portion of a span will not be effective as the catenary needs to be well defined. The ICAO standard [(Annex 14 Chapter 6 para 6.2.9(a)(b) and (c)] states that the spacing between two consecutive markers or between a marker and a supporting tower should not exceed 30 metres in the case of a 60 cm diameter marker, 35 metres in the case of a 80 cm diameter marker and 40 metres in the case of a 130 cm marker. Paragraph 6.2.7 of the same standard states that markers displayed on or adjacent to objects shall be located in conspicuous positions so as to retain the general definition of the object.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that pilot education and marked maps should reduce the risk.

CAA response: The Authority agrees but feels that marking of hazardous spans must be considered as a possible element of the solution to this problem.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they may need to rebuild or reconductor in some cases.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Bay of Plenty Electric stated that they were concerned that the $5000 - $8000 per 500m span may need to be passed on to the consumer.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Buller Electricity stated that there would be considerable cost to mark their three hazardous spans. The conductor is of insufficient strength to carry markers and will have to be replaced.

CAA response: The following will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies –

  1. On the smaller distribution lines that cannot cope with the increased wind loading consider the installation of two new poles with a high strength cable adjacent to the current carrying span, equal to or higher in elevation.
  2. Use high intensity obstacle lights where it is impracticable to install markers on the lines - see NPRM Appendix B paragraph 7(f)(2) and 8(d). Where high intensity obstacle lights cannot be placed on towers to indicate the levels of the catenary (maybe a very long high span, two towers at very different levels) then we would have to revert to the alternate mentioned in (a) above, or as stated in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 6.3.13 the lights may, in some cases, have to be located off the tower. See NPRM Appendix B paragraph 11(b) for effective intensities of the lights and paragraph 11(c) for flash sequence and time intervals.

Buller Electricity stated that the height rule should be more specific and wanted to know if the 45m vertical distance was measured at midspan or at any point along the span?

CAA response: The Authority's view is that if, at any point along the span, the height exceeds 45 metres above ground level then the whole span is to be marked. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Buller Electricity stated that paragraph 5 of Appendix B should specify spacing, size and colour of the markers.

CAA response: Appendix B paragraph 5 (c) explains this quite clearly. However, the possible amendment of Appendix B paragraph 5 (c) to reflect the recommendation contained in the Bonneville Power Administration report (36 inch balls at 200 feet spacing) will be discussed at a meeting with the Power Companies.

Central Electric stated that Section 22 of the Electricity Act protects all existing works, therefore the power companies would be seeking a financial contribution from the Authority.

CAA response: The Authority does not believe it should be responsible for the funding of line marking and neither does it believe that it should be a cost on aviation. Further consideration will be given to the affect of section 22.

Central Electric stated that the cost for a 400m catenary span, structures, guys and markers could exceed $6000 per crossing.

CAA response: This is possible and will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Central Electric stated that 13 markers on a 400m span (14mm conductor) would increase the wind loading by 40% and this may exceed the safe working load of the structures or conductors.

CAA response: According to available information the increased loading is likely to be in the order of 22% with 13 (600mm) balls.

Central Electric stated that the 400/45m rule is too broad and is unreasonable.

CAA response: A cost benefit analysis will be done after meeting with the power companies and this will determine what is reasonable.

Central Electric feels that the operators must shoulder the responsibility and control their activity to avoid serious harm.

CAA response: The operators do have to act responsibly but many owners of obstructions are required to mark their obstructions in such a way that they can be seen. Whether power lines should be marked is the object of another NPRM,

Central Electric stated that the effectiveness of marker balls during certain weather and time of day conditions can be seriously challenged.

CAA response: The Authority agrees that there will be times when markers will be difficult to see but if the right size and right colours are used they can be effective.

Central Electric stated that the Electricity Act 1992 no longer requires the reporting of structures which occupy navigable airspace. The Authority may need to approach the Ministry of Commerce in order to draft a new regulation under the Electricity Act.

CAA response: The Ministry of Commerce shall be given the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposed NPRM on the marking of overhead lines.

Central Electric stated that the environmental impact of marker balls on lines was a matter of some concern. There are presently several district plans being proposed by District Councils which are attempting to remove the visual impact of overhead wires from the landscape. This could lead to the gaining of a resource consent to fit marker balls in sensitive areas.

CAA response: All the District Councils were invited to consult on the issue but few took the opportunity. It is envisaged that the next NPRM will promote more discussion as the focus of it will be far more concentrated on the marking issue than the previous NPRM.

Central Power stated that the cost of fitting markers to a 400m span would be approximately $6250.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Central Power stated that if modifications to structures are required then it could cost an additional $3000 per span.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Central Power stated that wind loading could lead to structural degradation, the load on a 400m span would increase by 12.5% at the recommended spacing.

CAA response: The Authority is of the opinion that a 12.5% increase is not excessive. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Central Power stated that wind induced harmonic vibration of the conductors may lead to mechanical fatigue on the conductor and its associated fittings. This issue is so important that Transpower have commenced a program of fitting vibration dampers to key transmission lines. Central Power does not wish to bear this cost to offset the effects of line markers.

CAA response: The Authority is informed by Wiremarkers NZ that their markers do not slip, oscillate, chafe, cause electrolysis or harmonic vibration. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Egmont Electricity stated that this will create an overload situation on the poles as well as create a possible failure situation later through breaking of the wire by rubbing at the marking sphere edges.

CAA response: The Authority is informed by Wiremarkers NZ that their markers do not slip, oscillate, chafe, cause electrolysis or harmonic vibration so it is highly unlikely that markers will create a possible failure situation later through breaking of the wire.

Egmont Electricity stated that this will cost a lot of money to strengthen structures, and will also cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they lose their major supply line from their generating station.

CAA response: This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Electra stated that the reduction of the spans from 600m to 400m and the height from 200ft to 45m is arbitrary and irrelevant.

CAA response: Aviation Industry comment on the informal draft, to the effect that the span length should be 400 metres and the height of the cable or wire should be 45 metres, was adopted for the NPRM. There was no other comment on this issue in respect of the draft. It is also worth noting that the ED study carried out in 1987 indicated that 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into the 400/45 category - almost 41%.

Electra stated that this would have an adverse environmental impact and, unless it can be shown that certain lines do in fact represent a hazard, the resulting visual impact cannot be justified.

CAA response: There is no doubt that environmental impact is an important factor but if a line or a particular span is considered, after consultation through a further NPRM, to require marking then it will have to be marked. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

King Country Energy stated that reticulation in the King Country was made possible by the use of single No 8 steel wire stretched from hilltop to hilltop. 365 spans are longer than 400m and higher than 45m. The markers will have a considerable wind resistance.

CAA response: The following will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies –

  1. On the smaller distribution lines that cannot cope with the increased wind loading consider the installation of two new poles with a high strength cable adjacent to the current carrying span, equal to or higher in elevation.
  2. Use high intensity obstacle lights where it is impracticable to install markers on the lines - see NPRM Appendix B paragraph 7(f)(2) and 8(d). Where high intensity obstacle lights cannot be placed on towers to indicate the levels of the catenary (maybe a very long high span, two towers at very different levels) then we would have to revert to the alternate mentioned in (a) above, or as stated in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 6.3.13 the lights may, in some cases, have to be located off the tower. See NPRM Appendix B paragraph 11(b) for effective intensities of the lights and paragraph 11(c) for flash sequence and time intervals.

King Country Energy stated that 10% of their system would have to be rebuilt at considerable cost to their customers.

CAA response: This, and the alternatives mentioned in (a) and (b) above, will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies. Sufficient information will have to be gained so that a thorough cost benefit analysis can be done.

King Country Energy stated that the environmental impact would be considerable. If the spans are shortened then bush clearing would be necessary, otherwise brightly coloured markers would be required.

CAA response: There is no doubt that environmental impact is an important factor. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

King Country Energy stated that the stronger wires required to support markers are more likely to bring down aircraft than the comparatively flimsy wires used at present.

CAA response: The Authority disagrees, if the stronger wire is well marked then no-one is likely to fly into it.

Power New Zealand asked who decides what size markers will be fitted?

CAA response: Appendix B of the NPRM contains the ICAO International Standard regarding visual aids for denoting obstacles. However, the Authority feels that it would be wise to consider the recommendations made in the Bonneville Power Administration study (36 inch spheres at 200 feet spacing). The FAA has followed these recommendations.

Power New Zealand asked, in order to standardise, where are the markers to be purchased and at what cost?

CAA response: There are two companies in New Zealand that can supply markers : Wiremarkers NZ and Heliflite. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies. The 36 inch spheres are likely to cost in the region of US$350 each.

Power New Zealand asked who is to pay, the cost could be $80 000 per structure.

CAA response: The owner of the obstacle should bear the cost of marking or illuminating obstacles. The cost of the marker plus installation by helicopter is not likely to exceed $600 per 24 inch marker, ie 13 markers = $7800 per span, NOT $80000. Note - if we follow the Bonneville Power Administration recommendation and use the 36 inch spheres at 60 metre spacing we will only need 6 in a 400 metre span. The cost is likely to be lower while there is not likely to be a much increased wind loading when compared to the 24 inch spheres. This will also be much better from a flight safety point of view.

Waitomo Energy Services stated that this would involve substantial cost.

CAA response: The cost of the marker plus installation by helicopter is not likely to exceed $600 per 24 inch marker, ie 13 markers =$7800 per 400 metre span. The 36 inch spheres will no doubt cost more but at 60 metre spacing we will only need 6 in a 400 metre span. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Waitomo Energy Services stated that this would involve a substantive survey of their 3000km of line.

CAA response: The Authority suspects that much of this information would be stored on computer or on file but is prepared to discuss this at a meeting with the power companies.

Waitomo Energy Services stated that the only practical method of installing markers is by helicopter, a very expensive method.

CAA response: The cost of markers plus installation by helicopter is likely to be in the region of $7800 per 400 metre span. This will be discussed, and compared with the cost of fitting markers by conventional means, at a meeting with the power companies.

Waitomo Energy Services asked why is it now necessary to mark lines when the Minister has, to date, failed to identify any of their lines as hazards ?

CAA response: The Authority feels that it is necessary to consider the issue to see whether there can be a reduction to the loss of human life through accidents involving overhead lines.

Waitomo Energy Services asked how many of the wirestrike accidents referred to involved wires which would be marked under the new rules?

CAA response: According to the Electricity Division study (done after the Tory channel crash) 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into this category - almost 41%. Appendix F of the ED study also says the following –

  1. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the span lengths involved – 182, 184, 190, 361, 383, 396, 409, 411, 450, 450, 533, 641, 744, 1083. (57% of these accidents involved spans of more than 400 metres)
  2. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the available span heights involved – 21, 22, 36, 37, 43, 46, 49, 50, 62, 100, 100. (54% of these accidents involved spans higher than 45 metres)

Waitomo Energy Services stated that the type and size of marker specified would be impossible to retrofit to most of their existing lines. Their company has no legal right to reconfigure lines crossing private land (never mind the awesome cost). In some cases the only way of complying with the proposal would be to remove the said lines - meaning in some cases removal of electricity supply to substantial sectors of the community.

CAA response: The Authority will need more information on this, ie what configuration are they talking about that will not allow markers? This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies. The right to reconfigure lines crossing private land will be further considered.

Waipa Power stated that it would involve significant cost, the increase in wind loading coupled with increased phase separation may well require new support structures for those spans.

CAA response: The Authority would prefer it if the words may and if could be eliminated from these equations. These statements need to be supported by fact so that a thorough cost benefit analysis can be carried out. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Waipa Power stated that the proposed span dimensions appear to have been set arbitrarily. Is there any research evidence which can be cited in support of these dimensions?

CAA response: According to the Electricity Division study (done after the Tory channel crash) 9 of the 22 accidents they referred to fell into this category - almost 41%. Appendix F of the ED study also says the following –

  1. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the span lengths involved – 182, 184, 190, 361, 383, 396, 409, 411, 450, 450, 533, 641, 744, 1083. (57% of these accidents involved spans of more than 400 metres)
  2. Of the 14 strikes involving ED Transmission lines, the following are the available span heights involved – 21, 22, 36, 37, 43, 46, 49, 50, 62, 100, 100. (54% of these accidents involved spans higher than 45 metres)

Waitomo Energy Services stated that they are dismayed that the Authority feels it can balance the benefits in terms of money saved largely by Governments against costs imposed on private individuals and companies.

CAA response: The loss of a life is calculated to be a cost of $2 million to the nation, and the owner of the obstacle should bear the cost of marking his obstruction in order to prevent this loss of life. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Power New Zealand asked what penalties are likely to be imposed through non compliance with the new rules?

CAA response: The penalties have yet to be determined.

Power New Zealand asked whether there will be a time period for compliance.

CAA response: The Authority realises that marking of lines cannot happen overnight and is in favour of a time period for compliance. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

Power New Zealand is currently assessing the number of spans and location of existing long spans likely to be affected by the proposed rules.

CAA response: This information will be essential in order to do a thorough cost benefit analysis.

Power New Zealand stated that they see no real difficulty with new works but are not keen on having to mark existing spans.

CAA response: The Authority appreciates what is being said but there is not much point in only marking new spans, which might produce a greater hazard than that being remedied.

Wairarapa Electricity stated that they are not too concerned about the approach taken as they do not have any situation known to them where these rules would pose any unreasonably onerous conditions.

The Airways Corporation suggested that the word 'and' should be 'or' as the structure may have a smaller than 400m span but cable height in excess of 45m, and will be as big a hazard because of the height factor.

CAA response: This is a valid suggestion. We could change to all spans higher than 45 metres and just leave it at that, no-one else stipulates length of span. Changing the wording as suggested would not, however, achieve that outcome. This will be discussed at a meeting with the power companies.

2.7 77.5 (a)(1)

Wairarapa Electricity stated that they are very concerned about their windfarms, and whether they would have to mark them. They were put under a lot of pressure during the resource consent application stage to make them as visually discrete as possible.

CAA response: The matter will be given very careful consideration during the aeronautical study. There is a need for persons proposing to construct a windfarm, that will extend more than 60 metres above ground level at its site, to notify the Director in accordance with 77.5(a)(1). A possible solution could be a medium intensity obstacle light on a mast in the centre of the windfarm, slightly higher than the maximum height of the blades. The light could be shielded - visually discrete. The light could also be on one of the structures or on the 4 corners. The Authority could not impose marking conditions that did not comply with the Resource Management Act.

2.8 77.5 (a)(2)

Mount Cook Airline suggested the deletion of reference to Agricultural Operations as that description could apply to a vast area of NZ.

CAA response: The term 'Agricultural Operations' has been replaced with the term 'low level aerial activity' so as to include all forms of 'aerial work'. The 15 metres has been changed to 18 metres to make it the same as the standard in 77.21(b)(4), now 77.19(h)(4) in the final rule.

2.8 77.5 (a)(3)

Central Power stated that they object to the notification requirement of 77.5(a)(3)

CAA response: The Director has a right to be notified of structures that could affect navigable airspace. However, meetings between the various power companies, the Aviation Industry Association, and the Civil Aviation Authority will be held to determine a set of criteria that could be used to assess whether a line needs to be marked or not. The requirement in 77.5(a)(3) has be deleted until further consultation is complete.

2.9 77.5 (a)(4)

Ardmore Airport Ltd questioned the need for another layer i.e. "notification slope" below the approach and take off surfaces. The concept of approach and take off slopes already provides clearance from obstacles and this new requirement is not consistent with the aims of the new rules.

CAA response: The Authority feels that there is a need for a "notification slope" below the approach and take off surfaces, as there could be an obstacle that does not actually penetrate the obstacle limitation surface but is close enough to warrant marking. If the Authority was not notified of such obstacles the Director would not be in a position to say that the obstacle should be marked.

2.10 77.5 (a)(4) and (5)

Auckland International Airport Ltd stated that these clauses need to be specific on the requirements for structures which are proposed on ground which is naturally about or above the specified surfaces. Our designation for Obstacle Limitation Surfaces specifies that the critical surface is the higher of the obstacle surface or ground level plus 21 metres.

CAA response: 77.5(a)(5) has been amended to include – 'or as defined in the local district scheme'. 77.5(a)(4) will not contain reference to the local district scheme as the 21 metre provision does not apply under the approach or take-off surfaces. But, 77.5(a)(4)(i) will be amended to reflect a 1:83 slope originating from the fan origin for the takeoff surface of each runway where the runway is used or intended to be used by aircraft with a MCTOW above 5700kg. 77.5(a)(4)(ii) will have similar wording but will remain at a 1:50 slope.

2.11 77.5 (a)(4)(i)

Wellington International Airport stated that they are not happy with the 1:100 slope and would prefer the 1.2% slope referred to in the ICAO Annex 4 paragraph 3.8.1.1. Therefore, the wording in 77,5(a)(4)(i) should be – 1:83 originating from the fan origin for the takeoff surface of each runway where the runway is used or intended to be used by aircraft with a MCTOW above 5700kg.

CAA response: The wording has been amended as suggested.

2.12 77.5 (a)(5)

Auckland International Airport stated that there appears to be a conflict relating to obstacle limitation surfaces in regard to the requirement of 77 5(a)(5) and what is required of an aerodrome operator under CAR Rule 139.51(a)(2). 77.5(a)(5) appears to tolerate obstacles protruding through those surfaces provided that they are notified and subsequently are marked and lit in an appropriate manner. From a safety perspective an obstacle may be accepted provided that the obstacle is marked and lit appropriately and recorded on aeronautical charts, BUT such an obstacle may however significantly compromise the efficient use of the surrounding airspace. That is an RMA issue and is why AIAL, and other airport operators, have designations related to obstacle control which may appear more severe than the controls being promulgated under Part 77.

CAA response: Part 77 is just a marking and lighting rule. Part 77 does not allow the Director to prohibit the construction of any structure. If an obstacle will penetrate any of these surfaces and its construction is allowed for by the local authority, the Director will require it to be marked or lit. The Director is not granting permission for the construction to proceed, he does not have that authority - the local district council is the body that will make that decision.

2.13 77.5(b)

Mount Cook Airline stated that many of the unlisted aerodromes are valuable resources and require the protection of this Part. Where any of the notification surfaces are penetrated at any aerodrome or heliport then notice of construction or alteration of structure is required.

CAA response: The Authority does not agree. An operator who wishes to have the protection of Part 77 should apply to have the aerodrome promulgated in the current VFG of the NZAIP. 77.5(b) has, however, been removed as a definition of 'aerodrome' is now included in 77.3.

2.14 77.5(c) [Final rule 77.5(b)]

Mount Cook Airline suggested that the 600m radius be scrapped because it was based on the 2000 feet radius of Regulation 38(2A) which was not carried over to the new rules.

CAA response: The Authority does not agree, the 600 metre radius would still be worth keeping in so that, if there is high ground next to the obstacle, the height of the obstacle will be measured from the top of the high ground and not the base of the obstacle. However, 77.5(c) has been altered to read: 'In determining the height of a structure, other than overhead wires or cables, the ground level at its site shall be the highest ground within a 600 metre radius of the site'. The reason for this is to cater for a long span across a valley where at mid span the height of the wires might be 200 metres above the ground directly beneath it. If the wording is not altered to exclude overhead wires or cables then the height of the wires would also be subject to the 600 metre radius rule, and that would result in many high spans being determined 'no hazards'.

2.15 77.7(a)(2)

Mount Cook Airline stated that for consistency in obstacle identification height the level should be 120m.

CAA response: After further consultation within the Authority it was decided to reduce this height to 60m to be consistent with other notification requirements.

2.16 77.9

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force stated that this and other rules, needs to be expanded to permit one person representing an organisation to give notice. Also, the statement requires a person/s to make a safety decision in the first place. The rule does not contain any detail on what would actually constitute a hazard. The term 'hazard' needs to be defined.

CAA response: The Authority agrees and has amended paragraphs 77.9 and 77.11. These paragraphs now also contain detail on what would actually constitute a hazard.

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force also asked whether the community at large was expected to be aware of these rules? What about a hunter discharging a high powered rifle up the side of a mountain? How are gun clubs affected? The scope of the rule needs to be determined, NZDF must be advised of the scope, and the scope must be included in the rule.

CAA response: The Authority has amended paragraph 77.9. This paragraph now contains detail on what would actually constitute a hazard.

2.17 77.9 and 77.11

Airways Corporation of New Zealand stated that, with respect to weapons and fireworks, the decision as to what constitutes a hazard and whether or not to notify is still left to the originator of the event.

CAA response: The Authority agrees and has amended paragraphs 77.9 and 77.11. These paragraphs now also contain detail on what would actually constitute a hazard.

2.18 77.9 and 77.13

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force stated that they do not have 30 days notice of the requirement to conduct military operations. A maximum of one weeks notice is more likely in most cases. They recommend that existing procedures be retained for normal notification of the use of NZDF weapons that may constitute a hazard in navigable airspace. They also referred to previous discussions regarding the need to formalise a system of providing very short notice to Authority which permits restricted or Danger areas to be established almost immediately, such as for SAR and volcanic activity.

CAA response: The New Zealand Defence Force has now, to a very large extent, been exempted from the requirements of this Part - see the amended applicability in 77.1. However, 77.13 has been amended to allow 14 working days notification of a proposed operation involving the firing or launching of a projectile that will have a trajectory higher than 60 metres, in a control zone, prescribed in Part 71, during times when the appropriate ATS is on watch. Regarding the need to formalise a system of providing very short notice to Authority which would permit restricted or Danger areas to be established almost immediately, such as for SAR and volcanic activity, this will not be covered by Part 77, but will be part of the Airspace Rules.

2.19 77.13 and 77.17 [Final rule 77.13 and 77.15]

Central Power stated that they feel that the onus to identify potential aviation hazards needs to lie with the Authority.

CAA response: The Authority agrees, which is why it is proposing that certain lines be marked.

2.20 77.13(1) [Final rule 77.13(a)]

The New Zealand Gliding Association stated that, in the case of the erection of wires and structures, and the use of lasers and fireworks, they feel that the information should be promulgated by AIP Supplement. No other method of promulgation can ensure that all users are advised of the hazard. They recommend that the notice requirements of 77.13(1) be amended to 90 days.

CAA response: The notice requirement has, with some exceptions, been changed to 90 days.

2.21 77.11 and 77.15

Aerospace Education stated that these rules need to be amended to exclude consumer rocketry activities covered by Part 101 from notification requirements.

CAA response: 77.1 Applicability has been amended to exclude the activities which will be covered by Part 101. 77.15 has been removed and is not included in the final rule.

2.22 77.13(2)(ii) [Final rule 77.13(b)(2)]

Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force stated that there may be less potential for confusion if the rule was amended to read 'within 5 days after theÉ..' In any case there would seem to be little benefit to the safety of civil air traffic by providing notification up to 5 days after the event.

CAA response: 77.13(b)(2) now reads as follows – the person responsible for the construction, alteration, or use shall complete form CAA 24077/01 and submit it to the Director within 5 days after the use, construction, or alteration.

2.23 77.15(2)

Mount Cook Airline stated that all obstacles must be notified to the Director as all can have an effect on the operation of aircraft. i.e. arresting devices, localiser aerials etc. It is essential that these items be assessed for the effect on aircraft operations as any obstacles in the take-off and approach fans must be taken into account by aircraft operators whether or not marked or lit.

CAA response: The Authority agrees and has deleted 77.15.

2.24 77.17 [Final rule 77.15]

Mount Cook Airline stated that there needs to be a requirement for notice some days in advance of commencement of construction to give operators time to assess the effect on their operations and to revise take-off weights or operational minima where these may be affected. Similarly the Director must be required to provide timely notification to operators of the construction.

CAA response: This is covered by 77.13 which has changed to 90 days.

2.25 77.17(c) [Final rule 77.15(c)]

Waipa Power stated that the requirement for a registered surveyor's determination should be omitted in the case of aerial conductors and cable.

CAA response: The wording of 77.17(b), renumbered 77.15(b) in the final rule, has been altered to read – 'Each person who is required to give notice under 77.5 shall submit a notice in writing to the Director within 5 days of the construction or alteration reaching 60 m in height above the ground level at its site and again within 5 days ...' There is no need to make an exception for aerial conductors and cables at this point as all reference to the marking of lines has now been removed from Part 77 and will be reintroduced by means of another NPRM when agreement on the criteria has been reached.

2.26 77.19(a) [Final rule 77.17(a)]

Ardmore Airport Ltd asked whether notification is also required for activities such as parachuting or will this be covered by Rule Parts 71 or 73?

CAA response: Parachuting will be covered by Part 105.

2.27 77.21 [Final rule 77.19]

The Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd stated that there are no standards for fireworks, and those listed for weapons are left to the discretion of the originator who may get it wrong. They suggest that this clause be expanded, certainly within an appropriate circular, to ensure that an originator can look up a list of criteria, contact personnel with the necessary expertise, and make a correct decision.

CAA response: 77.11 has been amended to clarify the notification requirement and 77.19(g) now includes a statement regarding fireworks.

New Zealand Gliding Association stated that no guidance has been given as to what type of fireworks constitutes a hazard in navigable airspace. A definition of hazardous fireworks needs to be included.

CAA response: 77.11 has been amended to clarify the notification requirement and 77.19(g) now includes a statement regarding fireworks.

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd stated that they have reservations about the heights quoted in this clause. Many Telecom and BCI towers on hilltop or ridge top sites are in the order of 30-60 metres and are a hazard for aircraft operating under Regulation 38(3)(a), (b), and (ba). Many are sited close to commonly used flight paths. They consider it necessary that these obstacles be charted accurately with correct obstacle height data shown. At present there appears to be no legislation that compels notification of such obstacles and because of the height figures quoted in this clause this rule will not compel notification.