Out of curiosity, I did a little digging into the registered ICAO difference that the Aerodrome MoS 5.2.2.1 (b) references - i.e. the Australian practice of including the grassed area at the end of the runway in the TODA.
That led me to
www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending...o/icao_standards.asp - annex 14
Reading through annex 14 - volume 1, I could find no reference to the so called registered ICAO difference that the Aerodrome MoS alluded to. I could be that I am looking in all the wrong places!
the document principally is concerned with heavy aircraft operations, hence the reference to a screen of 35 ft rather than 50 ft as is appropriate for light aircraft. However, perhaps we can put that to one side for the discussion ...
I don't think aerodrome surveyors are concerned with the operational matters like screen height. That being said, it can be put aside.
(a) if there is a clearway declared and stopway, then the stopway is part of the TODA and lies under the post TORA section of the TODA. No other interpretation makes any logical sense ?
To my mind, the Stopway in this scenario is redundant. The Stopway lies
under the Clearway, hence TODA = TORA+Clearway. This is the ICAO/Australian convention when a clearway is provided.
(b) if there is no clearway declared, then any stopway, necessarily, must lie under the defacto clearway existing per the local practice between the end of TORA and EOS.
This is premised on the assumption of "(a)" above being correct.
To my mind, the Australian registered difference (that I can't find) has created a problem for CASA. In particular, the Australian difference impacts on the ICAO definition of TODA where the runway is served by a Stopway only - ref to diagram "C" below.
The final sentence "Any stopway is not involved", by any rational linguistic interpretation, is nonsense.
This would suggest that this sentence is a band-aid solution to the problem. It brings the Australian practice back into line with the ICAO practice.
But then again, I could be dreaming.