[Peetwo]

The lighter side of airports & aviation security -

Airport Security screening at Uganda Airport -

---

---

---

SECURITY AT UGANDA AIRPORT.pdf Size: 835.28 KB  Downloads: 1

Ps Excellent catch thorny...

Next on the FAA exporting their Part 139 -

Via the JDA Journal: 

Maybe FAA should export Part 139 to these airports?


Posted By: Cynthia Schultz May 30, 2017

Would these airports pass FAA’s safety standards?

---

1. Gisborne Airport, New Zealand

This North Island airport is one of the few in the world that has a railway line running through its runway. Both the railway and the airport are active, so let’s hope they are precise about their scheduling.

---

2. Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport, Saba Island

Blink and you might miss it. With only 400m in length, this Caribbean island has the shortest commercial air strip on the planet. Obviously, this tiny runway is only suitable for small aircraft.

---

3. Courchevel Altiport, France

This airfield high in the French Alps is a convenient yet treacherous drop-off point for wealthy skiers at the chi-chi courchevel slopes. In fact, there are ski runs no far from the 1,762 ft (537 m) mountaintop runway. Frequent fog, snow, ice and low clouds make it even more extreme. You’ll want to make sure your small plane or helicopter pilot is well trained.

---

4. Don Mueang Airport, Thailand

There aren’t many airports in the world that have an 18 hole golf course right amongst the runways. Fore!

---

5. Tenzing-Hillary Airport, Nepal

If you’re planning on trekking to Mount Everest, chances are you’ll arrive via this small Nepalese airport in Lukla. It has a short runway with a 9,334 feet (2900 meter) drop off the edge. Not for the faint of heart.

---

6. Agatti Aerodrome, Lakshadweep, India

This 4000 feet long island runway doesn’t leave much Margin for error. A few more inches, and passengers are going to be Swimming sooner than they bargained for.

---

7. Barra International Airport, Scotland

Barra International Airport, on a remote northern island in Scotland, has the only beach runway for scheduled flights in the world. At high tide, some of the runways are underwater.

---

8. Gibraltar International Airport

Winston Churchill Avenue, a major thoroughfare, intersects the airport runway in Gibraltar. This is one red light you don’t want to run.

---

9. Gustaf III Airport, Saint-Barthélemy

This runway is so tiny, only planes with a maximum of 20 people can land here. That helps keep St. Barts an exclusive upscale Caribbean haven for the rich and famous.

---

10. Kansai International Airport, Japan

With land at a premium in Japan, they decided to Build this major airport on an artificial island offshore in Osaka Bay. If its ocean setting doesn’t give you chills, it’s also regularly subjected to Earthquakes, typhoons and storm surges. Oh, and the island is also Sinking. This airport’s construction and constant reinforcement makes it the most expensive civil works project in modern history.

---

11. Madeira Airport, Portugal

The previous airport on this Portuguese archipelago was notoriously challenging due to its short runway surrounded by high mountains and the ocean. So, they extended it with an impressive – yet frightening – platform supported by 180 columns off the edge of the land.

---

12. Narsarsuaq Airport, Greenland

This runway is short and sweet whether you’re coming or going. It is considered one of the world’s most challenging approaches. Pilots have to fly up a fjord known for its turbulence and wind gusts.

---

13. Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport

A pair of grave markers are embedded into Runway 10 at this airport, in remembrance to the Dotson Family who used to own the land. One of the
Graves dates back to 1857. The law states that next of kin need to authorize the moving of family graves, and when they couldn’t be located, the airport engineers let them be.
MAYBE THIS ONE DID? Ice in Georgia’s sea coast!!!

---

14. Wellington Airport, New Zealand

This airport in New Zealand’s capital city has a short runway, so only smaller aircraft can land there. It’s known for turbulent landings due to the channeling effect of the Cook Strait creating gusty winds.

---

15. Princess Juliana International Airport, Sint Maarten

This beachside airport on the Dutch side of Saint Martin is right across the street from Maho Beach. It is known for its extremely low-altitude flyover landing approach, and tourists flock here to experience the rush of the planes overhead. Definitely one of the craziest airport runways you got to see to believe.

---

16. Ice Camp Barneo, North Pole

This snowy strip not far from the North Pole is open for just 4 weeks per year. Built on a drifting ice base, it’s a fully functional runway suitable for cargo planes like the Antonov AN-74. Perhaps Santa Claus uses it too.

Fascinating array of international airports...

MTF...P2    

Ps Out of interest here is a PDF link for FAR Part 139 - see HERE.

[MrPeaBody]

"Fits Within the Template".......Pigs Arse!! Part 3

We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West.

Perhaps it is too far back and the facts too hard to dig up. Maybe a visit to the northern end of Essendon airport can refresh some memories.  

In April 2006 the airstrip is mostly compliant with the exception of some shrubs and a small building. Note the position of the perimeter fence.



In November 2006 a new fence appears along the perimeter road. That's odd; why would you build a fence some 45m inside the airstrip? 45m is just a few metres shy of the wing span of a 767 by the way.



Ah there's the answer; we needed some extra buildings and a covered parking area for all the new cars that don't fit in the Car Yards at the Wirraway Road Precinct.



In 2015 another bloody fence appears, along with some earth works to boot. Can't be anything much you say?



Ah just as one would have anticipated; a public access road to the new Fox Hangar and to the next stage, Hart Precinct. Who would have thought that you could save so much land by putting the road on the air strip....brilliant, gives heaps more room for development!!! Installing a decorative concrete wall along the road is a great touch.... also gives a great place to pile up excavated material.....cheaper than trucking the stuff out!!



I must say I am looking forward to CASA's explanation on all of this.......someone must have approved it.......the Senators responses will be an added treat!  

PB -Super Star. Brilliant - Gold key to the Tim Tam cupboard and thanks. "K".

[Peetwo]

"Fits Within the Template".......Pigs Arse!! Part 3

We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West.

Perhaps it is too far back and the facts too hard to dig up. Maybe a visit to the northern end of Essendon airport can refresh some memories.  

In April 2006 the airstrip is mostly compliant with the exception of some shrubs and a small building. Note the position of the perimeter fence.



In November 2006 a new fence appears along the perimeter road. That's odd; why would you build a fence some 45m inside the airstrip? 45m is just a few metres shy of the wing span of a 767 by the way.



Ah there's the answer; we needed some extra buildings and a covered parking area for all the new cars that don't fit in the Car Yards at the Wirraway Road Precinct.



In 2015 another bloody fence appears, along with some earth works to boot. Can't be anything much you say?



Ah just as one would have anticipated; a public access road to the new Fox Hangar and to the next stage, Hart Precinct. Who would have thought that you could save so much land by putting the road on the air strip....brilliant, gives heaps more room for development!!! Installing a decorative concrete wall along the road is a great touch.... also gives a great place to pile up excavated material.....cheaper than trucking the stuff out!!



I must say I am looking forward to CASA's explanation on all of this.......someone must have approved it.......the Senators responses will be an added treat!  :D

PB

As usual a very well researched but troubling post indeed Mr PB ;)  

Just on this comment: "..We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West..."

Is this the QON to which you are referring?
   

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody:I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

If so then the answers to QON 113 & 114 were belatedly added to the Additional Estimates AQON on the 19th May: PDF 59KB

Here was the brief half-arsed, weasel worded AQON: 

Answer:

Under the Airports Act 1996, the Minister must, in deciding whether to approve a Major Development Plan (MDP), have regard to the views of CASA in so far as they relate to safety aspects of the plan. CASA’s advice is limited to matters concerning the safety of aircraft operations.

Consistent with those requirements, the Department consulted CASA on the MDP for Essendon Airport in mid 2004. CASA noted that the Airport is required to comply with the relevant civil aviation regulations.

In relation to Public Safety Zones, please refer to 114.

I think that means CASA have thrown the department and the minister at the time under the bus??

However from the May Budget Estimates I get the feeling that the Senators (with the possible exception of Senator Fawcett) were either not aware; or had not had a chance to disseminate AQONs 113 & 114.

Excerpts from Hansard:

Mr Tiede : In the Essendon sense, there was no Victorian definition of a public safety zone. I applied the Queensland parameters, as a hypothetical, to the Essendon runway and concluded, as I expressed to the Senate last time.

Senator XENOPHON: The question that he asked you—what empirical material you drew on to reach that conclusion that having a public safety zone protected area would not have played a part in the role of the accident at Essendon on February 21—I do not think you have answered that, or have I missed something?

Mr Tiede : Just to be clear, the Queensland legislation specifies a set of parameters for the dimensions of a public safety zone. Those dimensions were applied at the end of the Essendon runway—

Senator XENOPHON: I am sorry, we are at cross purposes. I understand, but I am asking: what is CASA's view? I am not so interested in the Queensland legislation. I want to know what CASA, as the peak air safety regulator in this country, says about public safety zones. Should there be a public safety zone? What distance from the end or an approach to a runway between buildings, and what size of buildings, should there be in the context of ensuring maximum public safety?

Mr Carmody : We were at cross purposes. I think Mr Tiede was responding to the questions in the letter. My colleagues from the department might have a view on public safety zones, but—

Senator XENOPHON: I am asking you as the peak regulatory body...

---

&..

..Senator XENOPHON: I will ask this of you, Mr Carmody. I do not understand this. Has CASA actually got a view as to what buildings, and what height of buildings or structures, should be near an airport?

Mr Carmody : We certainly do. If I may, we are at cross-purposes here in terms of public safety zones at the end of runways versus buildings on and around airports. We have a very specific view on buildings and on penetrations through the obstacle limitation surface of buildings around airports. We have a very clear view and we are involved in that process. But with the debate on the public safety zone, which is routinely at the end of the runway, I think we are actually talking at cross-purposes in terms of the debate at the moment. We are actively involved if you use Essendon as an example, and the buildings that are onsite at Essendon—or any other airport; Canberra airport, for that matter.

Senator XENOPHON: So you do not have a view?

Mr Carmody : We always have a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.

Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede : CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

Senator XENOPHON: Do those obstacle limitation surfaces need to be reviewed in light of the DFO accident?

Mr Tiede : The obstacle limitation surfaces are drawn from some quite detailed ICAO specifications—International Civil Aviation Organization specifications—that are very detailed and very longstanding. We model our regulations on that information. ICAO is in a process of reviewing the OLS. The issue with that, of course, is that any outcomes are some time downstream. CASA participates in that work of ICAO as a member of the working group that is looking at this.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede : These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Mr Carmody : We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...

 
Tied-in-knots -"..So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—..."

But does it Mr Tied-in-knots, does it really?? 

Back to you Mr PB.

[Gobbledock]

P2;

Tied-in-knots -"..So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—..."

Brilliant P2! There can be no way that the DFO did not penetrate the OLS! I believe that is becoming all too clear. What is also becoming clear, as succinctly shown by Mr Peabody's studious work, is that the encroachment upon the airports boundary took place over an extended period of time, with changes made on numerous occasions. Each 'change' supposedly would/should have been assessed against the regulations, particularly MOS 139, and submissions made to CAsA via the external stakeholder through the aerodrome Inspector(s) assigned to provide oversight of that aerodrome.

CAsA has a lot of questions to answer for over this crash. Then again they also had much to answer for over Lockhart and Pel Air but they came out of that smelling like roses. C'mon Senator Fawcett, you are far more intelligent than these CAsA spin doctors. Keep digging, keep pushing, keep squeezing and keep one step ahead of the game. I believe the Essondon crash, if used correctly, has the ability to be the catalyst that finally brings about change in CAsA that includes smashing the Iron Ring. We all know that the dopey NFI 6D can't see the potential writing on the wall, but maybe the Minister for todger photography and Malcolm 'Goldman Sachs' Turdball can see it??

TOCK TOCK

[MrPeaBody]

"Fits Within the Template"......Pigs Arse!! Part 4

Thanks P2; and yes QON 113 was what I was referring to.....disgraceful!!!

Here are some selected lines from the 139 MOS:

7.1.1.2 An obstacle is defined as:

(a) any object that stands on, or stands above, the specified surface of an obstacle restriction area which comprises the runway strips, runway end safety areas, clearways and taxiway strips; and

(b) any object that penetrates the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), a series of surfaces that set the height limits of objects, around an aerodrome.

7.1.2.1 Objects, except for approved visual and navigational aids, must not be located within the obstacle restriction area of the aerodrome without the specific approval of CASA.

7.1.6 Objects That Could Become Obstacles

7.1.6.1 If a proposed object or structure is determined to be an obstacle, details of the proposal must be referred to CASA the Authority to determine whether it will be a hazard to aircraft operations.

7.1.6.5 Fences or levee banks. A fence or levee bank that penetrates the OLS must be treated as an obstacle.

So keeping in mind these choice extracts from the MOS, we have the following exchange.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?



Mr Carmody: Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

No Mr Carmody, there was a fence.



Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody: On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.



Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede: CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

No Mr Tiede, the DFO sits  within the obstacle restriction area and breaches through the obstacle limitation surfaces.



Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede: These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Really??



Mr Carmody: We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...

This guy couldn't lie straight in bed!

PB

[Gobbledock]

More good work by Mr Peabody!! Bravo. In just your last 2 posts alone you have made CAsA oversight of Essendon in the past 10 years and the giant eared Carmody look like the prize twats that they really are!

Steam on Mr P, you're on a roll now son.....keep it coming!

[ventus45]

Bloody good work, Mr. Hector James Peabody !  
What Gobbles said.
Full Steam Ahead !

Biography (edited from:  http://mr-peabody-sherman.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Peabody)

Mr. Peabody built the WABAC (before google earth) machine, as a birthday gift for Sherman (Senators).

Mr. Peabody and Sherman then go back in time to see a Roman (Carmody) speaking in Latin (Applebyism).

Mr. Peabody then adds a translator circuit to the machine, so that everyone seems to speak English, and so they go to see the Roman again, this time finding out, that he is, in actuality, only a used chariot salesman.

Their next trip is to see Ben Franklin flying his kite, but Mr Peabody and Sherman find out that they cannot interact with the past, so Mr. Peabody makes some more adjustments, thus turning the WABAC from a "time machine", into a "should have been machine".

This results in the past they visit, being totally cockeyed, and now they must save the timeline, and rewrite history.

mr_peabody.gif Size: 30.38 KB  Downloads: 46

Mr._Peabody.png Size: 53.39 KB  Downloads: 46

[Gobbledock]

Ventus;

"time machines, Ben Franklins kite etc".

Lucky CAsA wasn't around back then mate, with all the approvals required along with the AOC and COA applications plus the normal embuggerance activities and some bully FOI trying to prove his manhood (or lack of), Mr Peabs would never have been famous! As for adding that translator circuit to the time machine, well that will end up in prosecutions as it is classified as 'maintenance' and that will result in a giant pineapple from Dr Voodoo and Flyingfiend, much to their sociopathic delight! Dr Emmet Brown of 'Back To The Future' fame invented a flying Delorean and ended up receiving the dreaded Friday 16:59 pm fax! That put an end to his career.......just sayin.

[Kharon]

Whimsy - The Obfuscation Cup.

Approaching the first fence now, it’s an uphill run to a high, wide, wooden fence filled with brush, a water hazard on the other side, a neck or nothing challenge. The fence, sponsored by Green Fields developments is a not a recent addition to the course, but there are safety concerns being raised. In the beginning, it was a standard sponsors jump, deemed to be within the rules, as the sponsors demanded more ‘excitement’ to promote their product,  the fence has been modified over a period of time and now serious doubts over the legality and safety are being raised. The stewards are beset by legal problems and are having serious difficulty controlling the additional hazards; however the sponsors demand that the  bought and paid for race must be run, despite the risks.



Wingnut, (Gelding, 17 hands, by Court Jester out of Dire Necessity) the CASA entry ridden today by Shamus Comedy has been loitering at the back of the pack, taking it easy. Those with a pecuniary interest must be, about now, wondering at the tactics. The fence is a tough one and clear air is needed to let the horse sight the jump and set up for it; mistakes have proved fatal to both horse and rider, particularly when there is interference, always to expected in this class of field.  

Aye, whimsy indeed, nicer than hard, cold fact dragged out in full glare of serious questions to be answered. Carmody needs to meet the challenge of both public and operational safety at airports. Despite the duck shoving, they are inseparable and CASA is responsible for all aeronautical safety matters – and nothing else (so they tell us). There are deeply hidden, vested interests which will not allow any meaningful challenge to the past, present and future developments.

The minister and Carmody have a massive problem coming at pace in front of them, tackle it they must. Whether that will be a honest effort or an obfuscated, drawn out, confused pantomime of allaying blame and diffusing responsibility is yet to be seen. The auguries ain’t good, past form is dismal and the opposition ferocious. The legal toll in time and money will make the MH370 search seem like a mere bagatelle. The lies, treachery and deceit will rival Nuremberg.

Carmody’s first major hurdle – lets watch and see how he tackles it.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout -

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

10:50 am
 

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull government continues with its con job consultation around Badgerys Creek airport. Here is the latest instalment of this fake consultation, with the added twist that it might actually kill off general aviation in the Sydney Basin. The protagonists are all of the aviation businesses running out of Bankstown and Camden airports whose future is threatened by the plans for an airport at Badgerys Creek. Our antagonists are the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who have locked out those stakeholders from important deliberations over the future of aviation in Sydney.

Stunningly, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia was not given a seat on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport—or, as I like to call it, the Friends of Western Sydney Airport. It is populated largely with cheerleaders and only a few people who will actually treat this process seriously, including my friend and colleague the member for Werriwa. Deputy Speaker, you cannot lock out an association like that; you only lock out an association with 3,000 members if you do not want to hear what they have to say.
Any new airport will greatly impact on the livelihoods of many general aviation businesses operating out of Bankstown and Camden. Of the three flight models provided in the EIS for Badgerys Creek airport, AOPA believes two of them would effectively end all instrument flights from Bankstown Airport—finished, over. That would almost certainly spell the end of pilot training out of Bankstown Airport, yet this association is not given a spot on FOWSA.

The government is engaging in fake consultation over this airport. They want to push it through without public debate and they do not care about aviation businesses affected because those businesses dare to do something other than toe the government line. The infrastructure minister will not even meet with AOPA. This is a joke! The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is supposed to work with Airservices Australia to develop flightpaths, airspace management and configurations for the new airport, but when AOPA ask Airservices Australis for information about these plans they are told to speak to the department. When they ask the department for information about airspace planning they are not given any information either. So the coalition is only pro-business when those businesses are pro-coalition. In order for those businesses to plan for their future they have to be included in any planning. It is that simple. Without inclusion they perhaps face closure.

The reason the department contracted out flightpath development and did not contract Airservices Australia is to ensure that meaningful consultation was not provided for with affected communities. The government and department are knowingly excluding Airservices Australia because they want to build this airport to such a point that it is impossible to accommodate community concern. They are deliberately and knowingly misleading communities and keeping them in the dark. It will be too late to correct this when Western Sydney communities realise what is actually happening.

Also covered by Oz Flying:

Ed Husic rises in parliament to support AOPA's position for a seat on FOWSA. (Still from video footage)

Labor goes into Bat for AOPA over Badgerys Creek
28 June 2017

Labor MP Ed Husic has supported the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) in its attempts to get a seat on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA).
Husic, the Member for Chifley in Sydney's west, raised the issue in the House of Representatives last week, strongly condemning the Federal Government for overlooking AOPA.

"The Turnbull government continues with its con job consultation around Badgerys Creek airport," Husic stated. "Here is the latest instalment of this fake consultation, with the added twist that it might actually kill off general aviation in the Sydney Basin.

"The protagonists are all of the aviation businesses running out of Bankstown and Camden airports whose future is threatened by the plans for an airport at Badgerys Creek. Our antagonists are the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who have locked out those stakeholders from important deliberations over the future of aviation in Sydney.

"Stunningly, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia was not given a seat on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport—or, as I like to call it, the Friends of Western Sydney Airport. It [FOWSA] is populated largely with cheerleaders and only a few people who will actually treat this process seriously, including my friend and colleague the member for Werriwa [Anne Stanley ].

" ... you cannot lock out an association like that; you only lock out an association with 3000 members if you do not want to hear what they have to say. Any new airport will greatly impact on the livelihoods of many general aviation businesses operating out of Bankstown and Camden.

"Of the three flight models provided in the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] for Badgerys Creek airport, AOPA believes two of them would effectively end all instrument flights from Bankstown Airport—finished, over. That would almost certainly spell the end of pilot training out of Bankstown Airport, yet this association is not given a spot on FOWSA."

Husic went on to accuse the Turnbull government of fake consultation and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Developlment of frustrating requests for information on flightpath plans.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...EXd3I5U.99

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout -

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

10:50 am
 

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Also covered by Oz Flying:

Ed Husic rises in parliament to support AOPA's position for a seat on FOWSA. (Still from video footage)

Labor goes into Bat for AOPA over Badgerys Creek
28 June 2017

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...EXd3I5U.99

Airport QON & the (FOWSA v AOPA) YSBK political football.

Very much related to the above, from the just released Budget Estimates QON index (PDF 661KB), I note that Sterlo (& the Labor party) is a quick study on the possible implications of Senator Fawcett CASA QON 122 (in particular the part in bold):

122
000261
CASA
FAWCETT
SAFETY SYSTEM

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as you are aware, we have spoken before about manual of standards part 139, which goes to airport design. Over the years we have seen what have essentially been open spaces for airports, with standards put in place. But as commercial pressures have built up that real estate and that airspace have been encroached upon right up to, and in some cases, I would argue, intruding into, the limits that MOS 139 is supposed to put in place.

What Senator Xenophon was pointing to, I think, is the fact that if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, 'Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,' and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore, options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system.

I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

Senator Sterle wrote the following QON addressed to the Department's Western Sydney (Airport) Unit :

158
000324
WSU
STERLE
FLIGHT PATH DESIGN FOR WSA

Part B, Chapter 7 of the Western Sydney Airport EIS states the following:

"The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be responsible for delivering the flight path design for the proposed Western Sydney Airport, working in close collaboration with Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The proposed airspace design arrangements will be formally referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). CASA would ultimately approve the proposed airspace management arrangements, including the authorisation of final flight paths, before the commencement of operations.”

Question: What steps has the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development taken to develop:

a. Air Routes
b. Arrival and Departure Procedures
c. Instrument and Visual Approach Procedures for Western Sydney Airport?
d. What involvement has Air Service Australia had in this work?

How does the government intend that these will be developed? What is and will be the involvement of private sector organisations in this and related airspace design?

If this work is being undertaken by private sector organisations, what process has the Department followed for the issue of tenders and selection of contractors and consultants in this respect?

---

159
000325
WSU
STERLE
VIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES FOR BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

---

160
000326
WSU
STERLE
WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES AT BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.
Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

Hmm...this could get very interesting -  

Next some more potentially embarrassing Essendon DFO related QON :

96
000253
AAA
XENOPHON
PLANNING LAWS

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?
…

Senator XENOPHON: So if the ATSB says, 'We need to review public safety zones—

Mr Carmody: I would be very interested if they came out with something like that. At the moment, the investigation is afoot, I understand. I do not know what the cause of the accident was. I know what the consequences were. But I think that that is part of the picture.

Senator XENOPHON: There is always the cause, but would the outcome have been different if that building were not in the way?

Mr Carmody: And that is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: And it also is those on the ground, in that building. Just to finalise that, Mr Mrdak, could you please, on notice, provide me with details of what the department says are the legal and constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth overriding state planning laws in relation to these issues.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.

Senator XENOPHON: I am surprised that not even the corporations power, or various powers, could be used in respect—

Mr Mrdak: We will provide you an update on where the work on public safety zones is up to and the legal position.

---

97
000254
AAA
XENOPHON
PUBLICATION OF NASAG MINUTES

Ms Spence: We have been progressing this through the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group. It is a matter where we have had to get agreement from all the states and territories. As Mr Mrdak mentioned, on 14 March members reconfirmed their commitment to developing and implementing the public safety zone guidance for airports. The next meeting of NASAG is on 2 August, and before that NASAG members are going to brief their respective ministers on the draft public safety zone guidelines that have been developed by the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments in consultation with NASAG members. Subject to the minister's agreement, NASAG will conduct targeted stakeholder consultation with selected airports in the second half of 2017, and then the draft guidelines will be released for wider consultation.

Senator XENOPHON: Are these minutes made public?

Ms Spence: I do not think the minutes of NASAG are made public.

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator XENOPHON: Is there any reason why they cannot be made public?

Mr Mrdak: I am happy to take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe it is a question for the committee as to whether or not they are made public as well. But can you take it on notice, and if you do not wish to make them public then it could be a question of an order for the production of documents. I will put some questions on notice.

---

124
000304
CASA
XENOPHON
PUBLIC SAFETY ZONE AROUND BADGERY’S CREEK

1. Has CASA had discussions with relevant authorities planning Badgerys’s Creek on the requirements for a public safety zone around the new airport’s site?
2. Will CASA be the approving authority for that airport in respect of public safety zone?

---

126
000306
CASA
XENOPHON
NASAG OVERRIDE OF CASA ON AIR SAFETY

Can National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) override CASA on a matter of air safety? If so, under what circumstances?

MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

The Obfuscation Stakes.

For the true aficionado of the sport, The Obfuscation Stakes Airport Section (TOSAS) is the premier, gala event of the season. Every stable in the land has at least one team entered, some of the more affluent stables can afford to enter more. The rules are simple enough, picking a winner is an extremely dangerous wager to make. The reason for this is the ruck on the finish line, that the judges struggle to find a clear, outright winner. The fault of course lays hidden within the rules; the purpose is to finish but not be first over line – hence the ruck; everyone trying to push another entry into the lime light; the art is to be there, but not be the one named. To cross the line first means the end of a racing career. Pushing and shoving other runners over the finish line just ahead of you is the reason for many, gruelling practice sessions.

There are four major events; the first, traditionally being the Airport Cup, which attracts the widest field. From the owners, operators, airlines, retail outlets, passengers, staff, fuel companies, security outfits etc. Then there are the government sponsored entries; always a threat in a wide field. The experienced punter will always pay careful attention to the ‘official’ entries, they have, statistically, won every event since the race was first run. Which entry will be shoved over the line first is a difficult call; but to work out who shoved whom is the challenge – and, by the by – where the big odds are to be had.

For the form conscious among you; the tote board is showing the top six ‘official’ entries for your ante post consideration. All past masters of showing for a place, just behind the winner.

Top weight – Just DoIT – Horse (17h) by Deceptions Delight out of Pink Bat; a very clever animal, considered by many to be the master of the ‘herding technique which keeps the intended victim against the rails, offering a protected pathway to the finish; then just slipping in behand to deliver the final nudge. Many have fallen for this ruse, to their cost. The ministers entry the traditional target.

Second favourite – Pig in Clover – Gelding (15h) by Donuttin out of Image Maker; started out as a show pony winning many a gymkhana and pony club event. The owner had ambitions to enter the big stake races and some small success, early and clever selection of events took the animal out of it’s class. Many believe its outclassed by the top TOS entries and a likely target for Just DoIT.

Equal favourite – Wingnut – Gelding (16h) by Just DoIT out of Loaded Dice; this is a team player, likely to ‘assist’ in any behind the referee ‘shepherding’ move initiated by Just DoIT. The strategy developed during training sessions against the Senate team is subtle, smooth and deceptive to any runner without one eye over the shoulder; a master of the rear end shunt.

At a good return – Village Idiot – Gelding (15h) by Under the Bus out of Easy Led. A top pick for first across the line punters. Erratic running and confused tactics often make this entry the target of choice for the wily. Easy to spot in a melee, the prancing, running on the spot delaying tactic more often than not ends in a rear end collision.

At even money – Chameleon – Filly (15h) by Voodoo Magic out of Travesty. Safety first for the Filly, the connections very well aware of the fragile nature of past campaign runs and the dangers of running a light weight in a heavy horse race. Stealth and deception have so far kept this entry out of the front line action; that and the use of various performance modifiers to enhance courage and a willingness to join in a scrum. A third or even fourth place will keep the filly ‘in the game’ but out of the spotlight.

For the more daring, we offer good, but short odds on the heavyweight favourite for outright winner – Statesman – Horse (17.5h) by Common Sense out of Decency. Well trained by experts with an amazing ability to read a race, counter the dastardly plots and machinations of the entries which cannot, dare not, be first across the line.

The ducking, weaving, pushing, shoving, cheating and deceiving is always interesting and entertaining; all part of the great game. But sooner or later, one of the entries must be forced across the line and wear the ignominy of owning the Airports Obfuscation Cup.

So Step up here boys and girls – take your pick; pay your money and take your chances.

Toot-toot.

[P7_TOM]

Backing the Win.

I’ll take a flutter on Statesman – to win, please. Glossy coats, manicured hoofs and fancy accoutrements may impress the mugs down in the ledger; but class, pedigree, blood and staying power is needed to win this round. Statesman is nothing if not a working horse; no pumped up ‘work out’ muscle there; just the steel and stamina of a stayer, used to doing the hard yards which produce the flat, strong muscles of a true winner. It is a distance race needing real power, not some contrived, artificially produced pretence of real power. Trained by Xenophon, ridden by Fawcett, owned by O’Sullivan and Sterle – what else could you think of backing; when push come to shove. – Go with strength – horsepower – of the real law making kind.

Two choc frogs and a Tim Tam – Statesman.

[Peetwo]

M&M lesson on how to obfuscate the QON -  

Previous reference:

FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout -

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

Senator Sterle wrote the following QON addressed to the Department's Western Sydney (Airport) Unit :

158
000324
WSU
STERLE
FLIGHT PATH DESIGN FOR WSA

Part B, Chapter 7 of the Western Sydney Airport EIS states the following:

"The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be responsible for delivering the flight path design for the proposed Western Sydney Airport, working in close collaboration with Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The proposed airspace design arrangements will be formally referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). CASA would ultimately approve the proposed airspace management arrangements, including the authorisation of final flight paths, before the commencement of operations.”

Question: What steps has the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development taken to develop:

a. Air Routes
b. Arrival and Departure Procedures
c. Instrument and Visual Approach Procedures for Western Sydney Airport?
d. What involvement has Air Service Australia had in this work?

How does the government intend that these will be developed? What is and will be the involvement of private sector organisations in this and related airspace design?

If this work is being undertaken by private sector organisations, what process has the Department followed for the issue of tenders and selection of contractors and consultants in this respect?

---

159
000325
WSU
STERLE
VIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES FOR BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

---

160
000326
WSU
STERLE
WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES AT BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.
Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

AQON from WSU:

QON_Western_Sydney_Unit.pdf Size: 43.89 KB  Downloads: 0

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

Answer:

1 – 2. The Commonwealth is solely responsible for determining the flight paths for Western Sydney Airport.

The airspace design process will comply with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan. The final airspace design process (including flight paths and operating procedures) will be determined through the process presented in the Airport Plan.

The Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA) has been established to enable the views of the community, industry, local government and other stakeholders to be heard and taken into account in the planning and development of Western Sydney Airport. Bankstown Airport Ltd, operating as Sydney Metro Airports, is represented on FOWSA by its Chief Executive Officer. FOWSA will be consulted on the airspace and flight path design process for the airport among other matters. As part of the airspace design process, the Department will also consult directly with aerodrome operators and airspace users about their current and future airspace needs and the airspace requirements for Western Sydney Airport.

---

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport
Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.

Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

Answer:

The airspace design process will be conducted in accordance with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan, which among other things requires the Commonwealth to consult with stakeholders including the aviation industry and other airspace users. The final airspace design process (including flight paths, height of aircraft operations and
potential noise exposure levels) will be determined through the processes set out in the Airport Plan.

Not sure where that leaves AOPA Oz but I can certainly recognise the word weasel deflection - God help the GA industry because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that our WOFTAM NFI miniscule never will...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

More airport development; & YMEN DFO related AQON -  

First from the CASA AQON (so far - ) - I'm confused  : PDF 51KB*

NX QON to CASA on airports:

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

1. Has CASA had discussions with relevant authorities planning Badgerys’s Creek on the requirements for a public safety zone around the new airport’s site?
2. Will CASA be the approving authority for that airport in respect of a public safety zone?

Answer:
1. No, this is a matter for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
2. No, which is consistent with other federally-leased airports.

---

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Can National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) override CASA on a matter of air safety? If so, under what circumstances?

Answer:
No. CASA has legislative aviation safety obligations and powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Airspace Act 2007, and administers aviation regulations. NASAG is an advisory group, not a decision making body.

And to add to the confusion from M&M's Aviation & Airports division (so far)   : PDF 61KB*  

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?
…
Senator XENOPHON: So if the ATSB says, 'We need to review public safety zones—

Mr Carmody: I would be very interested if they came out with something like that. At the moment, the investigation is afoot, I understand. I do not know what the cause of the accident was. I know what the consequences were. But I think that that is part of the picture.

Senator XENOPHON: There is always the cause, but would the outcome have been different if that building were not in the way?

Mr Carmody: And that is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: And it also is those on the ground, in that building. Just to finalise that, Mr Mrdak, could you please, on notice, provide me with details of what the department says are the legal and constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth overriding state planning laws in relation to these issues.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.

Senator XENOPHON: I am surprised that not even the corporations power, or various powers, could be used in respect—

Mr Mrdak: We will provide you an update on where the work on public safety zones is up to and the legal position.

Answer:
Public Safety Zones (PSZs) are a land-use planning tool that reduce the risk of an air transport accident affecting people who live, work or travel in close proximity to airports. They enable suitable development to be properly located, noting that the risk of an air transport accident is already very low. The Commonwealth’s approach to
the establishment of PSZs in the vicinity of Australian airports is to work cooperatively with the States and Territories through the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG). If agreement on PSZs cannot be reached at NASAG, the commonwealth may consider what options are available for legislating to regulate off-airport land use in PSZs for the purpose of protecting the safety of people on and near airports from any risks arising from aviation operations, noting that, as far as the department is aware, the relevant legislative powers have not been relied upon for this purpose previously.

Prior to the next NASAG meeting on 2 August 2017, members have agreed to brief their respective Ministers on a draft PSZ Guideline developed by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments in consultation with other NASAG members. If State and Territory Ministers agree, the Guideline will proceed to targeted stakeholder consultation in the second half of 2017.

---

QON 97:

...Senator XENOPHON: Are these minutes made public?

Ms Spence: I do not think the minutes of NASAG are made public.

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator XENOPHON: Is there any reason why they cannot be made public?

Mr Mrdak: I am happy to take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe it is a question for the committee as to whether or not they are made public as well. But can you take it on notice, and if you do not wish to make them public then it could be a question of an order for the production of documents. I will put some questions on notice.

Answer:
Consistent with other Commonwealth-State officials groups, the minutes of the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) are not made public noting that NASAG is not a decision-making body.
Err what's the big secret..

Which still leaves the Senator Fawcett (pregnant pause) QON yet to be answered (or obfuscated):

QON 122:

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as you are aware, we have spoken before about manual of standards part 139, which goes to airport design. Over the years we have seen what have essentially been open spaces for airports, with standards put in place. But as commercial pressures have built up that real estate and that airspace have been encroached upon right up to, and in some cases, I would argue, intruding into, the limits that MOS 139 is supposed to put in place.

What Senator Xenophon was pointing to, I think, is the fact that if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, 'Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,' and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore,options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system.

I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

MTF...P2  

[MrPeaBody]

Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

[Kharon]

Aw, Mr PB – that’s not fair. It is after all, a ‘team’ effort which achieves the most.

[Peetwo]

Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

Carmody's look at that??

Somewhat gobsmacked I noted that Senator Fawcett's probing QON was answered today by CC...

QON 122 at 02:28 here:

Answer:

Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 prohibits the intrusion of controlled activities (e.g. buildings, cranes and other structures, etc) into the prescribed airspace of leased federal airports (i.e. those airports that operate under a lease with the Commonwealth) without an approval granted under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations (APARs). The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development administers the APARs. CASA will provide advice on aviation safety matters related to a proposed controlled activity to the Department, in accordance with the APARs.

As part of its comprehensive assessment of the proposed controlled activity, CASA will consider:

- the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 139-Aerodromes and its Manual of Standards, in particular the regulatory arrangements associated with the establishment of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces;
- the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14-Aerodromes;
- the ICAO Document 8168 Procedures for Air Navigation-Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), in particular the instrument procedure design surfaces (PANS-OPS surfaces) associated with the leased Federal airport in question; and
- the National Airports Safeguarding Framework and associated guidelines;

CASA’s advice will take one of the following forms:
 - the proposal is acceptable without risk mitigation;
 - the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions imposing risk mitigation measures; or
 - the proposal is unacceptable.

The APARs specify a proposed controlled activity must not be approved by the Secretary if CASA advises that carrying out the controlled activity would have an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing or future air transport operations into or out of the airport concerned. In other circumstances, CASA’s advice on risk mitigation measures will be considered by the Department in making its decision.

Besides creating more questions than answers, it would appear that the CC answer is very gently attempting to throw M&M under the bus...

For those interested here are the APARS to which CC refers:

TABLE OF PROVISIONS
 1. Name of regulations  
2. Object of Regulations
3. Meaning of terms  
4. Ascertainment of OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces  
5. Declaration as to preservation of airspace  
6. Prescribed airspace  
6A. Level of air turbulence  
7. Application for approval to carry out controlled activity  
8. Local government body etc to give notice  
9. Intrusion into PANS-OPS airspace  
10. Submissions about intrusion into prescribed airspace  
11. Giving application to Secretary  
12. Request for more information  
13. Consideration of application  
14. Secretary to approve, or refuse to approve, proposal  
15. Notification of Secretary's decision  
15A. Notification of decisions of Secretary's delegate  
16. Variation of conditions, etc, of approval  
17. Review of Secretary's decisions  
18. Delegation

And in case you were wondering what exactly a 'controlled activity' is defined as, here is the blurb direct from the M&M PH (Pumpkin Head) website :

What is a Controlled Activity?

Any activity that infringes an airport's protected airspace is called a controlled activity, and requires approval before it can be carried out. Controlled activities include the following:

• permanent structures, such as buildings, intruding into the protected airspace
  
• temporary structures such as cranes intruding into the protected airspace
  
• any activities causing intrusions into the protected airspace through glare from artificial light or reflected sunlight, air turbulence from stacks or vents, smoke, dust, steam or other gases or particulate matter.
  

The Regulations differentiate between short-term (less than 3 months) and long-term controlled activities. The Regulations provide for the airport operator to approve short-term controlled activities, excluding PANS-OPS infringements, and for the Department to approve long-term controlled activities, or short-term controlled activities referred to it by the airport operator, including short-term infringements of the PANS-OPS surface. However, long term intrusions of the PANS-OPS surface are prohibited.

   
What say you Mr Peabody - happy with that AQON?


 MTF...P2  

[MrPeaBody]

As usual Mr Carmody does not answer the question!

But maybe he would like to answer how CASA addressed item 2 in the press release outlining the conditions imposed on the DFO development.

[Peetwo]

As usual Mr Carmody does not answer the question!

But maybe he would like to answer how CASA addressed item 2 in the press release outlining the conditions imposed on the DFO development.

Interesting catch there Mr P -   Q/ What was the date of that presser?

The reason I ask is that the matter of the Murky world of departmental Secretary approval for urban development projects, in and around airports, caught the attention and concern by the FAA USOAP audit team in 2008:

---

---

ICAO audit finding AGA/05 would appear to have been the trigger for the establishment of the NASAG and that the matter of encroaching on, or indeed establishing, PSZs (public safety zones) around airports has been an outstanding and yet to be mitigated safety risk identified (at least) for the better part of a decade - why am I not surprised...

While on the ICAO audit report the AGA/03 finding is I believe relevant to the Airport development safety issues and the YMEN DFO accident on the subject of RESA (runway end safety area)      

---

---

Reviewing the latest iteration of the 39 page notified differences to ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1, it would appear that the NDs to para 3.5.3 & 3.5.4 still remain to this day:

3.5.3

---

MOS Part 139 Chapter 6, Section 6.2.26

---

Less protective or partially

implemented not

implemented

---

Australia requires the RESA to be provided at

the end of the runway strip and is to extend

for the distance of 90m for a code number 3 or

4 runway used by air transport aeroplanes. In

all other cases, the minimum length of the

RESA is to be 60m for Code 1 or 2 runways.

&..

3.5.4

---

MOS Part 139 Chapter 6, Section

6.2.26

---

Less protective or partially
implemented not
implemented

---

Australia requires the RESA to be provided at
the end of the runway strip and is to extend
for the distance of 90m for a code number 3 or
4 runway used by air transport aeroplanes. In
all other cases, the minimum length of the
RESA is to be 60m.

(Note: It should be noted that YMEN is used by numerous 'air transport' aeroplanes, including HCRPT)

For those interested here is a copy of the ICAO Annex 14 CH 1 and the following is the quoted sections referred to in the notified differences to RESA requirements:

Dimensions of runway end safety areas

3.5.2 A runway end safety area shall extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 m.

3.5.3 Recommendation.— A runway end safety area should, as far as practicable, extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least:

— 240 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and
— 120 m where the code number is 1 or 2.

3.5.4 The width of a runway end safety area shall be at least twice that of the associated runway.

3.5.5 Recommendation.— The width of a runway end safety area should, wherever practicable, be equal to that of the graded portion of the associated runway strip.

(P2 comment: Also from the Annex it is worth reading - ATTACHMENT A. GUIDANCE MATERIAL SUPPLEMENTARY TO ANNEX 14, VOLUME I - for ICAO dimensions, definitions and requirements meeting the ICAO/PANS-OPS standards.)


MTF...P2