AuntyPru Forum

(08-05-2021, 10:24 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]Doc Runacres Submission 56

Via RRAT webpages: 56 SAR Aviation Medicine (PDF 182 KB) 

---

Moorabbin Airport
As discussed above, there has been pressure on Moorabbin Airport Corporation to provide
more aviation space, parking and hangars at the airport. This pressure has been largely
resisted and no investment in aviation space by Moorabbin Airport Corporation has been
undertaken since privatisation has occurred.

That is not to say that no investment has occurred at Moorabbin Airport, as some businesses
have been allowed to develop their own buildings. Further, as outlined in the 2004 Master
Plan, one hangar has been constructed and one has been converted from non-aviation to
aviation use. This is the total extent of aviation hangar construction since privatisation
occurred at Moorabbin Airport.

Concurrently, a tenant of Moorabbin Airport Corporation went into administration and was
liquidated. A sub-leasee was advised that there is no space for them at Moorabbin Airport
and their tenancy was to be terminated in November 2021. With no viable option available,
the tenant vacated Moorabbin Airport permanently.

I have a collection of names of aircraft owners seeking hangarage for their aircraft and the
demand for aviation space, specifically hangar and aircraft parking at Moorabbin Airport is
now at unprecedented levels.

The Airports Act Cwth (1996) (The Act)
On reviewing The Act, I note the first Object of The Act includes Section 3(a): “to promote the
sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.

Since privatisation, until 2029, when this proposed Master Plan is due to expire, Moorabbin
Airport Corporation boasts $800M invested into Moorabbin Airport, but only $25M of this
will be spent directly on aviation.

During the Second Reading of The Airports Bill, by the Honourable John Sharp, Minister for
Transport and Regional Development assured the Australian people that “The government is
thus committed to putting into place an appropriate regulatory framework to protect the
interests of current and future airport users and local communities” and “The government's
aim is to ensure there is no abuse of the potential market power of airport operators”.
As demonstrated Moorabbin Airport Corporation has done nothing to promote the
development of aviation in Australia and the Governments agenda has been thwarted by
Moorabbin Airport Corporation.

Moorabbin Airport Corporation is required under The Act to provide a Master Plan (Section
70(1)). Included as a purpose of the Master Plan is “…to reduce potential conflicts between
uses of the airport site…”.

The Moorabbin Airport Corporation Master Plan
I have read and reviewed the Moorabbin Airport Corporation Master Plans from 1999, 2004,
2010 and 2015 as way of background to this submission on the Draft 2021 Master Plan.

While nothing can be changed under these Master Plans, it is important to understand the
track record that the Moorabbin Airport Corporation holds. Under these Master Plans the
following aviation projects have been achieved:

• Runway 04/22 has been shortened
• Aviation hangar numbers have been reduced from 39 to 32
• Aviation leased land has decreased from 225,000m2 to 163,000m2 (though a possible
further 29,000m2 may come on line)
• A noise abatement sign (since gone) was placed near runway 17R
• The only major project funded by the Moorabbin Airport Corporation has been the
refurbishment of the terminal building, that happens to include the Moorabbin
Airport Corporation offices

Moorabbin Airport Corporation will espouse its investment in aviation by discussing runway
lights and runway and taxiway resealing. Please note that this is not investment in the airport.
This is routine repairs and maintenance, as required by any airport to maintain its certification
with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and compliance with the International Civil Aviation
Organization.

It should be noted that under the 2015 Master Plan, the removal of seven hangars plus
parking apron was presented as a coloured box on a map. No further details were given and
the first real warnings of this occurring was when the airport provided an eviction notice to
the tenants of seven hangars, which sent shockwaves around the airport.

Further, the removal of seven hangars and subsequent construction of new warehouses and
a new road under the 2015 Master Plan warranted a Major Development Plan. The
Department of Infrastructure, and your office has not been able to provide any evidence such
a plan was provided.

On reviewing the 2021 Draft Preliminary Master Plan, a further coloured box on a map is the
only indication in the reduction of aviation precinct, resulting in another approximately seven
hangars being removed. With no replacement outlined for the seven previously removed
hangars, Moorabbin Airport is now looking at the having had fourteen of thirty-nine hangars
removed, with little or no replacement documented in the Master Plan.

Nothing in the 2021 Draft Preliminary Master Plan addresses:

• Expanding “non-flight training” aspects of general aviation
• That almost none of the previous proposed aviation projects have been undertaken
• How safety at the airport is being improved above the minimum
• How displaced aviation tenants will be managed
• How new aviation tenants will be accommodated

It should be noted that very little of the proposed aviation development from the 1999, 2004,
2010 and 2015 Master Plans has actually been conducted. These sections have largely been
regurgitated from Master Plan to Master Plan.

Corporate Responsibility
It is important to consider the broader picture of Moorabbin Airport Corporation, and its
owner, The Goodman Group.

• The Goodman Group is a $51 billion dollar, publicly listed (ASX), international
company. It boasts, in its 2020 annual report, an operating profit of approximately $1
billion.
The Goodman Group is a property developer, and Moorabbin Airport, approximately
20km from the Melbourne CBD, is prime land for redevelopment as anything other
than an airport.

• The Moorabbin Airport Corporation and Goodman Group have made it clear that they
have no interest in keeping Moorabbin Airport as an airport or supporting aviation,
new aviation tenants or appropriately managing existing tenants. As an example, all
aviation leases appear to have a redevelopment clause which outlines that, with six
months notice, tenants can be evicted to make way for new development. This lack of
security makes managing a business, from a long term perspective, unworkable.
• At the northwest aspect of runway 31L, south of Centre Dandenong Road, west of
taxiway Golf and east of the DFO buildings is “Toxic Mountain”, an area of
approximately 14,000m2. This area contains PFAS contaminated soil, moved there
from the airport environs approximately two years ago. The construction of Toxic
Mountain appears to be a permanent structure. It would appear that the
management and containment of this contaminated soil is contrary to the PFAS
National Environment Management Plan. This has been referred to both the
Environment Protection Authority Victoria and the Federal Department of Agriculture,
Water and the Environment requesting an investigation.
• No Major Development Plan has been made public for the recent development on the
western most aspect of the airport, resulting in the removal of hangars and airport
apron.

These are just a handful of transgressions that Moorabbin Airport Corporation and Goodman
Group have made at Moorabbin Airport.

I note rumours abound that Moorabbin Airport Corporation and Goodman Group are seeking
an early renewal of the option on their lease.

Conclusion
It is clear that Moorabbin Airport Corporation has failed and is failing to manage Moorabbin
Airport appropriately and is therefore in breach of its obligations. Further, there has been no
serious effort to assist, promote or develop general aviation. There is no space for existing
aviation tenants to expand or for new tenants to enter the airport. Moorabbin Airport
Corporation, and Goodman Group, have demonstrated that they are not responsible
corporate citizens and have failed Moorabbin Airport and its citizens, by shrinking the aviation
footprint, without due consideration to the Airports Act and by not investing in aviation.

---

Well put that man...

MTF...P2

AROA vs GOLIATH (A good news story for a change - )

Quote:Council licks its wounds after fight with 82-year-old top gun



An 82-year-old who was locked out of the aircraft hangar he was leasing to do maintenance on his plane has won his Supreme Court battle against the local council.

Richard Rudd held a 40-year lease on the hangar at Mareeba Airport in far north Queensland, and had been using it since 2016. But the council changed the locks in January.

He was told he was in breach of the lease contract because the hangar was intended for aircraft storage, not maintenance.

Mareeba Shire Council also ­accused him of using the hangar for residential purposes because it contained a bed and a bar fridge.

In a scathing judgment in favour of Mr Rudd, Supreme Court judge James Henry noted the council’s lease contract had not even spelt hangar correctly, and had not clearly defined the term “aircraft storage hanger (sic)”.

“It is well known that an aircraft hangar is a large building, usually located at an aerodrome, in which aircraft are stored,” said Justice Henry said. “It is similarly well known that the customary or ordinary use of an aircraft hangar is not confined purely to the act of parking and storing aircraft therein and that its use ­includes the performance of maintenance and repair work … in order to maintain aircraft in, or return aircraft to, a state of airworthiness.”

He also rejected the council’s evidence that Mr Rudd was in breach of the lease contract ­because he spent long hours there, “often throughout the day and into the early evening”.

The council argued Mr Rudd’s typical daily presence far exceeded what was necessary for the storage of his Boeing Stearman and suggested he was undertaking commercial activities.

But Justice Henry said it was “inherently plausible an aviation enthusiast such as Mr Rudd may choose to work long hours for his private purposes on maintenance or repair of aircraft”.

“The lease contains no clause which expressly or by implication limits the times during which Mr Rudd can be present at the hangar,” he said. “It does contain clauses protecting council’s position should Mr Rudd’s conduct cause annoyance, nuisance or inconvenience to nearby occupiers … however no such behavioural breach was alleged here.”

Council argued the presence of a bed and a bar fridge showed Mr Rudd was using the hangar as a home, but Justice Henry accepted his evidence the items were there for comfort.

“It would surely be unremarkable that someone working or taking a rest break in an un-airconditioned hangar in the tropics might want refrigerated ­refreshments,” he said.

Council was ordered to pay Mr Rudd’s legal costs and restore possession of the hangar to him.

Quote:SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND 
CITATION: Rudd v Mareeba Shire Council [2021] QSC 200
PARTIES: RICHARD ERIC RUDD  (applicant) v MAREEBA SHIRE COUNCIL  (respondent)
FILE NO/S: SC 90 of 2021
DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland 
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: 11 August 2021 
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE:
6 August 2021;
10 August 2021;
11 August 2021
JUDGE: Henry J
ORDER:
1. The respondent will forthwith restore possession of the leased premises known as Lease N on SP171528 at Mareeba Airport, along with the keys thereto, to the applicant as the lessee of the premises.
2. The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Quote:Property giant Dexus is in exclusive talks to buy Jandakot Airport and the Jandakot City industrial estate in Perth from Ascot Capital and 89-year-old southern African billionaire Nathan Kirsh for more than $1 billion.

Multiple sources have confirmed that talks are well advanced with a deal potentially on the verge of being done, but neither party would comment when contacted.

Quote:$1 BILLION SALE OF JANDAKOT AIRPORT LOOMING

ASX listed property goliath Dexus is reportedly in the final stages of a $1 billion acquisition of Jandakot Airport in Western Australia, with sources confirming the sale of the 622-hectare airport to be well advanced on a party to party basis.

Dexus is Australia’s largest office landlord with a commercial property portfolio in excess of $14 billion, with the $1 billion airport acquisition considered a diversification.

Since privatisation, some 200-hectares of airport land (branded ‘Jandakot City’) have been developed for non-aviation purposes, with a focus on large-scale warehousing and distribution facilities to major companies, such as Halliburton, General Electric, Kmart and Grays Online.  These companies hold leases on the airport land on terms of up to 25 years.

The current leaseholder of Jandakot Airport has advertised via its website that there is a further 80-hectares of non-aviation lettable area at the airport site.

“The privatisation of Australia’s airports has become an unmitigated disaster for the nation’s general aviation industry, with small to medium sized businesses forced out in preference for large-scale non-aviation commercial warehousing and distribution centres.”  Benjamin Morgan, AOPA Australia CEO.

“We have greedy property developers running our nation’s critical aviation infrastructure and its heading for disaster.

“They’ve driven up the cost of access to record levels and have shown themselves to have no qualms with bankrupting our industry in the pursuit of even higher profits.

"The privatisation of airports was supposed to bring about investment in aviation!  Where is it?  Aviation has suffered catastrophically as a result of privatisation, with the only beneficiaries the property developers - it's insane!

“General aviation users are continually told they cannot access property leases of up to 25 years, and are forced to accept outrageous increases in leasehold values, along with lease-terms that larger corporate leaseholders would laugh at.

"Meanwhile, the big-end of town gets looked after and the little guys get screwed.

“The failure of government to reign in the greed of these developers has created an environment where airport leaseholders are running rough-shot over small to medium sized business, comfortable that nobody will hold them to account.

“And, should they succeed in bankrupting our small to medium sized aviation businesses, they win again.  No doubt ready to re-develop the remaining aviation land into more warehouses and distribution centres.

“Where the hell are our political leaders?  Where is the Department of Infrastructure?

"Will the bloody government wake the hell up, this is ridiculous. " he said.

Quote:AOPA AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER TO REJECT DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD HAND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS A FREE FOR ALL AT AIRPORTS
August 30, 2021 By Benjamin Morgan


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has called on the Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, to reject a proposal by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, seeking to increase the threshold for Major Development Plans from $25 to $35 million.

Under the Airports Act 1996, all leased federal airports, excluding Mount Isa and Tennant Creek, are required to develop and submit Major Development Plans (MDP) for specific types of development, if they exceed the monetary threshold amount specified in Section 89(9) of the Act.  The threshold is currently set at $25 million.

The Department claims the increase is required to account for inflation and construction cost increases at airports, seeking a threshold increase to $35 million.  However, it is understood that the Department has been heavily lobbied by the privatised airports community, who claim the increases are needed for their COVID-19 recovery.

“AOPA Australia firmly opposes the proposal put forward by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and calls for its immediate withdrawal,” Benjamin Morgan, AOPA Australia CEO.

“The proposal seeks to dramatically reduce the oversight and scrutiny of developments at privatised airports, handing developers greater powers to convert airport land into non-aviation use without any government oversight or approval.

“History has shown that developers game the existing system, bypassing requirements for non-aviation development to be reviewed and approved by the Minister, by structuring projects under the current $25 million threshold.  An increase to $35 million, simply opens the system up to greater manipulation by developers.

“Instead of watering down regulations to benefit property developers, the Department should be putting forward a proposal to reduce the minimum requirement, seeking to strengthen oversight of non-aviation development at privatised airports.

“Greater oversight is what is needed, not less.

“The leaseholders of Australia’s privatised airports are some of the nation’s wealthiest property development and management corporations, with asset portfolios into the many billions and operating profits that run well into the hundreds of millions.

“It’s incomprehensible that the Department is seeking to hand these corporations a development free-for-all, at the expense of hard working small to medium sized aviation businesses.  I am certain my industry colleagues and every participant of our aviation industry would agree with this assessment.

“AOPA Australia has written to the Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, seeking his urgent assistance in rejecting the proposal.

“I am encouraging all aircraft owners, pilots, aviation businesses and supporters to write a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, clearly opposing the proposal and seeking its rejection.”

Please direct your written correspondence to:
The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

MEDIA CONTACT
Mr Benjamin Morgan
AOPA Australia Chief Executive
Mobile: 0415 577 724
Email:  ben.morgan@aopa.com.au

(11-16-2021, 03:06 PM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]Submission 69: Kingston Council (Rating: excellent -   )

Via the 20/20 Inquiry submissions page: 69 City of Kingston (PDF 4481 KB)

Quote:‘any related matters’

The Committee are also seeking comment on d) any related matters. Council believes that a more
focused look into the management of federally leased airports is required to review the depletion of
aviation activity on airport land to expedite non-aviation development.

Council respectfully submits this inquiry should consider the amount of non-aviation development
occurring and planned on federally leased airport land.

increase in non-aviation development is seen as a critical factor, inhibiting existing aviation tenants
remaining on airport land into the future, with insufficient regard given to future needs. It is worthwhile the
Committee consider the land use intent in the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport in 2021,
when compared with the level of land set aside and protection for aviation at the time of airport
deregulation, particularly in the context of a large city like Melbourne. This land cannot be replaced
elsewhere limiting the reach of regional Australia into Australia’s biggest cities.

The Airports Act 1996 (the Act) sets out the regulatory arrangements between airports formerly owned and
operated on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). It requires, as set
out in Part 1, Section 3 that airports “promote sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.

The Moorabbin Airport is also subject to Part 5 of the Act and the corresponding regulations. As per Part
5, ‘Obligation to use airport site as an airport’. The Airport is declared to be an airport site within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Act and Regulations.

The Lease agreement by the Commonwealth to the MAC over the Airport states that the MAC “must
provide for the use of the [Airport] as an airport” and may “permit the [Airport] to be used for other lawful
purposes that are not inconsistent with its use as an airport”. The legislation that underpins the role of the
Airport clearly seeks to ensure that an efficient and fully functioning airport is provided which gives priority
to its core aviation function.

Council acknowledges that non-aviation development has some role to play in providing sufficient income
for the Airport Lessee Company to ensure sufficient resources are available to maintain the airport.

Consideration must, however, be given to the appropriate balance being struck between development and
the risk of directly undermining aviation.

When the then FAC privatised airports in 1996, from the readings of the Act and the justification for selling
off the leaseholds, it was not the intent of the Federal Government to legitimise business plans geared to
maximising shareholder returns at the expense of the aviation industry.

The privatisation of federal airports was meant to do the exact opposite by assisting in bolstering of the
aviation industry. It is a now a unique situation where privatised airport leaseholders are able to hold
unique and often unregulated monopoly powers which negatively impact the aviation industry and sidestep
State and Local planning powers. Developments (non-aviation) can completely disregard existing
residential neighbours and provide serious negative amenity outcomes with no checks or balances
available. Practical examples are reinforced through Council’s submission to the 2021 preliminary draft
masterplan.

The critical role that Moorabbin Airport, as well as other regional and rural airports, cannot be downplayed.
They are a vital part of the nation’s transport infrastructure. The ongoing viability of Moorabbin Airport is
now being called into question with aviation tenants questioning whether there will be enough space set
aside for aviation both now and into the future.

Following the impact of Covid-19, this industry has been significantly impacted. The classifications of the
runways at Moorabbin are proposed to be reduced, which according to airport tenants will deplete the core
number of aircraft based at Moorabbin.

Tenants are being removed from the site, which has a huge flow on effect to other tenants on site. For
example, where a maintenance company is no longer able to remain on site, this has a huge impact to
operators who rely on that maintenance company to ensure planes do not remain grounded.

Council and the aviation community share the concern that the MAC require much greater regulation to
ensure that they not only provide a safe efficient airport but also do not put warehousing/industrial
developments ahead of the land’s intended purpose.

There is very significant tension between the MAC’s role in managing and future proofing Moorabbin
Airport as an aviation asset, whilst advancing lucrative non-aviation related commercial endeavours.

During the consultation phase of the preliminary draft Masterplan process, Council was contacted by a
number of aviation tenants at Moorabbin Airport who expressed significant concerns for the future of their
businesses. The feedback indicated that existing aviation tenants believe that there is not enough space
for each tenant on the site and that multiple tenants are now competing for the same hanger space.

Noting the extent of land already developed for non-aviation uses, it is critical that existing aviation
operators are provided with the ability to remain on site.

Regardless of whether the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport is approved or refused, the
concerns raised throughout this submission are vitally important.

The extent of non-aviation development needs closer examination and the Senate enquiry provides a
useful platform in which to consider the implications of what is occurring at Moorabbin at a broader
national scale.

For the future of our small and medium aviation businesses, as well as residents who are adjacent to our
airports and are impacted by decisions to construct major warehouses immediately adjacent to their
properties without meaningful consultation, we submit that issues associated with the deregulation of
Airports warrants review.

Council would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity and respectfully request the Committee’s
consideration of our submission.

Yours faithfully

Cr Steve Staikos
MAYOR

Quote:Planning decisions on federal airport land are controlled by the DITRDC so whilst this is outside the
scope of the Committee, Council would like the following noted. It is a difficult task, advising the
community on what one can and cannot do on their property. Speaking with members of the
community, it is often stated to Officers about the ‘fairness factor’ or lack of, when it comes to what
development can occur on private land verse what occurs on airport land. The AEO (whilst an
important tool and Council are not suggesting it be removed), is a restrictive tool which prevents
development on private sites. It is extremely difficult to explain to owners situated (for example) along
Lower Dandenong Road, who are encumbered by the AEO and therefore cannot subdivide, that the
Airport do not have the same restrictions and can therefore build large factories/warehouses metres
from their boundary on airport land (Figure 4) thereby intensifying development (non-aviation).


Figure 4: Lower Dandenong Road looking north towards airport land

Council strongly advocate for appropriate measures and treatments on any development, whether
that be airport land or not, to be consistent and up to date. This includes ensuring that the most up to
date contours are used to reflect the AEO

It is also noted that at the time of writing this submission, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who
are investigating the 2017 Essendon DFO crash are yet to release their ‘Part B’ report which was
examining the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace
issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development
on aviation operations at Essendon. This report may have implications for the future planning for
Moorabbin Airport and the development of surrounding areas.

With this said, Council makes the above submission to the Committee to consider the planning
controls, and other mechanisms, as the basis of meeting the needs of all stakeholders, while providing
a sound basis for continuing future land use planning around the airport...

Quote:Anticipated completion: 1st Quarter 2022

Quote:(NASP) a key airport-related issue is mitigation of risk to air safety through inappropriate development around airports. Government should strengthen linkages between National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) and aviation safety bodies, and improve links from NASAG and National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) into state and territory planning systems to control inappropriate development around airports.

Quote:Noted, no change to NASP required. Government aviation agencies will continue to use NASAG and NASF to promote safety risk mitigations in land use planning around airports. While the Australian Government can continue to encourage uptake, State and Territory Governments decide the extent to which and how specific elements of NASF are adopted in their respective planning controls and legislation.

There are also individual airport committees that can be used to address local safety issues including airport, Government agency and industry representatives. Any serious safety issues can also be raised with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in terms of compliance with the relevant airport regulations.

Quote:Support for Lismore airport and aviation industry!



We are back looking for support to ensure that flight training and small private planes are able to continue operating at Lismore airport.

The Lismore aviation industry is currently battling a concerted effort by a small, self-interested lobby group to either shut down Lismore airport, or severely curtail aviation operations due to what they perceive to be excessive aircraft noise.

There has also been a hostile political agenda by some of the Lismore councillors that has been affecting the operations of aviation businesses at the airport, resulting in businesses leaving for more accommodating airports such as Ballina, or leaving the industry altogether.

The aviation industry has been an important part of Lismore for one hundred years (since the first trial airmail), and provides employment and services to the community in the areas of:

• Passenger services
• Alternative passenger service routes
• Aeromedical services
• Pilot training /Aviation training
• General aviation/recreation
• Aircraft maintenance
• Ancillary Aviation businesses (innovation, drones)
• Charter flights/companies (aircraft and helicopters)
• Air freight[/color]
[color=#363135]
Please support our petition to ensure a vibrant and productive aviation industry in Lismore.

Quote:Sandy Reith 

Airports are under attack in many places around Australia. This is partly due to a complete lack of leadership in governments both State and federal.

The General Aviation (GA) community and the wider industry that is all part of GA has been in bureaucratically induced decline for many years. Strangled by CASA and zero oversight by successive Ministers is to blame. But still we have sufficient numbers to regrow provided the infrastructure is not given over to non aviation uses.

It would be extremely short sighted if airports like Lismore were not fully supported and GA encouraged to use this facility.

All airports are National security assets as well as the training grounds for aircrew and the irreplaceable land for all the flying services now and into the future. Well done Ian for publicising this predicament, and all interested parties should regularly ring, write and contact local MPs and State Senators.

Quote:Referencing the following extract from the Kingston submission:

"..Over the past 12 months the State Government of Victoria, through an Advisory Committee, attempted to
ensure that planning around airports consider the potential safety and amenity impacts on the surrounding communities and that airport operations are protected. The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (MAESSAC) is now trying to determine how the NASF can be implemented into planning schemes in Victoria..."

Doing a Google search for the 'MAESSAC' will lead you to this link: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...-committee

This in turn will lead you to the submissions page: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...ubmissions

Within that link the Kingston Council has 2 submissions but it is to the 1st one to which I want to refer: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/37220/4835

Quote:Submission 17 - Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
PDF (1.52 MB)

Quote:...In 2019, the NASAG sought public submissions as part of a review of implementation of the
NASF. This review looked at the implementation of the NASF across planning jurisdictions
throughout Australia. Finalisation of a report on the review findings is currently on hold due to an
additional workload arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Submissions to the review are available
to view on the NASF portal
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...n-national-
airports-safeguarding-framework.aspx

Quote:..On 21 August 2019, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) agreed to undertake a review of implementation of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF).

The Review is intended to consider implementation of the NASF across jurisdictions; and seeks submissions from all levels of government, industry and community stakeholders.

Finalisation of the NASF Implementation Review and Forward Work Program are currently on hold due to temporary reallocation of resources arising from the current COVID-19 crisis...

 

Quote:While CASA has proven to be particularly weak in airspace protection, the reality is that they are weak regulators in all of the safety-related Guideline areas. More often than not, CASA hides behind a lack of legislated authority - but even where they do provide advice, as best as we can tell, it rarely if ever reflects any philosophical strength.

AusALPA considers this weakness to be primarily a function of the constraints placed on CASA by DITCRD, which clings to the legacy of the encroachment on safety matters of the Airports Act 1996 as well as to an apparent over-sensitivity to Constitutional matters related to land use planning despite the aviation safety consequences. Although ICAO does not provide standards for the safety-related Guideline topics, that absence is no impediment to Australia imposing its own standards.

We believe that CASR Part 139 is the natural home for these standards.

Nonetheless, the protection of prescribed airspace needs a complete overhaul. At the moment, the only protection of prescribed airspace is empowered by Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, of which paradoxically Guideline F at paragraph 23 outlines a workaround. That legislation only affects the 22 leased Commonwealth airports and is regulated by DITCRD, not CASA – at all other airports, CASA imposes a duty on the airport operator to prescribe and protect the OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces notwithstanding the lack of authority and power of the airport operator to protect that airspace.

AusALPA has no visibility of the extent to which State, Territory or local governments provide protection of that airspace from encroachment, if at all.

The Opacity of Implementation and Decision-making

AusALPA’s greatest difficulty is that, as the primary users most exposed to the safety risks, we continually need to force our way into the various debates and consultations.

Our greatest disappointment is that DITCRD, CASA and airport operators all actively frustrate scrutiny of compliance with the NASF – a complete failure to act in the public interest and to accept public accountability for actions, decisions and outcomes.

With very few exceptions, airports exist to serve the Australian public and the safety-related standards and processes exist so that we can make their travel as uneventful as possible. None of the safety-related standards and processes exist for the benefit of officers of DITCRD, CASA or the airport operators – AusALPA strongly believes that a total change of mindset is required.

Currently, the only visibility of the application of the NASF that we get is through the MDP process at the leased Commonwealth airports. Only Canberra and Sydney proactively engage with us, otherwise we have to hope that our very limited resources detect the notification of a pdMDP on individual airport websites within the relevant consultation window. We do not believe that such a hit-or-miss system for those major airports is the best that can be done in the interests of aviation safety.

Complicating the MDP issue a little further, the recent Airports Amendment Act 2018 increased the monetary threshold for MDP treatment to $25M, fortunately somewhat less than the $35M proposed. Our view is that environmental and operational risk consequences are not well correlated with project size and complexity and that increasing the threshold only hides more projects from public scrutiny.

AusALPA recently engaged with the Airport Building Controller (ABC) at Essendon in regard to a building that was under construction in close proximity to the runway and which appeared to penetrate the published OLS within even the inappropriately While CASA has proven to be particularly weak in airspace protection, the reality is that they are weak regulators in all of the safety-related Guideline areas. More often than not, CASA hides behind a lack of legislated authority - but even where they do provide advice, as best as we can tell, it rarely if ever reflects any philosophical strength.

AusALPA considers this weakness to be primarily a function of the constraints placed on CASA by DITCRD, which clings to the legacy of the encroachment on safety matters of the Airports Act 1996 as well as to an apparent over-sensitivity to Constitutional matters related to land use planning despite the aviation safety consequences. Although ICAO does not provide standards for the safety-related Guideline topics, that absence is no impediment to Australia imposing its own standards.

We believe that CASR Part 139 is the natural home for these standards.

Nonetheless, the protection of prescribed airspace needs a complete overhaul. At the moment, the only protection of prescribed airspace is empowered by Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, of which paradoxically Guideline F at paragraph 23 outlines a workaround. That legislation only affects the 22 leased Commonwealth airports and is regulated by DITCRD, not CASA – at all other airports, CASA imposes a duty on the airport operator to prescribe and protect the OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces notwithstanding the lack of authority and power of the airport operator to protect that airspace.

AusALPA has no visibility of the extent to which State, Territory or local governments provide protection of that airspace from encroachment, if at all.

The Opacity of Implementation and Decision-making

AusALPA’s greatest difficulty is that, as the primary users most exposed to the safety risks, we continually need to force our way into the various debates and consultations.

Our greatest disappointment is that DITCRD, CASA and airport operators all actively frustrate scrutiny of compliance with the NASF – a complete failure to act in the public interest and to accept public accountability for actions, decisions and outcomes.

With very few exceptions, airports exist to serve the Australian public and the safety-related standards and processes exist so that we can make their travel as uneventful as possible. None of the safety-related standards and processes exist for the benefit of officers of DITCRD, CASA or the airport operators – AusALPA strongly believes that a total change of mindset is required.

Currently, the only visibility of the application of the NASF that we get is through the MDP process at the leased Commonwealth airports. Only Canberra and Sydney proactively engage with us, otherwise we have to hope that our very limited resources detect the notification of a pdMDP on individual airport websites within the relevant consultation window. We do not believe that such a hit-or-miss system for those major airports is the best that can be done in the interests of aviation safety.

Complicating the MDP issue a little further, the recent Airports Amendment Act 2018 increased the monetary threshold for MDP treatment to $25M, fortunately somewhat less than the $35M proposed. Our view is that environmental and operational risk consequences are not well correlated with project size and complexity and that increasing the threshold only hides more projects from public scrutiny.

AusALPA recently engaged with the Airport Building Controller (ABC) at Essendon in regard to a building that was under construction in close proximity to the runway and which appeared to penetrate the published OLS within even the inappropriately significantly different pathways for administrative and judicial review or other forms of dispute resolution. The NASF is silent in this regard.

A Way Forward

To be clear, AusALPA recognises that the economic decisions surrounding airports, i.e. determining the balance between the economic benefits of developments and the detriments to the accessibility, efficiency and capacity of an airport, rest entirely with the relevant jurisdiction within which the airport is situated or which retains legal control. The issues of enforceability and dispute resolution of development approvals would remain consistent with those jurisdictional norms.

However, contrary to current practice, we are proposing that the assessment, mitigation and enforcement of the safety consequences of all relevant developments be ceded by those jurisdictions to CASA as an independent decision-maker.

Consequently, CASA needs to change its model of how airport standards are applied and enforced so as to obviate the gaming of the system so exemplified by the Essendon experience or by the uncontrolled expansion of the thousands of airspace penetrations at Sydney. As a further consequence, DITCRD should seek major amendments to the Airports Act 1996 that change the current subservient and excessively constrained role attributed to CASA and that also clarify the safety considerations that ABCs must undertake in regard to minor developments.

Furthermore, we are proposing that the visibility of developments affecting the safety outcomes at airports is vastly improved in all jurisdictions.

The public interest is best served by accepting that the potential hazard created by a development is on or near an airport not a function of cost but rather the amalgam of the issues set out in the Guidelines. Each jurisdiction should commit to a public register of development proposals that may present a potential hazard to safe airport operations, enhanced by a published list of stakeholders who are alerted to each new relevant development submitted to the jurisdiction for approval.

Quote:The privatisation of federal airports was meant to do the exact opposite by assisting in bolstering of the aviation industry. It is a now a unique situation where privatised airport leaseholders are able to hold unique and often unregulated monopoly powers which negatively impact the aviation industry and sidestep State and Local planning powers. Developments (non-aviation) can completely disregard existing residential neighbours and provide serious negative amenity outcomes with no checks or balances available. Practical examples are reinforced through Council’s submission to the 2021 preliminary draft masterplan.

The critical role that Moorabbin Airport, as well as other regional and rural airports, cannot be downplayed. They are a vital part of the nation’s transport infrastructure. The ongoing viability of Moorabbin Airport is now being called into question with aviation tenants questioning whether there will be enough space set aside for aviation both now and into the future.

Quote:

Quote:Concerns raised in Council’s submission include:

• Insufficient land set aside for the Airport’s core aviation role and non-aviation uses prioritised over aviation support services.
  
• Unconstrained retail, industrial and commercial development on the Airport land poses a risk to other Activity Centres across Kingston.
  
• Location of proposed industrial and warehouse buildings along sensitive interfaces – including neighbouring established homes - with no urban design guidance or performance measures to manage the amenity impact on adjoining residents.
  
• The loss of green open spaces and the extent to which this exacerbates existing urban heat island issues associated with the airport.
  
• Airport safety, noise and the extent of development proposed immediately adjacent existing runways generates issues for pilots associated with windshear.
  
• The suggestion that the Moorabbin Airport could appropriately be located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the extent to which this proposal contradicts State Planning Policy.
  

---

Airport Safety

For many years Kingston Council has worked closely with the local community and the Moorabbin Airport Corporation to ensure strong safety standards are upheld in the airport precinct.

The Moorabbin Airport is uniquely located surrounded by residential areas and therefore safety at the site is a key concern for local residents.

Council is keen to see the safe use of the site as an aviation centre continue but has concerns about the level of development at the airport and how it may impact on safety.

Through a range of submissions, including to the Airport Master Plan, Council has advocated that the airport – particularly those areas exposed to a high level of aircraft approaches – is not developed in a manner that creates an inappropriate additional level of risk.

Stronger oversight of development at the site by the federal regulators would be welcomed regarding the manner in which the aviation and land use activities at the airport will operate and integrate to improve air safety. 

Council wishes to reaffirm an earlier submission that there should be no further development that is not aviation-related or Green-Wedge-compliant on the Moorabbin Airport land. This is in keeping with the Airports Act requirement that airport planning should be consistent with State and Local Planning Provisions.

In particular, there should be no more large warehouse-type buildings constructed near the ends of the runways where they may impede the efforts of pilots with engine trouble trying to get back to the airport and to land safely, instead of crash-landing in residential streets.

Ref: https://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Communit...ort-Safety

Quote:

---

---

Quote:BEST OF THE BEST? 
AWARE SUPER - LEASEHOLDER OF BANKSTOWN & CAMDEN AIRPORTS - AWARDED BY MONEY MAGAZINE
Open letter published on the Aware Super facebook page at:
https://www.facebook.com/AwareSuper

As a stakeholder in your airport investment, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia would like to give you some important public feedback - because we hold our doubts as to how 'aware' you really are regarding the management of your airports asset.

The actions of your management team, since 2015, have resulted in a ramp up of business closures and the destruction of aviation capability at both Bankstown and Camden Airports.

The pleas of local aviation business, the industry associations and peak bodies and leadership - all ignored. Business treated like garbage, and forced to accept commercial terms, in the full knowledge it will likely push them to closure.

Small to medium sized aviation businesses have been priced out, and forced off the airport site, displacing aviation from the only place in the Sydney basin where it can exist. The result, is the wholesale ruination of aviation skills and capability.

Even the industry's biggest players, including Boeing, have packed up and relocated. The situation is perilous.

Since taking control of the airport, aviation land rents have skyrocketed to record levels, to such an extent that businesses have been crippled, undermining any capacity for local operators to invest in their own futures.

It has become a race to the bottom.

Local aviation businesses cannot secure leases with any tenure, forced into lease contracts with 6 month termination clauses and living under the threat of eviction. The result is little to no investment into facilities and capability.

Businesses report that they are struggling to communicate and to deal with your management and representatives, resulting in unpleasant tensions and disagreements.

Meanwhile, on the southern side of Bankstown Airport, a new $450million non-aviation commercial industrial development now towers over the site - with additional sites on the northern side now earmarked for conversion to non-aviation. Clearly, Aware Super's interests in airports does not extend to actual aviation.

Is this the Best of the Best?

How is the destruction of aviation jobs and small to medium sized business a good thing? What does Aware Super have to say to those in aviation who are watching their superannuation being destroyed?

Is any of this doing good for all?

I openly invite representatives of the Aware Super Board of Directors and Executive Management to make contact with me, to have an honest and fearless conversation about your investment and your management's impact on our industry.

Furthermore, I shall be more than happy to arrange a meeting of the Bankstown and Camden Airport business community, so you can all hear first hand how your airport assets are being managed. I urge you to take this opportunity.

I openly invite any Aware Super shareholders or media who are as concerned as we are, to contact me to discuss my post above.

Thank you for your time, and I await a reply.

Quote:Modernising Australia’s airport regulations

The Issue
The Australian Government is reviewing 6 legislative instruments under the Airports Act 1996 due to sunset on 1 April 2024. The review presents an opportunity to examine the regulations thematically and modernise the current framework to reduce regulatory burden on the airports and related stakeholders, particularly as the sector adapts to the impacts of COVID-19.

The regulations under review are:

Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996
Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997
Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997
Airports (Ownership—Interests in Shares) Regulations 1996
Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, and
Airports Regulations 1997.
The review will be staged as follows and each stage will have an associated period of consultation:

Stage 1a: Cutting red tape, duplication, inconsistencies and reporting; leasing and management of airports; airport ownership.
S1b (expected early 2022): Modernising the Act including examining the definition of an airport site and infringement notice schemes.
Stage 2 (expected mid-2022): Streamlining Commonwealth responsibilities; control of on-airport activities; and quality of service monitoring, reports and accounting.
Stage 3 (expected late 2022-early 2023): Increasing flexibility and modernising environment protection, building control and protection of airspace.
Stage 4: Legislative reform (2023): Amendments to the Airports Act 1996.
This consultation relates to Stage 1a of the sunsetting review process. You are invited to submit a response to Stage 1a to help inform the regulatory amendments and where relevant, the development of further stages.

Stage 1a aims to reduce red tape, duplication, reporting and inconsistencies, through review of the following areas:

subleasing and licensing arrangements
streamlining reporting timeframes relating to ownership, and aligning reporting with processes across government, and
clarifying and simplifying legislative language.
Other issues relating to the Airport Regulations 1997 which have been identified for review, including the management of airports, land use, planning, environment and building controls, will be consulted on as part of latter stages of the review.

You can have your say by making a submission below or by emailing the Aviation Reform team.

If you previously made a submission to a recent (2020-2021) departmental process relating to aviation, we will consider the views expressed in your submission for this process.

Quote: 2. Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum advertisement.pdf

107. AIRSERVICES - Community Engagement operation costs.pdf

109. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review (PIR)- Conflict of interest.pdf

110. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review - Scope.pdf

111. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review - Design principles.pdf

(01-20-2022, 10:07 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]EWH catching up on Dept consult on Airports Act etc.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:

Government opens Consultation on Airports Regulations

19 Jan 2022
Consultation has opened on six pieces of airport regulation scheduled to sunset in April 2024. Read more

Quote:

“Let sleeping dogs lie — who wants to rouse them?”

Quote:ESSENDON FIELDS STATEMENT – FINAL ATSB REPORT
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018|IN AIRPORT|BY ESSENDON FIELDS

Essendon Fields Airport today welcomed the release of the final ATSB report into the tragic events on 21 February 2017 which resulted in the deaths of five people.

The release of this final ATSB report is important to help ensure some closure for the widows of the victims both in the United States and Australia and the thoughts and best wishes of everyone at Essendon Fields are always with those families.

The ATSB investigation has confirmed in great detail the circumstances relevant to the events of that day. The report’s finding outlines clear contributing factors to this accident and additional factors that increased the risk of what happened in February 2017. The report provides several strong safety messages relevant for the entire aviation industry.

The significant public interest into the circumstances of this tragedy will ensure the learnings from this report will strengthen the already impressive safety record for the entire aviation industry in Australia. Safety remains the first priority at Essendon Fields at all times.

The final ATSB report makes it clear the operation or conditions at Essendon Fields Airport played no role in this terrible crash.

The report confirms that the presence of the DFO building struck by the aircraft did not increase the severity or the consequences of this accident. This building is not subject to further investigation.

The ATSB is conducting a separate investigation into the approval process of two other buildings at Essendon Fields DFO. We note those buildings were approved by CASA prior to construction. Those two buildings did not contribute to this accident.

Essendon Fields Airport looks forward to the release of the report into the building approval process and will continue to work co-operatively with the ATSB on this investigation. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further on this matter.

Chris Cowan, CEO

Quote:..AusALPA recently engaged with the Airport Building Controller (ABC) at Essendon in regard to a building that was under construction in close proximity to the runway and which appeared to penetrate the published OLS within even the inappropriately significantly different pathways for administrative and judicial review or other forms of dispute resolution. The NASF is silent in this regard...