Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Senate Inquiry - Unplugged (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Of Ministers and Minions. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Thread: Airports - Buy two, get one free. (/showthread.php?tid=30)

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Sandy Reith - 08-18-2020

Well put arguments, in particular how open space is a valued amenity but not by the Commonwealth in regard to irreplaceable airport land. Two excellent examples are Moorabbin and Bankstown airports. State governments protect the golf courses adjacent to these airport properties, where large areas of the airport leaseholds are being shamelessly cut out for factories and shops. You could not see a more confounding sight than this irresponsible policy failure, airports being torn up alongside the golfers playing their games, mostly completely oblivious to the long term damage being done next door.

Does our Commonwealth government give a continental? No, we’ve not had one Minister from either side of politics who has been worth a pinch of salt, nor seen one Prime Minister who has taken the trouble to review the disastrous policies lumbered onto Australia’s aviation industry.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - thorn bird - 08-18-2020

Apparently the golf course attached to Bankstown is slated for housing development Sandy so even golfers are not immune, they will have to fill in the flood plane to do it. I wonder if the PM is even aware of the liability for compensation when the next fifty year flood hits the Australian taxpayer will be faced with.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - thorn bird - 08-20-2020

AN AIRPORTS TALE

The privatisation of secondary airports in Australia was a whole different ball game than that of the primaries. The primaries were potential cash cows ripe for exploitation, the secondaries were essentially Air Parks, catering for small businesses supporting aviation enthusiasts, charter companies and flying training. When run by the Federal Airports commission (FAC), at the best of times they only returned around thirty Million dollars a year in dividend to the commonwealth. The FAC ran the airports in the interests of its users, modest, affordable rents, long term leases that allowed people to invest in aviation with some security of tenure.

Two particular bureaucrats were tasked with finding buyers for these airports, a difficult task if these airports were to remain airports.

The land these airports occupied real value lay in their potential for non-aviation related industrial development. Inconveniently the Airport Act and the head leases provided protections against this occurring, essentially recognising that to exist, aviation required an airport from which to operate therefore reserving the land for aviation use, in much the same manner as Parks and other open areas were reserved for public use.

A long game needed to be played by any development shark eyeing off usurping green field publicly owned land worth billions as industrial sites but as we know its very hard to stand between a development shark and a dollar, if they cant get it by hook they will by crook.

In the Sydney basin there were three secondary airports serving general aviation, the bureaucrats engineered a deal with a bank to buy all three for about $250,000,000, but the bank pulled out at the last minute so the deal was sweetened by offering Hoxton Park freehold and the deal was then done. Hoxton park was closed, its runway torn up and sold for around what the bank paid for all three airports, a nice little earner, two airports and ultimately their land basically for free.

None of the entities who bought leases for secondary airports did so to run an airport, they did so to develop greenfield land worth potentially billions but first they had to engineer getting rid of as much aviation activity they could.

All the new leaseholders of secondary airports used their monopoly advantage to diminish as much aviation activity as possible. Rental increases of at times thousands of percent drove many businesses from secondary airports or they simply closed their doors. Draconian parking fees caused a mass exodus to private airfields or regional centres far from the city. To further ensure no new aviation activity could establish, very short-term leases were offered to discourage any new businesses from establishing a foothold.

The thing I find strange is the bureaucrats were heavily lobbying responsible ministers to remove clauses from the airport leases they engineered that hindered development. There was even a play for Jandakot to close entirely and the leaseholder would build a whole new airport 30 Km away. The minister declined to approve that proposal.

A subsequent minister was lobbied to alter the leases to give the developers free reign, by producing a document that indicated all stakeholders were consulted and agreed to this. The minister’s adviser at the time was so concerned he brought a copy of this document to the president of the AOPA who vehemently denied he had been consulted. This minister also declined the proposal.

Restrictions were finally lifted by Warren Truss when he became minister, interestingly his permanent head was also involved with the initial sale of the airport leases.

One would have thought that once the sales were done the bureaucrats job was finished. Why would they lobby, heavily, to change the terms of the leaseholds?

Did they make under the table promises during sales negotiations?

Were they or the minister promised “considerations” if they could convince a minister to sign off the impediments?

I guess we will never know the answers to those questions, one thing is for sure the stage was now set for the transformation of secondary airports from being airports to being industrial estates which may or may not have a runway left for aviation use.

If this was the ultimate intention of government the Australian people should feel very aggrieved. If they had just announced all secondary airports would be closed in the first place and sold for industrial development, the land would have sold at a premium, instead of pursuing this facade of preserving airports for aviation use.

The Bankstown experience raises many questions.

Is the land the airport sits on Commonwealth land, or state land owned by the commonwealth. Legal opinion would suggest it is State land, it carries a LOT and Portfolio number. If it was in fact “State Land” were state planning and environmental laws complied with

The notion that it is Commonwealth land has been used to circumvent a lot of state codes.
For example there seems to be no record of Stamp duty being paid on the original leases. That denied State coffers of many millions of dollars.

State environmental requirements were circumvented, a runway closed against safety advice and a flood plain filled with asbestos contaminated fill on top of already heavily contaminated land. The environmental approval for this essentially written by the airport leaseholder, given an air of authority by writing it on Commonwealth Letterhead.

These are just two of the passing strange issues that have occurred at Bankstown.

The lease for Bankstown is currently controlled by The State Government super fund, the airport act says a trust, which is what a super fund is, cannot own an airport lease. State super simply says they don’t, they just own the company that owns the lease.

Safety aspects associated with airport development seem to have been ignored in a frantic flurry of work under cover of the covid pandemic. The massive structures rising on the Southern side of the airport making perfect targets for an Essendon type event. We were very lucky that time that mass casualties did not occur, we may not be so lucky next time.

As many pilots who operate into Canberra will attest, the turbulence created in strong winds by buildings close to runways is a severe hazard, more so at Bankstown considering the small aircraft that operate there.

Bankstown airport is heavily contaminated from war-time activity. The filling of the flood plain with contaminated soil adding to the mix, all being channelled straight into the Georges river. By cutting off the flood plain future floods will more than likely be more severe upstream of the airport, during the recent small flood a lot of houses were damaged that had never seen flood waters before and it was by no means a fifty year flood.

Will that expose the Australian taxpayer to the potential of monstrous compensation claims?

The Southern development is just the start of the eventual destruction of Bankstown as an airport, almost a third of the land taken in one bite. Development of the Northern precinct will take another third, the likely scenario as aviation declines that it will become a single runway in a wind tunnel surrounded by warehouses with little room for any aviation development.

If that was the government’s intention in the first place a far higher premium could have been obtained for the Australian public without all the subterfuge.

The development sharks will make the billions not the public purse and of course who cares about the aviation industry when dollars are to be made.

The machinations of the bureaucrats who engineered this have never been publicly scrutinised.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - thorn bird - 09-09-2020

Way back in 1928 it was decided that a growing city like Sydney needed a second airport.

Most of the inner west of Sydney at the time was semi-rural. A farm owned by the Johnson family was chosen. It had a relatively flat open area of grassland ideal for what they called an all-over aerodrome, no runways as such, just a nice big paddock. A tad prone to flooding from the Georges river that ran past it, making it unsuitable for urban development, but good enough. Aircraft at that time didn’t need much more. Planning for Bankstown airport however was put on hold until the outbreak of the second world war.

Bankstown Airport’s history really began in 1940 when Australia, fearing Japanese invasion, suddenly realised there were bugger all airports in the country from which air defence could be mounted. The Bankstown airfield project was proclaimed in June 1940 under the National security Act followed by resumption of the land in December 1940. 

Bankstown Aerodrome during World War II remained an all-over-airfield, it was the main fighter base defending Sydney. Far enough from the coast to be outside the range of Japanese submarine gunfire, which also made it a relatively safe place to develop defence industries.

Development continued after the war, a 914-metre gravel runway was constructed in 1952, final configuration of three runways finished in 1963, Bankstown was expanding, Aircraft manufacturing, general aviation commercial operations and flying training making it the busiest Airport in the Southern hemisphere employing over 8000 people. In addition, thousands of highly skilled trades people and pilots received their training at Bankstown.

The de Havilland company produced Mosquito aircraft and parts from 1942, which continued after the war. It manufactured Australia's first jet fighter aircraft, the Vampire, from 1949 to 1960.
Later Hawker de Havilland produced aircraft, such as the PC9 Turbo-prop trainer for the RAAF, and the Blackhawk helicopter for the army. Until recently, parts for Boeing, Airbus Industries and McDonnell Douglas were manufactured tat Bankstown.

The kernel for a major industry was there, the skills required were there, the necessary airport was there, then we let it slip away. Today we are prepared to squander Billions to develop a ship building industry from scratch, producing vessels that are obsolete before they even start and positively antique by the time the last one is built.

We already had an aviation Industry, in the starting block, primed for development. It is incongruous to me that was thrown away by political ignorance, indifference and ineptitude. Apparently, aviation is not as important as boats, somewhat short-sighted I believe.

All those major players mentioned have now gone, with more to follow, driven away by monopoly development shark’s predatory behaviour. I believe history will show Australia will be poorer for it. During world war two Australia embarked on major airport construction all over the country as there were simply not enough so vital for our defence.
Today, once our airports are gone, their gone forever. In the current regional climate, we may live to regret allowing that to happen. If conflict once again faces Australia, we may just need every airport we can find as we did in 1940.

Bankstown Airport also held areas of environmental significance which contain vulnerable species including the downy wattle (Acacia pubescens). This species grows in dry, open sclerophyll forest, woodland and melaleuca scrub. The very rare and critically endangered species 'Hibbertia glabrescens', native to the Cumberland Plain, only remained in the Bankstown area and this semi-prostrate shrub had a population of less than 50 mature plants at the environs of Bankstown Airport.

I heard recently that the airport cut them all down, probably indicative of the Airports real attitude to the environment, they play lip service to it but in reality, they don’t give a damn further illustrated by tearing up a runway against safety advice, then covering a floodplain with contaminated fill to bring it above historic flood levels.

By way of perspective, airports in Australia, our airports, are seen as liabilities or ripe for development of non-aviation industry. In the United States, airports are powerful engines for economic opportunity in local communities, generating more than $1.4 trillion in annual economic activity and supporting nearly 11.5 million jobs.

        Main Airports in the USA, 19,700 of them







Main Airports in Australia almost the same land mass, 613 of them



Bankstown’s decline began with the 1988 Civil Aviation Act which set in train a legislative Pogrom by the aviation regulator that severely impacted the viability of general aviation.
Airport privatisation, into the hands of monopolistic property development sharks further exacerbated the general aviation industries ability to remain financially viable. Red tape stifled innovation and development, predatory landlords stifled growth.

One cannot help but ponder why or how our ethos changed from utility and the pubic good, to profitability for billion dollar development sharks.

The public once owned our airport land, free of debt as it owns many other pieces of land set aside as open areas for the use of the public. Urban Parks, sports fields, boat ramps, National Parks all provided and publicly owned and funded for public use.

People who enjoy boating or fishing as a hobby require boat ramps to operate from. People who enjoy aviation as a hobby require airports to operate from. Australia builds some very fine boats but bugger all aircraft, overregulation of the industry sees to that.

Many of these free spaces are specified for use for a designated purpose, most are free to use, some carry a cost for use, such as National Park entry fees. None of these fees are based on the potential value of the land as freehold, nor the comparative cost of surrounding leasehold industrial real estate. Why is aviation any different?

Imagine if the cost of entry to Sydney’s Royal National Park was based on its intrinsic value as freehold real estate. Do national Parks run at a profit? I don’t think so, entry fees don’t even cover the cost of maintenance. 

Why are the same principles quoted to justify the privatisation of airports not applied to national parks, leased to development sharks with free reign to charge what they like and bite off large chunks of “Surplus land” for industrial development to make massive profits squirreled away in offshore tax havens?

If this was so I imagine park entry fees would amount to thousands of dollars.

What would the value be of Centenary Park in Sydney as real estate? If this was the benchmark for user fees, people riding their horses would be paying a thousand a lap, dog walkers hundreds per dog poop, feeding the ducks ten bucks a hand full, all absurd analogies perhaps, but given the opportunity I doubt there would not be development sharks standing in line to buy the park lease knowing that by incrementally increasing the cost for utilising the park they could arrive at a point where so few could afford to use it, they could say hand on heart, the park is no longer viable, let us ramp up a few office towers, Oh and here's a nice political donation to sweeten the pot, could be a lucrative directorship in it as well.

Property Development sharks have a pretty checked history when it comes to probity, as do our government bodies who deal with them, an example can be found here (https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-to-lose-93m-on-the-sydney-land-market-20030924-gdhg0y.html).

Our Airports were handed over the Property developers at bargain basement prices, three airports in the Sydney basin for around 250 million dollars, retrieved for the sale of just one, so two airports for free worth potentially billions.

It wasn’t just aviation that got screwed, the whole country did, as free hold industrial land I have seen estimates back in 2002 between 1.5 to 1.9 Billion dollars for Sydney’s secondary airports, it would be a whole lot more today.

I just cannot imagine the Bureaucrats who oversaw the whole process of the so-called airport privatisation process/fraud could be so inept, one could be forgiven for suspecting that some form of corruption featured somewhere in the mix.

The unintended consequence of Secondary Airport destruction:

Aviation is a truly fluid industry, highly technical by nature requiring highly skilled technicians to maintain it and access to airports to sustain it. Technical advances in aviation over the past decades have been truly astonishing and have had the greatest effect in improving safety.

Australia is not bereft of innovative minds and entrepreneurial spirit. Many great ideas and inventions in the aeronautical field have arisen in Australia. Unfortunately, most have been driven away by an inane regulatory regime. But who’s to say that something really revolutionary might arise in the mind of some young, passionate, Australian that could potentially be worth billions to the country’s economy, but off shored through lack of access.

By way of example of Australian success and innovation.

Way back in the 1960ies a Tasmanian fisherman by the name of Bob Clifford had an innovative idea for a boat. He was an amateur with no engineering qualification. Starting in his backyard he built prototypes and was often seen paddling about the Derwent river testing his ideas. His passion for the sea lead him to the idea of fast commuter ferries, developing much of the technology locally, his company Incat, researched and designed high-tech, high speed wave piercing catamarans, at one stage capturing more than 40% of the worlds high speed ferry market. Even the US Military purchased vessels from the company. In recognition of his incredible fortitude and skills Bob was awarded an honourable degree in engineering by the university of Tasmania.

To make his dream a reality Bob Clifford had access to a harbour at reasonable cost and access to a city population from which to draw his workforce.


What could have been:

There was a consortium of passionate aviators with a well-researched plan to offer to buy the two airports, Bankstown and Camden leases, for basically the original price paid for three airports, 250 Million Dollars which included Hoxton Park. Their idea was to Strata title the airport giving stakeholders the opportunity to buy an area on which to build, or buy an existing building, thereby gaining an asset and security of tenure. This Idea, if it had come to fruition, I believe would have reinvigorated the aviation industry and seen a massive increase in aviation participation.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 09-30-2020

A Game changer? - Or more Onepie in the Sky? 

From P.W.Hatch, via the Age:

---

Massively concerned': Essendon Airport crash sparks Senate probe push

By Patrick Hatch

September 28, 2020 — 11.14am

The chair of the Senate transport committee is chasing a sweeping inquiry into commercial developments around Australia's airports amid concerns that new office blocks, retail developments and hotels are jeopardising the safety of critical transport infrastructure.

The push comes as part of the ongoing fallout from the 2017 Essendon Airport DFO crash, which has raised serious questions about government oversight of the rapid commercial development taking place at the nation's privately run airports. NSW's new airport at Badgery's Creek is also still in the middle of the planning process.



Five people died when a light aircraft crashed into the DFO retail complex at Essendon Airport in 2017. CREDIT:NINE NEWS

Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald, who chairs the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, said she was "massively concerned" about what happened at Essendon Airport, in Melbourne's north, as well as other developments in and around major, secondary and regional airports across Australia.

"We can’t risk aviation safety over commerce," Ms McDonald said. "We need to shine a spotlight on the decision making for infrastructure within air spaces and ensure that there is a clear understanding that maintaining airspace is a priority."


Ms McDonald said every airport in the country was under commercial pressure to build non-aviation infrastructure such as retail buildings and office blocks around their airfields. But those developments were potentially jeopardising the safety of people in the air and on the ground, and threatening airports' primary obligation to function as critical transport infrastructure, she said.



The Essendon Airport crash has raised questions about government oversight of developments around the country's airports. CREDIT:JASON SOUTH

Five people on board a Beechcraft B200 King Air died in 2017 when the light aircraft ploughed into the rear of the DFO retail complex built at the southern end of Essendon Airport's main runway in 2005.

The Age and Sydney Morning Herald revealed last year that Essendon Fields Airport had built the DFO closer to a runway than recommended under international and Australian safety guidelines.

The airport – run by the families of trucking billionaire Lindsay Fox and businessman Max Beck under a 99 year lease from the federal government – has since proposed narrowing the technical "width" of its runway so it can construct more buildings around the airfield.

The Australian Airline Pilots' Association (AusALPA), an industry group that represents commercial pilots on safety and regulatory issues, has had long-standing concerns about commercial buildings encroaching on airspace that were heightened after the Essendon Airport crash.

"There’s been this crack in the regulation that’s been allowed to open up what favours the commercial interests of an airport rather than the pure safety interests," said Captain Marcus Diamond, an AusALPA safety and technical representative.

"Our legislation is not fit for purpose, we’ve got to have a legislation review to close that gap."

Responsibility for approving new buildings around airports is split between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Department of Infrastructure and private third-party contractors.

Captain Diamond said CASA needed to be made the sole responsible body for reviewing and approval new buildings to ensure transparency, accountability and that safety is put first.


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is yet to release the findings of its investigation into how Essendon's DFO building was approved, which has been expected since January 2019. The report was released in draft form to the airport and other interested parties almost a year ago.

Ms McDonald said that if supported by other senators, the inquiry would look at examples of developments already built at airports around the country and examine CASA's role in reviewing and approving developments.

---

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 10-01-2020

Via the Oz:

---

Coronavirus Australia: Scott Morrison rules out ending curfew at Sydney Airport




An Emirates plane taxis along the runway of Sydney International Airport as horses and riders are seen swimming at Botany Bay on Wednesday. Picture: Getty Images

ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ruled out cutting the curfew at Sydney Airport which sees no flights between 11pm and 6am, but said no curfew would apply at the new Western Sydney Airport.

The remarks come as the government considers an issues paper around Sydney Airport’s evening curfew and 80 flights per hour cap.

“The government has always had a clear view on the curfew and the cap that’s why we’re building Western Sydney Airport,” Mr Morrison said, speaking to Ben Fordham on 2GB this morning.

“The view will come back that the cap and the curfew (at Sydney airport) has been a consistent part of government policy for many years.”

Qantas, Virgin Australia and smaller airlines have made thousands of staff redundant, with international and state border closures­ making flying difficult.

The review is outlined in an issues­ paper — part of a five-year plan — to be released by Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack on Thursday. The 36-page paper has been compiled to stimulate debate on the best way to take the aviation industry off taxpayer-funded life support as the flight subsidies bill soars towards $2bn.

“The Australian government will soon be commencing a comprehensive review of the legislation governing Sydney Airport’s demand management, including slot management,” the paper states. “The review is in response to a 2019 Productivity Commission inquiry report on Economic Regulation of Airports.”

The commission report found the measures in place at Sydney Airport were unnecessarily restrictive and could also compound delays, but stopped short of recommending wholesale changes.

The issues paper also seeks ideas on how to restore the aviation industry to a “commercially operated network” without sacrificing routes that keep the country connected. Virgin has already ­announced it will stop flying eight regional routes because it cannot make money from the flights.


Passengers waiting in the departures area of the Sydney International Airport on Tuesday. Picture: AFP

The paper acknowledges some routes would no longer be viable in a post-coronavirus world but said there was a need to maintain “essential connectivity” without government support. “It is important that the eventual phasing-out of direct assistance minimises disruption to the sector as Australia recovers and the domestic aviation sector starts returning to commercial levels,” it says.

Since March, the government has launched eight initiatives to assist the aviation industry, at a cost of more than $1.3bn.

On ­Monday, Mr McCormack, who is also the Transport Minister, announced­ the government would continue to subsidise domestic and regional flights for airlines until the end of January and March respectively.

“Having rolled out unpreced­ented support to the industry, the federal government is now seeking feedback from stakeholders on how we bounce back from here as we plot the pathway to recovery,” he said. “Australia has always been a world leader in delivering high-quality service and aviation training and there’s no reason that can’t continue.”

Other issues flagged as potent­ially under review include environ­mentally sustainable aviation, airspace management and access to skies. Cumbersome own­ership laws for local governments given responsi­bility for airports and aerodromes between 1989 and 1993 may be reconsidered too.

Quote:Alexander
3 HOURS AGO

“the federal government is now seeking feedback from stakeholders on how we bounce back from here..”
The whole community of Australia’s General Aviation (GA), what’s left of it, will have a good laugh at that statement. The Commonwealth’s independent corporate monopoly aviation regulator, since it’s launch out of Ministerial control thirty two years ago, has managed to bureaucratically strangle what was a busy and productive industry. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has feather bedded itself by fee gouging, huge salary increases, and a never ending make work rewrite of the rules, now thousands of pages that would confound even a genius lover of gobbledygook. The GA industry was the main provider of pilots for our airlines apart from the Armed Forces, but in latter years we’ve been sourcing foreigners, due entirely to this sorry state of affairs.

The government has been “seeking feedback” from us regularly for years, great trumpeted inquiries. For example 2014 the Forsyth Regulatory Review with 269 submissions probably representing thousands of unpaid hours on behalf of GA, plus the salaries and expenses of numerous public servants. To what effect? Nil. Yet another one underway now by the Senate expected to take two years! This last GII inquiry is struggling to get submissions, guess why? (GII, Government Industries, sub sec. Inquiries)

---

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 10-20-2020

Raiders of the West Sydney Airport trough - 


Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-18-10-20-the-long-drop-dunny-and-uses-thereof/

Via Parlview yesterday it would appear that several Govt departments and agencies are all ducking for cover on the subject of the Leppington Triangle trough fund. This included the tabling of several revealing documents by the DITRDC:

Quote:Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Responses to Senator Sterle's written questions
19 October 2020
Part 1: PDF 17,167KB
Part 2: PDF 21,257KB
Part 3: PDF 12,246KB  

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Leppington Triangle Review Terms of Reference
19 October 2020
PDF 846KB

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Chronology of Investigations into Staff Conduct
19 October 2020
PDF 451KB

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Notice of Suspected Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct 1
19 October 2020
PDF 4,705KB

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Notice of Suspected Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct 2
19 October 2020
PDF 2,272KB   

Hmm...more to unravel in this sorry tale of bureaucratic cover-up with high probability of corruption me thinks??   

MTF...P2 

ps Will review relevant Hansard once available - 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Kharon - 10-27-2020

Essendon – the ATSB version.

HERE...........

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 10-27-2020

Under the cover of COVID - Example 1   

Calling Mr Peabody?? 

I am glad you caught the links that I put up on social media "K" because the rest of the world seems to have been totally captured by COVID-19 to the point of distraction. And I believe that Governments, their Departments and Agencies are using the cover of COVID to obfuscate active and potentially embarrassing public interest/Govt oversight matters and indeed the O&O'd ATSB AI-2018-010 investigation is just one of them.

Via the ATSB:

Quote:Update published 10 September 2020
This investigation (AI-2018-010) examines the Bulla Road Precinct retail centre development at Essendon Fields Airport and how risks associated with the location and height of those buildings were addressed under civil aviation safety legislation and the Airports Act 1996. It also addresses the safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport. These matters arise due to the historical uncertainty in identifying the runway strip width and Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) for runway 08/26.

What happened
Development approval
The Major Development Plan (MDP) for the Bulla Road Precinct retail centre development was approved by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development in 2004. Building of the precinct was completed in 2005. The MDP located the lower boundary of the transitional surface 90 m from the centreline of runway 08/26 (see Figure 1). That distance was founded on two criteria:

• a runway strip width of 180 m (90 m either side of the runway centreline)
  
  
• the location of the lower boundary of the transitional surface immediately adjacent to the runway being determined by the runway strip dimensions.
  

Using these criteria, the MDP placed the buildings immediately adjacent to and just below the transitional surface associated with runway 08/26. Had they intruded into the transitional surface, an approval would have been required under Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would have considered the development as being obstacles requiring determination under the relevant safety regulations.

Figure 1: Representation of the relationship between the proposed construction and the runway strip and transitional surface


A depiction of the proposed development superimposed onto a Google Earth image of Essendon Airport in 2003. The transitional surface grounded boundary is 90 m from the runway centreline.
Source: Google Earth, modified by ATSB

Runway strip expansion
In November 2015, CASA promulgated CASA instrument 153/15, which was issued to the airport operator. This instrument required the operator to publish the overall strip width for runway 08/26 as 300 m. The basis of this requirement was that there was no record on how the 180 m runway 08/26 strip width had originated, nor were there records as to the previous standard under which that measurement was authorised. The 180 m runway strip width was not authorised under the 2015 version of the standards, which required a 300 m strip width (150 m either side of the runway centreline).

The effect of this mandated 300 m runway strip requirement was to move the associated lower boundary for the transitional surface out to a distance of 150 m from the runway centreline. The change in the strip width also caused a significant portion of the northern most sections of the retail centre buildings to impinge onto the runway 08/26 strip and penetrate that runway’s transitional surface (see Figure 2). In doing so, these portions of the buildings became obstacles on the movement area, and in being obstacles, the buildings were identified as a potential risk to aircraft operations on that runway.

Figure 2: Representation of the relationship between the CASA instrument 153/15 runway strip width and transitional surface


A depiction of the required 300 m runway strip width and the relocated transitional surface, superimposed onto a Google Earth image of Essendon Airport in 2019. The transitional surface grounded boundary is 150 m from the runway centreline.
Source: Google Earth, modified by ATSB

Aerodrome standards
The aerodrome standards provided a means by which CASA could approve obstacles on the movement area. Further, as these obstacles breached the OLS they were required to be illuminated and notified as obstacles through publication in the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP). Instrument 153/15 provided the required authorisation for the presence of the buildings in the movement area and directed the lighting and notification requirements.

In March 2019, the airport operator notified all operators and tenants of Essendon Fields Airport of the intent to return the runway 08/26 runway strip width to the original published 180 m, as it had been from 1972 to 2015. This was done by ‘grandfathering’ the 180 m runway strip width dimension against the requirements of an earlier standard. The notice also stated that the buildings previously approved as obstacles as a result of the application of the CASA instrument would no longer be classified as obstacles with the return of the strip width to 180 m.

CASA accepted that the grandfathering of the runway strip width by Essendon Airport met the requirements of the standards. In May 2019, CASA repealed instrument 153/15. The November 2019 edition of the AIP stated the runway 08/26 strip width as 180 m, and reference to the previously reported obstacles was removed. The effect of the change in the runway strip width was to return the transitional surface to the position as depicted in Figure 1.

Further investigation
In Quarter 4 of 2019, a draft report on the ATSB’s investigation into the Bulla Road Precinct approval was distributed to directly involved parties for comment.

During the review process, the ATSB determined that further evidence was required to consider the effect of the revocation of instrument 153/15. This has necessitated re-engagement with the airport operator, CASA, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Should safety issue/s be identified during the course of this ongoing investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

An amended draft report is expected to be distributed to directly involved parties in Quarter 4 of 2020.

To begin note that yet again the update was released without zip fanfare over 6 weeks ago and that the 'anticipated completion'  has once more been vaguely deferred to sometime before the end of the year...  

Next can anyone else see the absurdity of this statement? 

 "..The notice also stated that the buildings previously approved as obstacles as a result of the application of the CASA instrument would no longer be classified as obstacles with the return of the strip width to 180 m...

...CASA accepted that the grandfathering of the runway strip width by Essendon Airport met the requirements of the standards. In May 2019, CASA repealed instrument 153/15. The November 2019 edition of the AIP stated the runway 08/26 strip width as 180 m, and reference to the previously reported obstacles was removed. The effect of the change in the runway strip width was to return the transitional surface to the position as depicted in Figure 1..." 



Hmm...so the obstacle (ie the DFO), by the decree of St Commode, is no longer an obstacle...

Calling on Mr Peabody - PLEASE EXPLAIN!


UTCOC - Example 2

Not that I want to give much oxygen to Labor QLD Senator 'WOFTAM' Watt but it is airport and CASA related so bear with me with the following extract from Senate Estimates Hansard:

Quote:Senator WATT: The particular issue I want to focus on with CASA is the air safety implications of the realignment of the Northern Road and the impact that has on the public safety area. I appreciate that you haven't read the Auditor-General's report in full. Before I go into it, are you aware that one of the contentious issues in this whole scandal is the realignment of the Northern Road to make it closer to the Western Sydney airport boundary?

Mr Carmody : I'm generally aware, yes, but not in detail.

Senator WATT: In the Auditor-General's report, paragraph 2.27, it states:

The proposed road alignment runs through the HIAL system for Runway 05R. L&B—

Landrum & Brown, which is the department's aviation consultants—

… has advised that this has the potential to cause serious disruptions to operation on Runway 05R.

The proposed road alignment runs through the PSZ for Runway 05R. L&B recommends a detailed risk assessment.

Did CASA undertake any detailed risk assessment involving the Western Sydney airport and the change to risk that resulted from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take that on notice; I'm not aware. We are involved in a Western Sydney technical working group. We participate in an executive-level steering group about the airport, but that's it. So I wouldn't know, and I'll have to take the question on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Senator, could I table something to assist. This was in 2015. The Landrum & Brown advice, the final advice, was quite different to the advice that was in the body of the report, but it is contained in the appendix to the report.

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

Mr Atkinson : As I understand, CASA was quite involved and consulted on it, and it was found to be fine.

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

Mr Atkinson : In the discussions around the Northern Road in 2015.

Senator WATT: Okay. Is it the case that CASA is the agency that regulates and advises the department on the safety risks of airport developments and roads and other infrastructure that adjoins it?

Mr Carmody : For federally leased airports, that's correct; we provide advice to the department, and I'm sure that we are one of the many sources of advice that the department receives.

Senator WATT: So you're not aware of whether CASA undertook any detailed risk assessment that flowed from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : No, I'm not.

Senator WATT: Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

Mr Carmody : No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice.

Senator WATT: Do you know who was responsible to make an informed acceptance of the risks that arose within the public safety zone from this realignment? Is it only CASA?

Mr Carmody : We would make a safety recommendation to the department, in this case. There may well be others. I don't know of any, but there may well be others. As far as I know it would be, principally, our safety recommendation.

Senator WATT: Mr Atkinson, do you know whether there's any other agency that would have a role in assessing any risk, public or otherwise, that arose from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Atkinson : Yes. Airservices is also involved. Their expert advice, the final expert advice, was part of the consideration of the approval of the road. You're talking about a road right at the end of the two-kilometre safety zone. There are a lot of roads that run through, and airports can't really—looking at the final report that wasn't in the audit report is probably important as well. But Mr Carmody's taken it on notice, and I'm sure CASA's participation in this is part of the public record.

Senator WATT: Thanks. Also in the Auditor-General's report, at paragraph 2.27, he stated that in response to serious concerns that were raised by the New South Wales government's Roads and Maritime Services, the department of infrastructure advised RMS:

The proposed alignment is clear of the OLS [Obstacle Limitation Surface]. However, DIRD has advised that the road may interfere with “One Engineer Inoperative (OEI) procedures defined for Runway 23L. L&B—

Landrum and Brown—

has suggested further assessment by aviation safety authority.

Do you know whether any such assessment was conducted by CASA?

Mr Carmody : I don't know. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with that. I'm happy to take it on notice.

Senator WATT: Okay. Are there any broader obstacle limitation service concerns as a result of a major road now being so close to the runway or intended to be so close to the runway—for example, large freight vehicles as transient obstacles?

Mr Carmody : Not as far as I know, but I can take that question on notice, if you wish.

Senator WATT: Okay. Do you know whether any analysis has been undertaken by CASA to determine that?

Mr Carmody : No.

Senator WATT: Please take that on notice and table any such analysis, if one has been conducted. Is it normal for a four-lane dual-carriageway major arterial road, that's expected to handle 47,000 passengers and employee trips and 42,000 freight trips per day, to be located within the public safety zone of a major international airport?

Mr Carmody : I'll take that on notice.

Senator WATT: Can you think of any other examples where that is the case?

Mr Carmody : I haven't got the plans of the airport and the public safety zones in my mind or with me, but there are a lot of airports around the world with a lot of large infrastructure development and roadworks around them.

Senator WATT: Within the public safety zone, though?

Mr Carmody : As I said, I haven't got the—it depends on how you define the public safety zone and which way it is defined by those nations, so I'd have to take it on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Mr Carmody is referring to a road right at the edge of two kilometres from the end of the runway.

Mr Carmody : It's a long way.

Mr Atkinson : It is a long way.

Senator WATT: But surely we have a public safety zone for a reason?

Mr Atkinson : Mr Carmody's taken it on notice, what the advice on it is. There are many airports in Australia, if you've come into Canberra lately, for example, that have a road at the end of the runway that are much closer than that.

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

Senator WATT: Okay. In its current airport design, would CASA certify the Western Sydney airport with a four-lane-carriageway major arterial road that runs along or through the public safety zone?

Mr Carmody : I assume that matter is still being discussed. I don't have the details with me. Prospectively, would we certify? I don't know. I can take it on notice and let you know. I think there is a long way to go on Western Sydney Airport as yet; I know that we are intimately involved in the technical working groups and the executive steering groups. I would assume that, if it was safe, CASA would make a recommendation on that basis.

Senator WATT: In CASA's view, is there a risk, as a result of this decision to realign the road, that the future second runway could be constrained and/or that a future government might need to relocate the arterial road to allow for the runway to be constructed as originally envisaged?

Mr Carmody : I don't believe so. If it's as far away from the end of the runway as Mr Atkinson is making out, then I don't believe so. But, again, in constructing the answer, I'm quite happy to look at that matter.

Senator WATT: If you could. In the process, could you advise whether that's something CASA has turned its mind to?

Mr Carmody : Certainly.

First I call bullshit on this statement...

...Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

...No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice...

 Throughout Senate Estimates there were many examples of where a Dept or agency would throw to video conference facilities for witness testimony back at the Dept/agency HQ. So IMO there is no excuse for the required airport specialists not to be available at short notice - 

---

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

---

Hmm...so the Secretary is quite obviously aware of the fact that QLD is the only State or Territory that has established a model in law for public safety zones around airports. It goes without saying that the Secretary should also be cognisant of his own department's NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK and it's guidelines for the establishment of public safety zones around airports:

Quote:Purpose of Guideline 

1. To provide guidance to Australian Government, state, territory and local government decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

2. To inform a more consistent approach to the application of Public Safety Areas (PSAs) at and near Australian airports.

MTF? - Definitely!...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - P7_TOM - 10-27-2020

E- Bloody – Nuff........

60 meters = 196.85 Feet.

There are 5280 feet in a statute mile:

140 Knots = 161.109 MpH.

161.109 by 60 = 2.68 miles per minute. Or, 6820 Meters per Minute, = 113.66 meters per second.

Ergo; 60 meters at 113.66 meters per second = 0.527 seconds.

At the ATSB promulgated Rate of Climb (RoC) had the additional 60 meters of 'airspace' not been 'grandfathered' away the Essendon fireball of a 5.7 ton aircraft hitting a building would not have occurred.

60 meters of airspace; a couple of seconds and maybe the deaths could have been avoided. We'll never know – Grandfather may – but he's been gone a good while now. The King Air could have been so very close to a different result, instead of on the roof of yet another, dreary, not really required shopping mall. We do have a lot of 'em - 

Full stop – end of. Wheel in the bulldozers minister not the bullshit – now – would be good – now-now even better.

PS – take a close look at P2's 'fig 2' – even in the beginning the bloody shopping mall was ahead of the 150 boundary – One King Air – five lives – a near catastrophe – all for what?  A shopping experience - BOLLOCKS!

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - thorn bird - 10-28-2020

Yesterday Sydney experienced a southerly airstream over the city, nothing gale force, a gentle breeze around 15 Knots.

First time for me to hear on BK ATIS..."Caution mechanical turbulence on short final"..runway 11 in use, one would suspect being generated by the monolith warehouse recently constructed on the southern side of the airport.

We hear great statements about Safety, risk management et al, our industry is being killed off by a regulatory nightmare in pursuit of it, yet it doesn't seem to apply to development sharks in their pursuit of the holy dollar.

Our bureaucrats sold our airports for peanuts for development sharks to make billions, defrauding the Australian people.

How long before a major accident occurs at Bankstown Airport caused by a development sharks greed?



A warehouse in a wind tunnel. A 15 knot breeze, the rotor extends from the building almost a thousand meters.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - P7_TOM - 10-28-2020

Over it – Full stop.

Perhaps; just maybe, it is time to wake up the 'government'. They, like I, are responsible for 'things'. The creation of government backed monopoly's which require and demand 'additional' funding to compete in a market without competition is a total  bollocks.

In the real world, a 'monopoly' is a licence to print money. Money returned as dividend to investors.

In the real world a 'government defended monopoly' cannot be attacked by market forces. ASIC as an example.

In the real world a 'monopoly' does not last too long before people wake up and simply stop buying – if they can.

The problem lays in the lack of alternative 'product'. There are some 250,000 brands of toothpaste available – but; only one Air Traffic Control system available in Australia. A very serious, entrenched, government supported monopoly;– one which can and does do exactly as pleases it. Charge what they like – make a fortune in wages and KPI – but still turn up at 'Estimates' just like Oliver Twist, always wanting 'More'. CASA same – same; ATSB beyond recovery, but still demanding more, more, more. BOLLOCKS.

IF – big IF, these 'public (tax payer) serving services' to the industry which pays the bills for these 'monopolies' were offered out to tender – there's likely to be enough money left over to pay off half the national debt and get a better service, for less total cost – by the end of next financial year.

Ministers and Senators – we are being 'ripped-off'. Wholesale and retail; yet the government is too shit scared of the amplified myth, the smoke and mirrors which is alleged to be air safety. Let us be honest here; Qantas have forgotten more about 'aviation safety' than your darling 'regulator' could ever know, at half the cost, even if they studied for the next decade: fact.

Do check the 'real' data – ignore the paranoid reactions and look at say the road kill statistics for example. Aviation is proven to be at least 1000 times safer. Get bloody real, ignore the 'myth' and 'legend'. Take a close look, as the Americans are, at the incredibly dangerous situation which is not only developing at Essendon but across the aerodromes of this nation. Essendon killed people – why? Well there was a ducking great big (approved) building in the aircraft's natural OEI (emergency) flight path – that's why - FDS.

Reality is a strange phenomenon; but it does exist. The reality is, minister, that your sacred cow of 'aviation safety' is not only strangling an industry- but killing it; by suffocation, through the sheer weight of it's body.

So. Wake up – or piss off. Take that idiot from Qld with you. The one who tried to score 'political points' from a position of zero understanding. Watts – Whathisname has been  officially designated an 'inutile target'. God's help him – we won't.

Ayup – Sorry P2 – Guilty as charged - PWP and PO'd. But, not to worry – I'm one up in this darts round and there's enough left in the keg to see the night out. But, no barkeep – best help myself then – not a problem. What! - Oh, my throw?

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 11-22-2020

Sunny Coast shows up aviation safety bollocks - 

Via 20/20 inquiry submissions page:

45 Flight Path Forum Inc (PDF 797 KB) 

---

Executive Summary

Flight Path Forum (FPF) is an incorporated community association formed in 2019 in response to a
failed consultation process by Airservices Australia in relation to changes to airspace and flight paths
to support operations forum runway 13/31 at Sunshine Coast Airport.

Since April 2019, FPF has focussed on researching many aspects of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) and Airservices Australia’s (ASA) ’s environmental and risk assessment processes for changes
to airspace and flight paths., including regulatory frameworks and national operating standards and
most importantly engagement between the two agencies on these issues. Concerns over the
assessment process for environmental risks to aviation safety have arisen and FPF believes it
necessary to set before the Senate Inquiry the full context of the particular circumstances
surrounding new airspace and flight path designs for runway 13/31 at Sunshine Coast regional airport
and to call for an immediate review of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) aviation safety
management functions and aviation safety frameworks.

Whilst FPF appreciates the current inquiry is mainly focussed on Australia’s general aviation industry,
decisions made by CASA in conjunction with other relevant Australian Government agencies, in this
case ASA, in relation to airspace changes and new flight paths have had a ripple effect on the safety of
general aviation operations occurring in the vicinity of Sunshine Coast Airport (SCA).

As the safety regulator for Australian airspace, every decision CASA makes in relation to airspace
changes, to accommodate flight paths for Regular Passenger Jet (RPT) aircraft, has the potential to
create a knock-on effect for all airspace users including general aviation (GA) operators and it is for
this reason FPF now presents this submission as a ‘related matter’.

CASA’s engagement with ASA, on the issue of aviation safety, is of particular concern in the case set
out below. FPF is of that view that any Inquiry related to aviation safety frameworks and relative risks
must consider the circumstances that have recently unfolded on the Sunshine Coast...

---

From pg 9/...

...ICAO’s Risk Management framework articulates the following process for risk assessment:

• Identify the risk
• Evaluate the consequence of the risk eventuating
• Determine the likelihood of the risk occurring
• Determine acceptability of risk
• Either accept the risk or act to mitigate the risk

It appears that neither CASA/OAR or ASA have undertaken any of the above in relation to
safety conflicts between bird strike, blasting operations at KRA 54 and the proposed new
approach and departure routes for 13/31 other than the final point, to accept the risk. This is
a failure of process.

ICAO also articulates the following risk mitigation strategies:

a) Exposure Avoidance. The risky task, practice or operation or activity is avoided
because the risk exceeds the benefits.
b) Loss reduction. Activities are taken to reduce the frequency of unsafe events or the
magnitude of the consequences.
c) Segregation of exposure (separation or duplication). Action is taken to isolate the
effects to the risk or build in redundancy to protect against the risks, i.e. reduce the
severity of the risk (for example, protecting against collateral damage in the event of
a material failure, or providing backup systems to reduce the likelihood of total
system failure). 1

To maintain compliance with ICAO principles, risk assessment of both bird strike and blasting
operations at KRA 54 should be subject to an approved and documented process in order to
inform the Safety Management System (SMS). The potential loss of an airliner, passengers,
crew and other consequences, as outlined in Section 2.2, would in any rational circumstance,
present as an intolerable risk. Whereupon ICAO asks the primary question:

Can the hazards and related safety risk(s) be eliminated? 2

Cleary the answer in the case of new flight paths for runway 13/31 at SCA, is yes.

So why have these risks not been eliminated through the development of alternative flight
paths? Perhaps for one of the following reasons?
• The risks were not identified by anyone
• The risks were assumed to have been identified and assessed by another entity.
ICAO states that the optimal solution should be found. 3

ASA’s proposed flight paths cannot be regarded as the optimal solution, not just for safety
reasons alone but also due to constraints which will necessarily be imposed on RPT airlines
and GA businesses operating from SCA in order to accommodate the risk from KRA 54 in
particular.

Failure to follow ICAO’s SMS risk management process 4 which would have resulted in the
identification of the optimal solution should be regarded as a systemic failure.

CASA/OAR and ASA have made no attempt, through the evaluation of alternative routes, to
avoid the risks, instead electing to accept them unnecessarily and thus ignoring the existing
opportunity to mitigate through exposure avoidance as espoused by ICAO. This appears to be
a conscious decision by CASA/OAR and ASA and as such should be regarded as a systemic
failure.

ASA have elected to increase air traffic movements directly over the quarry site. Use of a
curved approach and departure procedure, which is widely agreed to be a critical, high work
flow phase of flight means this design adds a layer of complexity for pilots. According to
aviation experts this contrary to preferred operating procedures for both pilots and Air Traffic
Control (ATC), that is, complexity should be reduced wherever possible, not increased
unnecessarily.

---

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 12-02-2020

West Sydney Aerotropolis plan - 

Plan link:  https://shared-drupal-s3fs.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/master-test/fapub_pdf/00+-+Planning+Portal+Exhibitions/Western+Syd+Aero+Planned+Precincts+/WSAPP+new/WesternSydneyAerotropolis_PrecinctPlanningReport_v9.pdf

Some prelim obs so far, courtesy of Dic Doc -   

---

...What interests me is Section 1.5 about development and aviation safety…yet to follow in 2021.  

Quote:1.5 Relevance of the Phase 2 Aerotropolis DCP 

The Phase 1 Aerotropolis DCP should be read in conjunction with the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Plan, Aerotropolis SEPP, Ministerial Directions 3.5 and 7.8, this Precinct Plan and Master Planning Guideline in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis 2020.

The Phase 2 Aerotropolis DCP will be released for consultation in early 2021 will provide performance criteria and benchmark outcomes to guide development applications. The Phase 1 Aerotropolis DCP will be superseded by the Phase 2 Aerotropolis DCP, once released. 

The Phase 2 Aerotropolis DCP will guide development on aspects such as the natural environment, risk minimisation and management, aviation safeguarding, heritage and conservation, subdivision, built form, parking and landscape controls.

...One would have thought that safety should have been front of mind from the beginning. Be interesting to see who is providing safety and other advice?!

I thought the pic in the report showing development around the strip was particularly revealing.  Is that an oil depot near the strip in the top middle of the pic opposite the terminal? 

---

Much MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Kharon - 12-12-2020

Wow, wudja look at all 'em tall buildings Martha!

Or; more colloquially; “have seen what they're doing at Kickinatinalong”? It is a common enough question in aviation circles; and usually ends up with those discussing 'developments' shaking their heads and left wondering 'how' this rape of an innocent aerodrome could occur.

Wonder no more; well, less anyway. - HERE - is a link to Sub.48 made to the latest Senate Inquiry. It is a solid read, but worth the time, easiest to read it in 'small doses' for there are some genuine pearls of wisdom contained within. 

Sub. 48: - P8 :- ”The Making Ends Meet Report makes it very clear that there are limits to the operation of the market place, a lesson which we have been ignoring at our own peril and the lives of those involved in aviation. Of course, this is an issue which may be impossible to resolve because of the entrenched position that some self-interested players will hold but there is a need to transcend that and ask are the decisions which are being made in the ‘public interest’,and where is the evidence to support a particular claim beyond the standard, generic rhetoric which is invariably not tuned to the specific issue(s) at hand?

Sub. 48: - P9 :- ”An anorexic dowry accompanied the handover of airfields to councils under the ALOP arrangement but future maintenance funding was cut off by the federal government and local government was left to make do as best it could once the once-off dowry ran out. The flawed, unsubstantiated view that local government ‘knew best’ what to do with aviation infrastructure prevailed,aided and abetted by the zeitgeist of the time that the free market along with local government would be best placed to determine the future of our aviation infrastructure notwithstanding, in many cases, a complete lack of understanding of aviation and its’ needs by local government.

Will the submission make any difference? Who knows, at the rate this current inquiry is moving, the buildings will up and running long before any 'positive' action is taken to ensure essential 'safety' margins are met and that vital infrastructure does not become another shopping centre. The fatal accident at the Essendon DFO should have been ringing bloody big alarum bells along the corridors of power – Is it just me gone deaf?

Toot – toot.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 12-12-2020

(12-12-2020, 05:06 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Wow, wudja look at all 'em tall buildings Martha!

Or; more colloquially; “have seen what they're doing at Kickinatinalong”? It is a common enough question in aviation circles; and usually ends up with those discussing 'developments' shaking their heads and left wondering 'how' this rape of an innocent aerodrome could occur.

Wonder no more; well, less anyway. - HERE - is a link to Sub.48 made to the latest Senate Inquiry. It is a solid read, but worth the time, easiest to read it in 'small doses' for there are some genuine pearls of wisdom contained within. 

Sub. 48: - P8 :- ”The Making Ends Meet Report makes it very clear that there are limits to the operation of the market place, a lesson which we have been ignoring at our own peril and the lives of those involved in aviation. Of course, this is an issue which may be impossible to resolve because of the entrenched position that some self-interested players will hold but there is a need to transcend that and ask are the decisions which are being made in the ‘public interest’,and where is the evidence to support a particular claim beyond the standard, generic rhetoric which is invariably not tuned to the specific issue(s) at hand?

Sub. 48: - P9 :- ”An anorexic dowry accompanied the handover of airfields to councils under the ALOP arrangement but future maintenance funding was cut off by the federal government and local government was left to make do as best it could once the once-off dowry ran out. The flawed, unsubstantiated view that local government ‘knew best’ what to do with aviation infrastructure prevailed,aided and abetted by the zeitgeist of the time that the free market along with local government would be best placed to determine the future of our aviation infrastructure notwithstanding, in many cases, a complete lack of understanding of aviation and its’ needs by local government.

Will the submission make any difference? Who knows, at the rate this current inquiry is moving, the buildings will up and running long before any 'positive' action is taken to ensure essential 'safety' margins are met and that vital infrastructure does not become another shopping centre. The fatal accident at the Essendon DFO should have been ringing bloody big alarum bells along the corridors of power – Is it just me gone deaf?

Toot – toot.

AIPA addendum: Extract from - https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1847/20-11-27-aipa-submission-to-ditrdc-aviation-issues-2020-dp.pdf

AIRPORT SAFEGUARDING


Nearly three years later, AIPA, through AusALPA, made a submission to DITRDC as part of the 2019 NASF Implementation Review. Unsurprisingly, the main themes were in regard to jurisdictional fragmentation, transparency and Commonwealth leadership. While we are committed to the NASF, we are also keenly aware of the impediments to fully implementing a consistent national scheme for at least RPT airports. We concluded as follows:

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 on or near an airport is 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.

AIPA, through AusALPA, will continue our commitment to airport safeguarding and look forward to participating in NASAG discussion post-pandemic.

How can airspace protection balance the needs of the aviation industry with those of land owners and surrounding communities?

AIPA suggests that this question should have been comprehensively answered in 1996. The lay reader of the relevant text (quoted below) from the Explanatory Memorandum for Part 12 for the Airports Bill 1996 could be forgiven for believing that the proponent of a controlled activity bore the onus to prove that any effect on the “safety, efficiency and regularity of air transport operations into or out of an airport” was acceptable, contemplating a range of future aviation activities:

This Part enables the Commonwealth to make regulations to prevent certain incursions into airspace where it is in the interests of the safety, efficiency and regularity of air transport operations into or out of an airport to do so.

The provisions can be applied to airports where the site is a Commonwealth place, as well as to airports specified in the regulations, where the site is not a Commonwealth place. As an example, the Part will enable the Commonwealth to control the construction of buildings or other structures, the height of which would adversely affect the ability of an airport to which the Part applies to cater for existing or future air transport operations. The restrictions can be applied to on-airport or off-airport areas, such as along or adjacent to current or future flight paths, where the height of the proposed building or structure would interfere with prescribed airspace.

Similarly, the relevant text from the Explanatory Statement for the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (APARs) might give similar comfort:

The approval authority for proposed controlled activities is the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Development. If a proposed activity would result in an incursion into the PANS-OPS surface or if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advises the Secretary that in the interests of the safety of air transport the application should not be approved. then the application to conduct that activity cannot be approved. In other cases, the Secretary must assess the application having regard to the views of the proponent, the airport-lessee company, CASA, Airservices Australia, relevant building authorities and, in the case of a joint-user airport, the Department of Defence.

Unfortunately, the practical application of the APARs by DITRDC and its predecessor Departments, observed by AIPA over the last 10 years at least, appears to have become legislation that protects developers above all else. CASA advice to the Secretary only gains significance if the magic threshold of “an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing or future air transport operations”, whatever that actually means in practice. Our experience with assessing the several applications for controlled activities that have come to our attention is that the proponent/developer never addresses the safety or other consequences of the activity. It seems highly likely that the status quo established by DITRDC and CASA is that there is no such requirement and that the onus to prove detriment is reversed and placed upon those conducting the air transport operations.

On 15 June 2018, AIPA wrote to Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd in regard to the proposed Hayes Dock development at Port Botany that involved an OLS penetration of nearly 30 metres. In that letter, we canvassed many of the above issues. On 09 August 2019, we significantly expanded upon those same issues in a letter from AusALPA to Adelaide Airport Ltd in regard to a proposed development at 207 Pulteney Street Adelaide, which included a copy of an AusALPA Position Paper8 related to OLS penetrations. We presume both of those letters were forwarded to DITRDC in accordance with the APARs procedures related to controlled activities.

AIPA considers that the Position Paper specifically addresses the question.

AIRPORTS ACT 1996 DEFINITION OF CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES

The recent DITRDC approval for cranes to permanently penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) by 21 metres, the effects of which by definition must be acceptable, has also revealed a definitional issue in relation to regulation 182(1)©. That paragraph refers to a “thing attached to, or in physical contact with, the ground” which precludes the consideration of ships underway. We presume that a ship at anchor or moored to a wharf falls within ambit because they are attached directly or indirectly to the ground.

DITRDC have indicated that they do not intend to take urgent action to resolve the issue, despite the ships underway or anchored at Hayes Dock that can be serviced by the new cranes will both penetrate the OLS and create a potential windshear and turbulence hazard to operations at KSA. Hand-balling the problem back to CASA is also unhelpful – while they are apparently indifferent to the OLS penetration, their risk management response to the latter hazard is to restrict operations at the airport for the duration of any hazard that eventuates.

AIPA considers these outcomes to be inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Act and APARs and unacceptable on safety grounds. WE urge DITRDC to commence amendment action to correct this and related deficiencies in the definitions.

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Kharon - 12-15-2020

Passenger and public safety – Wuzzat?

A post on the UP from one 'Pearly White' is a classic understatement and IMO an almost perfect example of how development on our aerodromes is completely 'arse about face'.

Someone wants to put up a big 'shed' – warehouse – or whatever :as per the picture below.



I wonder, was there a 'safety' analysis conducted, as in someone at a meeting bringing up, for consideration, a couple of pertinent facts. Like; “Uhm, that's a big shed boys, and it is close to the runway, on averaged wind speeds it is likely to create an increased risk level to light aircraft on approach and departure, in both directions. Can we not put the 'shed' somewhere else – out of harms way?

That idea had the glide ratio of a well trimmed man-hole cover; so, up went a windshear / turbulence generator and civilian version of an arrestor hook (as per Essendon DFO). In response to the 'safety case' all arses were covered by a written warning in the ERSA.



What a stellar example of developer safety culture that is. Not a whimper from CASA, the ATSB, DoIT or even the folk who may have to put out the fire and retrieve the body parts. Not very good is it.

Toot – toot.

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - P7_TOM - 01-30-2021

Ahem:
If the infrastructure supporting 'travel' by air gets much deeper into the hole; then charges will be raised and passed on to those who wish to travel. Many businesses, particularly tourism, rely on realistic airfares to attract folk to their area. There can be no doubt that those increased costs will be passed on to the public at a time when money is short. Watch airfares suddenly back to the two airline costs of decades ago.

- HERE -

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 02-04-2021

KC & AMROBA call it out on Airport development - 

Via AMROBA Breaking News: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-Airports-Not-For-Aviation.pdf

---

---

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Airports - Buy two, get one free. - Peetwo - 02-25-2021

CASA give Senator (WOFTAM) Watt's QON 300 the big IF?? - 

Excerpt's from previous reference post:   

(10-27-2020, 11:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  UTCOC - Example 2

Not that I want to give much oxygen to Labor QLD Senator 'WOFTAM' Watt but it is airport and CASA related so bear with me with the following extract from Senate Estimates Hansard:

Quote:Senator WATT: The particular issue I want to focus on with CASA is the air safety implications of the realignment of the Northern Road and the impact that has on the public safety area. I appreciate that you haven't read the Auditor-General's report in full. Before I go into it, are you aware that one of the contentious issues in this whole scandal is the realignment of the Northern Road to make it closer to the Western Sydney airport boundary?

Mr Carmody : I'm generally aware, yes, but not in detail.

Senator WATT: In the Auditor-General's report, paragraph 2.27, it states:

The proposed road alignment runs through the HIAL system for Runway 05R. L&B—

Landrum & Brown, which is the department's aviation consultants—

… has advised that this has the potential to cause serious disruptions to operation on Runway 05R.

The proposed road alignment runs through the PSZ for Runway 05R. L&B recommends a detailed risk assessment.

Did CASA undertake any detailed risk assessment involving the Western Sydney airport and the change to risk that resulted from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take that on notice; I'm not aware. We are involved in a Western Sydney technical working group. We participate in an executive-level steering group about the airport, but that's it. So I wouldn't know, and I'll have to take the question on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Senator, could I table something to assist. This was in 2015. The Landrum & Brown advice, the final advice, was quite different to the advice that was in the body of the report, but it is contained in the appendix to the report.

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

Mr Atkinson : As I understand, CASA was quite involved and consulted on it, and it was found to be fine.

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

Mr Atkinson : In the discussions around the Northern Road in 2015.

Senator WATT: Okay. Is it the case that CASA is the agency that regulates and advises the department on the safety risks of airport developments and roads and other infrastructure that adjoins it?

Mr Carmody : For federally leased airports, that's correct; we provide advice to the department, and I'm sure that we are one of the many sources of advice that the department receives...

First I call bullshit on this statement...

...Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

...No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice...

 Throughout Senate Estimates there were many examples of where a Dept or agency would throw to video conference facilities for witness testimony back at the Dept/agency HQ. So IMO there is no excuse for the required airport specialists not to be available at short notice - 

---

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

---

Hmm...so the Secretary is quite obviously aware of the fact that QLD is the only State or Territory that has established a model in law for public safety zones around airports. It goes without saying that the Secretary should also be cognisant of his own department's NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK and it's guidelines for the establishment of public safety zones around airports:

Quote:Purpose of Guideline 

1. To provide guidance to Australian Government, state, territory and local government decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

2. To inform a more consistent approach to the application of Public Safety Areas (PSAs) at and near Australian airports.

Which brings me to CASA's big IF AQON 300...

Quote:Question Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example. Mr Atkinson: Just obviously. Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is. Mr Atkinson: The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland. Mr Carmody: Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

Answer
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) agreed in November 2018 provides guidance to state and territories on the application of PSAs.

All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes. Queensland and New South Wales (for Western Sydney Airport) have requirements for the application of PSAs.

It is common for roads outside of the airport to pass close to the end of a runway and there are examples of this throughout Australia, including Sydney (Kingsford Smith Airport) and Canberra. Canberra for instance has Pialligo Avenue located within 50m of the runway pavement, with High Intensity Approach Lighting operating across the road.

Ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadestimatesquestions/EstimatesQuestion-CommitteeId7-EstimatesRoundId9-PortfolioId35-QuestionNumber300

"..All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes..."


Hmm...incoming??    

MTF...P2 

---