[Peetwo]

GWEP MKII solutions for GA and secondary airports?? -   

From the GWEP submissions pages there are two excellent contributions on the subject of GA and secondary airport advocacy.

The first was from the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce, in which their frustrations were highlighted in their introductory letter: (Ref- https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...mmerce.pdf)

Archerfield Chamber of Commerce:

Dear sir/madam, 

Please accept this email as another submission by the AACCI to Government regarding the abject failure of privatisation and successive Governments abandonment of their responsibilities as an uninformed regulator and protector of the public interest. 

I have attached several of the multitude of submissions made by our Chamber over recent years. The information is detailed and clear. None of the issues have changed so the information is still very relevant.

 We need technocrats to sort out technical issues - not bureaucrats! 

An example:- I made an email enquiry to the department as the President of the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce seeking an update on progress of the current Archerfield pDMP. 

My email was addressed to ----- He was on leave and followed up with a phone call. Never anything in writing.

 He told me that AAC, the leasing company of Archerfield Airport had been given an extension of several months to complete their consultation with stakeholders. He was expecting some sort of response by the end of July 2023.

 Our chamber has to date only received an email acknowledgement of our submission made back in January but has not been approached or contacted by AAC. This is standard practice by AAC as we pose the uncomfortable questions they don’t want to answer. 

Our Chamber has made submissions to all the AAC Master Plans. made it quite clear during our phone conversation that the Department has no intention communicating with our Chamber or other stakeholders as that is the leasing company’s responsibility. 

He stated the Department is not interested in any of the leasing company’s breaches or the detailed information that our Chamber possesses to help the Minister make an informed decision to save the airport. 

We as a Chamber have been at this for nearly twenty years with a huge amount of time and resources expended having meetings with many facets of Local, State and Federal Governments to no avail. 

This disaster applies to all the ex-secondary airports across Australia without exception. Decades of aviation assets are being steadily eroded into industrial estates while the stakeholder’s businesses and assets have been stolen..

Recommendations from the exemplary AACCI submission to the 'Inquiry into the Economic Regulation of Airports - Productivity Commission' (pg 61 of the submission):

Inquiry Recommendations

Aviation, the Aviation Industry and particularly General Aviation has not been served well by the Federal
Government’s “abandonment of federal responsibility” approach to airports. Australia is a vast country
– the size of mainland USA with a tyranny of distance. General Aviation should be prospering and
growing with its costs lowering but it is not and the reason it is not rests firmly with the Federal
Government. Billions of dollars federally are spent on public roads and rail infrastructure with vast
kilometres of roads and highways linking towns and cities yet making sure there is at least one kilometre
of MOS Part 139 compliant pavement and protected approaches in each town – called an airport, has not
received equal attention or funding.

“ 11. Starting with the notorious Review of Resources ("ROR") around the time of the CAA vesting
successive Federal Governments have continued the deskilling process in the aviation portfolio and we
are now at the point that the Australian Government is acting as an uninformed regulator, standards
setter, purchaser and protector of public interest.

12. The Federal Government agencies including CASA, The Department of Transport and Infrastructure
and A TSB are de-skiIled and devoid of airports skilled professionals and has bureaucrats in key
positions not technocrats, which is highly evident from the T documents as Departmental officers appear
not to have asked all relevant questions and it is my belief they do not have relevant aviation
qualifications and backgrounds.”

To the Chamber’s Knowledge there is..

• No Airport Lighting Engineer
• No Fuel Quality Personnel
• Only one Airport Engineer with minimal credentials96
within CASA. Clearly there needs to be a reversal of the deskilling process.

The Head of Power issue needs to be clarified with certainty as raised in the Robertson Opinion and
referred to the High Court.

Secondary Airports should ideally be brought back into public control.

Tenants equitable interests in leases need to be recognised and renewed on similar terms as existed preprivatisation with any buildings / hangars asset stripped by reversion returned to them with
compensation, and/or substituted buildings if the building has been demolished.

An “National Aviation Infrastructure Security Act” [“NAISA”] (which may need mirroring state
legislation) is needed to legislate the protection of airport infrastructure including.

• Disclosure of Airport Protected areas on all property survey plans – similar to easements etc
• The restrictive covenants over all ALOP airports legislated.
• The terms of each Commonwealth lease particularly clause 13 clauses as to the protection of
the airport made into legislation.
• Making it an offence to close a runway or attempt to close a runway on an airport, downgrade
an airport or lobbying activities of individuals or corporations to try to close a runway (e.g. for
property development financial gain.).
• Right of airport access provisions requiring all airports not subject to a federal RDMS to accept
any aircraft for the code number rating of the airport – that is the airport must be open to public
aviation use and be a participant of the whole airspace system (e.g. as to alternates etc).
• Providing extensive powers for the ACCC to act for tenants or aviation users regarding

o Lease issues including valuations and renewal and changes to use and unreasonable
conditions not conducive to competition (e.g. not permitting aviation users to bring
their own fuel and oils onto the airport or having to use the ALC’s preferred supplier.)
o Aeronautical access to the airport and dealing with any rejection for access or failure
to allow aeronautical facilities for aviation businesses on the airport.
o Unconscionable conduct on and off the airport
o Abuse of market power by the ALC.
o Reasonable Pricing of Services (including requiring each ALC to publish their
financial statements and be subject to special purpose audit or investigation )
o Users requirements
o Abuse of on-airport control regulations powers by ALCs or off airport developments

• Requiring all airport engineering consultants to be registered professional engineers, apply a
code of conduct similar to the Queensland RPEQ legislation with mandatory exclusion
requirements where there is a conflict of interest and to publicly disclose the terms of reference
of any engineering work engagement by ALC’s.
• Set mandated infrastructural improvements requirements in accordance with national intertest
requirements and a timeline for implementation.
• All master plans or major development plans to be subject to independent technical review by
a new independent body of skilled highly qualified airport registered engineers (design,
pavement, lighting, and noise specialists) plus experienced aviators with civil aviation
backgrounds all such members requiring mandated endorsement by the aviation industry e.g.
AOPA, RAAA Airport Chambers of Commerce etc.
• Any assessments of the usability of runways to be based upon the actual laws that an air
operator needs to comply with – e.g. as to factoring, balanced field length in the event of engine
failure etc, not raw flight manual data - unfactored.
• Report to the Commonwealth Parliament Public Works Committee who may also make
directions under the NAISA.
• Development of a “Airport Land Use Planning Handbook” (similar to the California Airport
Land Use Handbook)
• Consider readoption of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (Airport Design) published by
the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (Refer Australian history of this in
Annexure 13), and in particular for General Aviation Chapters 2 and 3 of AC 150/5325-4B
related to airport design for small aircraft ( <5700kgs) and aircraft > 5700 but < 27200 kg and
in table 1.3 and figure 2.1 and 2.1 .

Some of the changes needed to be made to the Airports Act 1996 and Regulations:

o Clarify beyond doubt that the present” underlying interests in the land” certification for master
plan approval is required to include both legal and equitable interests.
o Require Master Plans to be in compliance of Commonwealth lease terms, not just Major
Development plans.
o No decision by the Minister in relation to approving a master plan under the Airports act
presently constitutes deemed approval of the ALC’s master plan. This needs to be repealed.
o Airport Master Plans are produced every five years looking forward to the next twenty years.
This is too short a time-frame. Use of the airport well into the future is required to provide for
the expected growth of aeronautical facilities. Further ALCs must be able to show any non-aviation use proposed on an airport will be able to be readily repurposed back to aviation use to meet long term aeronautical expansion of the airport asset.
o Objections to Master Plans need to be made to the Minister’s office not the Airport Leasing
Company deal with them and fob them off.
o The Minister needs to refer objections to an independent reskilled expert technical body
potentially formed under for example a “National Aviation Infrastructure Security Act” and
ditch the present system where departmental bureaucrats merely act as a post office and have
no skills to assess airport plans technically. This could be funded by levying filing fees for the
submission of master plans or major development plans plus billing ALCs on an hourly fee
basis for the expert assessment / review of the plan, investigating objections submitted in
relation to the draft master plan, providing reports in relation to such objections and oversight
prior to communicating to the minister such bodies recommendation about the Master Plan.n g.
o Presently there can be no objection to a noise exposure forecast prepared by an Airport Leasing
company. This needs to change to allow same.
o Presently the Minister is deciding about Master Plans and Major Development Plans as an
ordinary person not as an expert. Approval of master plans and major development plans needs
to be made only after recommendation of an independent reskilled expert technical body formed
as defined above – which can accept input from aviation user bodies such as AOPA, RAAA and
the Chambers of the respective airports.
o If Airport leasing companies want to repurpose existing aviation land where aviation businesses
are operating they should pay compensation at market values and factor that into their costs
similar to any developer on state land.
o Each Airport be subject to an aviation user’s representative body report card every two years –
such report to operate outside of the interference of Airport Leasing Companies, be confidential
and submitted to the National Aviation Infrastructure oversight group and the technical group
as part of ongoing monitoring of the airport’s performance in meeting the actual aviation needs
and the national interest.

Now let's refer to Kingston Council contribution to the GWEP MKII: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ngston.pdf







Also refer from page 229 of the 20 November 2023 Kingston Ordinary Council minutes: https://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/files/sh...eeting.pdf

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the submission at Appendix 1 in response to the Aviation Green Paper and formally lodge it with the Commonwealth Government
2. Write to the Hon. Catherine King, Minister for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication advocating for legislative changes to the Airports Act 1996, and
3. Note the work undertaken on the approved Moorabbin Airport Masterplan and the work commenced on the review of Aviation at a Commonwealth level has superseded the need for an Aviation Support Policy.

 
&..

Aviation Industry Support Strategy

The work undertaken by a number of departments across Council over the last two years has surpassed the intent of the Aviation Industry Support Strategy that was proposed in 2021. The levels of engagement that regularly occur now superseded the work proposed as part of the Aviation Industry Support Strategy and Officers feel that it is best placed that the continued efforts and advocacy work being done continues to occur as a priority. The Kingston Business Team, who run a range of business support activities that are aimed at supporting retail and industrial businesses in Kingston, now include actively engaging with the MACCI group by providing support services. This has included:

- Business mentoring programs.
- Events and workshops in areas including Digital Marketing, Search Engine Optimisation and Visual Branding.
- Exposure of the MACCI through eNews.
- Opportunities to access grant opportunities through State or Federal Government Programs.
- Exposure to other local businesses off airport land where scope for cross collaboration may be possible.

&..

4. Key Issues

Officers have reviewed the Green Paper and prepared a submission (Appendix 1) which covered the following:

1. General Aviation

The Green Paper fails to define General Aviation, nor does it acknowledge the critical role that General Aviation plays for the entire aviation sector within Australia. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) classifies General Aviation (GA) as covering a range of operations that are not commercial air transport services. This includes aerial work (such as agriculture, photography, surveying, search and rescue), instructional flying and recreational flying. It relates to small to medium aviation, private, sport, recreational, private aviation for businesses (single engine) across Australia with our regional and rural areas heavily reliant on GA. Without GA our regions would face unique additional challenges due to the broad role that GA plays in ensuring the viability of regional/rural communities. General aviation encompasses airport maintenance companies, flying schools, charter businesses for hire, and aerial firefighting. It is arguably the backbone to Australis’ aviation industry. The safe efficient and effective operation of Australia’s airports should be a paramount policy goal. The protection of these assets from inappropriate development is critical to the protection and growth of the industry. Which is they the application of the masterplan process is so important.

Finally the following video was Kingston Council's public hearing evidence provided to the discontinued Senate GA Inquiry:

So what's the outcome of all these substantive factual, evidence based, submissions to the GWEP etc..etc from both the AACCI and the Kingston Council??

Extract from the GWEP MKII (from page 147): https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/...-paper.pdf

8.4 Airport access

The primary role of airports is to enable civil aviation activities, including GA

Airports maintain a balance of commercial development to promote the sound development of civil aviation and to promote the efficient and economic development and operation of airports.

Since the Australian Government privatised Australia’s airports, non-aviation developments have become an important revenue stream to help fund maintenance and improvement of airports. These developments diversify revenue sources for airport operators, ensuring they are able to remain viable, including during disruptions to the aviation sector such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

On average, LFAs generated greater revenue and greater operating profit from non-aeronautical activities. Privatisation of airports has seen GA tenants offered leasing arrangements which reflect commercial costs and arrangements, instead of relatively low-cost, long-term leases that were previously offered by the Australian Government. As a result, some aviation businesses with lower revenues or private individuals no longer have the same access to airport infrastructure.

While existing planning regulations protect aviation activity at LFAs, privatisation of LFAs has placed pressure on smaller GA operations, especially in outer metropolitan airports. One of the objects of the Airports Act is to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia and to establish a system for the regulation of airports that has due regard to the interests of airport users and the general community.

LFAs must have final master plans approved by the Australian Government. A purpose of master plans is to ‘establish the strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport over the planning period’ – in particular, the intended land use across various airport precincts. When the airport lessee company gives the Minister a draft master plan, in deciding whether to approve the plan the Minister must have regard to the extent to which carrying out the plan would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport.

Some in the GA community are concerned that, if they are not adequately protected by government, they will be unable to compete with larger GA businesses for existing aviation facilities, and airports will preference non-aeronautical developments over aeronautical developments in plans for future expansion, leaving them unable to access airport facilities. Many metropolitan airports are predicting growth in the number of flight movements in the coming decades, and existing regulations are designed to safeguard this activity to promote the growth of GA.

The Australian Government will continue to protect General Aviation at LFAs through regulations that require lessees to operate LFAs as airports

GA activity at secondary LFAs, such as Moorabbin and Jandakot, is protected through airport planning, development and land use oversight by the Australian Government. Airport lessees must also account for growth in aviation by continuing to develop the airports as demand grows. Master plans and MDPs ensure LFAs meet their requirements to provide for general (‘civil’ in the Airports Act) aviation activity and provide clarity for other issues, such as where mixed-use zoning can and cannot be used.

The Minister for Transport has written to the operators of LFAs, making it clear that, when making decisions about master plans and MDPs, the Minister will have regard to whether appropriate access to the airport site is provided for GA. The Minister will also have regard for the continued investment in GA activities and precincts on airport sites. The Australian Government will continue to pay close attention to the implementation of these protections for GA operators, as has been recently demonstrated in the consideration of Moorabbin and Archerfield Airports’ master plans.

      
  Hmm...ask can be seen some of the basic findings and evidence provided, by the AACCI and the Kingston Council in their advocacy over many years and in their recent submissions, has been regurgitated in the GWEP MKII. However any thought of there finally being some positive progress made in the Albo Govt policy settings for GA and Secondary airports, is totally nugatory when you read the next paragraph that followed the above...  

By 2030, the Australian Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the Airports Act and the regulatory settings for planning and development of LFAs. The Australian Government will also seek to include examination of GA market dynamics in relation to airport access in the next Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports. This will include looking at federally leased secondary metropolitan airports for the first time.

   
"By 2030" what's left of the industry will be "DEAD, BURIED and CREMATED!!"   


MTF...P2   

PS:  Bye the bye, I ran some of the info above past members of the BRB and this prompted Sandy to write the following to certain Members of the Federal Liberal and National Parties..  

Dear Liberal National Party Members of Parliament. 

The abject neglect by governments towards our irreplaceable and vital secondary airports continues. The attachments from Kingston Council (Vic) and Archerfield (QLD) refer. 

It never fails to amaze that the Coalition does not have a rational policies for these airports and the wider General Aviation (GA) industry that will have the following benefits:-

1/.    The very strong approval of the many thousands who are part of or connected to General Aviation and who are currently highly disillusioned with the dysfunctional Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 

2/.    The regeneration of GA in terms of aerial mobility as vital element of our National security. 

3/.    Decentralisation;  with the abilities of a revitalised GA to cover our disparate communities and conquer the ‘tyranny of distance.’ Increased viability of GA will encourage professional and tradespeople to service outlying communities and to live in regional areas. 

4/.    (a) Job creation by growth of GA flying trading and aircraft maintenance in regional centres. 
         (b) Job creation to be greatly enhanced with regulatory reform to international standardisation which will allow the whole Australian aviation industry to participate in world markets of aviation manufacturing and services. 

Kind Regards,

Sandy Reith 

[Peetwo]

AAA response to Aviation Ombuds Scheme consultation paper?? - 

Courtesy Oz Flying:

Ombuds Scheme should Exclude Small Airports: AAA

18 October 2024



Australian Airports Association (AAA) Head of Policy and Advocacy Natalie Heazlewood today called on the Federal Government to exclude small airports from the proposed Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme.

The scheme, announced in August as part of the ALP's Aviation White Paper, is primarily to address issues with airlines and major airports, but stands to capture smaller regional airports in its net.

“Australian airports will be constructive towards getting the balance right around a future Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme," Heazlewood said.
“With a complex number of factors influencing aviation, it is important the ombuds scheme is realistic and ensures consumers get full and timely airfare refunds.

“Many smaller regional and rural airports often operate at a loss and are still dealing with the fallout of the Rex Airlines financial collapse.

“Smaller Australian airports should be exempt from the scheme to help safeguard their current survival, while passengers would still be covered by Australian Consumer Law."

Heazlewood also said the scheme needed to include government entities as well as the airlines and airports.

“Federal agencies, including Airservices Australia, form part of a passenger’s journey and can influence flight delays and cancellations."

“Last financial year, only 1% of these delays were caused by airports in Australia and airline refund requests remain the top complaint received by the current Airline Consumer Advocate."

Departmental consultation on the design and implementation of the ombuds scheme closed yesterday having opened on 26 August.
AAA represents 340 airports, most of which are regional airports run either by independent corporations or local councils.

The AAA submission to the Betsy's Duck-UP Fairy department:  AAA Ombuds Consultation PaperResponse - 17/10/2024

Membership of the Ombuds Scheme

To assist with the rollout of the scheme, it may be necessary for a staged rollout to be undertaken for
the airports it will be applicable to, allowing for learnings to be passed onto less well-resourced
airports that may be required to participate.

Membership by airports should be allocated by the passenger movements at each airport, e.g over 1
million passengers annually. The UK aviation Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme currently
has 8 member airports that service over 1 million passengers annually. This scheme has seen been
successful post its implementation in 2015 wherein 80 per cent of passengers on UK flights are now
covered under the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) ADR schemes.

There is merit in including a similar threshold for airport membership of 1 million passengers per year
for Australia as it would include 14 airports and cover 91.7 per cent of total passengers that are
travelling by air.

It is important that there is a threshold point to ensure that smaller regional and rural airports are not
part of this scheme as it would be a very onerous requirement for them. Passengers will still be
covered by Australian Consumer Law if there is an issue at smaller airports which needs to be
pursued.

On eligibility, AAA advocates for government agencies such Airservices to be included in the
scheme. For the 2023-2024 financial year, only one per cent of total flight delays were caused by
airports while 11 per cent of delays were attributable to Airservices.

This highlights that more than one in ten flights were delayed due to Airservices.

Given Airservices data shows that airports are responsible for one per cent of total delays, then
membership fees for the scheme should equitably be based on the rate of failure to provide aviation
services rather than a flat membership fee.

As membership of the scheme is to be targeted at aviation and accordingly the key actors who
participate in aviation should be considered...

For those interested this is Betsy's webpage for the AIOS consultation paper:

The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme—Consultation paper


Date published: 

17 September 2024

The Australian Government's 2024 Aviation White Paper: Towards 2050, announced the establishment of a new Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme for Australia.

The purpose of this consultation paper is to seek input from interested stakeholders on the design and implementation of the new ombuds scheme.
 

Document  The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme—Consultation paper—August 2024—PDF (778.32 KB)

Document  The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme—Consultation paper—August 2024—DOCX (655.22 KB)

Next again, via Oz Flying:

Circuit Cap raises Hackles at Moorabbin

16 October 2024




Airservices Australia has introduced a circuit cap at Moorabbin Airport, which has attracted the anger of operators on the airport for a number of reasons.

According to documents supplied to Australian Flying, Airservices introduced a slot system on 2 October, which will restrict the circuit to five aircraft at any time, with a possible sixth if it involves no more than three circuits.

The circuit cap is believed to be one of a number of measures to combat rising operational deviations at Moorabbin when compared to the other metro Class D towered airports.

Flight Training Organisations (FTO) are asked to use an online booking system, which will facilitate the following circuit restrictions.

 (go to article link)
 
Helicopter circuits are restricted to three aircraft and low-level operations will be counted as airborne.

Arrivals will be limited to two aircraft if there are more than two already in the circuit.

Aircraft wanting to enter the circuit without a booking slot can do so, but only if the maximum number already in the circuit has not been reached and there are no valid bookings for the empty slots.

Aircraft with valid booking are required to call for a start clearance no less than 20 mins before the booked slot.

However, flying schools at Moorabbin say the circuit cap has created a number of problems, including:

• pre-flights are being rushed to ensure slots aren't missed
  
• low-time solo students are being asked to remain outside the CTR when there is no published holding procedures
  
• extra fuel needs to be carried in case of holding
  
• fuel truck availability is impeding the ability to hit slot times
  
• students may not be able to be sent solo the moment they are ready because an adjacent slot may not be free
  
• long queues at the holding points make it hard to hit slot times and burns fuel unnecessarily.
  

"Slots are great for the airlines," one FTO told Australian Flying, "but no good for student pilots!"

Royal Victorian Aero Club (RVAC) CEO Paul Daff wrote to Airservices Australia, expressing the club's concerns.

"These operational restrictions imposed by Airservices does [sic] not foster growth of general aviation," he said, "instead it creates the need for holding fuel due to congestion inbound and limits the otherwise productive capital investment of aircraft and airport infrastructure.

"I am disappointed that these restrictions were imposed with limited consultation (a requirement of Section 10 of the Air Services Act 2005). Unfortunately, no discussions were held with myself, our President or our Head of Flying Operations or Head of Operations.

"In addition, having spoken to a number of counterparts at other training schools, they have similarly expressed concerns as to have not being consulted on the matter."

Daff said he believed the real reason behind the circuit cap is to combat a rising number of reports to Airservices' Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System (CIRRIS), which collects data on safety, environment and risk management issues.

"The solution implemented represents a single minded focus on a single outcome, to reduce the number of CIRRIS reports," Daff said. "The simplest solution has been adopted, reduce the number of movements. Full stop. Job done.

"It does not take into account the vagaries of weather or the demand side of the equation, economic imperatives or any of the unintended consequences of this reduction (including the pointless burning of more fuel).

"Without a doubt, these restrictions will lead to job losses across the Moorabbin Precinct. All flight schools and the airport itself will see a reduction in revenue and profitability. The uncertainty created will lead to a reduction in investment across the airport."

Daff also pointed out that the vast majority of the operational deviations–Airservices requirements, route adherence, mandatory calls missed–are unlikely to be corrected by a cap on movements.

An Airservices Australia spokesperson told Australian Flying yesterday that the caps were not necessarily permanent, but could form the basis of similar procedures for other Class D metro airports in the future.

"As with all Airservices Australia’s implementation strategies, a Post Implementation Review will be conducted once data has been compiled on the Traffic Management Strategy (TMS)," the spokesperson said.

"If there has been an improvement, the strategy can be adjusted. We are also seeking inputs from the local operators to input into the PIR. The Circuit Booking System was in place prior to Airservices’ TMS beginning on 30 September and has long been widely used by industry."

Airservices also admitted the caps were in response to operational problems at Moorabbin.

"Each Metro D aerodrome is reviewed independently," the spokesperson said. "Moorabbin has more operational deviations per number of aircraft movements than any other Metro D aerodrome.

"Rather than cap daily movements, Airservices’ TMS is designed to smooth out the peaks in demand to provide greater predictability and certainty of operations and provide for overall safer airspace for our users.

"Airservices will conduct a Post Implementation Review, which will include input from local operators.

"If the safety benefits are realised, a TMS may form a broader organisational safety strategy for other Metro D aerodromes."

A CASA spokesperson said that no directive was given to Airservices to impose the circuit restrictions, unlike the caps that were introduced at all metro Class D airports in 2009 during the shift from General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) to Class D.

In that instance, circuits were capped at six, but inbound aircraft were given priority.

"We request an immediate postponement of the mitigations until appropriate consultations can be had with the airport, CASA, the minister and the local stakeholders including all operators," Daff said.

"We also request the mitigations be appropriately risk assessed and Airservices openly consider alternative mitigations that may be proposed by other stakeholders.

"In addition, and due to the uncertainty that Airservices has now created, it is imperative that Airservices clearly articulates its plan for the provision of air traffic management at Moorabbin over the coming years, and how it intends to meet the growing demand."

Airservices Australia has said it did consult with airport operators through the TMS in September and will engage further later this year.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Of crystal balls and glass jaws.

Just a whim; a quiet reflective look at the 'noise' quandary; it is a head scratch for all concerned, although with bureaucrat fed politicians all looking for quick, cheap 'acceptable' answers for the voters, the matter assumes nightmarish proportions. How did it all get into this tangle? History provides a clear enough picture; it also shows a lack of 'forward thinking' and (a forgivable) narrow focus from those charged with the management of the industry. Lets step back a few decades:-

“The Sydney Airport, located in Mascot, was a bull paddock until the early 20th century. In 1919, aviator Nigel Love was looking for a location upon which an aviation company for Sydney could be established.”

“The Brisbane Airport site was first  used as a landing field in 1922, with Captain Jack Treacy the first to land his aircraft ‘The Queen of Sheba’ at Eagle Farm Aerodrome”

Now, in the year of grace 2024 – out of the cow paddocks has grown a massive, important industry and infrastructure. Back in the early days very few – if any – considered the aerodromes to be a 'bad' thing; the 'noise' and 'pollution' side bars were not considered. There was no reason to do so. The 'aircraft' was a modern wonder; it had a real 'Wow' factor; people would come for miles to sit at the fence; Oh and Ahh at the 'aviators' and their amazing machines. As time went by,– folk became used to seeing the aircraft and business recognised the huge potential. Time went by, it became 'classy' to travel by air; best suits and frocks, real silver etc and no one seemed to mind the noise made by the impeccable DC3 or 4 – post war and the world was booming. Bit by bit, the aircraft grew bigger and more powerful to the point where an aircraft overhead attracted as much attention as the local bus rattling down the street (again). Cities got bigger, populations grew, some effort was made to make industrial works close to the airports – but the aerodromes, like Topsy, just grew and grew; from a humble cow paddock to the huge things we see today. Progress, revenue and reduced cost per seat mile promoted air travel to the mega industry we see today. Bravo and well done. However;

Aye, there's always a however; I hasten to add that blame for this, today's problem cannot be laid at anyone's feet. The 'problem' like industry grew up side by side; oblivious to each other until we hit the 'noise' barrier. I daresay, way back when, some bright sparks attempted to point out that aerodromes and aircraft and mass transport will lead to an infrastructure problem; a noise problem and face the Gordian knot of 'what to do'.  The lack of forward thinking is clearly reflected in the vexed question of actually getting to the airport; the morning traffic a nightmare. But the cost of relocating an airport or even building a new one is staggering; before a dollar is spent on the 'essentials'. Attitudes have changed over the decades; from awe and wonder at aircraft flying overhead to anger levels because of it – and, it is noisy. Cities are incredibly noisy enough without having to live with aircraft constantly operating overhead. It stands as (IMO) a fair argument; the aircraft operators have an equally compelling argument to make that noise and to keep doing it – 24/7 if they can.

So – what's to be done; band aids and slippery promises or stopgap measures may stem the tide for a while; but not for too long. If the airport can't be moved away form 'residential' and residential cannot be moved away from flight paths  - then a clever solution must be found. Even if a compromise – some way to reduce the noise without crucifying aircraft operators and the major problems that would create. Anyway, the fool is nearly done; but perhaps ASA could sharpen up a pencil or two and get creative with arrival and departure tracking – don't know, just saying – Brisbane and Sydney both have water to the East perhaps a way to utilize that asset would/could reduce some of the noise – at least in good weather – not a permanent solution, but it would at least show a 'willingness' to try, in a meaningful way to reduce the total number of 'noisious interuptus' to the television –(perhaps take off and landings only available during the interminable advert breaks) perhaps not. No idea – just a twiddle – but someone, somewhere, needs to spell it out – you can have quiet or you need to live with aircraft. That is an immutable fact and no amount of 'spin' will fix the radical. Find a way to balance the equation, smart use of airspace, reasonable solutions and telling it 'like it is' may lose a few votes but .............ASA need to get weaving and grow a set – get the politicians off the case; tell it like it is and leave to them to explain why living under a flight path does not grant leave, let alone a gods given right to restrict an established industry. It is a big sky – use it wisely - . 

Right then, back in my box I go.

[Peetwo]

A win for Wagga airport GA users -

Via regionriverina.com.au:

Council extends lease to negotiate Wagga Airport’s future

13 November 2024 | Chris Roe


Wagga City Council has extended its lease on the airport to allow more time to negotiate its future with Defence. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Wagga Wagga City Council (WWCC) is set to extend its lease of the Wagga Airport from the Commonwealth Department of Defence for another year as negotiations over its long-term future continue.

The city’s 30-year lease on the Commonwealth-owned asset was set to expire in June 2025. Defence representatives indicated in February that the airport would be put out “to market”, raising concerns that it would be privatised.

Following an advocacy campaign from the local community, Federal Member Michael McCormack confirmed in May that the lease would be extended and this will now be formalised through a deed of variation.

Wagga Mayor Dallas Tout thanked the community and stakeholders for their support and said it was a positive step forward.

“We are moving in the right direction with the 12-month extension, which means that we can extend the subleases for all of the leaseholders at the airport through to the end of June 2026, which is in excess of 40 leases,” Cr Tout said.

“We believe that the 12-month extension and the willingness of Defence and the Federal Government to enter dialogue regarding a lease beyond June 2026 is directly linked to the support that has been demonstrated by the community.”

In the past, WWCC has sought to secure ownership of the airport but this was rejected because the airport was an active RAAF base and part of the national defence strategy.

With the focus now on securing a long-term renewal of the lease, Cr Tout said that is important to secure the extension before the federal election in 2025.

“There are a lot of moving parts in what that new lease may look like and to try and have those discussions and all agree on that and have it up to government with a federal election before the third of June next year, it wasn’t going to work,” he said.

Council general manager Peter Thompson said they could now focus on negotiating the long-term renewal of the lease.

“This would provide certainty and security for council and all the families, individuals, businesses, organisations and services who use this vital facility,” Mr Thompson said.

“We are putting together a package for Defence focusing on the regional benefit of council retaining the operation of the airport.

“It will also identify the benefits to the Commonwealth Government from council as the operator of this facility.

“We expect to have that submission ready for Defence by the end of March next year.”

Council has also submitted an application for a $15 million grant through the Federal Government’s Growing Regions Program to fund an upgrade of the security screening at the airport to make it compliant with regulations.

Cr Tout said the existing facility required significant upgrades to accommodate the required full-body screening infrastructure.

“It wouldn’t fit, so we would have had people lined up out on the road,” he said.

“I also understand the foundations weren’t sufficient to hold the machines.”

MTF...P2