[Peetwo]

Almost gone but not forgotten -

The QON index for last Estimates was much belatedly released late last week and there is a number of QON on the record addressed to Murky's Aviation Airport Division.

Of interest are the following from Senator Gallacher & 'the Heff': 

QON 108 - CHAIR: The other thing is we have received from Mr Mrdak evidence earlier that in relation to the floodplain clause 30 of the lease regarding state laws does not apply. Only the Airports Act applies. We now have a letter that sort of contradicts that proposition, that the tenants of the lease have to comply with state law. Would you like to see that as well?


Mr Mrdak: I am happy to and we will provide advice on that, yes.

AQON for Aviation & Airports (Murky's crew )

And the answer to QON 108:

Senator Heffernan, Bill asked:

…

CHAIR: The other thing is we have received from Mr Mrdak evidence earlier that in relation to the

floodplain clause 30 of the lease regarding state laws does not apply. Only the Airports Act applies. We

now have a letter that sort of contradicts that proposition, that the tenants of the lease have to comply with

state law. Would you like to see that as well?

Mr Mrdak: I am happy to and we will provide advice on that, yes.

…

Answer:

While we do not have the particular letter referenced, the Department is aware of a letter from Bankstown Airport Limited (BAL) to its tenants about the maintenance of essential fire services.

The maintenance of essential fire services such as fire extinguishers, hydrant systems, emergency lighting and communication systems is an important aspect of building management for Airport Lessee Companies. The Department understands letters recently provided to tenants on Bankstown Airport serve to ensure all tenants are aware of the requirements concerning essential fire services.

Generally, State laws are applied at Commonwealth owned airports to the extent they are capable of applying, unless they are excluded by a Commonwealth law. The Airports Act 1996 (the Airports Act) and the Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 are applicable in relation to any building activity Bankstown Airport and impose requirements with respect to fire safety features of a building as preconditions for the issue of a building approval or certificate of occupancy. NSW laws imposing similar requirements in relation to building activities or initial occupancy of a building do not apply in relation to Bankstown Airport due to provisions of the Airports Act, which exclude the application of State laws relating to land use planning and building controls. However, in relation to matters other than land use, planning and building controls – such as subsequent or ongoing use and occupation of a building on Bankstown Airport - NSW laws concerning fire safety and services are not excluded. Regulation 1.03(d) of the Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 expressly indicates that the application of State laws relating to the protection of persons against fire is not affected.

Fire safety in New South Wales is regulated under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act 1979 and Part 9 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation), which requires essential fire safety measures to be maintained.

Clear as mud, err...I think??


MTF...P2

[ventus45]

That is not an answer, that is bullshit.

Where is the floodplain issue addressed ?

[Peetwo]

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia.
On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:
Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

Murky's mob drawn into Defence Inquiry - It was inevitable that the PFOS, PFOA contaminate issue (Part B) would eventually require a response from both Airservices & the Department of Infrastructure & Regional development:

111

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (PDF 147 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 751 KB)  Attachment 2 (PDF 982 KB) 

&..

113

Airservices Australia (PDF 1426 KB) 

To begin it is extremely encouraging that the Dept & ASA have very much been on the front foot with this matter (PFOS/PFOA contamination), basically ever since it was first brought to their attention back in 2003. However there would have to be some serious concerns about where potential contamination has been identified...

Extracts from ASA submission:

..From the early 1980s until the early 2000s, a fire fighting foam called 3M Lightwater was used. This product contained perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as an active ingredient and other PFCs such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Following increasing concerns about the possible environmental and health impacts of PFOS, in 2003 Airservices changed to another approved fire fighting foam called Ansulite that was understood to not contain PFOS or PFOA. It was later found to contain trace amounts of both of these chemicals. In 2010, Airservices transitioned to a PFC free foam, Solberg RF6, at all airports where Airservices provides ARFF services with the exception of the joint civil/military airports of Darwin and Townsville1.

Airservices initiated investigations which have identified 56 sites where rescue fire fighting services at airports were provided and:

• at 20 sites, aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs) have not been used (although there may have been some extremely low levels of residues in equipment or materials transferred from other locations); and

• 36 sites (both Current and Historical Sites) have, or are suspected of having, PFC residues as a result of AFFF use (further details are provided at Appendix D).

Key actions taken include:

• Since 2009, Airservices has worked with Commonwealth, State and Territory health and environment experts, regulators, policy agencies, airport owners and operators, and research institutions to inform development of appropriate national standards and guidelines including screening levels for soil and water. This work is ongoing.

• In 2010, Airservices engaged an expert to undertake a voluntary health study on ARFF staff’s exposure to PFCs.

• Airservices has undertaken soil, surface water and groundwater sampling at current fire training grounds where PFCs were used between the 1980s and 2003.

• Airservices is undertaking risk assessments of airport sites where fire fighting foams containing PFCs have been used to determine if any migration of PFC residues from fire stations and training grounds has occurred which may have impacted beneficial users. Further site testing may commence following the outcomes of the risk assessment and will be based on a range of factors developed in consultation with regulators and experts.

• Airservices is undertaking a number of research and development activities to better characterise and develop solutions to the PFC issue as it applies to our sites.

In 2014, Airservices and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) engaged GHD Pty Ltd to develop a risk-based framework, ‘Managing PFC Contamination at Airports’, to guide decision-making when dealing with contamination issues on airport sites. The framework was finalised in June 2015.

o GHD reviewed international screening levels and other guidance to develop screening levels that could be used in this management framework. Airservices has adopted this framework in its operations nationally.

o The framework has been provided by Airservices to DIRD, and it has subsequently been distributed to the airport lessee companies and DIRD’s Airport Environment Officers as well as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. The draft interim framework and screening levels have no regulatory authority.

Airservices will continue to take a proactive approach to managing risks as a result of past use of fire fighting foams that contained PFCs and, for this purpose, is continuing engagement with regulators to assist in the identification and development of practicable responses.

From Appendix D:






Remember that due to their design these chemicals do not easily breakdown over time &  can leave a residue in soil, water & underground for many, many years. In some airport sites, like for example Port Hedland, this may not pose much of a risk to the general public but highly built up areas, next to a river & on a floodplain, like Bankstown must be giving Murky & Co a few sleepless nights...


MTF...P2      

[Kharon]

All those in favour;

When the bats turn pink and the ducks turn blue;
When I glow in the dark and so do you
When kids with two heads are far and few,
but those with three arms are nothing new,
I’ll still go shopping for pea green milk
and imported water, that doesn’t stink.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Kharon, Sounds like you are describing the double chinned Harfwit?

[Peetwo]

"Let's do the time-warp again..it's just a jump to the left"

Here we go again Albo & Short-one step back in time, courtesy of Oz Aviation:

Opposition proposes night time restrictions for Badgerys Creek

April 21, 2016 
[/url]The federal government has officially “declared” Badgerys Creek as the site for a second airport in Sydney. (Jordan Chong)

Australia’s federal opposition is proposing a night time “no-fly zone” over the proposed airport at Sydney’s Badgerys Creek to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding communities.

Instead, flight paths for all takeoffs and landings between 2300 and 0600 will be in a south-west direction to avoid residential areas.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten and Opposition transport spokesperson Anthony Albanese said the measures were similar to what was currently in place at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, where aircraft permitted to operate during that airport’s 2300 to 0600 curfew were directed over water and not over residential communities.

“Labor will act to ensure there is no noise impact on existing residences and communities from night time flights as part of Badgerys Creek Airport master planning,” the pair said in a statement on Thursday.

“This will ensure Western Sydney benefits from the economic boost Sydney’s second airport will deliver – including thousands of jobs – while communities aren’t disturbed by night time aircraft noise.”

Shorten, Albanese and shadow treasurer Chris Bowen spoke about Labor’s policy in Sydney on Thursday.
     

Anthony Albanese

✔ ‎@AlboMP
Labor supports the economic benefits of Badgerys Creek Airport while protecting residents from night time noise.

The federal government’s draft airport plan and environmental impact statement for the proposed Western Sydney Airport showed a 3,700m runway on a south-west, north-east orientation.

Arrival flights will be directed to north west of the airport and be between 5,000-7,000 feet when over Penrith and 2,000ft near Bankstown when landing on Runway 23.
Meanwhile, departing aircraft on Runway 05 would be at about 5,000ft by the time they were over Bankstown and at 10,000ft by the time they were at RAAF Base Richmond if headed north, or at 10,000ft between Camden and Picton if heading south.

The indicative flight paths for departures and arrivals at Runway 23 at the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. (Federal Government)The indicative flight paths for departures and arrivals at Runway 05 at the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. (Federal Government)

The master plan said it was planned for the airport to operate on a curfew free basis.
“Curfew-free airports provide significant benefits to communities and businesses by supporting growth in local, regional and national economies,” the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website said.

“Melbourne Airport’s curfew-free status allows for the movement of an extra two million passengers a year and adds $590 million to the Victorian economy through visitor spending.

“While the proposed Western Sydney Airport is planned to operate without curfew, demand for flights at night would not be as high as demand during the day. The majority of flights would be in the 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm peak periods.”

Meanwhile, Labor said the simultaneous operations for takeoffs and landings to the south-west was one of several noise mitigation measures for Badgerys Creek, including landscaping and shared flight paths. The opposition has also committed to having rail links at the airport.

The federal government “declared” Badgerys Creek as the site for a second airport in the Sydney basin in August 2015, which ensured further planning work on the airport could proceed and airspace around the proposed facility was protected from potential high-rise buildings.

Sydney Airport, which has a right of first refusal (ROFR) to build and operate a second airport within 100km of the Sydney CBD, was expected to receive a “[url=http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/02/sydney-airport-expects-to-receive-badgerys-creek-contract-this-year/]Notice of Intention” or sales contract to build and operate the proposed airport from the federal government in 2016

Here is a couple of comments..

random says

You might as well not build it if you’re going to cripple it with a curfew.


It is the missing link amongst all the other capitals and regional international cities with no curfews. A curfew in Sydney causes structural changes to all of the airlines schedules and fleet management.


Much of the future utility of the airport will be linked to overcoming the short-comings of KSA Mascot, not replicating them!


random says

Correction to my last – it’s obviously not a full curfew but this is how they start.

Jeff Atkinson says

Pathetic, But wait. They’ll probably find an eastern bell frog that sleeps during the day so that will limit the operating hours as well. The residents that surround the area new that this was coming, There’s no excuse. The small amount of jet noise from the new type aircraft is minimal. Give me a house and i’ll live there no problems. And ring the Kerrigans too.

Gary says

Bit of a laugh seeing Albanese talking about Badgerys Creek. He did sweet bugger all whilst in government and now he wants to place a clayton’s curfew on it!

Oh and finally dazzling Dazza gets a chance to have a crack at Albo and talk about aviation...

Labor caught short on detail with rushed Western Sydney Airport “announcement”

Media Release
DC055/2016
21 April 2016

Joint release with:
Paul Fletcher
Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government

The Turnbull Government recognises that a new airport needs to operate in a way that addresses concerns about flight paths and aircraft noise and that meets the expectations of the community.

We are also committed to the many thousands of new jobs that will be generated by a fully functioning Western Sydney Airport.

Today, Labor offered a hastily cobbled together proposal that between the hours of 11pm and 6am, landing aircraft only have access to restricted runways.

That is, between those hours, aircraft only approach the airport from the southwest as well as depart only to the southwest.

It is far from clear that this plan is workable—or that Labor is even certain about the details of what it is announcing.

Shadow infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese was unable to name a single expert he had consulted when formulating their proposal.

He also demonstrated a troubling lack of certainty about established procedures concerning landing with a tailwind.

[EXCERPT FROM SHORTEN AND ALBANESE PRESS CONFERENCE]
Journalist: Is it not true that flights and aircraft have to fly into the wind if it is greater than 10 knots—so if you get a big southerly coming through, how on earth are you going to land?
Mr Albanese: No it's not—these days technology has gotten a lot better.

In fact CASA rules recommend a maximum five knot tailwind in dry conditions but zero in wet conditions. It all points to an opposition with no plan, and which is not fit to govern.

The Turnbull Government recognises the benefits that the Western Sydney Airport will bring for the local community, which include more jobs and greater economic prosperity.

We are also committed to having the best available noise mitigation arrangements.

We are listening to the strong advocacy of Western Sydney MPs Louise Markus, Fiona Scott and Russell Matheson.

We are now working through around 5000 submissions as we develop a final EIS, including our plan to address these issues

 
Donning tin hat - incoming
MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Albo, what a complete twat. Couldn't name one 'consultant'! That's because he is full of complete shit, as is Short'one, Truss, the immaculately haired one, old mother Hubbard......block your nose and press the 'flush' button, that's all they are good for.

And Chris Bowen, you idiot you look like you have an infestation of gerbils growing on your face. Or are you mi mi mi Beakers love-child?

[Peetwo]

Follow up to Labor Badgery's thought bubble policy -

via the Oz.. :

No-fly zone would cripple Badgerys Creek airport: Tony Shepherd

• Mark Coultan
  
• The Australian
  
• April 22, 2016 12:00AM
  

State political correspondent
Sydney


A Labor plan to restrict night landings at Sydney’s Badgerys Creek airport would economically cripple the first major new airport built in decades, according to one of Australia’s leading businessmen.

Bill Shorten yesterday said that the opposition would create a night-time “no-fly zone” over the northeast of the proposed ­airport, in Labor’s first major ­election announcement in western Sydney.

Tony Shepherd, who chaired the federal government’s Commission of Audit and, until last year, the WestConnex Delivery Authority, said he was disappointed with the plan.

“One of the major purposes of this airport is to create a truly international airport which can operate without restrictions, seven days a week, 24 hours a day,’’ he said. “We are in a globally competitive market and this is vital for the economy of Australia, not just for western Sydney. Tourism and global business are big drivers of the Australian economy. This just puts hobbles on us.”

"..Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher said Labor’s policy would have safety implications when the wind blew in the wrong direction because there were strict regulations on aircraft taking off or landing downwind. He said Labor’s plan appeared to have been hastily cobbled together.."

Mr Shorten said Labor had tried to get the balance between the economic boost the airport would provide and community concerns.

The opposition’s spokesman on ­infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, said the proposed no-fly zone was the same that governed after-hours flights at Sydney Airport in Mascot.

But the difference is that, unlike Sydney Airport, airlines will be able to schedule passenger flights 24 hours a da­y.

The draft environmental ­impact statement estimated that restricting planes to landing or taking off to the southwest — over the Blue Mountains — would mean that by 2030 about 4000 people would be exposed to five events per night above 60 dBA, which is conversation level.

By requiring aircraft to take off and land to the southwest, the EIS said, movements would be restricted to 20 an hour.

The main beneficiary of Labor’s policy will be the electorate of ­McMahon, held by Chris Bowen by a margin of 4.6 per cent, ­although most of the land in his seat that is under the approaches to the proposed runway has been reserved for decades for industrial development.

However, aircraft noise is likely to be a hot election topic in several seats, including Lindsay, Macquarie, Macarthur and Chifley.

Labor’s announcement appeared to be a compromise between its western Sydney MPs who want an outright curfew and maintaining its 24-hour operation, considered to be vital to its economic viability.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott had avoided committing to any curfew.

Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue chairman Chris Brown, a member of the government-­appointed committee that studied aviation capacity in the Sydney ­region, called for a unity ticket ­between the major parties to ­oppose a curfew at Badgerys.

“If a no-fly zone is a requirement to ensure no curfew then I’m comfortable with it as a reasonable compromise,’’ he said. “The airport is the game changer for western Sydney. The reality is that the rest of the world is asleep when we are awake and vice versa.”

Mr Brown, the son of Hawke government tourism minister John Brown, said one advantage of waiting so long for the airport was that it could be the smartest, ­quietest airport in the world.

David Borger, the western Sydney director of the Sydney Business Chamber, said if the no-fly zone was confirmation there wouldn’t be a curfew “then it’s probably a good thing”.

He said that although night- time flights would be only a small percentage of all aircraft movements, they were still important.

Also on the Project Eureka & airports front, this from Binger in the Oz today..  

Soaring rents pushing general aviation business to the brink

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• April 22, 2016 12:00AM
  

Lindsay Edmonds of Heliflite in Bankstown says rent have risen while leases have been reduced. Picture: James Croucher

 
Soaring rents and onerous leasing conditions are pushing general aviation businesses to the brink of collapse, according to operators at some of the nation’s best-known secondary airports.

Aviation business owners at Cairns and Bankstown airports have been hit hard by rising rents over the past decade, which they say has led to a dramatic decline in aircraft on site and a loss of jobs at secondary airports.

The offer of short-term leases is also causing problems for businesses trying to secure bank loans.

“We’ve been in business 38 years and hope to stay in business but it’s clear these people don’t want us,” said Lyndsay Edmonds, who runs helicopter sales business Heliflite at Bankstown Airport.

“Our rent was $32,000 a year in 2000 but that’s jumped more than 250 per cent to $82,000 a year now. It is obvious Bankstown is trying to squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

“We came here at a time when the government was encouraging the general aviation industry. When the aerodrome was government-owned we were given a 25-year lease and low rent as an incentive. But now we struggle to get more than a five-year lease extension, which causes great uncertainty for the business.”

Murray Ireland, who runs aviation maintenance company Aero Enterprise, said he had to move his business from Cairns Airport after 15 years of tenure because of rising costs and harsh lease conditions.

“We decided to leave Cairns Airport after they increased our rent from $50,000 a year to $120,000 a year. We had invested a lot of money building hangar space but were told we would have to demolish or give the building back to the aerodrome upon cessation of the lease,” he said.

“I wasn’t going to pay for the demolition so just walked away and left the building there. The industry is struggling enough without these conditions being forced on operators. It’s putting the industry on its knees and you can see that by looking at the reduced aircraft at Cairns and the 30 per cent fall in staff numbers.”

Representatives at Bankstown could not be reached but North Queensland Airports’ chief executive Kevin Brown said the rents at Cairns Airport reflected the costs of building infrastructure, including runways, lighting and security, to support aircraft operations.
“In 2013 we reviewed all our general aviation charges to ensure we could continue to sustainably maintain our infrastructure and support aviation activity,” he said.

“As a result, general aviation landing and undesignated aircraft parking fees increased in late 2013 for the first time in 10 years to reach a level based on market value and comparable with other airports of similar size to Cairns. This review also brought undesignated aircraft parking into line with designated parking, which had already been set at market value for some time.”

Mr Brown said Cairns Airport consulted regular general aviation customers at length over the fee increases, which were introduced incrementally over the following three years to allow commercial operators time to adjust.

“There is no advantage in setting unrealistic rents as that does not attract business. Some operators did enjoy extremely low rents for many years, but as viable businesses they must be prepared to meet commercial reality. Leases are renewed on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

The criticisms come after the Aircraft Owners and Pilots ­Association last week released its Project Eureka report, a critique of aviation bureaucracies it claims are irreparably damaging general aviation businesses.

The wide-ranging review has a section dedicated to exploring the trend of increasing rents and criticising short-term leases that are been rolled out across Australia’s secondary airports, saying “no business in any industry can operate successfully without security of tenure for their operations”.

“Since the privatisation of the secondary airports there has been a decline in the security of tenure for aviation business. Ground lease periods have been reducing for aviation businesses while non-aviation business leases have increased,” the report said.

The report alleges that while Bankstown Airport had been offering 10-year leases to general aviation operators, much longer lease periods were being handed out to hardware stores, petrol stations, schools, bus companies and other non-aviation businesses.

“The intent of the Airports Privatisation Act was not to offer more secure tenure to non-aviation businesses,” the report says.

The report also alleges that since the airports have been privatised, airport landlords have been enforcing their rights to resume properties or improvements at the end of the lease period. This means that lessees have to demolish any improvements they have built on the land or hand over the improvements to the owner.

The Eureka report also claims exorbitant leasing fees and the encroachment of commercial property developments is resulting in a decline in aircraft movements from these airports.

“Bankstown Airport, the centre of the Australian GA industry in the 1980s, was the busiest airport in the southern hemisphere with over 550,000 aircraft movements per annum. It is now below 180,000,” the report says.

“Business parks can be established anywhere in cities where the appropriate zoning exists. The aviation industry needs runways to function and there are very few of these in the Australian capital cities. Without reasonable commercial access to the runways, we don’t have a GA industry.”

At Cairns Airport, however, the number of aircraft movements is on the rise according to Mr Brown.

“We are on track in FY2016 to see a significant jump in general aviation. In FY2010 there were 40,260 movements and in FY2015 there were 44,880. In FY2010 there were 40,666 general aviation movements and in FY2015 there were 46,852. This year our estimate is for 56,836 general aviation movements,” he said.

The Eureka report calls on the government to sell off its billion-dollar-a-year Airservices air traffic controller organisation to help fund a revival of the struggling general aviation sector.

It claims a full privatisation of Airservices could bring in as much as $4 billion, which could be split, with half going to the commonwealth to help claw back its budget deficit and the other half to establish a trust fund that could reinvest in the aviation industry to buy back secondary airports, spur job creation and increase the sector’s involvement in R&D.

“The current owners are not acting in the spirit of the Airport Sales Act, which was supposed to foster aviation activities. Instead, they are being run as a business park with rents benchmarked or based upon similar business parks in the surrounding areas,” the report said. “These statistics are reflected across Australia, clearly demonstrating the demise of an aviation industry caused by governments failing to enforce the Airports Privatisation Act.”

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester has asked the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, with relevant government agencies, to examine the issues raised in Project Eureka and to prepare a response for the Minister’s consideration.

“The government continues to require compliance by federal airport operators with the provisions of the Airports Act and the terms of their airport leases. The government also notes that airport operators have made non-aeronautical land use and commercial developments on airport sites consistent with airports continuing to undertake their core aviation business,” a departmental spokesperson said

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Follow up to Labor Badgerys thought bubble policy -

via the Oz.. :

No-fly zone would cripple Badgerys Creek airport: Tony Shepherd

Also on the Project Eureka & airports front, this from Binger in the Oz today..   

Soaring rents pushing general aviation business to the brink 

Updates: 1st from Ben on Crikey...

Labor consults map of western Sydney, makes revolutionary airport election promise


Labor gets all the credit for committing to a 24-hour airport at Badgerys Creek -- which is a smart play, because geography means there are no neighbours to complain.


Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking

Somehow in the 30 years since Badgerys Creek was selected as the site for a second Sydney airport, no one noticed that it could be a 24-hour curfew-free operation as well as one where no jets need to fly over any densely populated suburbs for tens of kilometres in any direction.

The blindingly obvious reason — that there are no such concentrations of housing beyond its south-western corner, and never will be — have now made its geographical versatility a clever Labor wedge in the upcoming electoral battle for crucial and change-prone western Sydney seats like Lindsay, Macarthur, McMahon, Chifley, Parramatta and Greenway.

Jets using the long Badgerys Creek runways to or from the south-west late at night or before dawn would pass over the Nepean River and beyond it a southern Blue Mountains wilderness, which includes the Warragamba Dam. And this is at speeds and altitudes that make such operations safe for the tens of thousands of modern jets that fly over similar terrain every day in operations worldwide.

Labor has done nothing more than seize upon the unrealised reality of the Badgerys Creek site before the Coalition could have done precisely the same thing and declared that the airport would make everyone dance in the streets with happiness because of a 24-hour airport that no one would ever hear at night.

But back to Earth. The political realities of a Sydney west airport have changed radically in the last 10 years or so. The open spaces that made the original Labor plan of the mid-’80s seem far fetched began to fill with suburbs, and traffic congestion around Sydney’s existing eastern airport began to strangle the city.

The lure of tens of thousands of airport-dependent jobs being created in the western hemisphere of the Sydney sprawl overpowered the political value of being against a second Sydney airport.  The inherent limitations of the main airport have become recognised as threatening the future of Sydney and the NSW economy.

The ridiculous airport dreamings of the ’80s had become priority infrastructure goals. A 24-hour airport for Sydney’s west has become a bipartisan objective, no doubt with faux outrage and posturing over manufactured differences in fine detail between Labor and the Coalition.

The country’s second and third largest airports, in Melbourne and Brisbane, have been curfew-free since they were built. Hardly anything moves at either in the middle of the night, so the prospect of unheard jets cramming the skies south-west of Badgerys Creek between 11pm and 6am are slight. There could be some midnight departures for flights to Europe via the Middle East hubs, and some Asian leisure operators would come and go in those hours.

But such a trend has yet to eventuate in Melbourne, Brisbane or even Canberra, which gets Singapore Airlines services later this year.

The risks of the inaudible happening over unpopulated areas because of Badgerys Creek is itself implausible.

Then further to Mark Coultan's last (above):

Badgerys Creek noise ‘to impact on only a few’

• Mark Coultan
  
• The Australian
  
• April 23, 2016 12:00AM
  

Even at the morning peak, Badgerys Creek airport is expected to handle 20 aircraft movements an hour, about a quarter of Kingsford Smith’s maximum.
 
Bill Shorten has promised to ­restrict the operation of the Bad­gerys Creek airport in Sydney’s west with a no-fly zone despite ­official modelling showing only 300 people would live under flightpaths considered unacceptably noisy.

The draft environmental ­impact statement for the second Sydney airport shows between 261 and 312 people live in areas which would be classified as considerably unacceptable.
The Opposition Leader has promised to introduce a night- time “no-fly zone” to the northeast of the airport despite the area having been designated an ­employment zone rather than residential.

Labor’s promise appears to be a compromise between those western Sydney MPs who want a complete night curfew and those who recognise the airport needs to be a 24-hour operation to compete with Brisbane, Melbourne and overseas airports, which have no curfews.

A curfew at Sydney Airport acts as a disincentive for airlines to establish services into the city.

A spokeswoman for Sydney Airport, which has the first right of refusal to operate Badgerys Creek, said: “This is a matter for government, which needs to do everything it can to set up the western Sydney Airport for success to enable it to deliver economic, jobs and tourism growth for western Sydney and NSW.”

Western Sydney Chamber of Commerce head David Borger said that although night-time ­operations would be a small part of the airport’s activity, it represented a big economic boost in ­itself, particularly for freight operations such as overnight deliveries to Asia.
The main political beneficiary of Labor’s no-fly zone would be Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen, whose seat of McMahon is north and east of the proposed runway layout, and to a lesser ­extent Labor frontbencher Ed Husic’s seat of Chifley.

Opinion polls show that the conventional political wisdom of Badgerys Creek airport being a negative is largely a myth.

A Galaxy poll of seven marginal seats in 2013 showed 65 per cent support for the airport.
Labor’s plan allows them to argue they are addressing voters concerns, but the airport’s draft EIS shows that these fears are largely unfounded.

The draft EIS predicts less than five aircraft will use the airport between midnight and 6am by 2030, by which time the airport will handle about 10 million passengers a year.
Even at the morning peak, the airport is expected to handle 20 aircraft movements an hour, about a quarter of Kingsford Smith’s maximum.

Labor’s infrastructure and transport spokesman Anthony Albanese denied the policy was just to appease voters, saying it would protect residents from night-time noise while allowing for economic benefits.

The draft EIS says that even in the most extreme of scenarios — a fully laden 747 using maximum thrust at take-off — only 10 houses to the southwest of the runway would be affected by the highest level of noise by 2050.

It also says 747s are likely to have been largely phased out of operation by then, replaced by quieter aircraft.

In other words the whole Labor announcement is just another sham, like the fact that we the taxpayers and aviation infrastructure customer users (airline tickets, parking tickets, ASA ATC charges, etc.) are now helping fund the Labor & Greens election campaigns through a bogus Senate Inquiry - The political donations can of worms?? & Wong muck raking & the GRABOR Party

And finally an update from Oz Aviation :

Pilots’ union expresses concerns on proposed Badgerys Creek restrictions

April 22, 2016 by Jordan Chong The federal government “declared” Badgerys Creek as the site for a second airport in Sydney in August 2015. (Jordan Chong)

Sydney would be best served with having the proposed Badgerys Creek airport operate 24 hours without any restrictions, the union representing Qantas pilots says.
On Thursday, Opposition leader Bill Shorten, shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen and transport spokesperson Anthony Albanese proposed a “no-fly zone” over the airport between 2300-0600 to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding communities.

Under the Labor plan, all aircraft during that seven-hour period would depart in a south-west direction on Runway 23, while arriving flights would approach from the south-west to land on Runway 05 to avoid residential areas.

Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) treasurer Adam Susz said the Labor proposal would place a heavy restriction on the airport’s operations, noting departing aircraft would have to be well out of the approach path before arriving aircraft could land, resulting in a fairly low movement rate.

“It would not be possible to have simultaneous operations in an opposite direction on a single runway unless those operations were separated by 15 to 20 minutes,” Susz told Australian Aviation in an interview on Friday.

“That is possible with technology and the navigation systems we have and air traffic control and radar providing separation, but it is not ideal.

“From a pilot perspective we don’t want to see a curfew. We’d like to see 24-hour operations that are unrestricted by noise and other political agendas.”

The federal government’s draft airport plan and environmental impact statement for the proposed Western Sydney Airport showed a 3,700m runway on a south-west, north-east orientation.

Arrival flights will be directed to north west of the airport and be between 5,000-7,000 feet when over Penrith and 2,000ft near Bankstown when landing on Runway 23.

Meanwhile, departing aircraft on Runway 05 would be at about 5,000ft by the time they were over Bankstown and at 10,000ft by the time they were at RAAF Base Richmond if headed north, or at 10,000ft between Camden and Picton if heading south.


The master plan said it was planned for the airport to operate on a curfew free basis.
Susz, who is a Boeing 747 first officer with Qantas, said the restrictions meant aircraft would be unable to land on Runway 05 if winds were too strong.

“When there is a south westerly blowing at 10-15-20 knots it is not possible really to conduct a landing with that sort of tail wind,” Susz said.

“Our perspective would be to maintain as much operational flexibility as possible. We’d like to be able to land in the safest direction with optimal winds.

Susz said noise abatement procedures such as curved approaches, lower thrust settings on engines and advancements in aircraft technology all reduced the noise impact on the surrounding community.

“I think the impact of noise can be minimised by procedures currently available and also the technology is continuously improving with aircraft engine. They are always getting quieter,” Susz said.

“I don’t think the issue is as bad as people are making out.”

While Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport did occasionally have “simultaneous” operations, where all aircraft take off and land over Botany Bay, the key difference was Badgerys Creek would begin operations in the mid-2020s with just a 3,700km single runway, compared with two parallel runways at Mascot.

“The margin of safety is greatly improved because the aircraft are using different runways,” Susz said of the simultaneous operations at Mascot.

Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester described the Opposition’s plan as a “hastily cobbled together proposal”.

“It is far from clear that this plan is workable,” Chester said in a statement on Thursday.
“We are now working through around 5000 submissions as we develop a final EIS, including our plan to address these issues.”

Along with the 'do nothing' approach by Albanese on the disturbing findings of the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry - Chris Reason - Yahoo7 on August 28, 2013, 5:46 pm -

One former safety chief says that it has ruined Australia's safety reputation.

"This ATSB report has turned that Triple-A status into junk status overnight," former CASA Deputy Mick Quinn said.

That was in May, and the Government is yet to respond.

The Transport Minister said he could not and would not act, because Parliament is suspended.

"Well, we're actually in caretaker mode right now, you might have noticed Parliament is not sitting," Anthony Albanese said.

But the former deputy of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said caretaker mode should not get in the way of aviation safety.

"The disturbing thing is, safety is no longer the priority," Mick Quinn said.

The Senate Inquiry thought the situation was so serious that it asked the Federal Police to investigate our safety watchdogs - that is unprecedented. The Minister says that he is not concerned.

"Well, anyone can refer anything to the Federal Police," Minister Albanese said.

..the above article puts to the sword the veracity of the former minister for Non-aviation's repeated weasel words that 'nothing is as important as aviation safety' or 'aviation safety is this governments No1. priority': Election squabbling buries air safety recommendations, c/o ProAviation:

Senator Fawcett points out that the report was tabled on May 23, allowing the Minister a three month window to respond and that given its damning findings Minister Albanese should have made this his top priority, particularly given his promise that ‘nothing is as important as aviation safety.’

   
Shame on you Albo, shame!


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

MQ said;

"But the former deputy of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said caretaker mode should not get in the way of aviation safety.
"The disturbing thing is, safety is no longer the priority," Mick Quinn said".

Mick nailed it in one. Well said.'Safety' shouldn't be put on hold for any reason at any time, full stop. Particularly for a reason as soft as 'impending election and possible change of Government'.

Another year, more elections, more assclownery, more political waffle, more stupidity from dipshits like Albo, Bowen, Penny Strap-on, Darren of the immaculate, Short-one etc etc etc.....

"Safe pork barrelling for all"

[Peetwo]

Follow up to Labor Badgerys thought bubble policy -

via the Oz.. :

No-fly zone would cripple Badgerys Creek airport: Tony Shepherd

Also on the Project Eureka & airports front, this from Binger in the Oz today..  

Soaring rents pushing general aviation business to the brink 

And finally an update from Oz Aviation :

Pilots’ union expresses concerns on proposed Badgerys Creek restrictions

...Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) treasurer Adam Susz said the Labor proposal would place a heavy restriction on the airport’s operations, noting departing aircraft would have to be well out of the approach path before arriving aircraft could land, resulting in a fairly low movement rate.

“It would not be possible to have simultaneous operations in an opposite direction on a single runway unless those operations were separated by 15 to 20 minutes,” Susz told Australian Aviation in an interview on Friday.

“That is possible with technology and the navigation systems we have and air traffic control and radar providing separation, but it is not ideal.

“From a pilot perspective we don’t want to see a curfew. We’d like to see 24-hour operations that are unrestricted by noise and other political agendas.”

The federal government’s draft airport plan and environmental impact statement for the proposed Western Sydney Airport showed a 3,700m runway on a south-west, north-east orientation.

Arrival flights will be directed to north west of the airport and be between 5,000-7,000 feet when over Penrith and 2,000ft near Bankstown when landing on Runway 23.

Meanwhile, departing aircraft on Runway 05 would be at about 5,000ft by the time they were over Bankstown and at 10,000ft by the time they were at RAAF Base Richmond if headed north, or at 10,000ft between Camden and Picton if heading south.

The master plan said it was planned for the airport to operate on a curfew free basis.
Susz, who is a Boeing 747 first officer with Qantas, said the restrictions meant aircraft would be unable to land on Runway 05 if winds were too strong.

“When there is a south westerly blowing at 10-15-20 knots it is not possible really to conduct a landing with that sort of tail wind,” Susz said.

“Our perspective would be to maintain as much operational flexibility as possible. We’d like to be able to land in the safest direction with optimal winds.

Susz said noise abatement procedures such as curved approaches, lower thrust settings on engines and advancements in aircraft technology all reduced the noise impact on the surrounding community.

“I think the impact of noise can be minimised by procedures currently available and also the technology is continuously improving with aircraft engine. They are always getting quieter,” Susz said.

“I don’t think the issue is as bad as people are making out.”

While Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport did occasionally have “simultaneous” operations, where all aircraft take off and land over Botany Bay, the key difference was Badgerys Creek would begin operations in the mid-2020s with just a 3,700km single runway, compared with two parallel runways at Mascot.

“The margin of safety is greatly improved because the aircraft are using different runways,” Susz said of the simultaneous operations at Mascot...

Along with the 'do nothing' approach by Albanese on the disturbing findings of the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry - Chris Reason - Yahoo7 on August 28, 2013, 5:46 pm 

Election squabbling buries air safety recommendations, c/o ProAviation:

Senator Fawcett points out that the report was tabled on May 23, allowing the Minister a three month window to respond and that given its damning findings Minister Albanese should have made this his top priority, particularly given his promise that ‘nothing is as important as aviation safety.’

   

MQ said;

"But the former deputy of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said caretaker mode should not get in the way of aviation safety.
"The disturbing thing is, safety is no longer the priority," Mick Quinn said".

Mick nailed it in one. Well said.'Safety' shouldn't be put on hold for any reason at any time, full stop. Particularly for a reason as soft as 'impending election and possible change of Government'.

Another year, more elections, more assclownery, more political waffle, more stupidity from dipshits like Albo, Bowen, Penny Strap-on, Darren of the immaculate, Short-one etc etc etc.....

"Safe pork barrelling for all"

Sunday update: Albo - "...nothing is as important as aviation safety; well almost??"

 From Piers, via the Daily Telegraph  :

Bill Shorten’s Badgerys Creek airport is unsafe for takeoff

April 24, 2016 12:00am
PIERS AKERMAN The Sunday Telegraph

SLIM Dusty reckoned that there was nothing “so lonesome, morbid or drear than … a pub with no beer” but then he hadn’t heard of Bill Shorten’s plan for an airport that would effectively ban airplanes from flying.


Just imagine all the empty runways, the passenger terminals, the freight areas, the transport networks and Labor’s ban on flights. How bad could that be?

With their populist assertion that Labor would support “no-fly” zones for the $2.5 billion-plus airport proposed for Badgerys Creek, both Shorten and Labor’s infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese effectively undermine the ­entire project. Labor wants to apply the same restrictions on flight to the new project as those which currently hobble the operations of Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport.

Shadow Minister for Transport & Infrastructure Anthony Albanese, shakes hands with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten after addressing the media at Emu Plains in western Sydney last Thursday

They want a night time no-fly zone between 11:00pm and 6:00am in order to eliminate aircraft noise for residents. Under the plan, the airport would allow qualified 24-hour access with night flights restricted to the southwest over unpopulated areas.

This is such a dumb proposal, so stupid in its conception, that it could only have come from the smartest people in the Labor Party. That’s right, exactly the same people who embraced the notion of a NBN after being briefed on a plan drawn up on the back of a drink coaster, and who thrilled to the prospect of an unfunded NDIS, and wet their pants at the prospect of the unfunded Gonski proposal though they had experienced the disastrous pink batts fiasco and the humiliating mining tax retreat which were also delivered by their in-house genii.

Shorten and Albanese clearly don’t want to acknowledge that the curfew at Sydney’s current airport is already an aviation industry disaster and is only maintained for fear of upsetting a small group of NIMBYs — all being people who have moved to the neighbourhood since the first flight operated from there in 1919.

It’s not as if the residents didn’t know that they buying in an airport neighbourhood when they were offered cheaper properties. Encouraged by weak politicians, they have used their decision to buy into the area to leverage sound proofing and the current curfew, and aircraft get quieter by the generation.

That’s one of the reasons why the decision by Labor to opt for no-fly zones is so dumb and here is another. Labor’s not so-dynamic duo were asked at Thursday’s press conference a very straight forward question about aircraft operations. Here it is: “Is it not true flights and aircraft have to fly into the wind if it’s greater than 10 knots?” To which Albanese responded: “No it’s not. These days technology has got a lot better.”

A map of the fast rail connecting Parramatta to the proposed Western Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek

Unfortunately, technology hasn’t yet been able to change the physics of flight and as much as Albanese might like to claim expertise as a former aviation minister, the basics are just as they were when ­Orville Wright took off for the first powered flight in 1903. The Wright brothers took off and landed into the wind. Just as modern aircraft are almost always required to do by air traffic controllers today if wind speeds are more than about five knots or just less than 10km/h even though some aircraft such as the Boeing 777 is certified to land with a maximum tailwind of 10 knots.

It might help the former aviation minister to review some of the factual material available about the physics of flight rather than try to wing it. All aircraft manufacturers publish a tail wind component limit for both takeoff and landing in their aircraft flight manuals (remember those Albo?) and in most cases it is in the order of 10 knots but with some planes may be as high as 15 knots.

And an experienced aviation authority like the former minister would undoubtedly be aware that the closer the tailwind is to the upper limit, the more dangerous is the landing. But Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) nominates a safe landing tailwind upper limit of five knots in dry conditions and zero in wet. That’s not a lot of breeze as any sailor, surfer, footballer, or golfer will tell you and how often does it rain at night at Badgerys — enough to shut down a runway or the whole airport as it would under Labor’s plan.

The Shorten-Albanese solution would require aircraft using Badgerys Creek to operate from only one runway directed to the southwest from 11pm to 6am — the same hours as the curfew operates at Kingsford Smith.


Opposition leader Bill Shorten

Maybe it has not penetrated Albo’s old leather flying helmet, but he should be made aware that there are a number of other options airlines could adopt to cut unnecessary aircraft noise because, and you can be sure of this, there will always be some noise when aircraft engines are used to provide the power for safe movement, particular during takeoffs, landings and turns.

One of the strategies employed by pilots globally is the concept known as Continuous Descent Approach which improves safety and pilot situational awareness and reduces pilot workload, improves fuel efficiency by minimising the low-altitude level flight time and reduces noise levels by minimising the level flight time at high thrust settings.

The union representing Qantas pilots has also condemned Labor’s plan to impose flight limits on their new airport.

Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) treasurer Adam Susz said the Labor proposal would place a heavy restriction on the airport’s operations, noting departing aircraft would have to be well out of the approach path before arriving aircraft could land, resulting in a fairly low movement rate.

It would not be possible to have simultaneous operations in an opposite direction on a single runway unless those operations were separated by 15 to 20 minutes, he said.

“From a pilot perspective we don’t want to see a curfew. We’d like to see 24-hour operations that are unrestricted by noise and other political agendas,” Susz told Australian Aviation Friday.

Coyly, Albanese refused to name the experts consulted before this woeful plan was released, or perhaps he wished to save them embarrassment. He could have saved time by asking any major airline pilot.

By severely limiting aircraft movements at the new airport, Labor effectively destroys the principal rationale for the whole project. What a no-brainer. Incoming aircraft will still have to consider the possibility of diverting to Melbourne or Brisbane. Well, done Biggles Shorten and Algy Albanese. -

 Nice shot Akermann...

If ever there was a pollie & former miniscule who cannot hide his contempt for anything to do with aviation it is Albo...

Let us for a minute, reflect on parts of Albo's reply speech to the former miniscule's delivery of the Government's response to the Forsyth review: Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:20)

..If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony...

 
Okay so it is not acceptable to have anything but the highest safety risk mitigation over densely populated electorates like Grayndler & Wentworth. However when it comes to flying over sections over 'less' densely populated areas like those in the Sydney Western suburbs & the Blue Mountains, it is perfectly acceptable - .

...I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder...

  
Bollocks Albo - your priority is trying to get back into an electorate that has serious aviation prejudice...
"..Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals..." 
The following quote is perhaps the biggest insult to the intelligence, of not only the industry and the travelling public but also the victims (who still carry the scars & permanent injuries) of the Norfolk Island ditching of VH-NGA & Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry: 

I note the minister's comment that he is considering asking the ATSB to reopen the investigation into the Pel-Air incident of 2009. This follows the findings this week of the delayed report of the inquiry that I commissioned as the minister, which was conducted by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board. I note that the TSB found that the ATSB investigation methods were best practice, but I certainly welcome, as I previously said, the principle that, if there is any doubt at all, there is a need to take that precautionary principle into consideration.

Unless of course if it is only three months before an election - FFS! Couple that spin and bulldust with this vomitus paragraph from earlier in the former miniscule for No-aviation's weasel words:

...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time...

  

You begin to realise how much Albo's extreme prejudice against aviation, has set back the GA industry for probably decades, if indeed it is recoverable. It also again puts to the sword all possible association that Albo's actions/inactions as miniscule, had anything remotely to do with aviation safety -    
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Bravo Piers.

Interesting stuff from Piers.  The absolutely abysmal track record of Albo on matters aeronautical, stand alone is bad enough.  But when you incorporate the Pel-Air donation from the airline which had most to say about the dreadful state of aviation and his personal support for not only hiring McComic but giving him carte blanch; you can see how the seeds of the current disaster were sown.  Got me beat how he dare even open his mouth on aviation, let alone want to close down an airport before it’s even built.  UFB.

But then I look at the performance of the current incumbent and hope withers.  I’ve stopped reading his dribble on twitter, the ‘selfies’ and back of heads shots taken of people with real talent, to vicariously associate himself make me want to vomit.  Ye gods, what’s next; pictures of him and Cash competing in MKR; or, more likely, dancing with the stars?  Perhaps they can actually do that minor celebrity thing; but have they any value in our parliament – for aviation?

Chester has so far managed to completely avoid mentioning, in any meaningful way or understanding manner – aviation.  Now it seems he’s quite happy to let Barnaby handle the meeting in Tamworth, while he takes selfies to post on twitter.  This bloke is going to be every bit as bad, if not worse than Albo.  Show pony, not work horse.  Watch as CASA gain every bit of McComicism back, with a vengeance, as the miniscule devotes time to the magnificent mane; rather than take care of aeronautical matters, both small and large .  “You’ll look after that will you Mark?  “Good man here, lets take our picture and post it on twitter, that’ll make ‘em all feel much better” (Cheese - flash - tweeted).

Maybe a vote for Tony Windsor would be the way to go – keep the bugger honest.  When questions are asked on May 6, don’t direct them to BJ – ask Chester; just to see if he has any idea at all; or, can manage to hold his own without Barnaby to hold his manicured hand.  

Sometimes, just sometimes – OFDS - Forget it.  Where’s my knitting?

[Gobbledock]

What an absolute conga line of muppets. Having Mascot operate to a curfew costs this country billions of dollars per year in lost revenue. Now these two labor tosspots propose a new airport with yet more operating restrictions! Albanese has a legacy of aviation inaction and incompetence that he brings to the table. A vote for labor is a vote for more dishevelled aviation policies and a greater destruction of our already collapsed industry. By the same token a vote for Malcolm is effectively a vote for that incompetent fool Truss who also did SFA and only contributed to the spiralling of our induatry into the ether. Now we have 'perm boy' Chester at the helm, who knows nothing about aviation but whom answers to Barbaby Joyce. And although Joyce likes to talk tough he is just another politican onboard the gravy train to self wealth and opulence.

Sydney is the centrepiece of our countries business framework, whether people like it or not. But it seems that successive Australian Governments are hell bent on screwing the country on purpose. That can be the only logical answer to the illogical actions, proposals and mindset of their continual decisions and this obsession with curfews.

Is there any politiican out there with the balls and vision to actually take this country to where it needs to be, both now and in the future? I didn't think so. All these incompetent assholes have managed is to put us in debt $400 billion, expected to be $1trillion within 10 years. And you can be rest assured that Goldman Sachs Turnbull will continue to strip our children's futures by burdoning us with unsustainable debt due to our supporting unnecessary expensive wars which in turn financially benefits just a handful of Western oligarchs, of which Goldman Sachs are unsurprisingly part of.

P_666

[P7_TOM]

Bedtime musing – betime.

Being a ‘team player’ sort of chap; I tend in my old fashioned way, to think about ‘crew’ as a single unit.  To run that unit, much like any aircraft, one must understand ‘the team’ on the paddock.  Again like an aircraft, the weaker, less reliable elements need to be protected and the more robust (if I dare use that word) may, when the need arises be worked a little harder, to produce the end result: a win – Inshallah.

But now I must think about both the crew and machinery on offer to GA and, indeed to the airlines, to take Australia back into the winners circle.  I’m too long in the tooth now to be buggering about with a rough mob and a dodgy machine; bugger it – grounded.

I am getting to the point: the current crew; or, ‘tiger team’ whatever the hell that is, are second string reserves; however,the machinery is in first class order. The ‘legal’ boys have had decades to work on it, in a sheltered workshop. Being as they are warm, safe, comfy, protected and far from the front line and well paid to boot, they should be.  They can on a whim do whatever pleases them best, make it legal and cannot be held to account for any of it; the ‘mystique’ and bamboozling half-baked politico’s covers that angle.  So, what have we got to work with? To look forward to:-

Dancing, daring, Darren of the bounding mane, lost in ego with half a brain.

Skidmore of the lupine smile, backsliding and backstabbing all the while.

Halfwit of the bright blue suit, steeped in ‘system’ to deny the truth.

And Beaker, whiskers on, or whiskers off a witless wonder the crowd will scoff.

All enslaved by Murky’s whim, where all can loose but no, not him, protected both from front and rear by those ministers wot hold him dear.

Oh, go to Tamworth the brave and true, repeat again those things you know are true.  Have an ale and laugh – a lot – shake the hands of those who don’t give a jot; except for winning in their races; that’s worth a lot.  To win your hearts and minds a few short hours, will ensure they will gain the power to do it all again; within the very hour.  

A fruitless task, a thankless ask, the results they will be fleeting, another round of pointless bleating, to more deaf ears, at another pointless meeting.  When hi-viz replaces the old true blue and pilots numbers are so very few; remember back those days of yore where pilots flew; the rest, dirt poor.

Blame the Guinness and ‘the lad’ both; a bad influence on an aging brain. Don’t know that I can survive – compos – another few years of Darren leading the current first eleven, or is it a Bakers dozen?  Can’t remember and not sure I give a rats.  If al-maktoob I should wake tomorrow, I may care again.  But what a mess; can BJ sort it out? Can the Nats do any better than Albo? Considering - they only have his anointed crew to work with –

Night y’all.

[Gobbledock]

Lest we aviators forget?

A provocative heading but one that I feel pertinent if you can follow my thought trail.

So the answer to this question still needs to be answered; will the appointment of Wingnut back into Murky's department aid or abeit our industry?

There still remains a grey cloud above Carmodys head (and giant ears) that stems back to the LHR accident. We can never forget that 15 lives and a Metro were lost on that fateful day. Carmody IMHO told some porkies, as did many other Casamites. So is the appointment of Wingnut into Team Pumpkin Head a good thing or a bad thing, 8 years after leaving Fort Fumble? Have the ghosts of LHR been put to bed? Has the smoke cleared from the burning Metro yet? I hardly think so. Too many questions remain unanswered and all facets of justice have yet to be met. Maybe it won't happen in my lifetime, maybe ultimate justice will be up to the Ferryman to dish up on the day that he takes those particular guests down the Styx River? Who knows. One thing is for certain - the very astute and long suffering Shane Urquhart's thoughts about Wingnut are well worth remembering.

I find it ironic that today we remember and honor fallen ANZAC's, yet in another breath the Australian government can so disgustingly forget, cover-up and obsfucate truth and justice for at least 80 plus people in commercial accidents, and then some. My Grandfather was an ANZAC and he died for this country for one reason - the promulgation of democracy and justice. How he would turn in his grave today to see how that sacrifice has been forgotten and discarded for countless Australians who have died in aviation accidents in this country, or lost their livelihoods and businesses, or been the victims of Government malfeasance and bullying?

So yes, today, we remember fallen troops, and rightly so. But let's not forget other lives that have been lost, lost under different circumstances, however lost due to similar reasons -  the incompetent actions of a ruling Government(s). 

P_666

[Peetwo]

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia.
On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:-

Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

Murky's mob drawn into Defence Inquiry - It was inevitable that the PFOS, PFOA contaminate issue (Part B) would eventually require a response from both Airservices & the Department of Infrastructure & Regional development:

111

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (PDF 147 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 751 KB)  Attachment 2 (PDF 982 KB)  &..

113 - Airservices Australia (PDF 1426 KB) 

To begin it is extremely encouraging that the Dept & ASA have very much been on the front foot with this matter (PFOS/PFOA contamination), basically ever since it was first brought to their attention back in 2003. However there would have to be some serious concerns about where potential contamination has been identified...

Extracts from ASA submission:

..From the early 1980s until the early 2000s, a fire fighting foam called 3M Lightwater was used. This product contained perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as an active ingredient and other PFCs such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Following increasing concerns about the possible environmental and health impacts of PFOS, in 2003 Airservices changed to another approved fire fighting foam called Ansulite that was understood to not contain PFOS or PFOA. It was later found to contain trace amounts of both of these chemicals. In 2010, Airservices transitioned to a PFC free foam, Solberg RF6, at all airports where Airservices provides ARFF services with the exception of the joint civil/military airports of Darwin and Townsville1.

Airservices initiated investigations which have identified 56 sites where rescue fire fighting services at airports were provided and:

• at 20 sites, aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs) have not been used (although there may have been some extremely low levels of residues in equipment or materials transferred from other locations); and

• 36 sites (both Current and Historical Sites) have, or are suspected of having, PFC residues as a result of AFFF use (further details are provided at Appendix D).

Key actions taken include:

• Since 2009, Airservices has worked with Commonwealth, State and Territory health and environment experts, regulators, policy agencies, airport owners and operators, and research institutions to inform development of appropriate national standards and guidelines including screening levels for soil and water. This work is ongoing.

• In 2010, Airservices engaged an expert to undertake a voluntary health study on ARFF staff’s exposure to PFCs.

• Airservices has undertaken soil, surface water and groundwater sampling at current fire training grounds where PFCs were used between the 1980s and 2003.

• Airservices is undertaking risk assessments of airport sites where fire fighting foams containing PFCs have been used to determine if any migration of PFC residues from fire stations and training grounds has occurred which may have impacted beneficial users. Further site testing may commence following the outcomes of the risk assessment and will be based on a range of factors developed in consultation with regulators and experts.

• Airservices is undertaking a number of research and development activities to better characterise and develop solutions to the PFC issue as it applies to our sites.

In 2014, Airservices and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) engaged GHD Pty Ltd to develop a risk-based framework, ‘Managing PFC Contamination at Airports’, to guide decision-making when dealing with contamination issues on airport sites. The framework was finalised in June 2015.

o GHD reviewed international screening levels and other guidance to develop screening levels that could be used in this management framework. Airservices has adopted this framework in its operations nationally.

o The framework has been provided by Airservices to DIRD, and it has subsequently been distributed to the airport lessee companies and DIRD’s Airport Environment Officers as well as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. The draft interim framework and screening levels have no regulatory authority.

Airservices will continue to take a proactive approach to managing risks as a result of past use of fire fighting foams that contained PFCs and, for this purpose, is continuing engagement with regulators to assist in the identification and development of practicable responses.

Remember that due to their design these chemicals do not easily breakdown over time &  can leave a residue in soil, water & underground for many, many years. In some airport sites, like for example Port Hedland, this may not pose much of a risk to the general public but highly built up areas, next to a river & on a floodplain, like Bankstown must be giving Murky & Co a few sleepless nights...      

In an update to the Senate Inquiry part (B) above, it seems highly likely that the reporting date (11 May 2016) will now not occur due to the DD election. That doesn't mean the inquiry will also be dissolved, it just means it will delayed till the next Parliament.

At a State level today (that is somewhat coincidental??) I note that the NSW EPA issued a media release:

EPA investigations into PFCs underway in Armidale and Tamworth

Media release: 3 May 2016

Following the announcement on 19 February 2016 of a state-wide investigation program into perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) today confirmed testing for PFC contamination at the Armidale Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and Tamworth Regional Airport firefighting training sites.

Sampling undertaken at both of these sites earlier in the year showed the presence of PFCs in both soil and water.

NSW EPA Manager Hazardous Incidents, Andrew Mitchell, said the discovery of PFCs was not unexpected due to use of PFC containing firefighting foams at the sites in the past.

“The preliminary samples indicate that PFCs are present and that further investigation is warranted. This initial testing by the EPA is a precautionary approach to help us better understand the extent of PFC use and their possible presence in the local environment,” Mr Mitchell said.

“The EPA is now working with FRNSW, Armidale Dumaresq Council, Tamworth Regional Council and NSW Crown Lands to discuss the need for next steps and keeping residents and the local community informed of the investigation’s progress.”

PFCs are a group of chemicals that include perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). As these have water, grease and oil repelling properties, PFCs have been widely used in a range of industrial and consumer products both in Australia and internationally, including in fire retardants, water proofing, food preparation, food packaging, furnishings, clothing and recreational equipment.

Due to their wide-spread use over many decades, PFCs are commonly found in the environment at low levels and their presence does not necessarily indicate a risk to human health.

“PFCs are emerging contaminants and the environmental and health impacts are not yet determined. The EPA investigations are an important step towards identifying and managing PFCs in the environment.”  

For more information about the state-wide investigation program and/or PFCs, visit www.epa.nsw.gov.au/MediaInformation/pfcinvestigation.htm or call the Environment Line on 131 555.  

Contact: EPA Public Affairs
Page last updated: 03 May 2016

Back to the inquiry, I note that Keith Campbell (Bankstown fame) has recently made a submission - 126 Mr Keith Campbell    -  (PDF 13220 KB) :



MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Jandakot Airport & the JACC, DoIRD showdown - Here we go again

Warren Evans from the Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce (JACC) IMO can be regarded as an aviation logistics expert. Mr Evans was one of the many (300+) General Aviation stakeholders that made the trek (in his case very long trek) to Tamworth in order to voice their concerns and get a feel for what are the Nationals (if voted back in - Coalition Government) policy intentions for the promotion/survival of the GA industry.

Here is what Mr Evans said to ABC Radio New England at the Tamworth rally (from 00:27 to 01:51 min):

To follow on from the Sunny posted observations, here is three audio segments from last Monday's Kelly Fuller (ABC New England) radio breakfast show:

The aviation industry says it's going to the wall because of over regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Around 300 pilots and members of the industry met with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and the Minister for Transport Darren Chester on Friday afternoon to raise their concerns.

---

Tamworth Aviation Protest 

Now some background to the JACC issues, firstly here is a link for their (IMO) excellent submission to the Forsyth review: JACC Western Australia - Australian Aviation Safety Regulation Review Input.

Jandakot Airport Aviation Community

 - JACC represents the Jandakot Airport community and conducts advocacy on their behalf.

 - Jandakot Airport is the busiest General Aviation Airport in Australia and the 3rd busiest in the world after Van Nuys CA.

- Current annual movements are 220,000 down from 460,000 (7 years ago) in Class D Airspace underneath the Perth CTA. A direct result of both the GFC and regulatory reform increasing aviation and airport costs without a corresponding safety improvement.

- Stakeholders include: Royal Aero Club of WA, China Southern WA Flying College/Revesco Aviation, Singapore Airlines Flying College, Royal Flying Doctor Service, Airflite Pty Ltd, Heliwest, Air Australia, Minovation and other aviation businesses servicing over 60% of the Western Australia aviation community. We estimate our members and associates represent over 30% of all GA in Australia. One member alone produces over 200 CPL/IR/Jet pilots annually and increasing.

As the single and only Secondary airport in Western Australia Jandakot Airport serves as the GA hub.

1 The structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies
involved in aviation safety.

*Australian regulation is a product of post war proscriptive regulation and the Two
Airline Policy not repealed until the 1990’s. This hopelessly skewed the
development of General Aviation by effectively prohibiting to them the commercial
operation of Part 25 aircraft. The entire regulatory suite was built around airline
operations.
*A private Cessna 172 is required to operate under similar surveillance and
regulation as a B747.
*Root and Branch reform is required to put the whole process back on the rails.
*We should use tried and effective systems and not reinvent the wheel.
*By following a North American model, substantial savings can be made in the
funding of CASA coupled with a significant improvement in safety.
Everybody wins.
* The relationship between CASA and the ATSB needs to be reviewed as in manner of
the NTSB and the FAA.

2 The relationship and interaction of those agencies with each
other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and
Regional Development (Infrastructure).

*We refer to the recommendation contained in the Senate Enquiry into the Norfolk
Island accident and fully concur with their recommendations.
*This report appears to demonstrate the level of dysfunction within agencies.
*We believe the Dept. of Infrastructure and Regional Development when reviewing
and approving Airport Master Plans needs to address aviation and aviation safety
issues more comprehensively.

3 The outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process
being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

*We have had over 20 years of reform which in spite of good intentions has created
uncertainty and confusion within the GA community.
*For example the US equivalent of Part 61 covers 100 pages, the proposed
Australian “equivalent” over 800 pages.
*In the US Congress and the FAA has been instructed to review Part 23 and simplify
maintenance; we appear to be on the road to further complicate maintenance.
* Does our Not Invented Here syndrome improve safety. NO!
*Does our NIH syndrome increase our costs and make us less competitive globally.
YES!

4 The suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations
when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions.

*We need regulations that reflect the world’s most common practice in General
Aviation.
*We need to follow the practices that originate from North America where a more
appropriate GA system exists or look to the new changes being implemented by the
UK CAA.
*It would make sense to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book and implement a
system that recognizes the size and nature of the country.

&..the JACC main issue:

5 Other safety related matters.

*Since the 1997 privatization of Primary, Secondary and Regional airport
leases, many airport leaseholders have placed more focus on commercial
development at the expense of aviation.
*This is in contravention of the Airports Act 1997, which clearly states
the primacy of aviation activities.
*Many airports including Jandakot have their future airside expansion
limited by excessive commercial development.
*Government must review Master Plans based on a 50-75 year
projection of aviation traffic growth rather than the current 4 year
Master Plan review with only a 20 year traffic projection.
*In reality this means a freeze on ALL future commercial development as
most Capital Cities are unable to accommodate new green field airport
development.
*More severe planning restrictions around airport zones must be
encouraged to improve safety.

OK from that a little over a year ago the JACC instigated legal action against the former miniscule Warren Truss and his department:

Aviation group wants Warren Truss to reconsider Jandakot plans
 
 Aviation groups are unhappy with development plans at Perth's Jandakot Airport.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/transport/aviation/aviation-group-wants-warren-truss-to-reconsider-jandakot-plans-20150323-1m5ebv#ixzz49FOIs8O3

As part of that legal action the good Mr Evans (expert) swore an affidavit on behalf of the JACC - http://jacc.asn.au/docs/warren-affidavit.pdf

Page 2 from Mr Evans affidavit: 

And the current progress of the JACC case? Still ongoing -
Here is a recent decision in relation to the case made by the AATA:  Chamber of Commerce Inc and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2016] AATA 270 (29 April 2016).
It all sounds oh so familiar - Archerfield, Bankstown, Moorabbin??? Also gives you a real perspective on the calibre of industry (expert) stakeholders who were quietly observing proceedings at the Tamworth Aviation rally, 6th May 2016 -     
MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

"Ah what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Rumour from BK P2, there is a falling out between the protagonists in the destruction
of aviation at Bankstown in favour of development sharks. Law suites at twenty paces I hear.

Not sure if this has been precipitated by another rumour of a high court action being brought by another "interested party" upset about amongst other things:

Failure to comply with the airports Act and the head lease for the airport by closing runway 18/36.

The illegal destruction of a flood plain with contaminated fill being placed on an already contaminated flood plain. (Live ammunition, PCB's from fire fighting foam, a few thousand litres of bunker oil during the second world war,possible night soil waste,with no EPA approval except one they wrote for themselves (on commonwealth letter head) Just to make it seem "Official like".(Fraud perhaps?)

The State government EPA declaring they would like to prosecute but the commonwealth cut their funds (A Murky Act?).

The movement of the NDB at public expense(to save the development shark 20 odd million. The ASA official who refused the original request lost his job because he refused the request (Another Murky Act?).

and lots of other stuff about lease terms, council rates charged for but unpaid, terms of leases etc.

and unpaid stamp duty on the original lease which cheated the NSW people out of 30 odd million.

[Kharon]

The link – HERE - will give you view of a Paul Phelan essay which was drafted some time ago now; but the predictions and forecast have been proven.  

Author’s Preface (May 2016)

This analysis was originally prepared in 2010 to assist petitioners to (then) Infrastructure Minister Albanese in a similar matter to the one now before the AAT . As such it represents a snapshot in time 2010 in relation to events which in multiple ways have been employed to circumvent the protections provided to secondary airport and local ownership airport users under the Airport Local Ownership Plan, Lease contracts and deeds of transfer. The analysis has been modified only to the extent that the section headed “Jandakot” and the first line of the Introduction below have been updated to reflect related situations and events.

Most of the situations identified in this study still exist at various airports, and in the main the industry attributes them to the inertia of the responsible department through its failure to enforce the terms of lease or transfer as applicable.

Worth a read – if you still need an aerodrome to conduct your business.

Summary.

Clearly the airports cannot be trusted to be their own regulators. Dumping the quasi-government powers that the FAC held straight over to the managements of the privatised airports was a ludicrously incompetent act, and allowing this ever-worsening situation to continue, further demonstrates the ineptitude of successive responsible administrations.

The Commonwealth has clearly failed adequately and effectively to monitor the activities of organisations who control both GAAP and ALOP airports. This failure extends over the present and previous two governments and to the relevant Ministers and their departments throughout that period.

The Roofing Insulation debacle, and the educational building program have nothing on this series of failures. The current Minister and his department now have a duty to restore the nation’s airports to a status which meets the requirements set out in the legislation, published policies and lease documents already in place.

They also have the tools to do so, and ongoing neglect of their obligations would represent a grave breach of the respective obligations of the public officials involved. 

Definitely a must read:-

[Peetwo]

From that insightful Phelan essay - which I have been informed, due to a request from interested parties,  is currently being reviewed for amendment by Proaviation, so standby for MTF - there has been a couple of posts referencing that paper, see example - Where there is a will, there is a way.  

However I want to focus on this developing story in regards to airports: 

Bangs and bucks.

From off the Senate Estimates, yet another reason why ASA is fast becoming a liability and therefore prime for privatisation.. :

Defence & ASA attempted O&O of PFOS/PFOA contamination issue?

Back to the inquiry, I note that Keith Campbell (Bankstown fame) has recently made a submission - 126 Mr Keith Campbell    -  (PDF 13220 KB) :

 

Defence ignoring Qld toxic water: Xenophon
AAP on May 29, 2016, 6:59 pm

Senator Nick Xenophon has called on Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has taken his campaign into the southern Queensland seat of Groom, calling for Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

7 News can reveal a cancer causing toxin is leaching into groundwater at Adelaide Airport. http://www.7news.com.au 

http://snpy.tv/1TMQg5t 

7 News | Adelaide airport
7 News - 7 News | 6pm nightly

  

Update 05/06/16 courtesy SMH:

So update today courtesy of the Oz... :

Toxic Defence nightmare fells treechangers

• Chris Ray
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM June 9, 2016
  

[/url]

Hot zones
Samantha and Jamie Kelly with baby William on contaminated property behind their home at Williamtown, north of Newcastle in NSW. Picture: Britta Campion
Hot zones
[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/toxic-defence-nightmare-fells-treechangers/news-story/a722411e6eb5e8b853af855f02f9c145#]

Thousands of people in 18 communities near military airfields across Australia are discovering that toxic firefighting chemicals have poisoned their land and water — and that these chemicals appear more dangerous than authorities have conceded.

Tests to detect perfluoro­octane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which have been linked with ­cancer, are under way or about to start on properties surrounding the airfields in all mainland states and territories.

The Department of Defence is holding public meetings, letterboxing homes and placing advertisements to advise residents of programs to test for the potential carcinogens.
They are slow to break down, can travel long distances in water and air, and biomagnify up through the food chain.

The 18 “priority one” sites are thought to be the most heavily polluted Defence facilities, the ­department says. State environ­mental agencies have already ­established contamination zones around the Williamtown RAAF base, near Newcastle in NSW, and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in southern Queensland.

Declaration of the zones covering an estimated 1200 households has crushed property values, wrecked businesses and left locals fearing for their health.

A new heightened alert from the US Environmental Protection Agency suggests PFOS and PFOA pose greater health risks than Australian environmental and health authorities currently accept. In findings that add to pressure on the Australian government for stronger action to combat the growing pollution scandal, the US agency has drastic­ally lowered its safe- ­drinking water level for the contamin­ants.

The new level of 0.07 micrograms per litre for both chemicals combined is far below the previous US exposure limit of 0.2 micro­grams per litre for PFOS and 0.4 micrograms for PFOA.

The US EPA says the “weight of evidence” now supports the conclusion that the chemicals are human health hazards, particularly for the developing fetus and newborn. Exposure could ­result in testicular and kidney cancer, liver damage, immune suppression, thyroid disease and reduced fertility, it warns.

For Samantha and Jamie Kelly from Sydney, their treechange to Williamtown quickly turned into a nightmare when just after moving, they received a note in their letter box calling them to a “contamination meeting”.

What they learnt that September night from a multi-departmental line-up of NSW govern­ment experts was that with Samantha six months pregnant, they were now living in the “Red Zone” of pollution caused by the ongoing use of fire fighting chemicals at the Williamtown RAAF base.

“At first they tried to normalise the contaminations, saying they were in everyday products like non-stick frying pans and pop corn bags,” Ms Kelly told The Australian. “But quickly it was followed with advice from the NSW Health Department that we weren’t to consume the water, any eggs from our chickens, eat any meat products which had consumed the water.

“And that there were some causal effects to cancers in animals — but no studies directing it to a particular health risk in ­humans. I was six month pregnant — it was shocking, I’d been consuming our eggs and our vegies … it’s very scary.

“We wanted a bit of land that was ours, to escape from the city; we moved here for the outdoor lifestyle, and it’s been completely destroyed now.”

What was even more confused was the advice the Kellys were getting about breastfeeding baby William, now five months.

“They were saying it’s safe enough for a baby to breastfeed but on the other hand not safe enough for me to eat — it’s extremely confusing and distressing,” Ms Kelly said.

Rhianna Gorfine, convener of the Williamtown and Surrounds Resident Action Group, accused the federal government of seeking to downplay the seriousness of health impacts in order to limit its legal liability for contamination.

“People here will be really angry if our authorities don’t follow the American lead, lower the exposure threshold and provide blood tests for residents who want them,” she said.

The Australian government’s position, restated by Assistant Defence Minister Michael McCormack following the US warning on May 26, is that there is “no sufficient link” between PFOS/PFOA and adverse human health effects.

Australian environmental authorities have generally followed the old US water guidelines in the absence of any Australian national standards.

A Defence Department human health risk assessment for Williamtown, due for release at the end of next month, will be based on the now-outdated US standard, Air Vice-Marshal Greg Evans confirmed at a media briefing on Friday.

However, the NSW Environment Protection Authority has sent the US advice to a multi-agency expert panel investigating Williamtown contamination and repeated a warning to residents not to use bore water or surface water for drinking or preparing food.

An EPA spokeswoman said the authority would work with Defence to ensure Williamtown residents with water test results above 0.07 micrograms per litre were aware of the new US level.

The revised US exposure level is “potentially devastating” for all 4500 residents of Oakey, which sits on top of an expanding contamination plume, said Peter Shannon of Shine Lawyers, which represents affected locals.

Oakey’s entire groundwater supply could be dangerously contaminated, he said.
Residents of the rural town 160km west of Brisbane used bore water for washing, cooking and swimming as well as irrigation and raising livestock.

“Bores which were considered of less concern are all of a sudden of high concern and Defence can no longer hide behind a supposed lack of scientific certainty about health risks,” said Mr Shannon.

The Labor Party sought to make PFOS/PFOA pollution a national election issue on Saturday when it promised to establish an intergovernmental taskforce to tackle the contamination.

In pledging to develop “a nat­ionally consistent approach” the opposition’s defence spokesman Stephen Conroy also said a Labor government would fund an “initial round” of 10,000 blood tests at ­affected sites nationwide.

Labor’s support for blood tests may boost its prospects in the newly marginal Liberal-held seat of Paterson, which covers Williamtown.

The federal and NSW governments oppose blood tests, which they insist can have no diagnostic or prognostic value.

However, Senator Conroy said blood tests would establish “baseline readings to allow for ongoing monitoring of contaminant ­exposure”.

Government-funded blood test­ing of affected residents and current and former RAAF base workers was recommended by a Senate foreign affairs, defence and trade references committee inquiry in April.

The inquiry also called for property buyouts for residents and compensation to commercial fishermen hurt by a fishing ban because of contamination of the Hunter River near Williamtown base. The federal government has refused to commit to either ­measure.

Germany’s Commission on Human Biomonitoring announced a PFOS risk-free blood level of five nanograms per millilitre in May. This is far below average levels detected in the blood of a group of 75 Oakey residents tested in a since-abandoned Defence Department program last year.

Oakey male residents tested were on average 17 times above the German “safe” level while the average Oakey woman was 10 times over, said Shine lawyer Rory Ross.
The NSW Health Ministry has advised pregnant women in the Williamtown contamination zone not to stop breastfeeding due to concern about PFOS and PFOA.

The US EPA says developing fetuses and breastfed infants are “particularly sensitive” to PFOS and PFOA-induced toxicity.

A spokeswoman for the federal Health Department said the nat­ional Environmental Health Standing Committee was working to set national guidelines for PFOS and PFOA in food, drinking water and surface water used for recreation.

Military air bases, civil airports and fire brigades used firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA from the 1970s until they were phased out several years ago.

Airservices Australia says contamination is confirmed or suspected at 36 civil airfields.
Interim test results at Gold Coast airport show “low” levels of PFOS/PFOA pollution, airport chief executive Marion Charlton said yesterday.

Of the 18 “priority-one” military bases, testing has begun at Wagga RAAF base in the Riverina and is expected to start soon at Richmond RAAF base north of Sydney.

At the naval air station HMAS Albatross on the NSW South Coast, base commander Captain Simon Bateman promised residents that testing would be “open and transparent” — and a public meeting heard how firefighters on the base used toxic foam to wash cars and dishes.
In Queensland, investigations are under way at the Townsville RAAF base, which drains to the Great Barrier Reef, and will start soon around Amberley air base on the outskirts of Ipswich.

Defence expects its investi­gation at East Sale RAAF base in Victoria to continue for 12 months.

The department has letterboxed households in the outer Perth suburb of Bullsbrook advising them that bore water sampling on private land is under way close to RAAF base Pearce.

Initial tests at Edinburgh RAAF base in South Australia are due to finish by the end of next month. The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority has reported “concerning levels” of PFOS and PFOA in suburban creeks around Darwin RAAF base while preliminary testing at RAAF base Tindal near Katherine is scheduled to be completed this month.

And some comments from Alexander...

Alexander

1 hour ago

That's funny, no mention of contamination at Bankstown airport, or what's left of it as various governments conspire to get in the property developers. Bankstown's north south runway, the only N/S runway that was available to General Aviation close to Sydney has gone along with other encroachments. Who cares? Department of Infrastructure? Ministers of both stripes? Follow the money.

&..in reply to:

Judith
3 hours ago


As I understand it, in Australia's aviation history nobody has ever been rescued by an airport rescue and fire fighting service. Why bother will the hundreds of millions we spend on if? And now this issue which will come at enormous cost. Give the money to the Local Fire Brigade instead - a much better outcome.

Phillip
3 hours ago

God forbid the day yours or my plane needs a fire on board whilst landing or taking off to be put out. That is the silliest rational I've ever read


Andrew Supercoach
3 hours ago


@Judith By the same logic, no qantas plane has ever crashed so why waste money training the crew to handle an emergency

Alexander

41 minutes ago

Judith's argument is not as silly as you think. Not suggesting we should not have a dedicated service at major airports but there's a good case for big savings with joint services at some other classes of airport. One size does not fit all, but rational outcomes would not suit the unions and might require cooperation between Commonwealth and State governments. As far as safety goes, it's more by good luck that we haven't had a major airline accident, a couple of close calls involving Qantas come to mind (Canberra approach below lowest safe, Mildura alternate fog bound landing) contributing factor?..our antiquated, expensive and union bound air traffic system. Again much of the problem is the money and not enough votes in it together with careless Ministers of both stripes. Alex in Rises as above.

MTF...P2