[Peetwo]

Dear Politicians

This is what happens and how  - imagine this accident @ Essendon - tomorrow.

Aviation Safety ownership (CAA NZ) vs No Care, No Responsibility (CASA) -  

In the course of doing some AP research, into the CAA NZed Part 77 and associated legislative instruments/regulations for the effective oversight of navigable airspace outside of the airport perimeter, I came across a fascinating document that IMO perfectly highlights the bizarre dichotomy of a mature, world leading and ICAO compliant NAA (ie CAA NZ) versus our mob (CASA) who, on the overwhelming evidence, are completely disassociated from all reality when it comes to properly and proactively addressing/mitigating true aviation safety risk...           

First to set the scene some references - ref 1: Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.

...This bizarre situation where the aviation safety regulator's oversight responsibilities apparently stop at the airport fence and airspace boundaries is perfectly highlighted in the recently publicly released consultation company AviPro's review of the proposed HLS for the new Tweed Heads hospital: ref - https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/...iation.pdf
 

...Currently within Australia, there are no set rules or regulations applicable to the design, construction or placement of HLS’...

...CASA, as the regulator of aviation in Australia, divested itself of direct responsibility in the early 1990s and currently provides only basic operating guidelines via Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 92-2 (2) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Onshore Helicopter Landing Sites...

    
Ref - November 2009

Legislative Framework

R - 1 Authority to make Regulations: That the Civil Aviation Act is reviewed in the context of ensuring that CASA has the power to make regulations specifically concerning buildings, structures and objects that are located away from the vicinity of a certified or registered aerodrome...

Regulatory Structure

R - 3 Option 1 – Creation of Part 77 Objects that Affect Navigable Airspace

This option is designed to group all obstacle related regulation within one CASR Part. It is proposed that this CASR Part is designated CASR Part 77. This brings the regulation of obstacles in Australia in line with the regulatory structure applied in the United States and New Zealand.

For this option it is recommended that:

• CASA to start the process of developing new a CASR Part 77 that satisfies the recommendations outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 4
• the scope of the new CASR Part 77 includes all obstacles whether within the vicinity of an aerodrome or outside the vicinity of an aerodrome and the obstacle requirements and marking and lighting standards set out in CASR Part 139 be transferred to the new CASR Part 77

• the new CASR Part 77 include the standards for the notification of structures, buildings and objects that are in line with FAR Part 77
• the new CASR Part 77 include the following elements... 

Hmm...how did we get from November 2009 with a regulator that was proactively putting forward recommendations to effectively mitigate safety risk and oversight aviation safety issues outside the airport perimeter fence, to the situation today where it is apparently acceptable to have 1000s of innocent public, totally oblivious to the latent safety risk of shopping at a DFO complex next to an active runway handling high capacity jet aircraft each day - UDB...   

Reference 2: The noble Art - Embuggerance post #174 
[quote pid='10237' dateline='1556233603']
...All this bogus crap about the safety of Angel Flight and yet there the DFO still sits...

Ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid10225 & https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...uhi6j.html

..Helen van den Berg was spokeswoman for a campaign to close Essendon Airport for 13 years – but the group wound itself up two years ago after realising the fight was pointless.

"Why argue when nobody will act? You saw today, the premier shut down the argument about closing so quickly because commerce takes precedence over people," she said.

Labor's 1996 federal election campaign promised to shut the airport and turn it into film studios.

Ms van den Berg, who lives in Niddrie, said air safety bureaucrats had warned at that time that Essendon needed a far bigger buffer around its runways...

...Ms van den Berg said the aircraft in Tuesday's accident might have had more chance of reducing the crash severity if there had been open space around it.

"If I buy a ticket for Tullamarine, I know there is a buffer of green space around it. At Essendon, there's nothing."

...But Essendon Fields residents on Tuesday voiced their concerns about the height of buildings close to the airport.

Stephen Moore saw the aftermath of the plane crashing into the shopping centre. He was surprised "a building of that height that close to an airport" had been allowed...


...Brian, who did not want to give his last name, called the height of the apartments "ridiculous". The 55-year-old has lived most of his life in Essendon and said if the plane had missed the DFO, it would have hit the apartments.

"I don't know how they got away with building it that high that close to the airport. It's silly. When I was a kid, we were told off for flying kites."

---

Ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/essendon-airport-dfo-plans-call-safety-planning-into-question-20190115-p50re4.html

Keeping the above picture in mind the following is an extract from the now 22 year old, 28 page CAA NZ Part 77:

Ref -  https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/ru...dation.pdf

(1) it is located within an instrument flight procedures area that is
specified in ICAO document 8168–OPS/611, including standard
arrival routes, initial, intermediate, final, visual and missed
approach segment areas, departure areas and standard instrument
departure routes, and would result in—

(i) the vertical distance between any point on the structure
and an established minimum instrument flight altitude
within that area or segment being less than obstacle
clearance required for the instrument flight procedure; or
(ii) additional or new ceiling or visibility restrictions or a
change in flight procedures applicable to departures
within that area; or...

Okay now the reference document which you'll note was promulgated over a decade ago - 

https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/aerodromes/Guidance_Material_Aerodromes.pdf

Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an
Aerodrome

Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director of Civil
Aviation whenever a person intends to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an aerodrome.

This notice will enable the Director to identify whether the use of the airspace associated
with the aerodrome proposal will be a hazard to other established airspace users. It will
also allow identification of problems to do with the safety of persons and property on the
ground.

It is also necessary to consider efficient use of airspace at an early stage. The Director,
after receiving such notice, will give advice on the effects the proposal would have on the
use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the safety of persons and property on the
ground. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal
made.

The Part 157 rule requirements and Part 157 Advisory Circular are available on the CAA
web site www.caa.govt.nz

There is also a Part 157 information leaflet available from CAA or at:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/Aero_S...7_info.pdf

Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace

Civil Aviation Rule Part 77 prescribes rules for a person proposing to construct or alter a
structure that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace; or use of a structure, lights,
lasers, weapons, or pyrotechnics, that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace.
There are several areas that require a Part 77 application for a determination on such
objects and activities including:
• A structure that extends more than 60 m in height above the ground level at its site.
• A structure that exceeds the general tree height in the area by 18 m and is located in
an area of low level aerial activity or other low flying activity, or in a low flying
zone or low level route as prescribed under Part 71.
• A structure that is located below the approach or take-off surfaces of an aerodrome
as defined in Part 77.
• A structure that penetrates the obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome. 
A person proposing to use a structure that may discharge efflux at a velocity in
excess of 4.3 m per second through an obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome
or higher than 60 metres above ground level.
• A person proposing to operate a light or a laser if the light or laser is liable to
endanger aircraft.
• A person or organisation that proposes to use a weapon that fires or launches a
projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome
boundary, or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.
• A person who proposes to stage a pyrotechnics display that involves the firing or
launching of a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an
aerodrome boundary or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.

A person proposing to construct or alter a structure must notify the Director of Civil
Aviation 90 days before the proposed date of commencement of construction or alteration.

The specific requirements are detailed in Civil Aviation Rule 77.13.

An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made.
Full details and information on Part 77 requirements are available in the Part 77 Rule
which can be accessed at the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz.

..Local Authority Zoning

The CAA encourage local authorities to protect aerodromes in their areas to ensure the
long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the aircraft operations, and the
safety of persons and property. In addition to the required obstacle limitation surfaces other
areas can be specifically zoned to assure that future uses of the land are compatible with
airport operations and to protect persons and property. Zoning solely to obstacle limitation
surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or
uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas.

In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for
the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ
is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which
do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements
that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of
public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping
centres. 

Summary

Aerodromes have an important role in aviation safety in particular the safety of aircraft and
passengers. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Authority oversees aviation safety based
upon international aviation requirements. It is important that persons wanting to alter land
use near an aerodrome do so in consultation with the aerodrome operator, the relevant local
authority and, where necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority.

It is important that land use changes near aerodromes are also compliant with any Civil
Aviation Rule requirements.

Contacting the CAA

The Aeronautical Services Unit of the CAA has responsibilities for the oversight of the
services supporting the New Zealand aviation system. The unit is responsible for
certification and surveillance of aerodromes and heliports, and air traffic,
telecommunications, navigation, meteorological and aeronautical information services.

The unit also has responsibilities regarding airspace and Part 77 determinations for objects
affecting navigable airspace, such as structures, fireworks, unmanned balloons, kites and
model aircraft. They can offer advice on matters relating to Part 139 certificated
aerodromes and Part 157 aerodrome determinations.

They can be contacted by phoning the CAA on 04 560 9400 or through specific contact
details on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz

To follow that refreshing, informative and totally transparent regulatory guidance document - that highlights so clearly the difference between the CAA NZ ownership/effective oversight of anything affecting air navigation and public safety from air navigation outside of a Federally leased airport perimeter fence vs our self-serving, self-preserving, draconian Big-R regulator - the following is a link for the way the CAA NZ conduct their CAR 157 aeronautical studies and final determinations:

The Determination will be issued to the proponent, appropriate local authorities, and those who made submissions. The Determination will also be published on the Civil Aviation Authority website at www.caa.govt.nz

     
Meanwhile in Dunceunda land AIOS reaches epidemic proportions...  ref - AIOS - & the 21st Century??

MTF...P2 
[/quote]