[MrPeaBody]

"Fits Within the Template"......Pigs Arse!! Part 4

Thanks P2; and yes QON 113 was what I was referring to.....disgraceful!!!

Here are some selected lines from the 139 MOS:

7.1.1.2 An obstacle is defined as:

(a) any object that stands on, or stands above, the specified surface of an obstacle restriction area which comprises the runway strips, runway end safety areas, clearways and taxiway strips; and

(b) any object that penetrates the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), a series of surfaces that set the height limits of objects, around an aerodrome.

7.1.2.1 Objects, except for approved visual and navigational aids, must not be located within the obstacle restriction area of the aerodrome without the specific approval of CASA.

7.1.6 Objects That Could Become Obstacles

7.1.6.1 If a proposed object or structure is determined to be an obstacle, details of the proposal must be referred to CASA the Authority to determine whether it will be a hazard to aircraft operations.

7.1.6.5 Fences or levee banks. A fence or levee bank that penetrates the OLS must be treated as an obstacle.

So keeping in mind these choice extracts from the MOS, we have the following exchange.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?



Mr Carmody: Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

No Mr Carmody, there was a fence.



Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody: On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.



Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede: CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

No Mr Tiede, the DFO sits  within the obstacle restriction area and breaches through the obstacle limitation surfaces.



Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede: These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Really??



Mr Carmody: We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...

This guy couldn't lie straight in bed!

PB