[Peetwo]

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

Excerpt's from previous reference post:   

UTCOC - Example 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

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

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

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

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

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

First I call bullshit on this statement...

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

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

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

---

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

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

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

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

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

---

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

Purpose of Guideline 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber300

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


Hmm...incoming??    

MTF...P2 

AMROBA Addendum: 

Reference: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-2.pdf

Regulatory “Theft” – Its Real

This term was recently used by a politician, Mark Latham, in relation to people losing their properties as part of the new Western Sydney Airport development.

Aviation airport businesses have been, and continue to be, affected by “regulatory theft” policies that governments include in aviation Acts and Regulations that they basically created to split the aviation bureaucracy into a number of departments and agencies in 1998.

In particular, under the Airports Act, 1988, aviation businesses at metro and other airports have gone from ‘permanency of residency’ on airports to total uncertainty and many now live on a week by week arrangement depending on the (non-aviation) property development focus of current airport operators. Ministers approve airport development plans. Your Minister.

•      Airports bring benefits of the community, not just aviation businesses.

•      The more aviation businesses, the more benefits are brought to the community.

•      Less aviation businesses, less benefits are brought to the community.

•      If you only have an airstrip left, who will use it to bring benefits to the community?

•      This government endorsed model replaces aviation with non-aviation businesses.

Worse still, aviation businesses are now being given terminating leases so the property developers can replace their businesses with non-aviation businesses.

We have an Act that states the airport must primarily be used for aviation but just about all airports have a Minister approved Master Plan where airport property development is primarily the development of non-aviation commercial businesses at the expense of aviation businesses.

The collapsing of General Aviation since 1988 is not based on other economic or social reasons, it is really based on the regulatory “theft” of aviation dedicated premises at airports by government endorsed programs that replace aviation businesses with non-aviation commercial industrial site development.

Political party policies are nothing but public relations spin. In fact they are purposely misguiding spin treating small to medium aviation employers and employees as fools.

Senior bureaucrats that implement, or are supposed to implement political party policies, must also accept their role in the destruction of mainly airport located general aviation businesses, including manufacturers, design, training and private participation, in preference for other non-airline businesses.

Regulatory ”theft” is an apt description of the Airports Act and demonstrates the short term vision of our bureaucrats and politicians towards general aviation. 

Now that aviation businesses are being replaced with non-aviation businesses, less aviation businesses means less use of the airstrip and benefits to the local community. 

That is when the airport operators will lobby the government of the day to close the airstrip and taxiways for more non-aviation businesses. These property developers are too smart for the average politician or bureaucrat as many of our closed aviation businesses have found out.

The Minister, current and past, have created this decline of general aviation when they sign Airport Master Plans that include the replacement of aviation with non-aviation businesses. 

Foreign countries have a different approach, they see aviation as a sector with jobs.

Their governments actively obtain recognition of the aviation capabilities.  

International recognition has one big advantage to local aviation, it requires Australian aviation Acts and Regulations to be as close as practical with the ICAO Annexes Standards and Practices. This means harmonised with the FARs which the whole of GA supports.