[Peetwo]

No "S" for safety in environment - Airservices Amendment Bill Committee Report. 

PDF link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ill/Report

Some report sections of interest...   

Proposed subsection 10B – Melbourne airspace and flight paths
5.4        Item 4 of the bill proposes to replace section 10 of the Air Services Act with new proposed sections 10AA, 10A, 10B and 10C. Proposed subsection 10B relates to the specific circumstances of flight paths over Melbourne.   
5.5        A number of submitters and particularly Melbourne community groups, supported changes to the way in which flight paths are managed in Melbourne. The EMG noted in this regard that the 'noise from increasing overflights is causing significant health and amenity impacts in Inner Melbourne'. It continued:

The problem arises from several sources; from helicopters flying and hovering over Inner Melbourne; from fixed wing aircraft on training or joy flights – some as low as 500 feet – and increasingly from heavy commercial aircraft approaching Tullamarine. The cumulative impacts are huge. People's quiet enjoyment of their houses and gardens is seriously affected and many residents have voiced their concerns.[3]

5.6        However, the point was made to the committee that Airservices does not have the authority to alter airspace classification as proposed in item 4 of the bill which introduces subsection 10B.
5.7        The Airspace Act is the governing legislation for matters relating to Australia-administered airspace. Under this Act, CASA is required to determine the airspace classification system and how it is deployed.[4] Noting this, Airservices made the point that:

...the proposed amendment to the Air Services Act 1995 cannot give Airservices the authority to implement the changes for Melbourne that the Bill is seeking.[5]

5.8        Similarly, DIRDC made the point that the proposed amendment would not give Airservices the authority to give effect to a flight path plan for Melbourne (without CASA approval) or result in a prohibition on helicopters and fixed wing aircraft from flying at less than 2,000 metres above sea level over residential areas.[6]
5.9        CASA also noted that the bill's intention to declare prohibited airspace for all airspace users below 2,000 meters was 'inconsistent and incompatible with the Airspace Act and regulations' for which it has responsibility. Moreover:

The bill is also inconsistent with CASA's power to declare restricted airspace, whereby CASA must conduct a risk-based assessment to support any airspace restriction. Airservices has no powers to restrict aircraft flight outside controlled airspace and CASA has no powers to declare prohibited airspace unless such a declaration is compatible with the Airspace Regulations.[7]

5.10      Furthermore, Airservices and CASA raised the question as to whether the flight restrictions as proposed under subsection 10B would be best placed in aviation-related regulation or in another form of regulation.[8] In this regard, CASA noted that the bill's provisions appear to be predicated on the idea that Airservices can 'design procedures and airspace' that focus primarily on noise reduction. However, the current legislation (including the Airspace Act) recognises safety as the primary consideration.[9] CASA concluded that the principles that underpinned the bill were inconsistent with current legislation for this reason.[10]
5.11      DIRDC and Airservices also warned of the impact of such changes if given legislative effect. DIRDC noted that the proposed amendments would cause:

...potential safety issues, unwarranted delays due to changes in arrival and departure paths and a significant increase in carbon emissions and fuel burn as well as increasing departures and arrivals over other residential areas.[11]

5.12      CASA raised similar concerns and concluded that:

The airspace aspects of this bill do not deliver the necessary outcomes required to support aviation (safety, efficiency and equitable access), and could generate significant environmental impacts. The bill would also have a major impact on the capacity and efficiency of airports around Melbourne, with likely significant economic impacts on both airspace users and passengers.[12]

&..

Proposed amendment to the definition of 'environment'
5.26      A number of submitters argued in favour of the proposed amendments to paragraph 8(1)(d) and subsection 9(2) of the Air Services Act to require Airservices to carry out activities to protect the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft, and associated effects. EMG's Mr Woodward succinctly captured commonly held views on the need for the amendment to the definition:

This includes direct and indirect effects of aircraft noise and defines the scope of those effects. There are many other communities suffering similar or even more severe noise assault across Australia, and the regulators must be held to account. The existing legislation is flawed. It provides little or no protection and redress for communities impacted by aircraft noise. This cannot be allowed to continue. There needs to be a better balance between a safe, efficient and effective air industry which identifies and recognises impacts on affected communities from aircraft noise.[25]

5.27      However, the AAA argued that it wasn't clear how the proposed amendment will result in any 'discernible benefit for impacted communities'. It noted that the considerations proposed were already taken into account by Airservices as part of its consultation processes as required under current legislation. AAA concluded that the amendment:

...will only further complicate an already complex issue, with the potential to unduly burden already limited Airservices resources and distract from its primary objective of safety.[26]

5.28      DIRDC suggested that the term 'environment' in the Air Services Act is broad and embraces a range of environmental impacts across all areas as well as addressing issues such as noise and emissions. DIRDC noted that in carrying out its functions, Airservices has long considered the environment to include the 'human and natural environment as well as built environments, consisting of community amenity and residential areas'.[27]
5.29      Rather than expanding the definition, DIRDC argued that the proposed amendment could be interpreted as narrower in scope to that provided for in the EPBC Act.[28] The Department of the Environment and Energy raised a similar concern, submitting that an explicit definition in the Air Services Act could be interpreted as inconsistent with the existing definition of 'environment' in the EPBC Act.[29] 
5.30      Airservices argued that the current definition meets the aspirations of the bill as it is already required to consider the impact of aircraft noise on communities.[30] CASA's Dr Aleck added that if environmental considerations were to be given equal weight to that of safety under the legislation, it would have serious repercussions for CASA and its remit.[31]

Senator RICE: I want to talk more broadly about how much you are actually required to control and mitigate the impacts on residents, and whether the existing legislation requires you to do that. You said that safety is your paramount concern. This legislation is actually adding community amenity and residential considerations into your legislative requirements, and there wasn't support for doing that. Dr Aleck and Mr Harfield, why do you see that as being problematic, and do you see it as being necessary?

Mr Harfield : We don't think it's necessary because we think that the definition of environment, as it currently stands in the act, covers our obligations to the community. The way it's written now is that as far as practicable the effects of aircraft operations on the environment et cetera, and we take the environment as being community impacts because of aircraft noise et cetera. We just don't think it's necessarily warranted to achieve the outcome, because we believe that's already there.

Dr Aleck : From CASA's perspective, much for the same reasons Mr Harfield suggested, we find that it's not necessary to do that, but, more problematically for us, our remit is actually narrower than Airservices'. Although we all agree this is about balancing interests—competing interests that are equally legitimate and strongly held in all quarters—we have no environmental function. We have no function that authorises us to take decisions on the basis of environmental impact. We have, quite deliberately and exclusively, a safety based function. In the process of exercising our powers in that space we're expected to take environmental considerations into account to the extent practicable—a formulation that is, I think, used in the bill as well. That means that in balancing interests there is a primary interest, an overriding interest, and the extent to which an environmental consideration is taken into account cannot weigh equally in respect of a safety matter. If legislatively that were changed, wherever that may sit, that would create a fundamental problem for what CASA's remit is all about. In the context of making legislation or engaging in the consultative processes of developing what legislation should be or what a rule should be about airspace designation there's the luxury to entertain those kinds of considerations. I think I would agree with Mr Harfield that there's probably room for improvement in that space, too, taking those considerations more broadly and more fully into account. That said, the ultimate determination, because of our functions, must be guided and directed by safety. We're not in a position to be able to balance, in an equal sense, an environmental consideration with a safety consideration, because it's not within our remit and, as I said, it was not meant to be in our remit to do that.

Senator RICE: That's from CASA's perspective. From Airservices' perspective, do you feel you are able under your current legislative remit to take noise and residents' concerns—under the heading of 'environment' that you have the power to actually be doing that? But what I hear—

Mr Harfield : The obligation is the way that you'd put it and factor those elements in in making the change. Fundamentally, once we've ensured the safety threshold is met then it's all about balancing the effects on the community with aircraft noise as well as, for example, emissions. That's one of the reasons why we try and look at more efficient flight paths to reduce fuel burn and things like that.

Dr Aleck : In balancing those considerations, which are motivated in part by an obligation as well as a goodwill attempt to get all the reasonable considerations on the table, when Airservices comes to CASA with a proposal or an expectation that airspace arrangements will be changed, our expectation and hope is that in meeting all those considerations we can grant that in a manner that is consistent with the overriding interest of safety. It's that overriding interest that may end up negating or minimising some of those other considerations that were taken into account in their consultative process.

For once I have to applaud the Dept and it's agencies for putting down what was yet another Green's led initiative to kill off aviation anywhere remotely near an urban environment, you've got to wonder how much expense was wasted in the process ...
However this Greens WOFTAM exercise also provides a perfect example of how the CASA Iron Ring conveniently slide out their Section 9A of the Act card if and when required:
https://www.casa.gov.au/book-page/purpose

Section 9 of the Act sets out CASA's functions which include the core function of conducting the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australian territory and the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory. Section 9A of the Act makes the emphasis CASA places on safety clear:

In exercising its powers and performing its functions CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Under the Airspace Act 2007, CASA also has responsibilities for the efficient, equitable and above all, safe administration of Australian administered airspace. The performance of CASA's functions under the Airspace Regulations 2007is expressly made subject to section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act.

So the above is an example of Dr Aleck waving the CASA remit 'safety' trump card. Now consider the following: ref - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...41#pid9141
 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) 


11. CASA is Australia’s safety regulator for civil air operations and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. CASA is responsible for the implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). ICAO has not developed SARPS regarding PSZs.
 
12. CASA have a role in the regulation of ICAO mandated Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). RESAs are sometimes confused with PSZs. A RESA is a cleared ground area extending from the end of the runway strip for the purpose of decelerating an aircraft if it overruns the runway. - The RESA? What about the OLS & Mr Peabody's RSW? - ref: Oversight or lack there of - Part IV - UDB!

That is an example of CASA, with slight of hand and smoke'n'mirrors, withdrawing their trump card and conveniently hiding behind the international standards card; i.e not required as ICAO says so. This is despite the fact that we have over 4000 notified differences to the ICAO SARPs - UDB! 

MTF...P2