[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK! - Federal Government abrogated responsibility to airport safety standards?? -  
 
Via LinkedIn:

Simon Hatfield
Airworks Consulting - Airport Operations/ Masterplans/Designs simon@airworksconsulting.com.au
4d

"..I think this article misses a number of key points. Take into consideration the aircraft that crashed was a Beech 200 Kingair and only requries a strip width of 140m overall under the CASA Part 139 rules - not 300 which is a requriement for a an A380 sized aircraft. The weight of the aircraft exceed takeoff (but did not contribute to the crash) it was put down to the flight control trim tabs being set incorrectly...(added to)...Ironically ICAO are looking to reduce the runway strip width and OLS standards. and they will certainly be a lot different to the ones we have now..."

---

AFAP response:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP)
5,571 followers
1d

The article - and the AFAP's commentary - focuses on the key point that the DFO buildings impinge on the runway. International and local laws dictate an Obstacle Limitation Surface (a "buffer" protected for aircraft operating during the initial and final stages of flight).

In reply to the AFAP LinkedIn post discussion:

 ...Not to mention that these standards and indeed all Australian airport safety standards should be properly oversighted by the Federal Government NASAG and the associated NASF guidelines B, F & I. Ref: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infras...guidelines

It is also worth contemplating that the NASF and safety risk mitigation at airports is meant to be properly oversighted by our ICAO Annex 19 SSP: Ref - https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/...-Areas.pdf

".. A: Safety at aerodromes is enhanced in a variety of ways and is governed by Australia's Aviation State Safety Programme (SSP), as required by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The SSP sets out Australia’s arrangements for maintaining and improving aviation safety. Under the umbrella of the SSP, Australia's aviation agencies and the aviation industry have significant roles to play in delivering quality safety outcomes. For example, runway safety is enhanced by airport operators through investment in infrastructure such as longer, wider landing strips; Runway End Safety Areas; dual taxi lanes on aprons; installation of runway stop bars; and upgraded approach lighting..." 

It is also worth reflecting on your (allied) 'Way Forward' in the AusALPA submission to the 2019 NASF consultation review:

A Way Forward

To be clear, AusALPA recognises that the economic decisions surrounding airports, i.e. determining the balance between the economic benefits of developments and the detriments to the accessibility, efficiency and capacity of an airport, rest entirely with the relevant jurisdiction within which the airport is situated or which retains legal control. The issues of enforceability and dispute resolution of development approvals would remain consistent with those jurisdictional norms.

However, contrary to current practice, we are proposing that the assessment, mitigation and enforcement of the safety consequences of all relevant developments be ceded by those jurisdictions to CASA as an independent decision-maker.

Consequently, CASA needs to change its model of how airport standards are applied and enforced so as to obviate the gaming of the system so exemplified by the Essendon experience or by the uncontrolled expansion of the thousands of airspace penetrations at Sydney. As a further consequence, DITCRD should seek major amendments to the Airports Act 1996 that change the current subservient and excessively constrained role attributed to CASA and that also clarify the safety considerations that ABCs must undertake in regard to minor developments.

Furthermore, we are proposing that the visibility of developments affecting the safety outcomes at airports is vastly improved in all jurisdictions.

The public interest is best served by accepting that the potential hazard created by a development is on or near an airport not a function of cost but rather the amalgam of the issues set out in the Guidelines. Each jurisdiction should commit to a public register of development proposals that may present a potential hazard to safe airport operations, enhanced by a published list of stakeholders who are alerted to each new relevant development submitted to the jurisdiction for approval.

  
MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK! - Federal Government abrogated responsibility to airport safety standards?? - Part II

Ref:

Via LinkedIn:

Simon Hatfield
Airworks Consulting - Airport Operations/ Masterplans/Designs simon@airworksconsulting.com.au
4d

"..I think this article misses a number of key points. Take into consideration the aircraft that crashed was a Beech 200 Kingair and only requries a strip width of 140m overall under the CASA Part 139 rules - not 300 which is a requriement for a an A380 sized aircraft. The weight of the aircraft exceed takeoff (but did not contribute to the crash) it was put down to the flight control trim tabs being set incorrectly...(added to)...Ironically ICAO are looking to reduce the runway strip width and OLS standards. and they will certainly be a lot different to the ones we have now..."

---

AFAP response:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP)
5,571 followers
1d

The article - and the AFAP's commentary - focuses on the key point that the DFO buildings impinge on the runway. International and local laws dictate an Obstacle Limitation Surface (a "buffer" protected for aircraft operating during the initial and final stages of flight).

In reply to the AFAP LinkedIn post discussion:

 ...Not to mention that these standards and indeed all Australian airport safety standards should be properly oversighted by the Federal Government NASAG and the associated NASF guidelines B, F & I. Ref: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infras...guidelines

It is also worth contemplating that the NASF and safety risk mitigation at airports is meant to be properly oversighted by our ICAO Annex 19 SSP: Ref - https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/...-Areas.pdf

".. A: Safety at aerodromes is enhanced in a variety of ways and is governed by Australia's Aviation State Safety Programme (SSP), as required by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The SSP sets out Australia’s arrangements for maintaining and improving aviation safety. Under the umbrella of the SSP, Australia's aviation agencies and the aviation industry have significant roles to play in delivering quality safety outcomes. For example, runway safety is enhanced by airport operators through investment in infrastructure such as longer, wider landing strips; Runway End Safety Areas; dual taxi lanes on aprons; installation of runway stop bars; and upgraded approach lighting..." 

It is also worth reflecting on your (allied) 'Way Forward' in the AusALPA submission to the 2019 NASF consultation review:

A Way Forward

To be clear, AusALPA recognises that the economic decisions surrounding airports, i.e. determining the balance between the economic benefits of developments and the detriments to the accessibility, efficiency and capacity of an airport, rest entirely with the relevant jurisdiction within which the airport is situated or which retains legal control. The issues of enforceability and dispute resolution of development approvals would remain consistent with those jurisdictional norms.

However, contrary to current practice, we are proposing that the assessment, mitigation and enforcement of the safety consequences of all relevant developments be ceded by those jurisdictions to CASA as an independent decision-maker.

Consequently, CASA needs to change its model of how airport standards are applied and enforced so as to obviate the gaming of the system so exemplified by the Essendon experience or by the uncontrolled expansion of the thousands of airspace penetrations at Sydney. As a further consequence, DITCRD should seek major amendments to the Airports Act 1996 that change the current subservient and excessively constrained role attributed to CASA and that also clarify the safety considerations that ABCs must undertake in regard to minor developments.

Furthermore, we are proposing that the visibility of developments affecting the safety outcomes at airports is vastly improved in all jurisdictions.

The public interest is best served by accepting that the potential hazard created by a development is on or near an airport not a function of cost but rather the amalgam of the issues set out in the Guidelines. Each jurisdiction should commit to a public register of development proposals that may present a potential hazard to safe airport operations, enhanced by a published list of stakeholders who are alerted to each new relevant development submitted to the jurisdiction for approval.

  

Additional AP references: https://auntypru.com/let-sleeping-dogs-l...ouse-them/ & https://auntypru.com/first-principals/

"..The BRB and the IOS have been digging beneath the surface of this brushed aside ‘non-event’. Seemed ‘passing strange’ that the whole thing was put away, cut, dried without a whimper of censure or even sensible questions on how the wretched building was allowed in the first place (in record time – by the way – Pel Air anyone?) Who approved it? How was it ever sanctioned? Who benefitted? All valid as yet unanswered questions. FDS the ‘politicians’ can’t seem to even differentiate between a ‘Runway End Zone’ and a ‘Public Safety Zone’. But then, as the old folk say, “there’s non so blind” etc. Meanwhile, dazzled by the thought of a discount, the public continue to roll out to the DFO not knowing they have entered the twilight zone. Hell the Vic government are even trying to flog off used road signs now; probably those remaining pointing to the Essendon DFO. So much for public safety as a political priority of the Snake Oil sales force..."

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A curious collection:-

Of small wonders, troubling coincidences and well spun faerie tales. There is also some 'Bollocks' to deal with first – the BRB did that last evening. P7 kicked it off by reading a post from a 'professional' – in the airport operations field:

“..I think this article misses a number of key points. Take into consideration the aircraft that crashed was a Beech 200 Kingair and only requries a strip width of 140m overall under the CASA Part 139 rules - not 300 which is a requriement for a an A380 sized aircraft. The weight of the aircraft exceed takeoff (but did not contribute to the crash) it was put down to the flight control trim tabs being set incorrectly...(added to)...Ironically ICAO are looking to reduce the runway strip width and OLS standards. and they will certainly be a lot different to the ones we have now..."

Spelling errors aside, it is worth examining some of the points made and questioning the disingenuous motivation for making the same. In short - “Bollocks”: called loud and long.

“Beech 200 Kingair and only requries a strip width of 140m overall under the CASA Part 139 rules - not 300 which is a requriement for a an A380 sized aircraft.”

True enough – but (big one) this has SFA to do with 'runway classification' does it. ICAO requirement for 'space' is predicated on the classification of the runway, not the aircraft which may or may not use it. Runway 17 code 3 – Runway 26 code 4.

P2 - “Hmm...what Simon says maybe technically correct from a CASA Part 139 rule set POV (Ref: CH6 para 6.17 Table 6.17 (4)). However what Simon says neglects the fact that runway 17 is a code 3 (non-precision) runway and runway 26 is a code 4 (precision approach) runway, which (even under the 468 pg CASR Part 139 MOS) requires a runway strip width of 280m.”

The next statement “it was put down to the flight control trim tabs being set incorrectly” - takes us into the world of 'funny about that'. Does it not strike anyone else as 'passing strange' that the 'full up elevator' trim tab (ATSB) was discounted and attributed to bouncing off the parapet wall; but the full left rudder trim was attributed to pilot error? WTD – take a look at the airframe schematics then wonder at the breathtaking audacity and convenient assumption parlayed into fact, the directors edited version gainsaying the IIC considerations?.......... .

If you discount the assumption that the rudder trim was off (for a moment) and consider the event from line up to time up – there are a couple of items which have been glossed over; the take off roll never looked 'right' the deviation began very early at low speed**, the acceleration 'reluctant'; the 'Mayday' calls began almost immediately with no serious attempt at correction made from power on to the full stop on the DFO roof. Now I could, under oath in court, provide a collective statement from a dozen seriously experienced Be200 pilots (call it 25,000 + hours, on -type'). All agree there were at least three sensible options a pilot could take – when the 'something not right' moment happened. When that happened is part of the puzzle, I digress. Option one about 40 knots – quick check – reset trim if out – or power off and exit runway. Option two at 80 knots – all good? No – then power off and exit. During the short period the flight lasted there were multiple, viable, routine options available to meet a basic rule of flying – safely go – safely stop. Not one of the standard options available was initiated; repeated Mayday calls the only action. Why?

P7. (buts in) ** I wonder if anyone checked the fine pitch stops / governor, just to eliminate etc.? curious is all...

Speculation here - on a coincidence – the events and actions taken at Mt Hotham occurred between 0800 and 0900; the Essendon event within the same time frame. The pilot was (ATSB report) taking 'multiple' medications to manage diabetes. There are side effects to this regime and when the medication was taken surely begs, at very least a serious question or two. Admittedly, it is a stretch and could be entirely coincidental – but the lack of positive action on that day at Essendon demands answers; the swift, glib Hood pronouncement of 'full left rudder' will not stand against the actions of a competent, qualified experienced pilot, in control of himself and his aircraft. Overloaded and full left rudder on take off – Bollocks.

That the DFO is encroaching on a safety margin; that the parapet wall is cynically designed and built to within a whisker of the margins to protect the precinct or that the DFO was involved becomes academic. Take a look at the overhead picture – the mosaic view – there is nowhere to go once clear of that end of the runway – nowhere that will not involve carnage. Legal build or not – don't signify, CASA have no business allowing anything to operate from that runway that does not have 'guaranteed' single engine performance.

Aye, spare a thought for the Coroner trying to sort this little lot out: can he/she find the Pea in this shell game?

Toot – toot....

[Peetwo]

IFALPA rate YMEN a 'Black Star'?? -  

Solid 'Gold Star' post "K", totally nailed many of the outstanding aberrations in this incredulous tale of extreme bureaucratic obfuscation and cover-up...  

On the subject of different coloured star ratings, I noted a curious additional post reply from the AFAP:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP)
5,612 followers
2d

IFALPA has #EssendonAirport listed as a "black star" airport for not meeting international #aviationsafety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

To begin IFALPA is the "The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations":

IFALPA is the global voice of pilots. An international not-for-profit organization, IFALPA represents over 110,000 pilots in over 70 countries. The mission of the Federation is to promote the highest level of aviation safety worldwide and to be the global advocate of the piloting profession; providing representation, services, and support to both our members and the aviation industry.

What does an IFALPA "Black Star" Airport rating signify?

Courtesy of 2014 post from the 'Airline Pilot Central' forum:

AIRPORTS RATED CRITICAL UNSATISFACTORY: GIVEN BLACK STAR BY INTL PILOTS
ORGANIZATION
by Michael Ravnitzky , mikerav at mindspring dot com

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA)
designates certain airports as "Black Star" Airports, meaning that those
airports are rated critical unsatisfactory according to IFALPA's safety
criteria. There are reportedly 2-3 dozen hazardous black star airports and
navigation areas.

IFALPA also grants lesser ratings for less severe safety concerns: Red
Stars are assigned to airports and navigation regions that are very
unsatisfactory, and Orange Stars to airports and regions that are
unsatisfactory.

IFALPA distributes these ratings to its members but not to the public.
However a copy of the IFALPA Black Star rating list was leaked to the press
in 1977, after the tragic runway collision of two 747 jumbo jets on Tenerife
in Spain's Canary Islands, and appeared in several publications.

The FAA apparently receives a copy of the IFALPA "Black Star" listing, as
does IFALPA's affiliate in the United States, the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA).

You can request a copy of the IFALPA's hazardous airport ratings identifying
airports receiving their Black Star listing (which presumably also contains
the red star and orange star ratings) from the FAA by sending a letter
mentioning the Freedom of Information Act to the following address:

Federal Aviation Administration
Attn: Ms. Tracy Paquin
Acting FOIA Program Director, ARC-40
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
USA
telephone number: (202) 267-9165
fax number: (202) 493-5032

Hmm...love to get a look at that list?? -   

In the course of looking into this 'black star' rating and it's significance to Australia, I came across a 2000 Parliamentary QON, ironically  addressed to the former DPM and Minister of Transport Mr John Anderson...

Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000:

(1) Has the Airline Pilots Association designated Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as a red star airport; if so, why.

(2) Will he investigate the concerns of the Airline Pilots Association; if so, what action will he take.

---

Mr Anderson (Deputy Prime Minister) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) Yes,- the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has written to me on matters concerning Sydney Airport, principally the 25 knot cross wind limitation, and advised that it has designated Sydney Airport as a `red star' airport.

(2) I view very seriously any safety concerns raised by airline pilot organisations and I have directed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to review their concerns as a matter of priority, in conjunction with Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia, and the aviation industry. The review is in progress.

Yet 4 years later DPM Anderson was to sign off on the Essendon Airport Operator's MDP (which included the DFO building complex plans) and ironically 20 years later the Essendon Airport was to receive a 'Black star' rating, largely due to the DFO being approved and built where it is today -   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

IFALPA Black Star Essendon Fields Airport?? cont/-

Solid 'Gold Star' post "K", totally nailed many of the outstanding aberrations in this incredulous tale of extreme bureaucratic obfuscation and cover-up...  

On the subject of different coloured star ratings, I noted a curious additional post reply from the AFAP:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP)
5,612 followers
2d

IFALPA has #EssendonAirport listed as a "black star" airport for not meeting international #aviationsafety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

To begin IFALPA is the "The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations":

IFALPA is the global voice of pilots. An international not-for-profit organization, IFALPA represents over 110,000 pilots in over 70 countries. The mission of the Federation is to promote the highest level of aviation safety worldwide and to be the global advocate of the piloting profession; providing representation, services, and support to both our members and the aviation industry.

What does an IFALPA "Black Star" Airport rating signify?

Courtesy of 2014 post from the 'Airline Pilot Central' forum:

AIRPORTS RATED CRITICAL UNSATISFACTORY: GIVEN BLACK STAR BY INTL PILOTS
ORGANIZATION
by Michael Ravnitzky , mikerav at mindspring dot com

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA)
designates certain airports as "Black Star" Airports, meaning that those
airports are rated critical unsatisfactory according to IFALPA's safety
criteria. There are reportedly 2-3 dozen hazardous black star airports and
navigation areas.

IFALPA also grants lesser ratings for less severe safety concerns: Red
Stars are assigned to airports and navigation regions that are very
unsatisfactory, and Orange Stars to airports and regions that are
unsatisfactory.

IFALPA distributes these ratings to its members but not to the public.
However a copy of the IFALPA Black Star rating list was leaked to the press
in 1977, after the tragic runway collision of two 747 jumbo jets on Tenerife
in Spain's Canary Islands, and appeared in several publications.

The FAA apparently receives a copy of the IFALPA "Black Star" listing, as
does IFALPA's affiliate in the United States, the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA).

You can request a copy of the IFALPA's hazardous airport ratings identifying
airports receiving their Black Star listing (which presumably also contains
the red star and orange star ratings) from the FAA by sending a letter
mentioning the Freedom of Information Act to the following address:

Federal Aviation Administration
Attn: Ms. Tracy Paquin
Acting FOIA Program Director, ARC-40
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
USA
telephone number: (202) 267-9165
fax number: (202) 493-5032

Hmm...love to get a look at that list?? -   

In the course of looking into this 'black star' rating and it's significance to Australia, I came across a 2000 Parliamentary QON, ironically  addressed to the former DPM and Minister of Transport Mr John Anderson...

Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000:

(1) Has the Airline Pilots Association designated Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as a red star airport; if so, why.

(2) Will he investigate the concerns of the Airline Pilots Association; if so, what action will he take.

---

Mr Anderson (Deputy Prime Minister) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) Yes,- the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has written to me on matters concerning Sydney Airport, principally the 25 knot cross wind limitation, and advised that it has designated Sydney Airport as a `red star' airport.

(2) I view very seriously any safety concerns raised by airline pilot organisations and I have directed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to review their concerns as a matter of priority, in conjunction with Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia, and the aviation industry. The review is in progress.

Yet 4 years later DPM Anderson was to sign off on the Essendon Airport Operator's MDP (which included the DFO building complex plans) and ironically 20 years later the Essendon Airport was to receive a 'Black star' rating, largely due to the DFO being approved and built where it is today -   

It is worth noting that AusALPA predicted the safety standard downgrade and threatened the black starring back in 2019: Ref - https://www.aipa.org.au/media/2095/02-07...tation.pdf









Plus: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...a6573bbf9b

Pilots push black-star rating for Essendon airport



Pilots will seek to have Essendon Fields Airport in Melbourne “black-starred” after a reduction in the width of the airway strip from 300m to 180m.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is concerned the change amounts to a critical deficiency at the airport, which recently won approval to carry aircraft up to 50 tonnes.

Effective since April 2, the decrease in width was signed off by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority despite an active investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the proximity of development to Essendon Fields.

The investigation was triggered by the 2017 crash of a charter plane carrying four American tourists, who died when the B200 King Air slammed into the DFO building after getting into strife on takeoff.

AFAP safety and technical manager Marcus Diamond said the federation’s concerns were exacerbated after learning the DFO building was only 128m from the centre of the runway.

“We don’t have any other airports at 180m that take 50-tonne aircraft in this country and nor should we because it’s going to be downright dangerous,” Mr Diamond said. “These aircraft need 300m runway width strip under all the international conventions. It’s a land grab whether or not they say it. They’ll be able to build more buildings and pretty much choke the airport out completely.”

He said they would seek to have Essendon Fields given a black-star rating at the next meeting of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Assoc­iations in Berlin later this month.

IFAPA compiled a list of “black-star designated” airports or air corridors around the world to alert pilots to potential hazards.

Other airports on the list include Siem Reap in Cambodia, Cebu and Manila in The Philippines and Jakarta in Indonesia.

Essendon Fields Airport director Andrew Nicholls insisted there was no safety issue at the airport. In a letter to airfield users, Mr Nicholls said the change returned the runway to the same width it was from 1972 to 2015.

“This will not reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport,” Mr Nicholls wrote.

“There will be no impact on the landing minimums.”

A CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

YMEN original test case for Australian obfuscation of international airport safety standards??

On the subject of IFALPA black starring airports throughout the world, I wonder how many of our other Federally leased airports, under proper expert review, run the risk of being 'critically unsatisfactory' in meeting international safety standards?? 

This extract from the 2019 Oz article absolutely blows my mind in terms of effective modern day airport safety risk mitigation...  :

"..Essendon Fields Airport director Andrew Nicholls insisted there was no safety issue at the airport. In a letter to airfield users, Mr Nicholls said the change returned the runway to the same width it was from 1972 to 2015.

“This will not reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport,” Mr Nicholls wrote.

“There will be no impact on the landing minimums.”

A CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields..."

The ignorance or arrogance of the EAPL Airport Director beggars belief. Effectively he is saying that after the inbuilt protections of the RW26 ILS at the minima are passed (or after wheels up on runway 17), OLS safety margins are no longer assured and pilots and their aircraft are on their own.

Safety may not have been reduced but I would argue that the internationally agreed to safety standards certainly have. Remember that the DFO building parapet wall was cynically built to within millimetres of the OLS (ICAO Annex 14/PANOPS defined) transitional slopes for both runway 26/08 and 17/35. Plus it should also be remembered that after EAPL took up CASA's suggestion of Grandfathering RW26 to the 1972 180m runway strip width, that when CASA revoked the legislative exemption 153/15, that EAPL took down the DFO obstruction warning lights...  

Moving onto the question of whether Essendon airport was the test case for how much urban developers could push the dizzy limit for encroaching on (internationally recognised) airport runway and public safety buffers? 

In terms of runway safety buffers, let us first refer to the following exchange between Senator Fawcett and Beaker at Budget Estimates 23 May 2012:

 

 

Now fast forward to a week after the DFO accident where the Herald Sun published this article: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sout...bde934#_=_

AVIATION experts have warned of the dangers of cramming commercial buildings onto airport land in the wake of the deadly Essendon crash.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia executive director Benjamin Morgan said the privatisation of airport land was one of the biggest issues faced by the aviation industry in the last 30 years and he held grave concerns for airports in fast-growing suburbs like Moorabbin.

“Moorabbin is one of those airports where we are seeing serious non-aviation developments,” Mr Morgan said.

He said using up airport land for retail and other businesses left no vacant land for use in an emergency and called for the government to remove some of these developments at airports nationwide.


Investigators scour the wreckage of a light plane crash in Chelsea in 2014. Picture: Eugene Hyland

“Building a DFO on an airport degrades aviation safety — that fact in itself proves these buildings should not be on airports.”

Aviation law expert Joe Wheeler said there was pressure to develop around airports for financial gain but the existence of these buildings in areas that should be ideally kept clear for emergencies was not the ideal thing for aviation safety.

Much of the land at Moorabbin Airport has already been developed into retail outlets like the large DFO and Costco stores.

Moorabbin Airport chief executive Paul Ferguson said planning and approval for on-airport developments at former federal airport sites including Moorabbin was covered by Commonwealth legislation and said approvals “take into account aeronautical operations and safety requirements.”

“Aviation is a safety based industry and welcomes every measure to make our industry safer,” Mr Ferguson said.


A light plane crashed into a house in Lower Dandenong Rd, Moorabbin, in 2010.

A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development said it considered advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia when deciding on on-airport development.

Those bodies assess the safety and operational impact of developments, “including their proximity to airside infrastructure such as runways,” he said.

“All certified airports in Australia, including Moorabbin, are licenced to operate by CASA and must meet their safety requirements.”

The 123 ha Moorabbin Airport precinct is an integrated mixed use business park with commercial, industrial, large format retail, leisure, entertainment and retail uses.

Plans are underway for another “Chifley South” precinct at the southern end of the airport with smaller retail and business outlets.

Just days before the Essendon crash on March 21, Coroner Audrey Jamieson raised concerns about Moorabbin Airport following a hearing into the death of pilot John Stephenson in a fiery crash into a house in Chelsea in 2014.

Coroner Audrey Jamieson said there were “huge public health and safety issues around Moorabbin Airport” and said she planned to visit the airport next month.

During the court hearing, assisting counsel Rebecca Cohen said statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau revealed there were 26 accidents, 111 incidents and 46 serious incidents within 25 kilometres of the airport between 2006 and 2015.

Ms Cohen said a ATSB 2013 study found the fatal and serious injury accident rate was more than five times higher in amateur built aircraft.

“This may have serious implications for the increasingly urbanised, residential vicinity around Moorabbin Airport,” she said.

Then in the same year, back to Budget Estimates for another Senator Fawcett probing on the lack of oversight and ignorance of the increased safety risk posed by encroachment of non-aviation development at airports:

And airport public safety zones:

Ref: Not only captive, culpable – but Catamite (and loving it).

Next the GAAAI on FB quoting from this ProAviation article: Albanese airport decision under AAT microscope

GAAAI - General Aviation & Airports Association
8 July at 23:17
  ·
“Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.

“The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.

“There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.

“The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions have been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.

“The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all federal airport leasing companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.”

Similar disputation has marred airport/operator relationships at some but not all other secondary airports. Bankstown based operators complain of ongoing intrusion of non-aviation development that has wiped out the only north-south runway available to general aviation in the Sydney basin and also taxiways, aircraft parking space and land they say should be held available for the growth of further aviation businesses.

Head lease holder Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) is also widely criticised by its tenants for degrading airport functionality through the length reduction of runway 04/22, and the loss of space available for helicopter emergency procedures training due to the encroachment of non-aviation commercial buildings, and “astronomical” lease rental increases.

---

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...cument.pdf

---

Finally and going full circle back to the YMEN DFO cover-up report, let me refer you to a "K" post from some five years ago...



Hmm...kind of nailed it didn't he?? - Choccy frog backdated "K"!   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AusALPA explains the importance of maintaining OLS safety standards?? - 

Reference previous post:

"..Essendon Fields Airport director Andrew Nicholls insisted there was no safety issue at the airport. In a letter to airfield users, Mr Nicholls said the change returned the runway to the same width it was from 1972 to 2015.

“This will not reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport,” Mr Nicholls wrote.

“There will be no impact on the landing minimums.”

A [/size]CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields..."

The ignorance or arrogance of the EAPL Airport Director beggars belief. Effectively he is saying that after the inbuilt protections of the RW26 ILS at the minima are passed (or after wheels up on runway 17), OLS safety margins are no longer assured and pilots and their aircraft are on their own.

Safety may not have been reduced but I would argue that the internationally agreed to safety standards certainly have. Remember that the DFO building parapet wall was cynically built to within millimetres of the OLS (ICAO Annex 14/PANOPS defined) transitional slopes for both runway 26/08 and 17/35. Plus it should also be remembered that after EAPL took up CASA's suggestion of Grandfathering RW26 to the 1972 180m runway strip width, that when CASA revoked the legislative exemption 153/15, that EAPL took down the DFO obstruction warning lights...  

Moving onto the question of whether Essendon airport was the test case for how much urban developers could push the dizzy limit for encroaching on (internationally recognised) airport runway and public safety buffers...

...back to Budget Estimates for another Senator Fawcett probing on the lack of oversight and ignorance of the increased safety risk posed by encroachment of non-aviation development at airports:

Via AusALPA 18 July 2018: Accepting Penetrations of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces at Australian Airports









MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dots-n-dashes on ICAO GRSAP, the SSP and the CASA O&O of the NRSG?? -    

In 2017 the 1st edition of the ICAO GRSAP (Global Runway Safety Action Plan) was published - see HERE.

Background

Since the first ICAO Global Runway Safety Symposium held in Montréal, Canada, in May 2011, ICAO and the Runway Safety Programme (RSP) Partners have been working together to minimize and mitigate the risks of runway incursions, runway excursions and other events linked to Runway Safety.

The ICAO runway safety programme involves substantial collaboration with partner organizations including: Airports Council International (ACI); the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO); the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL); the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF); the International Air Transport Association (IATA); the International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA); the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC); the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA); the International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA); and the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA).

In January 2017 the RSP Partners established a Runway Safety Action Plan Working Group (RSAP-WG) with the aim of reviewing the RSP achievements, objectives and priorities, and to develop a global runway safety action plan to be unveiled at the Second Global Runway Safety Symposium in Lima, Peru, 20-22 November 2017.

The objectives of the RSAP-WG included:
 Review runway related accident and serious incident data;
 Conduct a safety risk assessment of runway safety accident occurrence categories;
 Identify the runway safety risk priorities and high risk accident categories;
 Identify appropriate global mitigation actions; and
 Develop a Global Runway Safety Action Plan.

Through a review and analysis of runway safety occurrence data and risk analysis, the RSAPWG identified runway excursions and runway incursions as the main high risk occurrence categories. This Global Runway Safety Action Plan provides recommended actions for all runway safety stakeholders, with the aim of reducing the global rate of runway excursions and runway incursions.

The GRSAP recommended actions and initiatives was adopted in principle by the Australian Aviation Safety bureaucracy and subsequently embedded and became a theoretical function of our latest version of our tick-a-box Annex 19 SSP (refer pg 37 NRSG).

The NRSG is oversighted and administered by CASA: Ref - https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...#1.Purpose

1. Purpose

The National Runway Safety Group (NRSG) is a State Safety Programme (SSP) hazard-specific working group and has been established to facilitate State-level visibility and continuous improvement in safety performance, specific to runway safety in Australia.

The current membership of the GRSAP (apparently) includes:

• CASA (chair and coordination staff)
  
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
  
• Airservices
  
• Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
  
• Defence
  
• Australian Airports Association (AAA)
  
• Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
  
• Australian Airline Pilots Association (AusALPA)
  
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA)
  
• Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus)
  
• Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS)
  
• Airport operators (incl. capital-city, Metro-D and regional airports)
  
• Airlines
  
• Major flying schools/training organisations
  

 
The GRSAP is supposed to meet biannually but unfortunately, as seems to be standard form for CASA, there is a total lack of transparency on the outcome/minutes and/or findings from these meetings...

The only inkling that the meetings have been actually occurring, is from some of the AusALPA S&T newsletters - see HERE. 

E.G:

National Runway Safety Group (NRSG) Meeting

Members of the NRSG including representatives from the operators (Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Australia and RFDS), the major airports (Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth) and organisations (Airservices, CASA, ATSB and AusALPA) convened in October for its second meeting. The NRSG is a State Safety Programme (SSP) hazard-specific working group and has been established to facilitate state-level visibility and continuous improvement in safety performance, specific to runway safety in Australia.

Four sub-groups have been created/ absorbed by the NRSG namely: Preventable Go-Arounds; Metro D Airports; ATS/Airline Forum; and Communications.

---

National Runway Safety Group (NRSG) Meeting

AusALPA attended the NRSG meeting along with representatives from the operators (Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Australia and RFDS), the major airports (Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth) and organisations (Airservices, CASA, and ATSB). The NRSG forms part of the State Safety Programme, along with the Australian Aviation Wildlife Hazard Group, the ASTRA Council, and the various BoM industry groups; groups of which AusALPA is a key member.

(Note that AusALPA is also actively involved in most of the Federally owned major airport LRSTs, with the notable exception of Essendon.) 

Finally on an associated note with the current alarming airports and ATC safety risk issues, I note the following from the AFAP submission to the White Paper TOR that suggests that these issues will not be covered up forever:

TOR 4: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESSES AND CONSULTATION MECHANISMS THAT CONSIDER THE IMPACT AND CHANGING NATURE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND RELATED EXPECTATIONS ON THE ROLE OF NOISE SHARING AND CURFEW ARRANGEMENTS

Airport Development Planning is Broader than Noise and Curfew Issues

30. This  TOR  relates  airport  issues directly to  community  concerns  with  aircraft  noise.  The  AFAP believes this isn’t the most critical of concerns related to airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms.

31. Expanding the TOR to include aircraft operational safety is necessary.

32. The  Australian  Government’s  failure  to  reform  airport  planning   processes   has   caused   a degradation  of  airports  as  key  national  infrastructure,  contrary  to  the  intended  outcome  of providing aviation infrastructure that serves the Australian community.  Issues that need reform include a lack of coordination between levels of government, flawed adoption of national airport safeguarding frameworks, grandfathering of safety standards, unchecked non-aviation use of airport  land,  flawed  airspace  protection  regulations,  lack  of  transparency  in  airport  master development  plan consultation  processes,  and  inconsistency  on  applying  safety  standards  and pursuing  land  use  initiatives. The  AFAP  supports  establishing  a  public  independent  inquiry  to address these issues and achieve policy goals.

33. In recent years, the  AFAP has become concerned that AsA is inappropriately prioritising politics related to aircraft noise over that of the legislated priority of the safety of air navigation.

34. Community  backlash  after  there centre design  of arrival  routes  into Hobart  has  left AsA embarrassed. It appears that noise now disproportionately influences decision  making. In the following examples safety was clearly not the priority:

a. Support for increasing crosswind limitations for runway direction selection at Sydney airport beyond international safety standards.
b. Support for increasing the tailwind limits for runway direction selection at Brisbane airport beyond international safety standards,

35.Implementing more effective policy directions and accountability upon AsA as required by the Act needs to be included in the TORs.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Airport public self-serving safety risk mitigation obfuscation - Oz style?

Courtesy Clinton McKenzie, via the AvMad thread:

CM on a mission with CASA AvMad: Part II 

(For reference here is CASR 11.140: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/...1.140.html)


CM then follows up personally with Dr A... :

Clinton McKenzie

I sent an email to Jonathan Aleck today, in the following terms, after a discussion on Monday (28 Aug 23). The content is a good SITREP. (I note that I said to Jonathan, in advance of our discussion, that I would not treat the content as confidential, and the discussion proceeded on that basis.)

Hi again, Jonathan

Thanks for the discussion on Monday afternoon (28 August 23). My understanding is that you have been asked by the CEO/DAS for advice on the question whether CASR 11.140 applies to medical certificates. I look forward to being informed by the CEO/DAS of CASA’s position after the CEO/DAS has had an opportunity to consider your advice.

In the interim, are you able to explain the ‘status’ of the position stated by CASA’s ‘Regulatory Guidance’ staff? We are apparently now in circumstances in which the CEO/DAS could conceivably settle on a position different than that stated categorically (twice) by ‘Regulatory Guidance’ staff in response to my question and follow-up. Do ‘Regulatory Guidance’ staff communicate with CASA’s authority?

Apart from my view that I consider the position expressed by CASA’s ‘Regulatory Guidance’ staff to be dubious as a matter of statutory interpretation, I wrote to the CEO/DAS about CASR 11.140 because I’m mindful of reports that CASA told the ATSB, in the course of the latter’s investigation of the evolution of the OLS at Essendon, that written confirmation given to the operators of Essendon by a CASA officer as to the interpretation of the applicable rules was wrong and had no legal validity. I hasten to add that I realise this is just one (hearsay) side of what will almost certainly be a story with at least three sides. Nonetheless, I’m disconcerted by any prospect of CASA subsequently resiling from the substance of written communications, on serious matters involving the interpretation of civil aviation safety rules, sent by CASA staff in response to questions about those matters. That’s why I said, in my email to you of 25 August 23, that: “I’m surprised that the DAS’s/CEO’s response [to my letter of 7 August 23] was anything other than to confirm what the ‘Guidance Centre’ has already told me.”

In any event, I reiterate my thanks for the discussion and that I look forward to being informed by the CEO/DAS of CASA’s position after the CEO/DAS has had an opportunity to consider your advice.

Regards

This quote from CM..."I wrote to the CEO/DAS about CASR 11.140 because I’m mindful of reports that CASA told the ATSB, in the course of the latter’s investigation of the evolution of the OLS at Essendon, that written confirmation given to the operators of Essendon by a CASA officer as to the interpretation of the applicable rules was wrong and had no legal validity"...is consistent with previous observations made by CM - reference Airport public safety risk mitigation - Oz style?

Clinton McKenzie

Quote:

The ATSB investigation details a 2003 email it uncovered, in which an Essendon Airport management officer advised that CASA had agreed verbally to the airport applying a strip width of 180 metres rather than 300 metres.

Quote:

“This should open up about 36,000 square metres of new land for development,” the email says.

Essendon Airport relied heavily on a letter from a CASA officer confirming that interpretation a month later, but CASA told the ATSB investigation that advice was wrong and had no legal validity.

This is another example of CASA apparently ‘disowning’ responsibility for its own officer’s inconvenient actions.

It appears that the only way in which to have confidence that anything written by any CASA officer is CASA’s position is to write to the CEO and seek confirmation that the CEO acknowledges and accepts that what the CASA officer said is CASA’s position.

The actual paper trail starts from chapter 6, page 30 of the bollocks ATSB DFO approval process cover-up report.

In the lead up to the 'clanger' (IE the differential interpretation of RW 26 OLS ICAO Annex 14 safety standards between a CASA officer and the CASA Legal Services Division), which ultimately led to the DFO being approved to be built in total non-compliance with international safety standards, we start from page 35 under the heading 'Approval of the masterplan':

 

The ATSB’s review of the CASA files for Essendon Fields Airport identified that there was likely further engagement with EAPL about CASA’s views on the proposal to reduce the runway strip width. This occurred at the time the master plan was sent to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (the Minister) for approval. On 26 March 2003, a senior CASA officer obtained a briefing from other CASA officers about the previous correspondence between CASA and EAPL. The officer was advised in the briefing:

It is true that at a number of aerodromes equipped with ILS, due to terrain constraints, precision approach operations have been sanctioned where the runway strip widths are less than 300 m. This is allowed for in the standard and the reduced safety margin is recognised and sometimes compensated in the approach procedure. It should however be noted that this is a limitation imposed by site constraints. This is not the case for runway 08/26 therefore, it would be difficult to justify a reduction in the required standard especially for economic development reasons. This notwithstanding, the runway strip width may be reduced to 150 m if the ILS was decommissioned and replaced by a non-precision approach such as GPS.

Accordingly, before any action is taken to actually reduce the runway strip width to 150 m, CASA needs to be assured that appliable standards will not be breached, or a proper safety assessment is made for any non-compliance situation.

There was no evidence on the available files to show if any further advice was provided by CASA to either the Minister’s office or the Department. The Minister’s office was working to approve the master plan on 27 March 2003. On that same day, EAPL wrote to the Minister advising:

A provision of this draft Master Plan was a proposal to reduce the 08/26 runway strip width (for OLS calculation purposes) from 300 metres to 150 metres. This proposal’s intent was to seek a more suitable land envelope for the development of the Bulla Road Precinct.

…EAPL is now aware that this proposal has not yet attracted the support of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Accordingly, having reconsidered this matter and the process we undertook during the public consultation period to specifically address this issue, we have decided to withdraw the concept of reducing the runway strip width (for OLS calculation purposes) from 300 metres to 150 metres.

On 27 March 2003, the Minister approved the master plan with any references to reducing the runway strip width omitted. At the same time, EAPL published a 180 m runway strip width in the March 2003 version of the En Route Supplement Australia. 

ATSB observation41

The applicable aerodrome standards at the time required a strip width of 300 m for runway 08/26. Although EAPL, CASA and the Department were discussing the reduction of the runway strip width from 300 m to 150 m, there was no available evidence, which showed that EAPL had published a 300 m strip width. Rather, the 2001 aerodrome manual and 2003 En Route Supplement Australia indicated the strip width was 180 m.

In correspondence about the draft master plan, EAPL referred to reducing the runway strip width from 300 m for ‘OLS purposes’. Potentially, as set out in their 6 March 2003 letter to the Department, EAPL were seeking to differentiate the runway strip requirements from the OLS requirements. They published a 180 m runway strip width but believed they still had to locate the OLS transitional surface 150 m either side of the runway centreline.

Chapter 4 outlines ICAO’s view on how the standard for the transitional surface was constructed. ICAO’s view was that the location of the transitional surfaces was still determined by what the standard said the dimensions of runway strip width should be, which coincided with the width of the inner edge of the approach surface, and not what the published strip width was. This was consistent with EAPLs interpretation above that they would still require the ‘support of CASA’ to locate the transitional surface from a strip width less than 300 m despite the published runway strip already being less than that at 180 m. It was also consistent with CASA’s 2002 advice that a 300 m strip width was the origin for the transitional surface.

Which brings us up to CM's OBS above:

Essendon Airport Pty Ltd internal email

Records were obtained from EAPL and CASA covering the exchange on the applicability of MOS Part 139 and the required dimensions for the runway 08/26 strip width and associated OLS (below). The CASA files did not contain any further exchanges with EAPL on this matter. EAPL provided the following internal email dated 23 September 2003, where an EAPL office holder advised:

I’ve had some further correspondence with CASA this afternoon…

Following these discussions, CASA has agreed (verbally) to accept a 1-7 transitional surface from a 180 metre strip width, not the 300 metre Inner Edge [approach surface]. This will give us an additional 60 metres of depth across the 600 metre (or so) frontage. Importantly, this will not require any changes to the Master Plan because our runway width is already 180 metres. It is simply changing the past technical argument. There has been varying views even within CASA on this so we have 100% secure reason not to put in a variation to the Master Plan.

My view is that we can start development on 180 metres – without any approvals – as it is based off the existing specifications – but we have successfully argued a different interpretation…

This should open up about 36,000 square metres of new land for development.

Then FFWD to Chapter 6 pg 40 where we get to the final 'clanger' with CASA Legal's interpretation:

Subsequent positions on compliance with the standards

Chapter 8 documents a period from 2012 when questions were raised through CASA audits about compliance with the aerodrome standards for the runway 08/26 strip width and OLS. Since that time, CASA and EAPL have expressed varying views on compliance with the aerodrome standards during the master plan and major development plan processes and the construction of the Bulla Road Precinct development. Evidence showing the progression of these views is set out below.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s position on compliance

2015 recommendation form

Chapter 8 details CASA’s implementation in 2015 of instrument 153/15, which approved obstacles within a 300 m wide runway strip and required EAPL to declare the strip width as 300 m. The CASA recommendation form that led to issuing the instrument, stated that:

Runway 26 at Essendon Aerodrome is serviced by an Instrument Landing System and thus is a precision approach runway. Its status as a precision approach runway has hence remained unchanged since 1971. The ICAO Annex 14 standards require a 300 metre strip width to be provided for a Code 3 or Code 4 precision approach runway.

In 2003, Essendon Aerodrome wrote to CASA requesting clarification of the runway strip width requirements for Runway 08/26. [A CASA officer] from Aerodrome Standards responded via letter and stated that a transitional surface based upon a published 180 wide strip was acceptable. No mention was made of the actual strip standard published under the ‘Rules and Practices for Aerodromes’ which was in place at the time and the Manual of Standards Part 139 – Aerodromes.

The advice in CASA’s letter of 2 October 2003 was not supported by an official legal instrument. As such, it was subsequently assessed by the Legal Services Division as having no legal validity.

A separate assessment from the Aerodromes team has also concluded that the advice provided from [the officer] was incomplete and incorrect as it only referenced the Obstacle Limitation Surface based on published information and not the required standard for the actual strip

Upon the transition of Essendon Aerodrome to a Certified Aerodrome in 2005, the compliant strip width was not reinstated as part of this process. The Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) building [Bulla Road Precinct] was constructed at the aerodrome post Certification and was opened in October 2005.

We then go full circle back to that un-named CASA officer (ref pg 44)....  :

2022 ATSB draft report consultation

In response to consultation on the third draft of this report, EAPL advised the ATSB on 8 November 2022 that the section in the report on the varying positions on compliance with the standards:

…does not accurately record that EAPL sought confirmation from CASA on the compliance status [the 2003 letter from a CASA officer] and acted in accordance with CASA’s guidance on the same.

With respect to the absence of any evidence of a concession being obtained under the RPAs, EAPL advised:

It is important context that it appears no record that any concession was sought.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. Either a concession was sought, and granted, but the records were not duly transferred; or
2. A concession was not required as the aerodrome operator and CASA agreed that the standard of RPA 7.17.7 applied.

EAPL provided an alternative position to the need to have met practicability requirements:

There was no requirement in the MOS Part 139 (2003) for the runway to meet the practicability requirements, as the runway was an existing facility. Under the quoted extracts from that version of the MOS Part 139, no modification was required unless specifically directed by CASA or upgrading the runway to a more demanding aircraft. Neither such trigger occurred. An existing facility was only required to continue to comply with the standard that was applicable to it. That standard was the standard when it was constructed, i.e., the APEIs, which it continued to comply with.

A lack of clarity around whether, in the interim when the RPAs were the prevailing standards, a concession was required or the facility ought to have been grandfathered, does not change the requirement under the MOS Part 139.

EAPL further stated:

By virtue of the issuance of an aerodrome certificate to EAPL by CASA [May 2005], based on the aerodrome manual contents and the facilities physical characteristics, including the condition and published information regarding the runway strip width, it was reasonable for EAPL to take confidence that they were indeed compliant at the time of issue and at the time of the construction of the Bulla Road Precinct.

I note that, through all the decades of vomitus self-serving, system gaming, duck shoving, blame shifting, bureaucratic arse-covering [etc..etc] that is all now factually documented in the ATSB investigation report (now dubbed a safety study); there has never been an actual safety risk mitigation review/study conducted by any of the many interested parties and responsible authorities, into the possible implications of a high performance bizjet pile driving into the DFO during peak trading hours...

On 21 February 2017 these parties received a very real wake up call on why it is perhaps not the best idea to bend the rules on internationally accepted safety standards and going ahead and building a shopping centre in close proximity to active airport runways. If you wish to be further enlightened please refer to Essendon DFO accident: No MSM speculation here Christine?

   



Reality check dismissed??!! -   



 MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

THUD - As the other boot lands:

“I know enough of the world now to have almost lost the capacity of being much surprised by anything.”

I can't imagine why 'everyone' is so 'surprised' by discovering that at Bankstown aerodrome the 'other boot' has landed. The writing has been on the wall for a good long while now, indeed, AOPA have been documenting the relentless spread of 'commercial' development for a couple of years . Same- same for Camden.

All that was needed to 'see' the words writ large was a quick look at where the new airport was to be built; it may be found on an an ancient parchment a.k.a. 'a map', remember those? Overlay Mascot departure and arrival tracks, then look to see how the new paddock will disperse and bring in aircraft and the picture become very clear.

Dick's prayer:- (and only hope)...

“Having been involved in airspace over the years, I can see that it will be a great challenge in getting an appropriate design. I just hope the powers that be have made use of airspace experts from the USA – especially those that are familiar with the airspace in the LA basin. After all, we copied the Victor lane and the helicopter lanes on Sydney Harbour from the USA and they seem to work satisfactorily.”

Amen - is the only hope for the survival of Bankstown as a base for charter and training operations; those that can manage to support the outrageous, punitive tariffs imposed for operating off Commonwealth land, off an aerodrome built by 'the nation'.

“How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life”

That aside, there is the 'confidentiality' requirement; why? Dick nails down the juxtaposition ; why should it all be kept under a rug? It is a much needed national asset, Mascot is only open for business until 2300 hrs LMT (courtesy Albo and the inner West) the new facilities and ease of congestion can only be a good thing; so why go secret squirrel? AOPA 's comments (Morgan) further down the page are worth the time.

Not sure whether to laugh or weep though – the signature part of the 'confidentiality' agreement almost induced vomit – really a double barrel (antiquated) poseurs surname; can't decide pronouns and the coy use of an alleged native name for the area the capitol was built upon, with the tax payers capital? WTD are we becoming?

Toot – FDS – toot..........

[Peetwo]

Future of Moorabbin airport up in the air?? (7NEWS Melbourne)

Courtesy AFAP, via LinkedIn:

Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP)
5,777 followers
50m •

Moorabbin Airport Corporation Pty Ltd.'s Preliminary Draft Master Plan was rejected by the transport minister last year after complaints from #YourAFAP, City of Kingston and others. It proposed more non-aviation development (leaving only 40 hectares for aviation support) and involved removing more of the western end of the northern apron for commercial development, demolishing aircraft movement area and forcing out aviation businesses.
https://lnkd.in/g7ZHXKRg

Hmmm...sounds like a common theme running here?? - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Puppet Head Dickie King rubberstamps Moorabbin Master Plan?? - 



Heavily under siege ATM, perhaps the above (post #574) helped goad DK into actually making a Ministerial decision but is it a real positive or yet another nail in the GA coffin??

Via DK's bollocks Media pages:
  

Moorabbin Airport Master Plan approved

I have taken the decision to approve Moorabbin Airport’s next Master Plan following careful consideration and within the provisions available to me under the relevant legislation.

The new Master Plan will better protect the future of general aviation in Melbourne and set the future vision for one of Australia’s busiest airports.

I acknowledge that there have been stakeholder concerns with the master planning process relating to Moorabbin Airport, particularly around community engagement and general aviation planning processes. However, the plan resolves a number of stakeholder concerns raised with the previous draft and paves a strong path for growth.

This includes by setting flight training as a strategic driver of the airport’s development plan, with student numbers set to increase from the current 1,350 to 1,800 by 2041.

It tightens land use controls to protect the core aviation precinct, confirms the airside fence on the Western apron will not be moving, and highlights Moorabbin Airport Corporation’s commitment to act to minimise environmental impact in targeting net-zero by 2050.

The plan also forecasts strong employment growth that will make a real difference for the aviation sector and region, with the current 16,500 direct and indirect jobs set to grow to 23,100 by 2029.

This new Master Plan will provide the airport community the certainty it needs to plan and invest for the long term.

An aviation and economic pillar in Melbourne’s south-east, Moorabbin Airport is renowned for its flight training and supports a range of other aviation activities – from maintenance services to charter and recreational flights.

The airport’s new Master Plan sets out a 20-year strategic vision for the airport, canvassing critical areas such as future land uses, upcoming developments, noise impacts and environmental management.

The Government is developing an Aviation White Paper, expected to be released in the first half of 2024, and is welcoming feedback on a range of aviation issues, including airport planning. A Green Paper, which is the next step in the process, is expected to be released shortly.

I look forward to seeing Moorabbin Airport continue to play a pivotal role in Australian aviation and the economy by bringing in visitors, supporting employment and offering much-needed flight training and other air services.

Via the UP, some comments in reply...

Clare Prop

Sounds like the same wank words we got from Albanese's ministry for Jandakot about 15 years ago, when they snuck back in a Master Plan that had been rejected by the tenants.

---

thunderbird five

16,500 jobs there now? They would be lucky to have 500?

Any mention of taking all the leased land back, demolishing warehouses and building hangars?

---

Lead Balloon

Sounds like the same wank words we got from Albanese's ministry for Jandakot about 15 years ago, when they snuck back in a Master Plan that had been rejected by the tenants.

Yes - plenty of wank words in the recent Moorabbin announcement. When the Minister says this:

”I have taken the decision to approve Moorabbin Airport’s next Master Plan following careful consideration and within the provisions available to me under the relevant legislation.”

the Minister means:

”I have approved the Moorabbin Airport’s Master Plan.”

I could be wrong. Maybe one day a Minister will say:

I have taken the decision to approve [X airport’s] next Master Plan with complete disregard to the relevant legislation and following a night on the piss with the airport operator.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Regional Airports starved for Federal Funding?? - 

Albo and the insipid Miniscule DK put at risk the essential services and infrastructure provided by regional airports, including DK's own local airport.

Via the other Aunty...  : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/r.../102860646

Local ratepayers may not realise they're the ones keeping the airports afloat — and despite their financial support, they often run at a loss.

One example is the airstrip with a 70s brick block terminal on the edge of Ballarat, a regional Victorian city with a population of about 100,000 people.

This airport doesn't take commercial passenger flights. But the local council, which runs and owns it, says the region would be worse off without it.

"We do see it as a really valuable asset to our community," Mayor Des Hudson says.

"It's certainly not part of the three Rs that most people think local government is about: roads, rates and rubbish."

Local governments own and operate hundreds of airports around the country, but many operate at a loss and rely on ratepayers to stay in the air. Councils say more funding is needed to support their community's "valuable asset". A new report by an advocacy group for regional local governments has found there are 200 regional airports owned and operated by councils nationally. An estimated 60 per cent — or 120 airports — operate at a loss, Regional Capitals Australia (RCA) found, and many are dealing with ageing and insufficient infrastructure.

And the response from Albo and Dicky King...

In a statement, the federal government says it "recognises the important role that aviation plays [in] regional and remote communities" and it is currently consulting broadly through its Aviation White Paper.

Ah yes the White Paper and...

The GA DOOMSDAY CLOCK continues to go TICK..TOCK!   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Moorabbin Airport Masterplan - Miniscule Dicky King dodgy decision??

Hansard out, see - HERE - or PDF Version - HERE:

Senator McKENZIE: I want to go to the Moorabbin Airport master plan? Did the minister meet with any Moorabbin airport tenants or stakeholders prior to her making the decision to approve the master plan which was announced on 6 September?

Mr McClure : Certainly not to our knowledge.

Senator McKENZIE: You'd want to know! How, then, could the minister satisfy herself that the master plan was agreeable?

Mr McClure : The minister, for the most part, relied on the briefing that the department provided, based on the assessment of the fresh draft master plan under the Airports Act.

Senator McKENZIE: Were there any changes to the master plan design in the final approved version, compared to the earlier plan that was rejected?

Mr McClure : Yes, there was significant change to the aviation precincts and the types of development that would be permitted in those aviation precincts. Also there was a controversial issue around a fence in one of the zones which was assured and, in the master plan, it says it will stay in place. Through the fresh draft master plan, there was much more certainty around maintaining the aviation precinct as it was.

Senator McKENZIE: I'm assuming you briefed the minister to approve the master plan, despite these significant changes?

Mr McClure : We certainly briefed on the changes from the rejected plan to the fresh draft master plan, and we also briefed on how the fresh draft master plan lined up with the 2015 master plan that was still current, and on how issues around certainty for aviation tenants that that aviation precinct would be maintained had been improved through that fresh draft master plan.

Senator McKENZIE: Is that a long answer saying yes?

Mr McClure : Probably.

Senator McKENZIE: When Anthony Albanese, as minister for infrastructure, rejected the Moorabbin Airport major development plan and the Bankstown and Canberra airports master plans, the reasons were made public. Is there a reason why this minister for infrastructure, unlike the then minister for infrastructure—the now Prime Minister—won't be making the reasons for rejection or adoption public?

Mr McClure : The rejection of the original draft master plan was done by the former minister—the former deputy prime minister.

Senator McKENZIE: You said 2015.

Mr McClure : The 2015 plan is the plan that prevailed until we had the new plan. This minister approved the fresh draft master plan which got published.

Senator McKENZIE: Under the reasons for refusal as outlined in the letter from Deputy Prime Minister Joyce to the Moorabbin Airport Corporation obtained under FOI, one of the reasons was that there was apparently a lack of consultation with stakeholders; is that correct?

Mr McClure : That's correct.

Senator McKENZIE: So, given that all consultation for the 2021 master plan was conducted prior to the rejection of the first draft master plan, how did the department come to the conclusion that adequate consultation had occurred? You've just given evidence that the minister didn't go out on her own and have a few conversations, so we're assuming that all the consultation was done by the department?

Mr McClure : The requirements under the act are that the airport needs to undertake consultation. So, following the rejected master plan, there's no requirement for a further public exhibition period, but there was certainly an expectation, and we got detailed advice from Moorabbin Airport around the consultation they had taken with the stakeholders—state government, local government and others—in preparing the fresh draft.

Senator McKENZIE: So, in answer to my question, 'How did you come to the conclusion that adequate consultation had occurred?', you took the advice of Moorabbin Airport?

Mr McClure : We got detailed advice from Moorabbin Airport. We have engaged with—

Senator McKENZIE: Did you do anything outside of accepting Moorabbin Airport's assurances?

Mr McClure : We, from the department level, had engagement with a range of stakeholders, the local government and a number of the on-airport tenants. We attend the community aviation forum. So we are—

Senator McKENZIE: But, specifically on the master plan, there are significant changes, and we didn't go out and consult as we would on the first draft plan. There have been significant changes, and I'm hearing that neither the department nor the minister went out and conducted significant consultation on those changes but accepted Moorabbin Airport's assurances that they were consulted on.

Mr McClure : With all master plans, the requirement for public exhibition and public consultation lies with the airport. As I say, we have engagement separately with a range of stakeholders, but the actual public consultation process is something undertaken by airports in the development of major development plans and master plans.

Senator McKENZIE: Do you know who approved moving said fence? The fence was approved, I think, to be moved 50 metres to the east to allow construction of warehouses. Instead, it was moved 300 metres to the east, and there was additional road distance approved. Who made those approvals?

Mr McClure : Those issues—

Senator McKENZIE: I ask that because former Minister McCormack made some approvals, and it has gone way beyond what was actually approved.

Mr M cClure : Those decisions aren't things that are put to the minister or the department—what the determination is, what is allowed under the prevailing master plan. Under the 2015 master plan, there was nothing preventing the movement of that fence and the changes in the aviation precinct.

Senator McKENZIE: Did the department brief in favour of approving the master plan in its advice to the minister, or did the minister not accept the department 's advice?

Mr McClure : We generally don't go into specifics of what we recommended, but, as I outlined, we certainly were supportive of the improvements that were made.

Senator McKENZIE: Right. So the minister accepted the department's advice in this instance? Yes. I will take that as a yes.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AIPA on non-aviation Airport development etc..etc

Via the DK thread:

AIPA Green Paper submission: AIOS endemic under YSCB BUBBLE?? - 



Via AIPA:

AIPA’s Submission to Aviation Green Paper – Towards 2050

November 2023

AIPA has submitted a response to the Aviation Green Paper, expressing support for green goals while emphasizing the economic and connectivity role of aviation. AIPA calls for a comprehensive National Policy and a purposeful White Paper to benefit the aviation sector. Key areas addressed include safeguarding regional airports, balancing environmental goals, disappointment in noise-centric planning, advocating for general aviation support, addressing safety concerns in emerging technologies, and calling for regulatory transparency and agency fitness checks. The submission also emphasizes addressing workforce shortages, supporting Australia's global aviation leadership, and expressing concerns about the international airport designation process. AIPA remains committed to these priorities for the upcoming White Paper.

Click HERE to read the detailed submission.

From page 4:

3. Airport Development Planning Processes and Noise

It is disappointing that this theme is couched in terms of noise management. AIPA recognises the political sensitivity of noise generally, and have consistently communicated our position that pilots are minimising both the emissions and noise footprint of the aircraft we fly within the capabilities of the technology.

Importantly, there are safety considerations that limit our attempts to maximise efficiency. Flight path management is constrained by the need to avoid excessive tailwinds or crosswinds or manoeuvres that compromise handling and performance margins.

Whilst recognising the amenity of a peaceful lifestyle, our immediate and most compelling duty of care is to our passengers, followed closely by that to people on the ground under the immediate flight path of the aircraft.

Noise is but one obvious element to be considered in airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms. It is very difficult to avoid concluding that emphasising noise is just another way for DITRDCA to divert attention from the comprehensive failures inherent in both the legislation and the implementation of the framework by DITRDCA, aided and abetted by CASA.

AIPA believes that the proposed theme should be amended by removing the words “airport development”
so that it now encompasses all facets of aviation system planning to embrace noise considerations.

The new theme would be “planning processes and consultation mechanisms that consider the impact and changing nature of aircraft noise and related expectations on the role of noise sharing and curfew arrangements”.

An additional theme of “how to improve the development and safeguarding of Australia’s aviation infrastructure” would then allow the examination of airport development planning, airport and airspace safeguarding and Commonwealth airport lease management free of the politics of noise.

It is useful to re-examine some legislative history in support of those proposed changes.

The Airports Amendment Act 2010

The Airports Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 September 2010 and was passed by the House on 25 October 2010. The purpose of the Bill was to bring into effect the legislative reforms announced in the 2009 White Paper, to improve the regulatory framework in relation to planning. The Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an Inquiry into the Bill and published its report in November 2010.

The Committee report records the laudable aims of the amendments that were, in large measure, to ensure that the leased Commonwealth airports retained their primary purpose as airports, that “incompatible” developments would be controlled and that consultation mechanisms would be improved by creating a more transparent regulatory framework that balances the interests of communities with the need for ongoing infrastructure investment on airport land. The Bill was enacted and received assent on 17 December 2010.

The Airports Amendment Act 2018

The Airports Amendment Bill 2016 was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (committee) for inquiry on 9 February 2017. The purpose of the Bill was to amend several administrative arrangements relating to MPs and MDPs, to offer 'more flexible, proportionate' and efficient regulatory responses. The Bill proposed to extend the Master Plan cycle and to increase the monetary threshold for Master Development Plans (MDPs) from $20M to $35M. The Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an Inquiry into the Bill and published its report in March 2018.

AIPA unsuccessfully called for a provision requiring an MDP to properly consider developments 'likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport' and that may 'compromise the efficient operation of airports'. Such a provision would require operational risks to be assessed, regardless of development costs. In any event, the monetary trigger for MDPs was subsequently amended to $25M. The Bill was enacted and received assent on 21 September 2018.

The Senate Committee report also included a relevant comment on the Essendon DFO accident:

4.45 The recently announced ATSB investigation into the building approval process for buildings around Essendon Airport, resulting from the Essendon crash, will play an important role in progressing discussions about aviation safety in relation to urban development. As previously noted, the findings of this investigation should be carefully considered in the context of legislative changes to airport planning laws.
4.46 The committee hopes that the important work of NASAG goes some way to addressing the concerns of stakeholders about building and structures near runways, and the impact these have on safe aircraft operation.
4.47 It appears to the committee that the encroachment of developments, be they residential or commercial, on and near airport land presents significant safety concerns. It is essential that safety in and around airports is given proper consideration at all times, without being overridden by commercial pressures.
4.48 The committee is of the view that a holistic approach should be taken to airport planning, and this should be reflected in the MP process. It should be incumbent on all airport lessees, developers and planners to do more than the bare minimum to adhere to airport planning legislation and frameworks, in order to give proper consideration to broader safety considerations.

Where are we now?

In relation to the ATSB investigation into the building approval process at Essendon2, AIPA understands that the final report has been significantly delayed during the Directly Involved Parties (DIP) process by DITRDCA and CASA and that the investigation is no longer supported by the Chief Commissioner.

The first draft report was provided to DIPs in the last quarter of 2019, yet the anticipated completion date is this quarter of 2023. Although we had great expectations that the ATSB would provide valuable insight into the planning controls on Commonwealth leased airports, that is no longer the case.

Protection of the airspace at Essendon has been an abject failure. In our view, the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) have been manipulated by the Airport Lease Company (ALC) to promote non-aviation development, watched by a profoundly powerless CASA and accepted by a disinterested DITRDCA. The approval of the iFly building revealed that NASF Guideline B studies were not required by the Airport Building Controller, DITRDCA or CASA despite what we estimated was a penetration of the OLS by several metres and its immediate proximity to the runway.

At Moorabbin, we have the general aviation industry being squeezed out by non-aviation-related activities as well as the creation of building-induced turbulence on the runways. Perhaps more stunningly, after having the proposed Master Plan rejected by the Minister, the ALC refuses to further engage with stakeholders on the revised plan, apparently with the support of DITRDCA. In our strong view, nothing could be further from the aims of the Airports Amendment Act 2010 – instead of transparency, we now have secrecy and obfuscation writ large.

In Sydney, continuing concerns about turbulence from the activities in Port Botany has revealed that under the definition of a “controlled activity” in s182 of the Airports Act 1996 ships that sail into Hayes Dock are excluded from the ambit of S182(1)© because they are not “attached to, or in physical contact with, the ground” and, moreover, if a transiting ship penetrates prescribed airspace before docking, the act of mooring the vessel cannot change the nature of the existing penetration into a “controlled activity”.

Apparently DITRDCA might consider whether ships are really obstacles when the current regulations sunset in 2024. That fact that both CASA and DITRDCA have known for the last three years that the very physical obstruction of the Queen Mary parked at the end of the north-south runways is legally invisible yet there has been no action by either agency on safety or any other grounds beggar’s belief. It is emblematic of the systemic failure of airport and airspace safeguarding since 2009.

What do we need to do?

AIPA believes that the problems endemic in airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms require an independent expert inquiry to examine the legislative and cultural failures and to reset the way forward.
In any event, airport and airspace safeguarding should not be left to guidelines that have no force of law in any jurisdiction and, even when there is some degree of legislative power, enforcement should not be left in the hands of the institutionally timid DITRDCA.

The proposed changes to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) as detailed in the ICAO State Letter are due to come into effect in November 2028. These surfaces include an Obstacle Free Surface (OFS) and an Obstacle Evaluation Surface (OES). The OFS is based on rigorous statistical analysis and rationale which is “justifiable and defendable”. The OFS will be steeper, narrower and shorter in length allowing more airspace to be used for development. The stated aim, however, is that:

Obstacle Free Surfaces (OFS) shall not be penetrated, except for special considerations for existing terrain and obstacles – (approach, transitional and balked landing surfaces are to be categorised as OFS).

Airspace Protection exists only in name and is limited to Federal Leased Airports. The NASF needs to be legislated in every State and Territory (as was the undertaking) rather than relying on them as Guidelines, which has not worked in practice. Proper zoning needs to be enforced to prevent residential properties being built close to airports or under known or future flight paths. Finally, a better mechanism needs to be established to prevent permanent penetrations of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. The new ICAO OLS Standards and Recommended Practices are scheduled to be implemented in 2028. Without a “Head of Power”, such as the Part 77 (used in the US and NZ), abuses of the system will continue and with the reduced OLS dimensions, the situation will be worse than today.

The aforementioned “special considerations” are existing terrain and obstacles, the latter to be considered after an aeronautical study which may result in their removal or the requirement for (additional) mitigation. New obstacles should not be allowed. This new surface, however, will be meaningless, without a “Head of Power” to enforce it, such as the Part 77- SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE, as exists in the USA and New Zealand. Without this, the new OFS will have reduced the airspace for aviation without protecting it and there will continue to be frequent penetrations of the OLS being approved, as is presently the case.

ICAO proposed a “standardised” OES but provides the flexibility for airports to tailor it to their operations. An aeronautical study will be triggered if the OES is penetrated and, although the criteria is laid out in the PANS-Aerodrome, there are no “rules” on who will perform this study and who will be the arbiter. Without strict oversight, these “performance-based regulations” will enable abuses and further encroachment into the so-called protected airspace.

The onus should be on the proponent to provide the safety case, whilst the overriding priorities must remain the safety and regularity of flight.

The White Paper needs to commit to a complete overhaul of the management and safeguarding of vital Commonwealth assets.

Hmm...I wonder if AIPA could provide/have provided a briefing for the Shadow Minister Senator McKenzie?

153. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber153

Question
1. Chapter 7 of the ATSB report titled ''Aerodrome design standards and the Bulla Road Precinct development at Essendon Fields Airport'' notes that there was no regulatory assurance framework between CASA and Airservices to the Department of Infrastructure prior to 2019.

Will the Department be conducting an audit on all structures constructed prior to 2019, on federal aviation land, to ensure compliance with the current safety standards, as these structures were approved prior to the safety assurance framework being implemented?

2. If this has been undertaken, what evidence does the Department of Infrastructure have on the results?

154. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber154

Question
Under the Airports Act, the Department of Infrastructure are meant to ensure all airport master plans and major development plans comply with the relevant state or territories planning scheme.
How did the Minister confirm the veracity of what is contained in the master plan or major development plan and that it complies with the relevant planning schemes?

155. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber155

Question
1. Under the Airports Act, any construction totalling greater than $25M requires a major development plan. Note that Airports Act stipulates that any projects constructed concurrently and consecutively should be aggregated to the $25M.

Did the clearing of the aviation land, construction of these three buildings and the road cost more than $25M? If it is considered to be under $25M, how was this assessed?

2. Was an exemption sought from the major development plan process?

3. Was an exemption approved from the major development plan process?

156. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber156

Question
Given the department's previous concerns from the 2015 Master Plan at Moorabbin, in looking at other similar training airports around the country, has the development of the non-aviation sector at Moorabbin overshadowed aviation development to the expense of General Aviation?

157. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber157

Question

1. Is the Department of Infrastructure aware that despite government policy that no tenant was to be evicted during the COVID pandemic, Moorabbin Airport Corporation was evicting tenants during this time under these lease arrangements?
2. If the Minister will not meet with the Airport tenants, would the Department be willing to meet with them and to explain the reasons why the Masterplan was approved?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dick Smith Airport Camera Funding continues - 

Via FB:

GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS AUSTRALIA
Aus Webb  ·
5 days ago
  ·
More camera funding thanks to Dick Smith in 2024.

In case you've been living under a rock for the last year... Dick Smith last year donated $10,000 towards expanding the number of airport weather cameras in Australia - read more here: https://www.australianflying.com.au/late...F3LsO-ISQ6 We managed to get new weather cameras at 26 sites across Australia.
Well, with another huge thank you to Dick Smith, we're doing it all again this year with yet ANOTHER donation!

If your airport or a suitable location are interested in hosting weather cameras provided by Dick Smith and Aus Web Cams, please reach out to me either here, via PM or you can email cameraoffer@auswebcams.com Be sure to provide contact information such as a phone number and email, the location and why you feel that they are needed in this location.

Bonus points for remote locations, especially in FNQ, NT and WA!

I'll endeavour to update this thread as new sites are chosen.

Get in quick as this all happened very quickly last time as there was a lot of interest.
You can view the cameras here: https://myairportcams.com or in your Favourite EFB, Windy or Ventusky.

Thanks for reading.

Brent.

Comment in reply from Sandy:

Sandy Reith

Dick’s brilliant idea lives on and expands with his generosity.

Now we need to inspire the reforms by government that will cause a great revival of GA with jobs and businesses.

First and foremost put aviation back into a Department of Government, this is a necessary step because the Westminster system requires the arms of government to have an elected person to have the ultimate responsibility.

This creates a line of responsibilitity from us as voters and our representatives.

A policy to protect Commonwealth airports from non aviation development which is against National security as we lose irreplaceable airport infrastructure.

Then some specific reforms that will align our rules with ICAO and the USA which would see great opportunities for Australian aviation businesses to expand into other parts of the world, quite apart from local expansions of GA businesses.

Some immediate reforms too, such as delete the ASIC requirement as recommended by the government’s own Forsyth report of 1014.

Ring write contact your MP and State Senators asking what policies will they pursue to revitalise Australia’s GA industry.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Kingston Council Aircraft Noise Inquiry submission - SOLID GOLD! - 

Via the RRAT Aircraft Noise Inquiry submissions webpage: 53 City of Kingston (PDF 487 KB)













MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dear Senator McKenzie a BRB 'HOW TO' on amending the Airport's Act!! -   

Via the useless miniscule Dicky King's thread:

Miniscule a' la King on QON non-answers and ignoring industry concerns on Airport DRAFT Masterplans? - 

...Next Betsy and his Minions (read 1st Assistant Secretary Ms Stephanie Werner) abysmal (under the bubble) attitude to the decimation of our secondary and regional ALOP airports...

Via YouTube:

And from Hansard:

Senator McKENZIE: There are a lot of people in and around Moorabbin Airport—and on Moorabbin Airport—who are very concerned with changes to the draft plan. After it was not approved by one minister, changes were made and it did not go out for additional consultation on those changes, which several people believe will have a material impact on operations. So I want to understand why we would not actually go back to those additional public submissions for a fresh draft master plan for Moorabbin Airport.

Ms Werner : The reason that we have not done that is we are unable to compel Moorabbin Airport to do that.

Senator McKENZIE: Have you got legal advice to suggest that?

Ms Werner : I could not comment on the content of legal advice.

Senator McKENZIE: Why? Is it a public interest immunity issue?

Ms Werner : Generally, we do not disclose the content of our legal advice. But I am telling you that we cannot compel them to consult on the revised master plan for Moorabbin Airport, under the Airports Act.

Senator McKENZIE: What would we need to change in the Airports Act for that to happen?

Ms Werner : There would need to be a provision. Under the Airports Act, if the minister rejects a master plan the proponent is able to submit a fresh draft master plan. The Airports Act would need to be amended to require that the fresh draft master plan also needs to be subject to public consultation. At the moment that provision does not appear in the Airports Act.

   
Hmm...fancy that (underlined above) a politician speaking like a Legislator??   

Senator McKENZIE: So there's nothing actually precluding the minister. It's not a requirement in the act for Moorabbin Airport to undertake consultation, so they're not going to do it because they don't see it in their interest. But nothing precludes Minister King from engaging in this. If she was of a mind to understand the public disquiet or the council's disquiet, what powers does she have if she's of a different view to Moorabbin Airport about the draft plan?

Ms Werner : Vis-a-vis consultation.

Senator McKENZIE: Vis-a-vis approval of a draft plan she doesn't agree with?

Ms Werner : Her alternative is to reject it.

Senator McKENZIE: And just continue to reject it?

Ms Werner : Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: But can she give them advice on what would make it acceptable?

Ms Werner : Yes, she has to deliver a statement of reasons which explains why she's rejected it.

Senator McKENZIE: Was the department made aware of Kingston City Council sharing legal advice with the minister?

Ms Werner : Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: And what did that legal advice say?

Ms Werner : I don't have any notes on that. I'm going from memory, but Kingston City Council took a different view from us and was of the view that this did require a fresh round of consultation.

Senator McKENZIE: We've got competing legal advice at 20 paces. How unusual! Our entire system is built on that. What does the minister think? She has got a set of legal advice from you and a set of legal advice that she's been made aware of from Kingston City Council.

Ms Werner : Yes, she's got legal advice from—

Senator McKENZIE: Multiple sources?

Ms Werner : She's got legal advice from her lawyers and she's accepted that advice.

Senator McKENZIE: Did she seek a meeting? Has she had a meeting with the Kingston City Council?

Ms Werner : Not that I am aware of, but I'd have to check.

Senator McKENZIE: If you could check that would be fantastic. Has she had a meeting with general aviation businesses in Moorabbin airport?

Ms Werner : Not that I am aware of. I'd have to check with her office.

Senator McKENZIE: In terms of receiving two competing pieces of legal advice—

Ms Werner : The minister received one piece of legal advice from her lawyers. Kingston City Council received its own legal advice. And the two pieces of legal advice differed.

Senator McKENZIE: I get that. And she chose to accept—

Ms Werner : The advice from the Australian Government Solicitor on Australian legislation, yes.

Senator McKENZIE: Did the brief or advice that went up to the minister critique the Kingston City Council's advice or just give—

Ms Werner : Yes, we sought legal advice on Kingston City Council's legal advice.

Senator McKENZIE: Was this discussed with the local member for Moorabbin?

Ms Werner : I have no information as to that.

Senator McKENZIE: Did Minister King meet with the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus?

Ms Werner : Not that I'm aware of.

Senator Chisholm: We're happy to take it on notice.

Senator McKENZIE: If you could take on notice the correspondence between the Attorney-General—not on the legality but as a local member and a member for Victoria, because my understanding is he has had meetings with this community.

Hmm...so the lazy Miniscule Dicky King simply chose not to stand up for and consider the concerns of the industry stakeholders and the Kingston City Council in favour of ticking and flicking a Masterplan that will see further operational restrictions and impediments to the surviving GA airport tenants...

The final damning OBS from Senator McDonald...

Senator McDONALD: Could I ask a follow-up question?

Senator McKENZIE: Go for it.

Senator McDONALD: Who was the responsible department official on Moorabbin? Is it you, Ms Werner?

Ms Werner : No, Senator. This was well before my time, I'm afraid. The responsible departmental official at the time—I'm sorry, I'd have to take that on notice.

Senator McDONALD: But the decision's been made? It's not still ongoing—the master plan review?

Ms Werner : No, the decision's been made.

Senator McDONALD: Have any of the officials at the table been out to Moorabbin Airport?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I haven't.

Ms Werner : I haven't.

Senator McDONALD: It would be instructional to go out and see what a disaster it is—the master planning process—and what an outrageous decision has been made, over many years, to allow the development of that site that's driven out general aviation. It is absolutely appalling, and, Mr Betts, I would suggest that you or some of your department take an interest in what's happening at these airports right across Australia. It's a national embarrassment.

So to the question...

"...Ms Werner : Generally, we do not disclose the content of our legal advice. But I am telling you that we cannot compel them to consult on the revised master plan for Moorabbin Airport, under the Airports Act.

Senator McKENZIE: What would we need to change in the Airports Act for that to happen?.."

Via the AP email chains, this is what BRB team member CM came up with for possible amendments to the Airports Act 1996...  : Airports Act Amendments

---

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Ben Morgan AOPA Oz latest on YSBK & YSBU Airports?? -

Previous reference: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid14350

Via YouTube:

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Dicky King proves she has NFI (and no interest) in Airport management?? - 

Via DK's woeful MR pages:

NICK RHEINBERGER: Now, while I’ve got you, you’ve got a pretty comprehensive portfolio. Infrastructure covers a lot, including the new Sydney Airport in western Sydney [sic]. There’s some reforms you’ve announced about the way slots are allocated – that is, what plane lands at what time. How does it work currently?

CATHERINE KING: So the way in which the slot systems work– so obviously, Kingsford Smith Airport has two constraints on it. It has both a movement cap of 80 movements per rolling shift– per rolling hour, and then it also has a curfew on it. So it has a constrained airspace in that sense that you’ve only got a certain amount of spaces that are there. The slots legislation, which hasn’t really been reformed for over 27 years, allocates slots on this basis– so regional services are guaranteed certain slots, and then those slots are allocated on the basis of divvying that up amongst the access that’s required by different airlines. And then if they don’t use those slots, then they lose them. But the problem has been there hasn’t really been an audit of what’s been happening for slots for a long time. So we announced back in February that we would undertake an audit of those slots and that slot system, and that is already underway. We then said that one of the problems also, and appointed to by the ACCC over a period of time, is that the transparent– lack of transparency about the way in which the slots manager was allocating slots and the way in which conflicts of interest were being managed, given that the current slots manager actually has also some ownership or some involvement of some of the airlines. So we’ve announced a new open tender for that process. And that’s [indistinct] …

NICK RHEINBERGER: [Talks over] So the …

CATHERINE KING: … that train for a while.

NICK RHEINBERGER: Okay. That’s what I wanted to get at that, that the slots are currently allocated by a company which is majority owned by Qantas and Virgin. Is there any way of getting out of that arrangement and making a completely independent process?

CATHERINE KING: We’ve announced the open tender process for the slot allocator. There is an independent board, so it’s meant to be done at arm’s length, obviously from the interests of the companies. And obviously the airport has a significant interest as well. And so really, what we’ve done is on the recommendations of the ACCC and on the Harris Report is open that up and say: we now want an open tender process and also better transparency in the way in which slots are allocated so that it’s publicly reported, but also making sure that conflicts of interests are adequately addressed. And that’s again part of the reforms we announced back in February.

NICK RHEINBERGER: All right. So that company which is running it now, Airport Coordination Australia, uh, applies for the tender. They have to show that they can do this independently and fairly.

CATHERINE KING: Correct, correct.

Hmmm...while on the subject of our useless miniscule Dicky King and the West Sydney Airport...   refer to: Airservices Australia 'not fit for purpose': Inquiry hears.

MTF...P2 

PS: Note that we have now gone past the due dates for both QON and WQON, so still waiting with bated breath for the answer to QON 67...

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on 28 May 2024—

Senator McKENZIE: [...] I want to return to Moorabbin Airport. Previously, we got to
the types of things the minister will take into account in assessing a preliminary draft
master plan. That included noise and a whole suite of things under the act. Yes?

Ms Werner: Yes.

Senator McKENZIE: Besides the department and minister, who else provides input or
comment on the preliminary draft master plan?

Ms Werner: I am not aware that the preliminary draft master plan has a particular
status under the act.

Senator McKENZIE: What happens? Who is allowed input into it?

Ms Werner: The state or territory government in which it is located; the local
government or local governments in which the airport is located; members of the
community who wish to make a comment; anyone who is affected by the
development at the airport, so tenants would have the opportunity to comment, and
potentially ground transport operators would have a chance to comment. I have just
been advised that it is provided for public exhibition, so any member of the public
would have an opportunity to comment.

Senator McKENZIE: Is that a recent change?

Ms Werner: No.

Senator McKENZIE: Is there a process whereby Airservices and CASA provide a
response?

Ms Werner: Airservices and CASA certainly have the opportunity to comment on
major development plans. I'm not sure about master plans.

Senator McKENZIE: Could you take that on notice?

Ms Werner: Certainly