[Gobbledock]

Kharon, the reason the Government doesn't like to compensate its citizens is because they think every single one of us is some kind of crook or criminal. They cannot bare the thought that we may be 'getting ahead' or getting some kind of freebie. Look at the victims of crime, or the Karen Casey's of our country, treated like second rate scum because some vile Government and it's system believe that anybody other than politicans are shonks.

Our country is almost half a trillion in debt, yet Goldman Sachs Turdball is putting us another $60b in debt for submarines to save the ass of a slimeball like Pyne. Not to mention the billions we give to other countries or the billions that Krudd loaded onto us through the BER sham. And check this, what about our involvement in bloody wars that we shouldn't be involved in - The Afghan war involved all elements of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), and thousands of Australian service men and women were deployed to the theatre over the last thirteen years. The shape, size and mission of the Australian contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan went through several distinct phases, from initial combat operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, through to reconstruction efforts and security sector reform in Uruzgan Province, to a supporting role. At its height, the ADF had 1,550 personnel serving in Afghanistan and has spent an estimated $7.5 billion on its operations there. Unbelievable!!! They spend money on that shit but then they won't compensate some poor bastard for poisoning his land and ruining his life and health?? Arsewipes........

Tick Tock

[P7_TOM]

GD – “Look at the victims of crime, or the Karen Casey's of our country, treated like second rate scum; because, some vile Government and it's system believes that anybody, other than politicians, are shonks.”

That GD line, when considered in light of the ‘proven’ evidence, deserves a lot more attention than it will probably get. The Pel-Air debacle encompasses the whole microcosm of what is wrong within the aviation safety net system. FCOL, an entire accident investigation was ‘skewed’ to suit the desired result.

Please, consider the entire picture. The whole mosaic of deceit. You do realise that certain individuals, for various motives, ‘interfered’ with and 'manipulated' an accident investigation; the report of that accident, IMO, sought to pervert an entire ‘system’. Why this was done, i.e. the motive, remains a mystery. But high stakes were on the table. Why? Why all of this risk for one small aircraft, half a dozen lives and a series of preventable ‘mistakes’. It never has made sense to me; at least not in any ‘honest’ way I can see.

Only a judicial inquiry (and; I do know, they are tricky little buggers) into the actions of various CASA and ATSB officers ‘actions’ is the only way to expose the true mendacity of this sorry tale; actions weighed against ‘law’. In fact; there should be an ‘open’ inquiry into the actions of CASA officers during the McComic reign. The results of that inquiry would, no bull-pooh, shock a nation – perhaps, into action.

Well, I can still dream – can’t I?

[Peetwo]

The aviation divide between the cities & the bush continues -

Courtesy of Matt O'Sullivan via the SMH:

MARCH 20 2017 - 4:44AM


Ministers butt heads over greater access to Sydney Airport for regional planes

 

• [/url]Matt O'Sullivan
  

NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance is locked in a standoff with the Turnbull government over relaxing a cap for regional aircraft at Sydney Airport during peak hours, accusing Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce of "being completely obstinate".

In an escalation of his tussle with Canberra, Mr Constance said NSW was spending $100 million on upgrading regional airports yet the federal government was unwilling to follow suit to improve air services to towns in the bush by amending legislation.

He wants the federal government to alter the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act to allow for extra slots to be set aside for regional aircraft.
A state parliamentary inquiry recommended more than two years ago for the federal government to [url=http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-airport-aircraft-cap-curbs-flights-to-regional-nsw-towns-pushes-up-fares-20161011-grzxr0.html]improve access to Australia's busiest airport for regional planes by relaxing the cap on landings or takeoffs for small, turboprop aircraft.

Mr Constance, the Liberal MP for Bega in NSW's south-east, said Mr Joyce had been obstinate on the issue and was "completely and utterly out of touch on what is required to drive regional aviation opportunities".

"All Canberra have to do is amend the Sydney Airport Management Act and give those additional slots and it will be really beneficial. Barnaby Joyce quite frankly has his head in the sand," he said.

But Mr Joyce, the federal Agriculture and Water Resources Minister, hit back at his state colleague, saying Mr Constance would "do well to realise" that his ministry had no oversight of the laws governing aircraft slots at Sydney Airport.

"I've not received a word from this person, not a letter, not so much as a phone call – in fact, I wouldn't know him if he stood up in my cornflakes," he said.HARE

The state government wants greater access for regional planes at Sydney Airport. Photo: AP

The latest barbs come several weeks after the pair traded blows on the issue over local radio.

Mr Constance has shown a willingness to prod the Turnbull government and last week called for it to be "brave and get on with some real reform" on matters such as housing affordability, industrial relations and tax.ARE

NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance wants the federal government to alter legislation to allow for more access to Sydney airport for regional aircraft. Photo: Brook Mitchell

Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government was willing to consider proposals to amend aspects of the slot arrangements at Sydney Airport but it was also committed to protecting the community against aircraft noise.

"If the NSW ministers think they have answers to the complex legislative arrangements concerning Sydney Airport traffic, I'm happy to work with them," he said.ARE

Obstinate: NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance says Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce (pictured) is out of touch on the issue of regional aircraft. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Virgin Australia has been the strongest proponent of a relaxation of the cap at Sydney Airport for regional planes during peak hours, arguing its ability to boost services to Tamworth or launch new routes to Dubbo and Wagga Wagga has been thwarted.

Virgin chief executive John Borghetti said significant benefits for regional NSW could be realised through simple changes to the legislation regarding slots at Sydney Airport.ARE

Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti says "significant benefits" could be realised from simple amendments. Photo: Barry Smith
"It is regrettable for the federal government to suggest that enhanced air access and competition for regional NSW is effectively closed until Western Sydney Airport is opened in a decade's time," he said.

However, any increase to the movement cap will be highly contentious in Sydney's inner-city suburbs located under flight paths.

This subject and article was extrapolated by Planetalking... :

[b]Only another nine years of country flight fights for Sydney Airport
[/b]
[i]Screw the bush and their little planes! Another excellent result of selling essential public assets like airports to private monopolies[/i]

Although obscured, this REX 340 has both props attached

The bickering about rural flight access to Sydney Airport has flared up again, and if long suffering country travellers are lucky, it might end as soon as 2026 when the harbour city gets a new airport at Badgerys Creek in its west.

Then again… One of the problems of access to airports under any sort of enterprising management is the pressure to sweat the asset and fly the largest possible aircraft for every precious slot, and to hell with the consequences.

This report in the Sydney Morning Herald has caught the main combatants at their candid best today, but the debate has flared regularly, using ministers and spokespersons past, even before Sydney Airport was privatised in 2002.

There was for example, a period when regional carriers Kendell and Hazelton were in play following the collapse of Ansett, when they were at risk of being bought by a major airline like Qantas and having their access to the country’s major airport converted into more interstate jet flights.

Kendell and Hazelton were instead consolidated into REX, a mostly highly profitable country wide rural operation which is currently in the news for managing to lose a propellor off one of its SAAB 340 turprops on approach to Sydney Airport last week.

The formation and survival of REX has probably saved countless country lives from becoming part of the road toll by offering economic time saving alternatives to lousy highways in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland as well as NSW, but REX might need to pay more attention, pending an ATSB investigation, to the vital connection between propellers and wings.

The brawl going on over rural flights access to Sydney is one that is also of increasing relevance to Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide airports, although in Melbourne, some regional services are trying to make a go out of flying to Essendon, just down the highway where all those DFO shopping billboards are found.

If you live in the country, or need to fly there, the large airports will try to screw you out of your tiny little annoying turboprops so that they can make more money out of bigger aircraft. It’s business. That why the Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, is there plugging the interests of big money (and big gas)  instead of the farmers because that’s his shtick.

Minister Constance’s departure from the song sheets when it comes to governments backing businesses over the interests of consumers is fascinating. But will it end well?

[i]Postscript[/i]: By the time Badgerys Creek is transformed into Sydney West the upscaling of rural services will become more apparent. By 2026 the likes of Coffs Harbour, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and Port Macquarie, and many other country centres, will have seen tentative jet services become the norm, and jets the size of A320s or 737 will likely be taking on possible larger versions of today’s turboprops on shorter routes

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Race to the bottom continues? This time it's Ground Handling...

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20...me/8369814

Airport staff sleeping at work say they cannot afford to go home

7.30 BY JAMES THOMAS AND XANTHE KLEINIG
UPDATED MON MAR 20 19:37:31

Staff at one of Australia's busiest airports have been setting up camp and sleeping at work, which they say is because they cannot afford to go home between shifts.

Key points:
Secret video shows makeshift beds where airport staff are sleeping under terminals
Workers say split shifts mean it is not worth going home
Employers defend safety record and reject accusations of poor treatment
Secret footage obtained exclusively by 7.30 revealed bed rolls and dirty sheets next to the baggage carousel in the staff-only area of Sydney Airport's international terminal.

Napping between shifts is a result of the "Americanisation" of the Australian workforce, according to the Transport Workers Union (TWU).

Split shifts that start early and finish late and limited guaranteed hours mean it is not worth workers' while — financially or timewise — to return home when they are rostered off, according to the union.

Workers have voiced concerns that fatigue levels are putting safety at risk.

'We end up sleeping under the terminal'
Driver George Orsaris believes he will lose his job for speaking with 7.30, but wants to expose working conditions at his employer, Aerocare.

"We get pushed to our limits. Our pay doesn't match it. We don't get rest breaks and we get given a four-hour shift in the morning and then we have a four-or-five-hour break and get a four-hour shift in the afternoon," he said.

"It is barely enough time to sleep by the time you get home, get up and have to go to work again. So we end up sleeping under the terminal where all the baggage goes between."

Most of Aerocare's workers are permanent, part-time with a guaranteed minimum salary of about $16,000 per year under a collective agreement approved by Fair Work in 2012.

TWU national secretary Tony Sheldon said the company sought to "game the system" in the pursuit of profits by keeping workers "hungry" for shifts, despite the long breaks in between.

"Quite clearly, these agreements are deficient, they are unethical," he said.

"When you are getting paid below the poverty line, when you can't raise a family on these incomes and the company clearly knows that having them part-time is starving the workforce into submission.

Workers raise safety concerns
Aerocare workers have told 7.30 they were concerned fatigue had contributed to two safety incidents.

In November 2014 in Brisbane, a Tiger Air cargo door was left open but discovered before take-off. Mr Orsaris said lives could have been at risk.

"If it was missed and the plane was to take off down the runway, I'd hate to think what would happen," Mr Orsaris said.

Aerocare said the safety of crew, passengers and ground staff was never at risk.

The company's chief executive, Glenn Rutherford, said in a statement he was concerned about "any allegations of system deficiency" and would further investigate any claims.

"We want to ensure it is on record that in 22 years, and despite handling over a million flights, Aerocare has never been penalised for a safety issue," he said.

Aerocare rejects accusations of 'poor treatment'. Aerocare said it provided full-time positions wherever possible, but that its rostering was to a large extent determined by the airlines' flight schedules.

It said 97 per cent of employees voted in favour of the current enterprise bargaining agreement.

"Aerocare strongly refutes any allegations or assertions … inferring poor treatment or under-payment of its employees," a spokesman said.
The company said it provided better job security and working conditions than many of its competitors and had committed to increasing pay rates by 5 per cent across the board.

"Aerocare has invested millions of dollars to improve the quality of its rostering so as to maximise the duration of shifts, with the goal of securing more contracts which would enable Aerocare to offer employees longer shifts and further viable full-time positions," the spokesman said.

Aerocare's most recent financial statement to the corporate regulator showed net profits were up more than 20 per cent to $13.5 million in the 2016 financial year.

Mr Sheldon said that other companies were now replicating the wages and conditions of workers at Aerocare, which is owned by private equity firm Archer Capital.

"We've seen the Americanisation of the Australian workforce in the aviation industry and yet we've seen executive bonuses increase, we've seen airport profits in the billions and this future is really something that beholds for everybody across the Australian workforce," he said.

....................................................

No great surprise. Greedy airlines are driving a hard line and happy to farm out services such as ground handling to the cheapest bidder. Mind you, Rutherford and Shelley have made millions out of Aeroscare ground handling. Both bought multi million dollar pads in Sydney within the same circle as knobs like Goldman Sachs Turdball and others, so those two muppets certainly aren't sleeping under stairs and eating beans on toast for dinner.

As for fatigue, damn straight. Staff sleeping between shifts under stairs, same staff who are headsetting aircraft, operating GSE on the aircraft, doing load control of aircraft. Hmmmm, no risk ya reckon??

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

Airports Amendment Bill 2016 -  

CASA says..."Nothing to do with us, Your Honour!"

AIPA says..."While your there Senators??"

While trawling the Senate RRAT Committee Inquiry webpage I noted that the legislative committee has apparently been reviewing a proposed amendment to the Airports Act and is due to table their report this coming Parliamentary sitting week:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

• Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]
          Status: Submissions Closed
          Date Referred: 09 February 2017
          Reporting Date: 28 March 2017
  

 
It is my understanding that these Senate legislative reviews are normally pretty much a tick-a-box routine but never the less I decided to peruse some of the 22 submissions.

Because the Essendon B200 crash occurred within the timeframe of the Senate review, I was curious on whether some of the possible implications of that tragedy could have filtered through on submissions.

So I first checked the 1 page Comardy word weasel confection/CASA submission:

11 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 149 KB) 

...Thank you for your email of 10 February 2017 inviting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the Airports Amendment Bill 2016.

CASA has noted the changes proposed in the Bill and has no detailed comments to make that would require a full submission. CASA currently assesses the safety aspects of draft Master Plans and Major Development Plans for federal leased airports on formal referral from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and provides this assessment in accordance with the mandated timelines. CASA is usually involved with discussions with the proponents of such plans prior to their formal lodgement.

The changes in the proposed Bill (a different submission cycle for a number of federal leased airports, inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast, an increase in the current $20 million monetary trigger for Major Development Plans to $35 million and other timeline changes) should not affect the safety assessment processes in which CASA is already engaged. An outline of the matters CASA considers is attached for the Committee's information.

There is a possibility that the increase in the dollar trigger may permit larger buildings to be constructed under that trigger which may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety.

This risk would be remediated by continued monitoring by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development as the relevant agency and advice to all federal leased airport managers that any construction (even if below the current or proposed dollar trigger) should be discussed with CASA for possible safety implications prior to proceeding...

Well no surprises there, pretty much matches the spin and bulldust bureaucratese we had heard from Comardy and Tiede some 2 weeks before at Senate estimates - i.e. no care and definitely no responsibility...

Still reviewing them but the only other submission of interest (IMO) was No3. from AIPA:

3 Australian & International Pilots Association (PDF 269 KB) 

   
This submission takes the audacious step of actually suggesting that..."while they're at it" -

...We consider this Bill an opportunity for the Committee to look beyond what are largely uncontroversial machinery amendments with a view to re-examining the operational risk management aspects of developments at airports regulated under the Airports Act 1996.

AIPA proposes that the Committee reject the Bill in its current form unless amendments are made to insert a new paragraph (1)(ma) into section 89 of the Airports Act 1996 to specifically require proper consideration of developments likely to compromise the efficient operation of airports by creating operational risks. We suggest the following form:

(ma) a development of a kind that is likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport; or

---

..Tighter Regulations

While the existing regulations can and should be improved, AIPA believes that DIRD’s role as an economic regulator naturally positions it as a "soft" regulator in matters of safety. Despite our continuing respect for DIRD’s role and the individual officers therein, we have often felt it necessary to questions the effectiveness of DIRD enforcement of subordinate legislation and a range of rather opaque discretionary rules.

AIPA therefore offers the view that any improvement in the structure, drafting and ambit of the subordinate legislation under DIRD’s control should flow from Parliamentary direction via the Airports Act 1996 rather than from internal departmental motivation subject only to Disallowance proceedings. We most certainly do not believe that paragraph 89(1)(o)3 of the Airports Act 1996 is a useful or appropriate pathway to resolve our concerns.

Public Consultation

One of the most important features of developments managed under Division 4 is that the MDP process provides to stakeholders transparency that otherwise would not exist. While AIPA acknowledges that public consultation is a double-edged sword in terms of planning efficiency and project timeline management, the creation of operational risk to aircraft using an airport should not be hidden, particularly as the consequences of poor planning may exist for the life of the development. Unidentified and unmitigated operational risks may well compromise the very objects of the Airports Act 1996 by seeing national infrastructure that may on occasions be unsafe to use.

Accountability

The inclusion of an operational risk paragraph more appropriately sheets home the responsibility and accountability for proper risk analysis to the developer. At the moment, a great deal of work is done in government agencies attempting to verify that proposed developments do not create unidentified and/or unmitigated risks. If a developer wishes to ensure that an otherwise "minor" development is not elevated to MDP status on the basis of operational risk, that developer must conduct an appropriate analysis...

And the AIPA recommendation:

AIPA recommends that the Committee reject the Bill in its current form unless an amendment is to specifically require proper consideration of developments likely to compromise the efficient operation of airports by creating operational risks. We recommend that a new paragraph (1)(ma) be inserted into section 89 of the Airports Act 1996 in the following form:

(ma) a development of a kind that is likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport; or

AIPA considers such an amendment to be consistent with the objects of the Airports Act 1996 and will serve to enhance flight safety.

Now consider that the AIPA submission was dated 27 February 2017, one week after the tragic Essendon crash and on the day the Senate Additional Estimates public hearing was held - coincidence or pre-emptive strike by one Senator X...

MTF?- Definitely...P2  

Ps Perhaps a few more of the Alphabets should be throwing their support behind the AIPA submission - just a thought...

[Kharon]

Bollocks; and, FDS, FCOL etc.

“Good morning ladies, gentlemen and those sitting on a bucket without a cushion; Capt. Joe McCool here, my co-pilot today is Rajah457 and your fabulous cabin crew Ditzy, Mitzy and PMT are with us today for your exciting journey from Big Smoke to Kickinatinalong”. The journey, for the most part will be a boring and uncomfortable as ever; however, as part of the fun, we have prepared, ‘free of charge’ a list of some of the exciting new developments on the aerodrome, approved by your government”. “Yes folks, all of the flight deck take off adrenalin will be heard through the cabin speakers; or through your own ear phones, provided they have not exploded”. “Safety is our primary concern; however, we only have three buckets of water on board, so if your earphones start to feel a little warm, please take them off and advise Ditzy as she is the only person qualified to dunk ‘em, the fee for this service is $17.50 GST included”.

“So, sit back relax and enjoy the live video feed and cockpit commentary as we clear the tall buildings in a single bound”.

Transcript (ATSB edited and publi-shit):-

00.001 “Blue Sky 101 – Clear for take –off”.

BS101 – “Roddggerr that – BS 101 is rolling”.

JMcC - “Folks, as we reach lour safety speed of 80 knots, 160 Kph; you can see that the latest Formula 1 motel site crane is now a 140 feet above us, off to the left about 500 meters, in the event of an unforeseen emergency, be assured we will miss it by the legally reaquired 35 feet”.

JMcC - “Now folks as we approach our decision speed; we call it V1, you can see out to the right about 100 meters the latest and greatest DFO expected to be just under two hundred feet high when completed, what a shopping experience: “WTF”  (beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep).

Raj457 – “Oh I believe the number two has quit Sir”.

JMcC – “Well FFS keep the bloody aircraft straight – taking over – “{Oh Crap}” sotto voce almost a whispered prayer. End of recording………………………………….

P2 “ – PS. Perhaps a few more of the Alphabets should be throwing their support behind the AIPA submission - just a thought...

It is hard to believe that the light end of industry is sitting on it’s arse; letting this ‘close in’ development happen. The Archerfield crowd have a mile of research, law and common sense safety to argue with, not mind you that it did them a lot of good. CASA only ‘interested’ in ‘splay’ compliance. For a very expensive ‘safety regulator’, they sure are selective in which parts of ‘safety’ they get interested in. Wrong date in a log book or a torque gauge out of date by an hour; lookout, the ‘safety agency’ is all over you. Criminal record following.

P2 – “Well no surprises there, pretty much matches the spin and bulldust bureaucratese we had heard from Comardy and Tiede some 2 weeks before at Senate estimates - i.e. no care and definitely no responsibility...”

WTD#1:-
There is a possibility that the increase in the dollar trigger may permit larger buildings to be constructed under that trigger which may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety.

WTD#2:-
This risk would be remediated by continued monitoring by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development as the relevant agency and advice to all federal leased airport managers that any construction (even if below the current or proposed dollar trigger) should be discussed with CASA for possible safety implications prior to proceeding...

Round and round she goes; who's back garden it lands in, no one knows. But you can buy a ticket in the lottery, or buy a property.  If the toxins don’t getcha, a King Air will.

Civil - Aviation - Safety – Authority, that is the name, right? So howzabout it? Or is the DoIT really running the ‘development’ scam.  

Appoint the tea lady. (roared the crowd).

Toot – toot (Oh, and stay off the top floor of your convenient air-side motel – thrill seeker).

[Peetwo]

Chair Barry O'Braces extends inquiry reporting date -

Reference:

Airports Amendment Bill 2016

CASA says..."Nothing to do with us, Your Honour!"

AIPA says..."While your there Senators??"

Committee recommendation:

Recommendation 1

1.20 The committee recommends that the Senate grant an extension of time

for the committee to report to the first sitting day of March 2018.

Senator Barry O'Sullivan

Chair

 
And the reason why there is a committee request for extension?

Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]
28 March 2017
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
ISBN 978-1-76010-539-6
View the report as a single document - (PDF 549KB)

Recent aviation incidents

1.12 On 21 February, soon after the initiation of this inquiry, a Beechcraft B200

Super King Air VH-ZCR crashed at Essendon Airport. The aircraft impacted the DFO

shopping centre alongside the airport resulting in a major fire. An Australian pilot and

four American tourists on board died in the crash.

1.13 These tragic events brought into stark relief the importance of appropriate

airport planning regulation and processes.

1.14 Evidence received by the committee at Additional Estimates on 27 February

detailed the accident investigations currently underway by the Australian Transport

Safety Bureau. In addition, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional

Development (the Department) noted that it was examining 'development approval

processes involved in the land-use planning at the airport'.11 Departmental Secretary,

Mr Mike Mrdak informed the committee that the Department had provided advice to

the Minister on the accident investigation process as well as the development approval

process for buildings allocated at the DFO site.12

1.15 The committee was also advised that the National Airports Safeguarding

Advisory Group (NASAG) was considering the adoption of draft national guidelines,

regarding runway public safety zones around airports, and runway end safety zones.

Queensland is currently the only Australian jurisdiction to have public safety zone

legislation.13

1.16 On 2 March, correspondence was received from Minister Chester requesting

that the committee consider extending its inquiry in light of the tragic accident and

subsequent investigations underway (at Appendix 1).

1.17 The committee recognises that the findings and recommendations of the

investigations into this tragedy, and the work of NASAG, may have implications for

the bill. It takes the view that sufficient time should be provided to allow the

investigations to proceed and for the committee to then properly consider their

findings.

1.18 Therefore, the committee recommends that its inquiry on the bill be extended

to allow consideration of the investigations and any other relevant aviation regulation

developments.

1.19 Submissions already received and published by the committee (at Appendix

2) will be considered as part of the inquiry following the outcome of the

investigations.

  Q/ Are Barry O, Senator NX and the committee seriously considering deferring the inquiry until such time as the ATSB have completed their investigation into the tragic Essendon B200 accident?

If so then IMO the last bastion of aviation safety sanity and administrative review has been lost to self-serving political and bureaucratic obfuscation - please tell me this is not so


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Probity arrives.

P2 -  “Q/ Are Barry O, Senator NX and the committee seriously considering deferring the inquiry until such time as the ATSB have completed their investigation into the tragic Essendon B200 accident?  If so then IMO the last bastion of aviation safety sanity and administrative review has been lost to self-serving political and bureaucratic obfuscation - please tell me this is not so

Good question P2 – The dilemma for the Senators is easily defined; the horns of that dilemma being : (a) full knowledge of the past “self-serving political and bureaucratic obfuscation” and it’s effect. To avoid a Pel-Air repeat (which would be wise) perhaps it is wiser to wait. The other ‘horn’ is that while the delay is occurring another accident, involving close proximity buildings may happen. Then the lack of positive, immediate action will be held to scrutiny. That would be unfair; but Blind Freddy can see the potential for a repeat. Take another look at the aerial shot of Archerfield and tell me that’s right; or consider landing in the vineyard trellises at Essendon and tell me that’s right. It ain’t, we know it, CASA know it and the culprits who finessed the rules to suit know it. Now it has to be sorted out.

“Assisting the ATSB in its investigation are US regulatory bodies the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as engine manufacturer Pratt and Whitney Canada.”

I believe it would be hard to question the integrity or expertise of the Australian ‘investigators’, they are world class. The disconnect has always been between the investigators ‘reality’ and the commissioners reporting of that reality; Pel-Air being a classic living, breathing example of bastardy. The NTSB/FAA will not put up with it, it is alien to their ethos, culture, creed and integrity.

There may be a wait for the official report, it is after all a complex, difficult investigation and CASA will be snapping at the ATSB investigators heels, but they will not dare tackle the NTSB and FAA. So, maybe, just this once, we get to see our investigators unfettered report and recommendations into a tragic accident and, for once, something of meaningful value will be gained from the investigators efforts. I can stand the wait, it may be worth it this time.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

Re. the amendments to the airports act.

One could not be blamed for smelling a rat, and the Murky Mandarins finger prints all over it.

Quote:

"The changes in the proposed Bill (a different submission cycle for a number of federal leased airports, inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast, an increase in the current $20 million monetary trigger for Major Development Plans to $35 million and other timeline changes) should not affect the safety assessment processes in which CASA is already engaged. An outline of the matters CASA considers is attached for the Committee's information."

Hmm. I can feel a DFO coming on!

"There is a possibility that the increase in the dollar trigger may permit larger buildings to be constructed under that trigger which may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety.

Ya reckon!!!...Wonder how much some development shark donated to which party to get that changed. Maybe old Murky was promised a board position to add to his other retirement benefits. Given past performance I'd imagine that scenario a sure thing.

"This risk would be remediated by continued monitoring by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development as the relevant agency and advice to all federal leased airport managers that any construction (even if below the current or proposed dollar trigger) should be discussed with CASA for possible safety implications prior to proceeding..."

Ah there's the clue. Since CAsA has abrogated its responsibility for safety, old Murky picks up the reins, bit like giving the fox a key to the chook house and by extension free reign to the development sharks.

[Kharon]

An irritating puzzle.

"There is a possibility that the increase in the dollar trigger may permit larger buildings to be constructed under that trigger which may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety."

[which] may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety.

Irritating, I keep going back to that statement; it is so blasé and dismissive. Weasel words. The purpose of it troubling; in the final analysis it is not ‘aviation safety’ which is at risk, but the public. Anything relatively large, travelling at speed, loaded with fuel hitting a building will cause damage, fire and possibly take lives. There is a sensible prohibition against building in the median between motorways; I imagine some smart developer would just love to build a shopping mall and a few blocks of home units between the lanes – life near the fast lane. Granted, the percentage chance of carnage is much higher building there than building close to an airport; and, people can ‘understand’ that. What seems difficult to grasp is the amount of ‘space’ in three dimensions an aircraft needs; particularly when in trouble. All ‘folk’ see is great empty spaces which could be ‘utilised’, the temptation of ‘low’ rents makes the cheese in the trap almost irresistible.

But take a look at the flight path of the Essendon King Air. If you draw a ‘splay’ from the beginning of the runway which captures the aircraft track, you can see that the impacted building is actually located in a most deadly spot. If you move the ‘splay’ forward to the runway intersection once again, the buildings are at risk. The proof is graphically depicted in the media coverage of this accident.

I’ve no quarrel with ‘development’ on aerodromes – provided the public safety (including passengers and crew) is not compromised; as it stands the risk to the public is not being considered, as aviation is ‘so safe’ now. And, so it is - in the normal run of things you could pitch your tent anywhere you like on an airfield and be as safe as houses. Aircraft line up, get airborne and bugger off to wherever they’re bound, straight ahead until something goes pear shaped; then all bets are off as Murphy takes a hand and Sods law rules the day.

Can this happen again? That depends on how you do the numbers. Will this happen again? It must, eventually, mathematical certainty. But where and when is the risk DoIT is taking a gamble on. There are simple solutions which a decent safety regulator could foster, enforce even; alas….you’ve all seen the Estimates video.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

"I’ve no quarrel with ‘development’ on aerodromes – provided the public safety (including passengers and crew) is not compromised;"

I agree with you K, but!

Since the instigation of the giant "Ponzi" scheme that the so called "Privatisation" of our airports inflicted on the people of Australia, the track record of "safety" has been abrogated by the $$$ imperative.
$$$ that do not flow to the public, nor to the industry, rather into the pockets of very wealthy development sharks and into big banks offshore accounts.
The imperative that the original Airports Act and subsequent airport leases were primarily to ensure the safe and orderly conduct of aviation. Aviation and safety has been supplanted with the imperative of debt servicing, debt that never existed in the first place. The airports were owned by the people of Australia with NO debt to service.
Privatisation gave the airports an intrinsic value, enabling massive amounts of money to be borrowed, no doubt offshore, no doubt with interest rates finely tuned so a profit upon which tax would be liable was unachievable. The money, paid to the government, disappeared into consolidated revenue never to be seen again, but the now artificial debt creating a ravenous monster requiring ever increasing volumes of money to satisfy its hunger.
Why anyone imagines this imperative hasn't resulted in some fairly hefty donations to political parties and promises of future rewards to Murky Mandarins, in return for abrogation of the original intent of the Act and Leases, safety and aviation use being placed a poor last to profits (debt servicing) is perhaps somewhat naive.

I am of the firm belief that there are facets of vital public infrastructure should never be passed from public hands.

The myth that privatisation results in more efficiencies and therefore better outcomes for the consumer is no better illustrated by the aviation industry. Aviation infrastructure in Australia has descended to third world levels, none of the airport operators is prepared to spend money on aviation infrastructure other than that legally required. They must maintain infrastructure in the condition it was in at the time they signed the leases but not one cent more. Unless of course someone else pays for it, with an add on to service the debt of the money they would have to borrow to provide it.

Has privatisation lead to better outcomes and efficiencies for airport users?

Patently not, we have some of the most expensive airport charges in the world, our terminals consistently voted as very poor by users and all the while vast sums of money flow offshore tax free to various tax havens, modern technology that could improve efficiencies and safety foregone for debt servicing.

The parlous state of our electricity industry is another example of political mismanagement of essential public infrastructure being privatised. Once upon a time the government built the power generating facilities and the poles and wires that carried it to our homes, then billed us for what we used, we owned that infrastructure.

Privatisation simply placed an entity in the middle who borrowed vast amount of money to buy those assets and the public now has to pay to service the debt on the money they borrowed to buy those assets. The convoluted structure of various entities that own various parts of the grid all with their add on debt servicing charges and profit along with ideological political insanity has taken Australia from a position of having the cheapest most reliable electricity in the world to the dearest.

This is hardly indicative of efficiencies so called privatisation was supposed to bring, rather it illustrates just how inept our political elite is in managing the strings of government and how blind to the strategic imperative of secure affordable energy supply. Just how inept our Mandarins are in providing effective sound "advice"to government, how inept and incompetent they are in negotiating "business"contracts, giving a free hand to those that rape and pillage the Australian people in pursuit of the holy dollar.

Just how gullible are our ministers who accept the advice of unqualified, incompetent bureaucrats over the mountains of advice provided by the real experts the industry?

A puff piece in todays Australian from Paul Cleary and Andrew White regarding the imminent departure of Sydney Airports CEO. She's bleating about the viability of Badgerys Creek, no doubt trying to get the government to fund it. Some interesting titbits. McBank paid the government $5.6 Billion for the lease, yet is saddled with $8 billion of debt ???? passing strange. Since 2001 over a billion a year in turnover, and still 8 billion in debt???

If they had any sense, which unfortunately they don't, the government should tell McBank to go to hell and bring in the Wagner team. Badgerys could be finished in a few years for a fraction of the projected cost. One wonders what true competition would do to user charges across the Sydney basin.

[MrPeaBody]

Responsible Development?

Essendon.jpg Size: 194.13 KB  Downloads: 167

For those not familiar with the Essendon Airport Bulla Road Precinct; this image shows the location of some of the buildings that were in the accident flight path that may not have been evident in the ATSB screen grab from Google Earth.

Dan Murphy's being one in particular; note the proximity of the runway centre-line to the buildings.

Essendon AP.JPG Size: 175.43 KB  Downloads: 10

And this is what the Essendon Airport Master Plan looks like; my my they have been busy with their colouring pencils!

PB

[Kharon]

Choc frog Mr.PB.

The Essendon graphic is great. Is it ‘difficult’ to sketch in a ‘splay’ line, encompassing the ATSB publishit flight path from (i) the start of the take off roll and (ii) from the intersection? If it’s a ‘tough nut’ don’t worry, it will get done. Many are curious about how the building managed to be ‘accepted’ as safe, given the latitude for EFATO control. Considering that a lot of aircraft would be ‘airborne’ before about the intersection; just a notion. All at that technical guesswork stage now; ideas landing like confetti. The playschool picture cracked me up.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Yes 2nd the choc frog nomination to Mr PB..   In fact he can include my last ration of choccy frogs such is my appreciation for his input with this so far intriguing and disturbing investigation...

One of the picture comparisons that really causes me shivers is a before and after on the 300 metre/1000ft 'big BLOCKS' TDZ for RW35 at Essendon Fields airport.

Before the DFO etc. development:


And after (using the ATSB Google Earth overlay):


IMO that is a pretty big difference to the normal OPs useable length of the runaway - just saying...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

In addition to my last, reference NX QON 113 -

Via AP Senate Estimates thread:

 
Additional Estimates - QON index etc. released.

Yesterday via the Senate RRAT committee Estimates webpage the QON index was released and an Additional Estimates 'spillover' hearing agenda was published... :

Additional Estimates 2016-2017

View Report - (uploaded when available)

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio program: 27 February 2017: (PDF 48KB)

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio - spillover hearing program: 20 April 2017: (PDF 37KB)

Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio program: 28 February 2017: (PDF 52KB)

Hansard Transcripts

27 February 2017
Infrastructure and Regional Development
(HTML & PDF)

28 February 2017
Agriculture and Water Resources
(HTML & PDF)

Index and Answers to Questions on Notice (uploaded when available)

• Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio
  
• Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio
  

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;
i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements

The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.

What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017

---

113 - CASA - XENOPHON - ESSENDON DFO APPROVAL

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings
in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

115
27/02/2017

---

114 - CASA - O’SULLIVAN(CHAIR) - SAFETY ADVICE

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.

116
27/02/2017

---

116 - CASA - XENOPHON - CAO 48.1 REVIEW

It is understood that CAO 48.1 (fatigue management) is under review.

1. Why is the review taking place (e.g. self-initiated, in response to feedback on industry, etc.)
Representation has been made to me that this should not be a one size fits all regulation – that airlines that fly on a regular schedule with a roster of pilots are in a different class of pilots to those who might fly in the bush governed by e.g. Agricultural seasons, stop-start work, weather, etc.

2. Is a one size fits all approach being adopted, or perhaps something more flexible, depending on the type of flying conducted, as I understand they do in the US and NZ?

 
"..If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine..."  - Comardy.

Following recent AP thread posts - HERE & HERE - I will be intrigued to read the AQON to see if the CASA advice included a clause added, to the Comardy vague statement above, along the lines of...

 
"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."

MTF...P2

[MrPeaBody]

Interesting that there is apparently no guidance in relation to buildings on airports. I just had to take look at the CASR Part 139 MOS; and low behold there is guidance on runways and obstacle free zones. The CASA chaps must have forgot there was a MOS.

By my reading Essendon Airport falls into the class 3 bucket (refer table 6.2.7). An air strip such as those found at Essendon are comprised of the runway, a graded area and a fly over area. By my reading a class 3 air strip should be 300m wide (150m either side of the runway centre line).

The strip is part of the obstacle free zone. To my eye Dan Murphy's, RSEA and a big swag of DFO (and its fences) are in the obstacle free zone.

But I guess buildings aren't classed as obstacles.

[Kharon]

Shovel and bucket please GD.

"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."

Would someone, anyone, please explain how reducing the operational length of a runway improves ‘safety’. Someone wants to build a DFO on a low rent location i.e. at the airport; fine. But to build it up to a razor thin boundary line, within a ‘flight path’ zone is corporately irresponsible.  Both the owners and the airport operators in the litigation cross hairs.  Artificially shortening the effective, operational length of a runway achieves nothing. The King Air was airborne well within the artificial constraints of runway length; but it finished its journey well within the discarded safety buffer zone limitations.  The aerial shot show the building is right up against the fence which defines the ‘minimum’ (repeat) ‘minimum’ mandated splay boundaries. It may well be legal, indeed it probably is. It may well have brought some small benefit to the airport operators, indeed it probably did; but what a price in human life to pay for a few more square feet of rentable floor space. Legal OK, but sensible? No way.

Chris Cowan, the chief executive of Essendon Airport, said yesterday the preliminary investig-ation showed “much of the speculation to date has been wrong and has not been appropriate, especially to the victims’ grieving families”.

How ducking ‘cynical’ and manipulative can you get? There is no bloody speculation, that aircraft hit the building; someone built it, someone approved that building; someone persuaded the CASA to approve a reduction in operational runway length; someone placed many lives at risk. It is entirely appropriate that the grieving families be made aware of the avenues for seeking compensation from those who profited by seriously reducing the safety margins at the airport. If for no other reason than to prevent fools encroaching on aerodrome land and safe areas without due consideration for the safety of the public and the aircraft, passengers and crew. Not only is it fool hardy, it is wrong.  

“Tragically this accident could have happened at any airport in the world,” he said. “It’s a reality of modern society that airports operate in proximity to urban environments.”

No it could not: sensible countries have sensible rules; any legal counsel worth his exorbitant fees would kick a hole in that spurious argument before you could say aircraft impinge on my car park. What a shameless bunch of twats without conscience or integrity this ‘pro development’ crowd are. To have this accident happen then start shifting the blame around to avoid litigation is beyond description.

Cranky? Who, me? Nah; you ain’t seen nothing yet, just warming up the boilers.

Toot- toot.

[Peetwo]

Shovel and bucket please GD.

"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."

Would someone, anyone, please explain how reducing the operational length of a runway improves ‘safety’. Someone wants to build a DFO on a low rent location i.e. at the airport; fine. But to build it up to a razor thin boundary line, within a ‘flight path’ zone is corporately irresponsible.  Both the owners and the airport operators in the litigation cross hairs.  Artificially shortening the effective, operational length of a runway achieves nothing. The King Air was airborne well within the artificial constraints of runway length; but it finished its journey well within the discarded safety buffer zone limitations.  The aerial shot show the building is right up against the fence which defines the ‘minimum’ (repeat) ‘minimum’ mandated splay boundaries. It may well be legal, indeed it probably is. It may well have brought some small benefit to the airport operators, indeed it probably did; but what a price in human life to pay for a few more square feet of rentable floor space. Legal OK, but sensible? No way.

Chris Cowan, the chief executive of Essendon Airport, said yesterday the preliminary investig-ation showed “much of the speculation to date has been wrong and has not been appropriate, especially to the victims’ grieving families”.

How ducking ‘cynical’ and manipulative can you get? There is no bloody speculation, that aircraft hit the building; someone built it, someone approved that building; someone persuaded the CASA to approve a reduction in operational runway length; someone placed many lives at risk. It is entirely appropriate that the grieving families be made aware of the avenues for seeking compensation from those who profited by seriously reducing the safety margins at the airport. If for no other reason than to prevent fools encroaching on aerodrome land and safe areas without due consideration for the safety of the public and the aircraft, passengers and crew. Not only is it fool hardy, it is wrong.  

“Tragically this accident could have happened at any airport in the world,” he said. “It’s a reality of modern society that airports operate in proximity to urban environments.”

No it could not: sensible countries have sensible rules; any legal counsel worth his exorbitant fees would kick a hole in that spurious argument before you could say aircraft impinge on my car park. What a shameless bunch of twats without conscience or integrity this ‘pro development’ crowd are. To have this accident happen then start shifting the blame around to avoid litigation is beyond description.

Cranky? Who, me? Nah; you ain’t seen nothing yet, just warming up the boilers.

Toot- toot.

Interesting that there is apparently no guidance in relation to buildings on airports. I just had to take look at the CASR Part 139 MOS; and low behold there is guidance on runways and obstacle free zones. The CASA chaps must have forgot there was a MOS.

By my reading Essendon Airport falls into the class 3 bucket (refer table 6.2.7). An air strip such as those found at Essendon are comprised of the runway, a graded area and a fly over area. By my reading a class 3 air strip should be 300m wide (150m either side of the runway centre line).

The strip is part of the obstacle free zone. To my eye Dan Murphy's, RSEA and a big swag of DFO (and its fences) are in the obstacle free zone.

But I guess buildings aren't classed as obstacles.

Links for Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes: VOL 1 & VOL 2

---

P2 comment: In reference to 6.2.18.4, it will be interesting to see if in answering NX QON 113 whether the operator did submit a safety case to CASA...   

[ventus45]

A stich in time ?

Notice how the end of Runway 35 has been moved about over the years.  

This was 4th March 2006



Just saying .....

YMEN , a walk through time in Google Earth.  ( 55 Images - large file - 39 Megabytes )

Instructive-4-March-2016.jpg Size: 213.17 KB  Downloads: 405

[thorn bird]

And the head leases say the airports must be maintained in the condition they were in at the signing of the lease.
I would say chopping off a huge length of runway as seen above aint doing that. Same,same Bankstown, closing runway 18/36 and dumping thousands of meters of asbestos contaminated fill on a flood plain to facilitate another DFO.
Then again its amazing what a few political donations can do or promises of future rewards after retirement from public office.