[Gobbledock]

Of new airports, soon to be built airports, and existing airports

There certainly appears to be some serious conversations about airports of late.

P2;

"Hmm...wonder if Wagners feature on the EOI construction company list"

Good question. They should be at the top of the list. Why?
Of Wellcamp Airport - the Wagners chose a Greenfield site, spent $100m and built the airport in 18 months. Your damn right they should be a contender to build Badgerys. It was the best airport success story in Australia in 50 years. They used their own quarries for the rocks and their own cement plants for the concrete. Let's see Mike M'ere'dk and Miniscule Numbnuts 6D attempt that! Wellcamp = no imbecilic Government bureaucracy, no long winded red tape, no baloney procurement policies, no Politicians kissing babies and playing with themselves, no indecisiveness, no kissing the asses of big business and looking after mates, nope none of the above.

Of Rockhampton City Council - interesting how RCC has progressed discussions with Adani to build the Adani satellite airport in western Queensland;

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news...r/3140775/

Now the $20m price tag is bollocks, you won't get a kilometre of 45m wide runway for that money, but intent is there (bump the price tag up to $100m and you will be close to the mark). What is interesting is that RCC would build the airport, an airport that is NOT located within its shire. Councils do not normally invest in such a manner in other Councils backyards. Obviously RCC sees values in airports? What a refreshing change, considering most Governments and Councils have been eager to sell off their airports rather than keep them or even build them. But wait, there is more;

Queensland Government considering purchasing airports - a source of information within Treasury has told me that the Queensland Government has been looking for between 7 to 11 airports to purchase in Queensland, and have settled on 4. I know the names of the airports but cannot disclose them yet, but they are all owned by Councils. The Government would therefore be able to purchase the airports directly and form a company to run them, similar to what QAL and NQA have done with several Queensland airports. Very similar to the Badgerys proposal;

"The Weekend Australian understands the government has modelled several funding options, including one based on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, in which the government would become the principal shareholder in a company set up to operate the ­airport."

So for some strange reason there seems to be a possible shift of the airport pendulum again, a shift from Governments owning airports, to then flogging them off to the highest bidding capitalist vultures, to now wanting to build/own airports again?

I think that within the airports world there is much much more to follow!

[Peetwo]

Murky & Comardy thumb noses at RRAT airport QON  

Reference:

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.

 

However if M&M (& CO) think that means he will quietly O&O his part in the YMEN DFO accident causal chain, "tell him he's dreaming" - The Castle 1997.

NX quote: "...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..."

Reference article:

There are no restrictions on how close development can be to airport runways, raising questions about safety after today’s crash at Essendon Airport. Picture Alex Coppel.
Why are there no rules about how close developments can be to airport runways
Claire Bickers, National Political Reporter, News Corp Australia Network
February 21, 2017 6:41pm

"..Master plans for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports for the next 20 years do not contain public safety zones (PSZ).

A National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group has signalled that it will consider creating guidelines for the zones but as yet none have been published..."

Ah yes the NASAG, a thought bubble with good intentions, birthed by Albo & the Rudd government in their 'Great White Elephant' aviation paper. Unfortunately, like a lot of thought bubbles designed to 'close the loop' on identified dormant but serious safety issues, they invariably get lost in the self-serving bureaucratic process.

To highlight this normalised deficiency in bureaucratic process, the following Senate Hansard extract from Senator Fawcett nearly 2 years ago, in a 2nd reading debate on a previous Airport Amendments bill:

...It is that long-term planning that I would like to turn to now.

I give credit to the former government for their aviation green paper and the white paper and the NASAG process that came out of that, which is the safeguarding of our airports process. It is the whole idea of trying to get co-operation between the federal government, state governments and local governments around planning permissions to safeguard airports. I am a little disappointed that it seems to have plateaued and the hard work of taking the policy concept and implementing it appears to have stalled. That may not all be the federal government's fault. It takes cooperation from states and local governments as well to make those things happen. We are seeing a lot of discussion with the Federation white paper and the COAG processes. I think both sides of politics suffer the frustration of our three levels of government and sometimes not being able to drive very good common sense ideas through. But can I say that NASAG and the process of protecting our airports and the airspace that goes with them are things that we do need in the national interest to get some alignment between the federal government, of whichever political persuasion, and the state and local governments. Why? Because it is important to our economy and it is important to lots of social functions—things like banking, mail services and medical services. Where we do not protect airports and the airspace, we will see a degradation in the ability of the aviation industry to service Australia in the manner in which we have become accustomed. The reason it is important for this process to be in place is that I frequently come across people at both local and state government levels who are interested in developing their communities, and I fully understand and appreciate that. Whether it is housing close to airports or large high-rise buildings in a capital city that infringe into the airspace,—the PANS-OPS criteria—those things have a direct impact on the viability of airlines to carry the kind of loads they look at.

In South Australia, for example, there was a great deal of contention a year or so back when people looked at the height of the city buildings and complained about what they called the archaic regulations that stopped us having even higher buildings. There was quite some discussion in the media about that and a bit of a head of steam developing in that these were really archaic rules, we should change them and we should have higher buildings. People did not realise that the height limits were actually related to operations out of the airport. If you were taking off from Adelaide Airport on the north-easterly runway and were flying on a cloudy day with a low-cloud base or by night and you had an engine failure in a large transport aircraft with passengers or cargo, then the airspace has to allow for the worst-case in terms of your performance and your climb configuration for you to control the emergency and then return the aircraft to the airfield. If you build higher buildings, then the aircraft has to be able to out-climb the worst-case, which is an intersection with that building. This means that the operators are constrained to carrying less fuel, which means that they go a shorter distance, or they have to off-load passengers or cargo. Eventually, you start constraining the operations to the point where airlines are not prepared to actually service that centre.

...Certainly, there are great concerns as I look at places like Archerfield, Bankstown and Jandakot in Western Australia. I just want to lay out, again, for both sides of politics that, for all levels of government, whether we do it through the Reform of the federation white paper or through the COAG process, we need to get on top of the NASAG concepts. I would argue that we even need to extend it to include what the Queensland government has, which are areas set aside in the approach and take-off paths of runway which allow for the fact that many secondary airports service single-engine aircraft with trainees. There is a danger that, if you have a failure, then, obviously, aircraft can come down in the area. Queensland has done a very good job of quarantining, if you like, a splay at the end of a runway. That is something we should be looking at more on a national basis...

 
Or if you prefer (2 segments) in pictures...

An update to the listed (above) Additional Senate Estimates QON, addressed to M&M's department and Comardy (CASA), in regards to aviation safety and airport development...

First it would appear that Comardy has ducked the fairly rudimentary QON from Senator X and the more probing QON from Senator Barry O...

Reference Estimates thread post: Additional Estimates - CASA missing AQON?

..However in the meantime I noticed a point of interest with the listed CASA AQON link. Note the message in brackets: 

113-119 Civil Aviation Safety Authority PDF 43KB 26/04/2017 (excludes questions: 113 & 114)

When you refer to the QON index both QON 113 & 114 are in reference to the tragic Essendon B200 crash...

Not sure what the problem is that would cause such a delay in answering those two QON but I am guessing the excuse will run along the lines of..

"..CASA is not able to answer the questions at this point in time as those QON refer to matters that are currently part of an active parallel investigation by both the ATSB and CASA.."

Simply put (once again) "..up yours Senators L&Ks Shane"...   

And with the links finally fixed for the AQON I note that M&M's mob, with equal aplomb but in more typical obfuscating bureaucratic style, have managed to duck the Senator Burston written QON on Bankstown Airport... : 

Answer:

a) Bankstown Airport Limited is undertaking a heritage review on the airport, including Building 62 (the former RAAF National Service Headquarters). Discussions between the Department and Bankstown Airport Limited in relation to the heritage value of Building 62 are ongoing. Bankstown Airport Limited is considering the maintenance of the toilets in question, noting alternate public toilets are located a short distance away in the terminal building. The Department does not consider Bankstown Airport Limited is in breach of its lease with regard to the management of these public toilets.

b) The closure of runway 18/36 was approved in 2005 by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services as part of the 2004 Bankstown Airport Master Plan on the basis that the runway was used infrequently. The general aviation community at Bankstown Airport was consulted and this issue generated minimal interest or objection. During the 2004 Master Plan process, only seven submissions raised the issue, and only two of these submissions were from aviation industry operators.

The closure of runway 18/36 does not constitute a breach of the terms of the Airport Lease.

c) Sublease arrangements on Bankstown Airport are commercial matters managed by Bankstown Airport Limited.

d) Sublease arrangements on Bankstown Airport are commercial matters managed by Bankstown Airport Limited.

e) The Department is aware of First State Superannuation’s relationship with BAC Holdco Pty Ltd, the company that owns 100% of Bankstown Airport Limited.

f) The Department is aware of the relationship between Altis Property Partners and BAC Holdco Pty Ltd. Management of Bankstown Airport remains the responsibility of Bankstown Airport Limited, the Airport Lessee Company.

g) Day to day management of Bankstown Airport continues to be undertaken by the Airport Lessee Company, Bankstown Airport Limited.

h) The Department undertakes an annual lease and compliance review with all federally leased airports.

All development of the airport site is undertaken in accordance with the approved Bankstown Airport Master Plan and the Airports Act 1996.

Bankstown Airport Limited continues to provide for the use of the airport site as an airport.

"..Dear Senator Burston...nothing to see here, move along...L&Ks M&M.."

Not sure if Senator Burston will be placated by that answer from M&M but I am pretty sure Barry O and NX won't be merely shuffling off with a simple NO answer from CASA...

Especially in light of the committee's interim report from their inquiry into the Airport Amendment Bill 2016:

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.

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

  
MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

"People and senators, be not affrighted;
Fly not; stand stiff: ambition's debt is paid."

The P2 post above is a marathon read; when you get to the end of it, the whole thing becomes clear enough to transmogrify into three simple sentences.

Control of airport development, infrastructure, operational safety and airspace impingement has been lost to the developers.

There is SFA the government can do about that now. The MM department has had all the time in the world to make it so and make it stick, all legal and tidy.

We cannot blame the government for all of it; industry sat back and let it happen. The time for a concerted, united Duck off shout has been passed for a number of years now. The Archerfield effort was the last attempt to recover any semblance of control; the Essendon crash an inevitable result. Even if there were a mountain of money to mount a challenge and unlimited time to recover control; it’s a very dead horse being flogged. Until this industry learns to fight back, early; and, sticks together; and, develops some political clout and, gets off its collective rear end; and to speak with one voice, the death of a thousand cuts will eventually kill it. If it don’t bleed to death first.

"Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."

[Gobbledock]

Indeed Kharon, tis death by a thousand cuts. Murkys mob have been allowed to operate freely and autonomously without barely a whisper while industry has sat on its thumbs. Both are complicit in this issue, with Murky being the dominant partner.


Murky takes the lead on airports;

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Interesting...

Sydney Airport, the operator of Sydney's main Kingsford Smith airport, has declined to develop and operate the proposed second major airport in western Sydney at Badgerys Creek.

"After taking into consideration the feedback from the recent market engagement process and investors, and the outcomes of its own evaluation, Sydney Airport determined that the terms of the Western Sydney Airport notice of intention (NOI) do not meet its investment criteria," the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

The federal government in December ruled out any direct financial support towards the cost of building and operating the proposed $5 billion project, for which Sydney Airport held right of first refusal.

[Peetwo]

MacBank bails out of Badgery's -    

Interesting...

Sydney Airport, the operator of Sydney's main Kingsford Smith airport, has declined to develop and operate the proposed second major airport in western Sydney at Badgerys Creek.

"After taking into consideration the feedback from the recent market engagement process and investors, and the outcomes of its own evaluation, Sydney Airport determined that the terms of the Western Sydney Airport notice of intention (NOI) do not meet its investment criteria," the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

The federal government in December ruled out any direct financial support towards the cost of building and operating the proposed $5 billion project, for which Sydney Airport held right of first refusal.

Good catch Cap'n...

Also from ABC online this AM:

Sydney Airport declines offer to run second airport at Badgerys Creek

Tue 2 May 2017, 9:31am


Photo: Sydney Airport has run the sole airport for the city for many years. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Sydney Airport has declined the Federal Government's offer to build the second airport at Badgerys Creek, citing the "risks" on monetary return for their investors.

Sydney Airport said it considered the likely demand and growth potential, construction costs, risk profile and financial returns of the airport before turning the offer down.

The company made the announcement it would not develop the Western Sydney Airport (WSA) in an ASX release today.

"Sydney Airport's decision not to accept the [Western Sydney Airport notice of intention] on the terms provided is in the best interests of our investors who represent millions of Australians through their superannuation funds," managing director and chief executive of Sydney Airport Kerrie Mather said.

"Despite the opportunities that WSA will present, the risks associated with the development and operation of WSA considerable and endure for many decades without commensurate returns for our investors."

The release said Sydney Airport still had three months left to review the material terms of the WSA operation, whether the Federal Government elected to run the airport or offer terms to another party.

"If the terms are more favourable, Sydney Airport would have the option to develop and operate the airport on those terms," the ASX release said.

However, the release noted the Federal Government had advised Sydney Airport the deal would mirror its previous offer that the company declined today.

Federal Government could step in to run airport

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce weighed in saying he "wasn't surprised" Sydney Airport had declined the offer.

"I always thought they'd play us along as long as possible and then say no," Mr Joyce said.

He hinted at the Federal Government retaining control of the project.

"But we want to build Badgerys Creek. That's one thing that I'm absolutely certain about, the Prime Minister and I are absolutely one on this," Mr Joyce said.

"Badgerys Creek is vitally important, it's a vital part, a piece of infrastructure, and now that the Sydney Airport corporation says that they're not interested, we'll get to work and make sure we find people who are."

More to come.

MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Interesting Cap ?
You are kidding - are you not ?

No mate, this announcement is entirely as expected.
The key is in the requirement "to develop", and "the federal government in December (2016) ruled out any direct financial support towards the cost of building and operating the proposed $5 billion project".

That costs money up front - lots and lots of it - and with no effective return on that for years and years and years.
They only "invest" for a "cash flow - NOW"
They (and everyone else in the "investment world") want the TAXPAYER to to stump up the initial outlays to "develop" the facility, so that they can subsequently "milk it" when it is opearional.
Sinking the massive amounts of money needed to build an airport from scratch "do not meet its investment criteria" of any of these groups.
The "creek" will never be built, unless some Federal Government pays for it, i.e. us, the taxpayer, because no one in the "investment industry" ever will.

The "point" of the "announcement" is to tell the goovernment just that.



We will not build it.  
If you want it, you build it.
(Then, when it's ready to open, you can "give" it to us to "operate" (for "a song" of course - thankyou very much !).

This is how PRIVATISATION works mate.
How many examples do you want of healthy "INFRASTRUCTURE in being" that was built up by the taxpayer, being "sold off" and then allowed to progressively "run down" to the point of near collapse, due to "non-ongoing investment" (which detracts from "profits", and most importantly - "bonuses".

That is the "standard operating procedure" for "investment hawks".
You want them to change their spots ?
You want them to actually sink massive amounts of money up front ?
Why would they, when they "know" that sooner or later, the government (of the day) "eventually will", when it becomes so desperate at YSSY, that they simply "have to" ?
No, it is "a waiting game" for them.

No - the "investment hawks", have given the Government the "missed approach" routine mate.

"Maintain runway heading - climb back up into cooko land - and think again (snigger - snigger)".

Tell him he is dreaming.jpeg Size: 12.35 KB  Downloads: 740

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

STOP PRESS !!!
(Edited in at 01:30 UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Surprise - Surprise - NOT !!

The Turnbull Government today confirmed that it will build Western Sydney Airport.

Note that "it" means us the long suffering taxpayer

Details of the Turnbull Government’s plan to build Western Sydney Airport will be announced by the Treasurer in the Budget next week.

https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media...ey-airport


Consultation meetings with Sydney Airport Group were conducted in an atmosphere of good faith.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Peetwo]

The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops...

Reference:

Murky & Comardy thumb noses at RRAT airport QON  




"..Dear Senator Burston...nothing to see here, move along...L&Ks M&M.."

Especially in light of the committee's interim report from their inquiry into the Airport Amendment Bill 2016:

..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]...

After reading the RRAT committee's interim report and recommendation to defer their final report till at least March 2018, it would appear that Barry O and the Senate RRAT committee have folded to bureaucratic pressure, subsequently allowing M&M and his minions (at least a year) to align and obfuscate all possible lines of liability or department/agency responsibility connection to the B200 DFO fatal accident...

Relevant P7 post who joins the dots on fatal accidents & the DFO prang (note the part in bold ): 

Two bob’s worth of disgust please.

Why is it; that every single fatal accident involving public transport ends up this way? The expensive official inquiry, for no return on investment. The demands for change translated into onerous rules which serve only the ‘regulators’ purpose. The obfuscation of fact. The disavowal of any or all official responsibility. Lockhart has never been honestly examined. The ATSB were muzzled, the coroner if not misled was certainly confounded, the inquiry bamboozled; all to cover the simple fact that CASA could and should have been sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop to the point of impact. This is a common thread running through each and every one of the ‘fatal’ accidents from Advance to Monarch, from Seaview to Pel-Air. It is, IMO, time it was stopped. Regulation by the cartload is simply there to provide safe prosecution of the predetermined outcome; strict liability supporting.

It is a disgraceful situation. Perhaps the Essendon event and the Senators conscience will provide a different, more enlightened result. Time will tell, but first we need a ‘proper’ report from the ATSB – before the turn of the century. But lets be clear about this, very clear. Within 9 seconds at 150 meters from a runway centre line an aircraft hit, at 150 feet, a building (for whatever reason). That building should never have been allowed to be there; someone has manipulated the rules, someone has nodded at the safety aspects and someone has authorised the many shifts in the operationally available dimensions of that runway to suit a purpose. Those people are, in part, responsible for the building being there. Either way, someone needs to be treated the way a ‘civilian’ would be who had played fast and loose with the interpretation of the ‘regulations’, to cynically suit a commercial purpose and place the lives of those shopping there in clear and present danger, advertising to encourage people to come there. (Ugh). All very slick and clever, except there are now five men to add to the list of those  who will not be celebrating their next birthday with their families at home. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow Martha - wudja look at all them tall buildings.



[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg[/img]

After following and monitoring the firmly non-partisan RRAT committee in Estimates and aviation safety related inquiry for nearly a decade, IMO the real 'tell' that the committee has not yet succumb to bureaucratic 'nothing to see here Senators' pressure comes in the form of Senator Fawcett stepping in to question the Murky Mandarin & his 'Aviation & Airports division' minions.

Excerpt from Senate RRAT committee 'Additional Estimates' Hansard 27/02/17:

CHAIR: I call the Aviation and Airports Division.

 Senator RICE: I want to start with the Essendon Airport crash. In general, what has the department's response been so far following the tragedy last week?

Mr Mrdak : We, like all Australians, have been terribly shocked by the tragedy of the crash last Tuesday morning. Clearly, the first priority has been the response of the emergency services agencies, which has taken place, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is well advanced now in its investigation. From the department's perspective, we have had a look at the development approval processes involved in the land-use planning at the airport and we have compiled that information. We have provided advice to the minister in relation to both the details of the accident investigation process, along with the ATSB, and details of the development approval process for the buildings located at the DFO site. We now stand prepared to work with the ATSB in their investigation of these matters, as well as progressing the discussion we had earlier in relation to the further work that is taking place in relation to the NASAG agenda on airport safeguarding.

 Senator RICE: Have you reached a position on the development approvals process?

Mr Mrdak : We have simply outlined to the minister in our advice the process that was gone through in terms of that process for the approval of that development. We await the advice from the ATSB in relation to the accident investigation.

 Senator RICE: In that assessment, did you look at the lack of state planning controls over development on that federal site, and is that a factor?

Mr Mrdak : No, we have not. We have simply outlined to the minister the process that was undertaken in relation to the approval of that site. The site is a Commonwealth site and the legislation does not provide for state planning powers inside the airport boundary.

 Senator RICE: Has it opened up the conversation about the consequences of that?

Mr Mrdak : Given the number of state planning regimes, the Commonwealth operates a much more comprehensive airport planning regime than is undertaken in most state jurisdictions.

 Senator RICE: So in terms of assessing the appropriateness of that development on that federally owned site—

Mr Mrdak : Well, we await—

 Senator RICE: different criteria are used. Certainly from the perspective of residents, and having spoken to them, there is a strong view that if the equivalent planning processes for this privatised, federally owned site had been gone through under state planning laws, those developments would not have been approved. In fact, I know that the Moonee Valley council at the time of the DFO approval recommended that it not be approved, but their voice was not heard. Are you looking at whether approval would have been appropriate if it had been considered under different planning controls?

Mr Mrdak : At this stage, we have been focused on outlining the processes undertaken and the approvals that were given. That may be work we would undertake further. As I said, it is early days as yet. We await the advice from the ATSB into the accident causes and consequences.

 Senator RICE: Has there been an assessment of whether budgetary or financial pressures were driving the land use and what many people feel now is inappropriate land use on the site? Is it something that the department is putting its mind to?

Mr Mrdak : We do look quite closely at the financial viability of the leased federal airports in terms of our oversight and monitoring regime. I do not think you can make a suggestion that the development approval process is in any way influenced by those considerations. There are quite clear planning requirements which are set out in the legislation for approving such structures. They have to be complied with. That is not influenced by the financial viability of the concern.

 Senator RICE: How would the department respond to the sense in the community that it is the financial return from development on the site that has driven that development and that if the airport had not been privatised that development would not have gone ahead; that the underlying conditions are being driven by the financial concerns and the profits being returned to that privatised airport?

Mr Mrdak : The process of non-aeronautical commercial development on airports commenced a long time before the leasing of the airports. But I think there are two separate processes. One is the oversight of the airport more generally and its viability. The second is the planning development process, which are set out under legislation. And we are providing advice to the minister who has come in to the portfolio since that development process took place. That is where our focus is at the moment—to understand what took place in the development approval process.

 Senator RICE: Under the planning approval process, how is community safety taken into account when airport land use is assessed and approved?

Mr Mrdak : I will ask Ms Horrocks to give you an overview of our process.

Ms Horrocks : The act prescribes a range of processes with regard to major development plans. It also sets out a range of triggers and at what point, if one of those triggers is enacted, the airport is required to do a major development plan. There are quite a few of those. If there is a trigger then the process is that airports can choose to provide an exposure draft major development plan to the department, and the department will provide comments to that. We refer that to a range of Commonwealth agencies for comment. We provide all those comments back to the airport. The airport then prepares a preliminary draft masterplan, which it distributes to the community and makes public for 60 business days. Submissions are received back to the airport from interested stakeholders. The airport is required under the legislation to give due comment and due regard to all comments received. That information is provided back when the draft MDP—major development plan—is submitted to the minister. Following that submission, the information that is provided is analysed and advice is provided to the minister, and the minister makes a decision from there.

 Senator RICE: Can you now talk me through how and when that process applied for Essendon?

Ms Horrocks : On 12 December 2003, the exposure draft MDP was provided to the department. On 16 January 2004 the department provided comments back to the airport on that. On 28 January 2004 the airport provided an advertisement in the local paper, the Melbourne Age, to advise that the draft MDP was available for people to have a look at, for public display. On 28 April 2004, in accordance with the act, the public submissions were closed. On 19 August 2004 the draft MDP was submitted to the minister for assessment. On 16 December the MDP was conditionally approved from there.

 Senator RICE: Will the department be looking at the submissions that were made to that MDP? As I was just saying, I know many submissions were made at the time to say that the development proposed in that MDP was not appropriate. Will the department be looking at that in terms of its assessment of the crash?

Mr Mrdak : We will certainly look at the issues raised, particularly as they pertain to any findings from the ATSB in relation to it. I think it is fair to say that most of the comments were around impacts on their local community in terms of traffic and such issues.

 Senator RICE: No, there were lots of safety issues as well. Certainly there was a very active residents group that thought that the conditions as they were, because of the surrounding land use, with houses being within 100 metres of a runway, were bad enough, and then adding on further development on the airport side itself was even beyond what they thought was sensible at all. They made those submissions at the time. They sadly feel vindicated now.

Mr Mrdak : We will go back and look at some of those issues in the light of this. Obviously officers at the table were not involved in that process at the time. We will look at some of those issues as the ATSB works its way through the investigation.

 Senator RICE: After the investigation, is there potential for reviewing the plan now? What would be the process? Given that there is an MDP and you have the ATSB doing an investigation, what would the process be if it was seen that the development plan was seen to be no longer appropriate? How would that be reviewed or revised?

Mr Mrdak : Essentially the building is in place and is operating commercially. Subject to any safety findings in relation to the location of that building, unless there were significant findings of safety risk in relation to that building, that building is in place.

Senator RICE: So there is not a process of reviewing MDPs? Once they are in place, they are in place?

Mr Mrdak : Their construction has been completed and they are operating.

Senator RICE: So even if they have gone through a process, people have made submissions to say, 'This doesn't look very good,' they have been approved, and we have an accident down the track, there is not a process for reviewing them?

Mr Mrdak : If the advice from the investigation and subsequently from the safety regulators is that there is an unacceptable risk in the location of that building and the functions it serving, obviously the government would have to review its position, but at this stage that is not the case.

 Senator FAWCETT: Thank you for your comments. Obviously it is very early days yet in terms of the investigation of this particular incident. I just want to take you back if I can to the broader principles. You would be aware that we have discussed on a number of occasions since 2011 and 2012 I think issues around airport planning, particularly the NASAG process. I believe you discussed that or mentioned that earlier. The NASAG process, as we have discussed multiple times before, deals with noise; it deals with protection of airspace, particularly the PANS-OPS airspace, and obstacles that may protrude into that. But what I am seeking from you is an indication as to whether or not now you will go back and revisit what we have discussed on a number of occasions, which is the unique Queensland public safety area legislation, where they look at the zones on runway ends to make sure that there is no construction that would prevent a place for a pilot who needed to make a forced landing to have the ability to do that.

In the past you have said that is outside the scope of NASAG, and we have raised multiple times the fact that Queensland does do that with some airports—not all. And we have seen both state government planning, whether it be Jandakot or Archerfield or other smaller council-operated airports around Australia, where construction of residential and commercial properties has been allowed quite close and in the zones where traditionally air crew perhaps would have considered that that was their option if they had a problem that required them to make an emergency landing. So, I am really just looking for an assurance that you will now go back to those discussions that we have had over the last six years or so to look not just at the PANS-OPS and the noise but also at the areas the pilots may need for forced landing areas.

Mr Mrdak : Certainly, Senator, and before you arrived I outlined to the committee—and I will ask my officers Mrs Macaulay and Ms Spence to outline this—that we had been working with Queensland on a draft guideline and guidance for jurisdictions in relation to runway end safety zones and to runway public safety zones generally around airports. That work has now progressed. This tragedy obviously has taken place, but the next NASAG meeting was due to consider the issue. There was a meeting in November which considered it. There has still been some reluctance by some state planning authorities in relation to these issues, but quite clearly the Commonwealth has sought to progress this for many years as part of a suite of NASAG guidelines and guidance material, which you and I have discussed at length over the last few years. I will ask Mrs Macaulay to give you an update in relation to the public safety zones.

Mrs Macaulay : As the secretary mentioned, this work has been ongoing since 2012. Admittedly it has been slow, but as the secretary said there are quite a few sensitivities around it. The proposal on the table at the moment is very much modelled on the Queensland model, which was in turn modelled on a UK model. It sounds like you are well aware of those models. And as the secretary said, there were some good discussions in our last meeting in December. The sensitivities are around trying to get the right messaging out in bringing this forward across the board to be an additional guideline in the framework. So we have been working with the states on that piece of work over the last number of months, and we will be bringing forward an updated draft to this next meeting. We are hoping that the states will be satisfied with how we have moved ahead with it and would be prepared to progress it in the first stage to a targeted consultation followed, hopefully, by public consultation after that.

It is important to note that with public safety zones, depending on the geography of the airport, part of the public safety zone might be on the airport property itself, and a part of it may be off the airport property. Now, in federally leased airports, in terms of the Commonwealth's role, we would have a direct role in what happens on the airport, but it would be a matter for state and local governments off airport. The framework itself obviously is geared towards having a consistent approach throughout all states and territories. In those cases, where it is not a federally leased airport, it will be the state, territory and local government planning authorities that we are hoping will embrace these guidelines and take them into account when they are planning.

There are two different issues. If it is a greenfields arrangement where you are building a new airport then it is a much easier thing to deal with. But obviously we are going to be dealing with airports that already exist, that already have developments around them. And some of those are housing developments. That is where some of the sensitivities are in terms of getting the messaging out that this is an important thing to have, and future developments would take these things into consideration to reduce the number of people who are living in or are concentrated in those zones so that we can protect them into the future.

 Senator FAWCETT: Secretary, I would just make the comment that messaging is important but at the end of the day what the Australian people expect is that governments who are responsible for aviation regulation will find a way to work with state and local governments so that the outcome is not just messaging but is consistent—safety. And I raised Jandakot before as a case where we see those concerns around the encroachment for the airport. But I just wanted to get an assurance that you have taken on board—I know the department's position is that CASA provides a safety input into master plans. We discussed probably 18 months ago at estimates Archerfield and the role that CASA played there in signing off on the shortened runways but did not take into account their own requirements and operators in terms of factoring for grass strips, wet strips, climb-out gradients with engine failures et cetera at the gross weight that the operators are currently able to operate at. So, they correctly said that it can be safe but that would require the operators to operate it with lower payloads and hence it would not be as commercially viable.

The discussion we had at the time was that that safety consideration by CASA needed to consider the operations as they are in terms of the capacity of the airport and the current aircraft operating there and make sure there is no detriment to that, as opposed to just saying that yes, it can be safe if you reduce the scope of your operations. That is not in the intent of either the lease or the original legislation surrounding the use of Commonwealth airports.

Mr Mrdak : I agree.

 Senator FAWCETT: So, is that an assurance that yes, you are revising how CASA take their role?

Mr Mrdak : We have certainly for some time been looking closely, and I think CASA's engagement in the process is much improved over the last couple of years over what it has been in the past.

 Senator FAWCETT: And my final question is: could you perhaps look at providing the committee with a briefing on where you are up to with the NASAG process and what you are looking to take to the next meeting so that we get some visibility into that before it just becomes a fait accompli that is delivered?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly. We would be very happy to arrange that through the committee secretary.

Note: Here in pictures DF's body language speaks louder than words, he refers directly to M&M and gets him to 'agree' that CASA may have contravened the original spirit and intent of the Airports Act by providing deficient safety advice on proposed (DRAFT) Airport MAPs...   

Division 5 of the Airport Act states:

Division 5—Obligation to use airport site as an airport

31  Obligation to use airport site as an airport..etc            

 
My interpretation of the above Fawcett v Mrdak exchange is that it is 'agreed' that the airport operational environment, before the lease agreement was drawn up, represents the 'spirit & intent' and therefore the benchmark for the lessee 'obligation to use the airport site as an airport'.

In the Essendon case this places M&M and his CASA minions in the awkward situation of having to explain why it is approval was given/not given/ignored for the airport operator to have several iterations/changes (see Ventus post #219) to the operational length (TODA/TORA/ASDA/STODA etc), runway width/splay dimensions etc.; of RW17/35 since the original lease agreement was signed in 2001...

MTF...P2

Ps It would also be interesting to see if there is currently any YMEN HCRPT operators that have CASA approved RTOW restrictions and non-standard procedures for operating off RW17/35...

[Peetwo]

Aviation & Airports at Estimates - Drones & Essendon DFO accident. 

Via RRAT Estimates..

&..

&.. from CASA & the ATSB on Essendon DFO accident and airport development.

CASA obfuscation:

&..

Fawcett with Carmody on the record... :

&.. ATSB update to Essendon DFO investigation.. :

Hmm...somehow I think Fawcett, Rice and the rest of the committee have put M&M and his minions firmly on notice...

However we have heard similar weasel worded platitudes before...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Dr Gates, CASA definition of PSZs & S(1)© of the CAA. 

For the record - reference from Hansard & in pictures:

Senator XENOPHON:  Mr Tiede, I asked a question on notice. I know you have been engaged in correspondence with Dr Gates—that is, Dr Richard Gates, the President of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee, incorporated, at Evans Head in New South Wales—and he has sent me his, I thought, quite articulate letters in his correspondence with CASA and he has given me permission to disclose that he has been talking to my office.

Who has got responsibility for these zones? It seems that no-one has responsibility for having buildings in proximity to airports, and the potential risks that could pose to aviation safety and to those on the ground. We had that terrible accident at Essendon DFO on 21 February. I might seek permission through you, Chair, to table in due course the correspondence between Dr Richard Gates and Mr Carmody dated 20 March 2017, the response to Dr Gates from the authority of 8 May 2017, and I think there was a subsequent letter from Dr Gates to Mr Carmody on 20 April 2017. I do not think you have any issues with those. There is nothing particularly sensitive in them.

Note the following is the correspondence chain between Dr Gates and Carmody, as tabled by NX:

---

---

& the attempted Carmody bureaucratese 'fob off' reply to Dr Gates:

"Calling Mr Peabody" -

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Christ, what is it with all these Doctors? Dr Gates, Dr Aleck...seriously. Who next - Dr Carmody, Dr MrDak, Dr Chester?

FFS Doctor get me a spew bucket....quick! And while your at it, give CAsA, ASA and ATsB a giant enema...

[Kharon]

Tiede in the knots of definition.  

Old Shifty Tiede (assisted by Carmody) keeps being allowed to divert the issue back to the ICAO PANS_OPS specification; which, as I’ve patiently explained is to do with arrival and departure track obstacle clearance and Australia does comply. This has SFA to do with ‘public safety zones’. The DFO places the public at risk, legal and Tiede.

CASA obliged and assisted by approving (or not preventing by objecting) to a  manipulation of runway ‘Effective Operational Length’ (EOL) and various other tricky, clever definitions which have been stretched to the extreme limits. However, Mrdak and Dolan were the two bright sparks who tinkered with definitions when they were flogging off the airports and ‘accommodating’ development.

This is now a clearly defined case of legally sanctioned abrogation of duty of care and moral responsibility; the ‘rules’ could stand some careful scrutiny while we are at it. We see a lot of this in aviation, where the extremes of ‘law’ are played as normal precedent.

The Essendon building may well be ‘legal’ but I would not let anyone I know go shopping there; neither should the minister. Happily it is not my legal responsibility – the minister may yet have a problem. Can’t see the Americans letting this one pass by as simply ‘unfortunate’.  

Nothing is settled till it is settled right.

[MrPeaBody]

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

Carmedy and his band of ducking Carmedians are a disgrace!! Answer the question you idiots; who approved the encroachment on the OLS?

A quick trip back in time will show the fiasco unfolding; first let's go to 2003. Fully compliant except for a fence; encroaches by 5 metres. The parked cars don't count because they are not fixed structures.



In 2005 the first stage of the DFO is complete (building not shown) but the new fence line clearly encroaches on the air strip along with a couple of large water tanks. The DFO building (not shown) encroaches on the air strip buy a mere 24 metres by the way.



In 2006 as part of the Airport Master Plan, we build another fence. Inside the air strip of course!



You know once you build a fence and there are no complaints (especially from CASA); you can pretty much build what you want...like a Dan Murphy's and Good Guys.



And for those interested; if you go to the 2008 version of the Essendon Airport Master Plan, page 74 has a really piss poor image of the runways for prescribed airspace purposes. In other words the air strip widths used to determine the inner portions of the OLS. The east west runway is class 4 and north south is class 3...........low and behold the air strip widths are 150 metres AND not the 300metres prescribed by the Part 139 MOS.

The Carmedians have clearly lost control of the circus!

FFS.

P7 edit - Tim Tam and choc frog to Mr.PB. The displaced threshold a story on its own. Wonder what the taxiway cost - who paid for it and why?

[MrPeaBody]

"Fits Within the Template"..........Pigs Arse!! Part 2

Couldn't resist sharing these; a picture paints a thousand words as they say.

2003, pre Essendon DFO.



And here, 2005 initial DFO stage complete.



Who approved it Mr Carmedy??

PB

[P7_TOM]

Hey! Why don’t we just put the cone and gable markers back where they belong – that’d duck ‘em. What say you, who’s got a ute.

Would be an intersting legal how’dy do; who will interfere with the righteous relocating of safety equipment for aircraft operations.

[Gobbledock]

Well done Mr P, a picture paints a thousand words. Chocolate frog on short finals.

Tom;

"Hey! Why don’t we just put the cone and gable markers back where they belong – that’d duck ‘em. What say you, who’s got a ute".

Don't be so silly. Don't need a ute mate, just kick them about a foot and they will be in the original spot! Oh, I forgot, there are fences and buildings now there.

So, Shane, please do tell us who is responsible for the CAsA sign off? Who assessed the changes to the aerodrome? Who did the risk assessment? Who hasn't picked up the issue in subsequent CAsA annual audits? Who hasn't picked up the issue in annual third party technical inspections?
I'm sure Sen X, Fawcett and O'braces would love to hear your robust response...Muppet.

Unsafe skies for all

[P7_TOM]

Hypothetical roundelay.

It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.

“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.

But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

Give in; here’s a clue:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.

Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to rid of.

[Peetwo]

Hypothetical roundelay.

It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.

“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft be lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.

But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

Give in; here’s a clue:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.

Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to be rid of it.

Excellent catch Ol'Tom...

Perhaps the Murky Mandarin would do well to take note of the 'closing the safety loop', slices of thin Swiss cheese that Senator Fawcett continues to harp on about when considering the disconnect between land developers, the original intent of the Airports Act and airport aviation safety:

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as you are aware, we have spoken before about manual of standards part 139, which goes to airport design. Over the years we have seen what have essentially been open spaces for airports, with standards put in place. But as commercial pressures have built up that real estate and that airspace have been encroached upon right up to, and in some cases, I would argue, intruding into, the limits that MOS 139 is supposed to put in place.

What Senator Xenophon was pointing to, I think, is the fact that if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, 'Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,' and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore, options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system.

I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody : I will certainly look at that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.

Mr Carmody : I understand the logic of the statement you have made. I would like to go back and review how it is actually done, but I understand the point you are making.

Senator FAWCETT: I have raised on multiple occasions the example in Archerfield and the realignment and shortening of runways and the fact that CASA has ticked off on that. Yet, as pointed out by the operators there, for them to comply with CASA's requirements, in terms of planning for wet runways, climb gradients, factoring that they have to put in, they cannot comply. Therefore, yes, it can be made safe by having reduced payloads, but that then affects the commercial viability of the operation and flies in the face of the terms of the lease for the airport.

Mr Carmody : Understood.

---

&.. a reminder from the Additional Estimates in February:

Senator FAWCETT: Secretary, I would just make the comment that messaging is important but at the end of the day what the Australian people expect is that governments who are responsible for aviation regulation will find a way to work with state and local governments so that the outcome is not just messaging but is consistent—safety. And I raised Jandakot before as a case where we see those concerns around the encroachment for the airport. But I just wanted to get an assurance that you have taken on board—I know the department's position is that CASA provides a safety input into master plans. We discussed probably 18 months ago at estimates Archerfield and the role that CASA played there in signing off on the shortened runways but did not take into account their own requirements and operators in terms of factoring for grass strips, wet strips, climb-out gradients with engine failures et cetera at the gross weight that the operators are currently able to operate at. So, they correctly said that it can be safe but that would require the operators to operate it with lower payloads and hence it would not be as commercially viable.

The discussion we had at the time was that that safety consideration by CASA needed to consider the operations as they are in terms of the capacity of the airport and the current aircraft operating there and make sure there is no detriment to that, as opposed to just saying that yes, it can be safe if you reduce the scope of your operations. That is not in the intent of either the lease or the original legislation surrounding the use of Commonwealth airports.

Mr Mrdak : I agree.

Senator FAWCETT: So, is that an assurance that yes, you are revising how CASA take their role?

Mr Mrdak : We have certainly for some time been looking closely, and I think CASA's engagement in the process is much improved over the last couple of years over what it has been in the past.

   

MTF...P2

[P1_aka_P1]

From Thorn bird:-

Found another interesting tit bit, also from the Torch newspaper.

"A PROPOSAL to build Bankstown's tallest buildings will require Federal Government approval as they would contravene safety height restriction imposed for aircraft.

The four high-rise buildings, ranging in height from 19 to 24 storeys, will replace Bankstown's Compass Centre and the former Bankstown library on North Terrace and The Mall, and include a residential and retail component. Developer, FS Property Group is seeking to increase the maximum building height limit from 53m to 83m.

A Canterbury Bankstown Council spokesperson said an aeronautical impact study was completed by the applicant, and concludes it would not adversely affect safety or regularity of aircraft using nearby Bankstown Airport.

FS Property Group has offered to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with the council, which would enable the redevelopment of the old Bankstown library site. The planning agreement would allow the developer to construct a new administration building and car park for the council, which could accommodate staff, and enable the leasing out of office space in the Civic Tower, which is owned by the council.

"This will generate more funds which can be channelled into frontline services," the spokesperson said. The proposal is on public exhibition until May 12."

"A Canterbury Bankstown Council spokesperson said an aeronautical impact study was completed by the applicant, and concludes it would not adversely affect safety or regularity of aircraft using nearby Bankstown Airport."

THE APPLICANT completed an aeronautical impact study?

OH my GAWD, here comes another Essendon, or a mini World Trade Centre.

[Gobbledock]

Mate of mine sent me this snippet today from an article in a Perth newspaper from a few days ago. It seems to be the week for airport buggery!

CITY of Canning suburbs could be “noise bombed” by aircraft if Perth Airport’s cross-runway is removed, according to Councillor Jesse Jacobs.

http://www.communitynews.com.au/canning-...h-airport/

The story is that the Perth airport CEO is the ex-Cairns airport CEO. While in Cairns he shut down both the Cairns and Mackay airport cross runways so he could drive out General Aviation as well as reduce maintenance costs on those pesky smaller runways that only minor revenue earning aircraft use. Now this fool is in Perth and up to his old tricks and gunning to shut down Perth's cross runway. Nice one asshole. He had a shit reputation in FNQ and has apparently missed off a number of players in Perth, including the Rat. Seriously, how do these shitbag CEO's continue to get away with this stuff? Perhaps the EPA should classify airports as an endangered species and list them on its website?

The story continues;
My mate also reckons the owner of Cairns and Mackay airports, an entity that goes under the name of NQA and is owned by Auckland airport, JP Morgan and Hastings, is setting up the two airports for re-sale after only 6 years ownership. So I did a bit of research and found this article;

More workers made redundant in Cairns Airport staffing shake-up

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/mo...af69c1f1db

What is interesting is that 14 managers have been sacked or took VR's in 3 or so months since the new CEO started. So I did a little more research and found a stack of controversy about the airport, to much to list here. But it would seem that the Cairns and Mackay airports were sold off by the state Government to the sharks, have been gutted and milked for all they are worth, and will soon have a 'For Sale' sign placed out the front and sold for a tidy profit that will be sent offshore! So yep, the airports once again get used and abused like a $10 street walker and the pimps are the governments and then hedge funds who f#ck every last breath out of the airport. TICK TOCK

'Endangered airport species for all'