Things that go bump in the night,

Linear Mode

Peetwo
Moderator

Posts: 5,476
Threads: 15
Joined: Feb 2015

#470

03-30-2017, 11:10 AM

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2017, 11:37 AM by Peetwo.)

Gold Coast airport on frogs, fogs & PFOS bogs.

While we wait with bated breath for the ANAO audit report to be tabled (presumably today), I note that last week 6D, M&M and his minions (in particular Harfwit & ASA) played significant parts in achieving a compromise with one applicant to the AAAT case - Gold Coast Lifestyle Association Incorporated and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2017] AATA 368 (21 March 2017) - and a potential win with the second applicant to the proceeding... Wink

Why I find this particular case interesting is that it highlights some of the significant impediments to government encouraged infrastructure projects related to aviation safety, in this case the proposed construction of a RW32 ILS at GC airport. It also highlights how environmental issues, which include public safety risk involved with the PFOS contamination and aircraft noise exposure, lead to proactive aviation safety risk mitigation projects getting lost in the brouhaha - Dodgy

However in this case it seems that sanity will in fact prevail... Wink

Note to Harfwit - perhaps consider giving your Mr Hall a nice little sweetener for his contribution to this complicated but positive AAAT decision... Rolleyes

Quote:37.We were also provided with evidence from Mr Neil Hall. Mr Hall was called to give evidence by Airservices. He provided a statement (exhibit 9). Mr Hall is the acting Strategic Stakeholder Manager and the Environment and Air Traffic Management manager of Airservices. In that role, he was involved in the preparation of the major development plan. He previously worked as an air traffic controller and had worked at one stage as air traffic control tower manager at the Gold Coast airport. His familiarity with the Gold Coast airport was of considerable assistance, as we will explain.

38.Mr Hall’s written statement focused on noise issues and options for noise abatement. His unchallenged evidence on those issues (especially the noise abatement proposals referred to in [39] of his statement) was explicitly informed by other available evidence, including a report prepared by Mr Raymond Romano of the Airport Group dated 24 October 2016.10 Mr Hall’s evidence provides a basis for the draft orders that were proposed following negotiations between the Lifestyle Association and the respondents. Mr Hall’s oral evidence focused on the public consultation process that occurred in connection with the draft major development plan and on the operation of the airport.

39.Mr Hall explained that an ILS was one of several precision approach aids in common use. He said the ILS was desirable because it allowed aircraft to get lower and closer to the runway in bad weather than some of the alternative aids. He pointed out that was an advantage at the Gold Coast airport where heavy rainfall was often an issue. The evidence was relevant in light of the suggestion that superior alternative technologies are available. We were invited to infer that an ILS was not an appropriate choice for the airport. But there was nothing in the material presented at the hearing or in submissions which persuaded us we should reject Mr Hall’s oral evidence that it is reasonable to favour installation of an ILS over (or in addition to) alternative aids at this airport at this point.

10 Mr Hall referred to that expert in his statement. A copy of the report was filed separately.

40.Ms Smith asked Mr Hall a number of questions about plans to extend the operational length of the main runway. We were invited to infer that the installation of the ILS was part of a larger undisclosed plan to extend the runway in ways that would impact on the local environment. Ms Smith pointed out the plans for the ILS anticipate the localiser antenna would be placed 300 metres short of the end of runway 14 (that is, on Crown land at the southern end of the main runway beyond the airport boundary), when it could be located closer. She also said the construction was more intrusive than it needed to be: more vegetation was being cleared and extra road and drainage works were to be constructed. Ms Smith speculated it only made sense to place the localiser antenna that far from the end of the runway if the GCAPL secretly planned to extend the runway.

41.Mr Hall confirmed GCAPL was considering an extension to the operational length of runway 32 by moving the landing threshold (that is, the point where aircraft actually touch down) to the south, closer to the boundary of the airport. He said there was no secret about that proposal: the possibility of an extension is mentioned in the master plan: exhibit one at p 611. But he also said the operational length of the runway could be extended without extending the bitumen. The change could be effected by repainting the markings on the runway and reconfiguring the landing lights. Major construction work was not required. He added the placement of the localiser antenna was irrelevant to that exercise because the ILS was being installed on runway 14, not runway 32. The installation of the ILS on runway 14 would occur independently of any plan to change the operational length of runway 32. Mr Hall said the plans with respect to runway 32 were subject to a separate approvals process, although he said it was unlikely a major development plan would be required in relation to that proposal given the small scale of the works required.

42.Mr Hall was an impressive witness. He has a breadth of experience that enabled him to speak authoritatively on the detail of airport operations, air traffic control and navigation aids. His evidence in relation to the proposed further developments at the airport and in relation to the installation of the ILS infrastructure on Crown land was not directly contradicted. His evidence was credible, reasoned and carefully explained; there is no basis for rejecting his expert evidence.