Airports - Buy two, get one free.

Will Badgery's be the making of Turnbull. - Huh

Reference AP Senate thread:
(12-20-2016, 06:57 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  The other Aunty asks questions of the MacBank Sydney airports deal - Dodgy

 Via the abc online:
Quote:Badgerys Creek Airport: Questions raised about Sydney Airport Group
By Danuta Kozaki
Updated about 2 hours agoTue 20 Dec 2016, 4:00pm
[Image: 8135750-3x2-340x227.jpg]

Photo: The Sydney Airport Group is accused of making high profits but not investing enough into the airport. (AAP: Dean Lewins)

The Sydney Airport Group, which currently owns Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport, is now looking at whether to exercise its option to develop and operate the new Badgerys Creek Airport.

Some questions are being raised by business, community and regulatory groups about the organisation's current practices and how they could affect future users if it does become the new operator.

No limit to what they can charge: ACCC Chairman

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said Sydney Airport was sold in 2002 without any restrictions on what it could charge users of the airport.

The Howard government received $5.6 billion for that sale.

Mr Sims said the conditions of sale back then had amounted to carte blanche for the company over what it charges users.

"Sydney Airport has turned out to be a bumper investment.

"It has the highest profit margins on aeronautical services, very high profit margins on car parking.

"But on the other hand it has not invested as much as other airports, and it has consistently had the lowest ratings on the quality of service." Mr Sims said.

"I think the taking off of any regulation on the airport charges was an attempt by the then government to maximise the proceeds from sale, with I think insufficient regard to what the company buying the airport would then do."

Macquarie Bank is now the majority owner of Sydney Airport Group and its former Macquarie Bank CEO, Allan Moss, said at the time he believed it was a good purchase.

Congestion and inflated carpark fees major concerns

The consumer public transport group, Action for Public Transport said it is worried about what it calls Sydney Airport's high charging culture, particularly affecting car parking, taxis and public transport options at Sydney's existing airport.

[Image: 8135760-3x2-340x227.jpg]

Photo:
Consumers could be slugged with higher transport fees at the new airport. (AAP: Dean Lewins)


Spokesman Jim Donovan said the company has made it hard for travellers on all levels.
"They make a massive amount of money out of the Kingsford Smith carpark.

"I understand it has the right to ask the RMS (Road Maritime Services) to widen the airport to get even more cars in there."

Sydney Airport has also had issues in the past with its taxi ranks and problems with heavy traffic in the area.

The New South Wales Taxi Council said it has a good relationship with Sydney Airport with the $4 plus access fee for taxis being passed onto passengers for curb side management.

Mr Donovan said it looks like the new Western Sydney Airport will be relying on the road network, including carparks.

"You need a rail link at Badgerys Creek that will also service surrounding suburbs, otherwise there will be a major impact on roads out there."

Last week, the Federal Government said rail options were still being considered and it was working with the New South Wales Government to map out road and rail linkages to the site, with no concrete plan for a direct rail link.

Transport for NSW said a final report on the rail needs for the whole of western Sydney is due next year.

Aircraft noise likely to remain an issue with residents

Aircraft noise has been a major electoral issue for successive governments with aircraft movements from Sydney's Kingsford Smith.

[Image: 6443270-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
There are calls for the Federal Government to impose more regulations around airport noise. ( (Newtown Graffiti - Flickr))


The Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) was established in July 1996 to address the noise impacts from Sydney Airport in consultation with affected residents.

The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils president Stephen Bali said the same or similar issues exist for Badgerys Creek.

"In the end, as Badgerys Creek is slated to be a 24/7 airport, we are relying on a corporation to take in the needs of local residents in western Sydney, particularly regarding noise and so forth.

We need the Federal Government to impose regulations to safeguard the community."

When you realise how dodgy the original Sydney airport truly was with a substantial and quick financial gain for the Federal government that did not fully regard the long term implications of creating a virtual monopoly in the greater Sydney basin.

Also when you consider who it was that negotiated and signed off on our behalf that original deal and the virtual negative income the government extracts from the SAG, you begin to see why it is that the business and stakeholder groups are cautious about the SAG holding the monopoly on both Sydney airports.  

Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_112816_080210_PM.jpg]

 Perhaps Minister Fletcher should also be fully cognisant of the evidence given by Mr Allan Kessing, when considering the future implications of having MacBank control both primary airports in the Sydney basin: 
(11-26-2016, 10:11 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:21 Mr Allan Kessing (PDF 102 KB)
    
Then yesterday Binger, in the Oz, wrote a late article summarising the Allan Kessing submission and evidence given in the inquiry:
Quote:Airport screening a ‘facade’
[Image: 8624f3195b14c21b638adf8dd51ac8fd]1:56pmMitchell Bingemann

Whistleblower Allan Kessing says passenger screening is a “useless facade”, and intelligence gathering needs resources.

Video two probably should have the heading 'money talks' when (about 02:30) AK reveals that the reason his 2nd report was also rejected, by the customs airport manager at Sydney airport...

"..We were told, quite simply, that the commercial costs involved in complying with the Customs Act would be onerous..(sic), too onerous for the now privatised airport corporation (i.e. SAC)..."  


Perhaps one of the most underestimated 'quiet achievers' in the Turnbull ministerial ranks is Paul Fletcher, the minister for urban infrastructure and most importantly the minister in charge of pushing the development of the second Sydney Airport.

Given the 30+ year history of getting this Federal infrastructure investment project off the ground, this is a tough unenviable job but a job this particular Minister seems to be up for and revelling in. Via the Oz yesterday:
Quote:
Quote:Mascot owner can’t halt Badgerys
[Image: bb4d180e33c77b5e6dbf6db46b14e722]12:00amANDREW WHITE
Sydney Airport Corporation has right of first refusal but cannot injunct the government or other developers.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/fece1622e59681eb52e1e5f478f2e4ff/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Sydney Airport Corporation’s prospects of stalling or thwarting a competing airport at Badgerys Creek in Sydney’s west have been dealt a blow with revelations that it will not be able to use the courts to injunct another party that wants to proceed with the project.
Although there is a right of first refusal to build a second airport under terms agreed in 2002 when Kingsford Smith Airport at Mascot was sold to Macquarie Bank, this does not allow the owner to injunct the government or another developer, The Weekend Australian has learned.

The right of first refusal comes into play next year when Sydney Airport responds to a federal government notice of intention to proceed with the $5 billion-$6bn development.
Sydney Airport wants nine months to respond and has argued the government has significantly changed the terms by withdrawing any financial support for it to develop the site. In talks over the past two years, the government had variously offered to cover $1bn of preparatory siteworks and to ­provide a loan at a concessional rate to Sydney Airport to cover 80 per cent of the development costs.

But the government is now threatening to build the project itself or offer it to another party on the same terms if Sydney Airport decides not to exercise its right, and has demanded a response in four months from the time its notice was served.

Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher has demanded the shorter timeframe, arguing Sydney Airport is “substantially familiar’’ with the government’s terms and cannot argue there were material matters on which it was not consulted.
The dispute could be headed for arbitration by an independent expert after Sydney Airport argued the terms represented significant change and made Badgerys Creek a “challenging’’ development and it needs more time ­consider.

The tougher terms for the development reflect a hardening of the government’s position on supporting major infrastructure developments, with several ministers baulking at backing what is expected to be a profitable long-term asset to be built. This week Mr Fletcher said several models had been considered in consultation with Sydney Airport.

“Ultimately the commonwealth didn’t believe there was a case for additional ­financial support,” he said.

Investors and financiers said the decision to push Sydney ­Airport Corporation to fund all direct costs suggested it was increasingly likely the government would have to build Badgerys Creek itself as potential third parties could only be offered the same terms as SAC.

The company’s biggest shareholder, UniSuper, said the terms offered meant the deal was not “doable’’.

Analysts have estimated Sydney Airport would face extra interest costs rising to $100 million a year on the loans to cover eight years of development work before it earned any revenue from Badgerys Creek
Now given Malcolm Turnbull's past history as a Goldman Sachs investment banker, is this his opportunity to place himself as some possible value to the greater good of the Australian GDP?
Again via the Oz:
Quote:
Quote:PM has options on airport
[Image: af79b61e4d2470dfe339709790ab65c0]12:00amGlenda Korporaal
Malcolm Turnbull can hang tough in his talks with Sydney Airport, knowing billions of dollars can easily be tapped.


Who you gonna call, Malcolm?
[Image: a2ccf6be505a4e1753f92613d069ea31]11:52amGlenda Korporaal
The PM knows there are plenty of alternative bidders for a second Sydney airport to tap if he says the word.

Prime Minister Turnbull can hang tough in his talks with Sydney Airport, safe in the knowledge that billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for an alternative bidder for second Sydney airport could be tapped if he said the word.

While Sydney Airport CEO Kerrie Mather and her predecessors have done a great job for their shareholders, the congestion weary, sticker shocked users of Australia’s busiest airport might have a different view.

Any existing airport operator is going to be concerned about cannibalising its current business and maximising value for their shareholders, or minimising the downside from a potential competitor.

But a new consortium would be hungry to make a second airport a winner for Sydney’s west, competing fiercely with the ageing Kingsford Smith.

Much has happened since the Howard Government put Sydney airport up for sale in the early 2000s, and was more than pleased at the $5.4 billion put up at the time by the Macquarie Bank backed consortium in 2002.

The business of private infrastructure and airport investing around the world has taken off, with a large global pool now of privately owned airport operators as well as sophisticated, big ticket infrastructure investors.

There is now a significant pool of capital both within Australia and overseas which would be all too willing to be part of a new consortium to build a second Sydney airport.

Potential investors are sensibly keeping their head down while Turnbull, a Sydney airport frequent flyer himself, faces down the current monopolist.

It may well be that they do thrash out a deal for Sydney Airport to take up its option.
But should they fail to reach a deal, Turnbull only has to fire the starting gun and savvy infrastructure investors will be putting together deals.

The list is long, but they could start with the $125 billion Future Fund which has stakes in airports in Melbourne, Perth, Launceston and Gatwick.

Then there is the $500 billion industry super fund sector which is perpetually hungry for new infrastructure investments.

The $70 billion IFM investment group is now an experienced investor in airports including those in Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Northern Territory, Vienna and the Manchester Airport Group.

Throw in the Queensland Investment Corporation and the array of Canadian pension funds who love nothing better than a visit to sunny Australia.

Then there is the $40 billion New York based Global Infrastructure Partners fund which works with the Future Fund and owns Gatwick and Edinburgh Airport and was involved in recent bids for the Port of Melbourne and Australian freight rail operator, Pacific National. It sent a representative to the Future Fund’s 10th anniversary dinner in Melbourne recently which Turnbull attended.

Then there is Spanish infrastructure company Ferrovial which owns four airports in the UK — Heathrow, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Southampton.

The company has spent the past few years getting a new foothold in Australia, bidding for the company formerly known as Transfield, which changed its name to Broadspectrum. It hung in there and the $800 million deal was finalised midyear.

Then there are any number of European airport owning groups, such as the Vinci group in France, as well as cash rich Chinese investors keen for more offshore infrastructure.
A new airport in a major city in developed country is a rare bird indeed.

In Britain a few years ago, competition regulators a few years ago broke up the British Airport Authority’s hold on the UK airport market, paving the way for new investors including the Australian funds.

The global investor hunger for good quality infrastructure assets in Australia has been evident in the good deals struck for the sale of assets in NSW and the Port of Melbourne.
Only a few months ago, NSW Premier Mike Baird found himself in an embarrassing situation when Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison knocked back two Chinese bidders for a part interest in NSW electricity company Ausgrid.

Other investors, including the industry fund sector had kept out of the deal, knowing they could not put up quite as much money as the two Chinese backed groups. (More accurately one Chinese backed and another backed by Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing who has been a long time investor in Australia.)

Baird’s advisers did a quick trip to North America to talk to a new round of potential investors who began looking at the deal but then he got nervous that the Foreign Investment Review Board might nix any deal with a majority foreign investment.
So who was he gonna call?

Within weeks, the Melbourne based $100 billion Australian Super and IFM got together with a $16 billion “unsolicited proposal” which was quickly signed, sealed and delivered.
Mike Baird’s banking background has helped in doing infrastructure deals for his state.
But Turnbull clocked up far more impressive investment banking credentials before entering parliament.

As a young investment banker, Turnbull famously jumped on a plane and signed an agreement with the John Fairfax media groups’ US junk bond holders when the company was up for sale in 1991. His stunning deal swinging the auction in favour of the Conrad Black and Kerry Packer backed Tourang syndicate.

If he wanted to start with a fresh sheet of paper and a new consortium, Turnbull could call up the guest list of local and global fund managers at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Future Fund in Melbourne recently.

Sydney is one of the main gateways to Australia and the second airport has the potential to create a major new business centre in the city’s west which is already its centre of population.

Its future interest- and potential- needs to be considered broadly beyond those of Sydney Airport shareholders.

It’s not a case of Sydney Airport versus local western Sydney investors. For the former investment banker and deal doer, there is an important opportunity here.

So, Malcolm, who ya gonna call?
 
Whether Malcolm call's anyone or does the usual and fumbles the ball, time will tell but at least he has a doer Minister up for the challenge of facing down McBank and not allowing them to dictate/obfuscate/politicise the issue. I say bring on the infrastructure investors and tell SAC (McBank) to sod off... Wink

MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps Malcolm is there any chance the IOS could borrow your Minister Fletcher for a wee while, reckon he could sort out the 'three stooges' in short order. Gotta be better than Barnbaby's 'photogenic filter' any day of the week... Dodgy

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_122516_100738_AM.jpg]
Reply

Over on UP a thread contemplating names for the new airport.

The one that caught my eye, and probably a good candidate for quote of the month.

"Viagra International Airport"

Because its been a long time coming!!

Since our "Public servants" have morphed themselves into "self servants", with salaries to match, one has to ponder just how inept our political masters are these days.

Australians are really being played for fools.

The same signatures pop up on various documents, such as leases the past twenty years or so.
These same individuals are being paid mind boggling salaries to manage the public purse, yet wherever we look in our aviation world we find displayed incredible ineptitude in negotiating skills to a point where one can only be convinced that somewhere in there there must be some sort of "soft" corruption going on, these are supposedly very clever people, nobody could be that dumb.

Dick Smith nailed it when he said "We should be looking around the world for the best, then copying them"
The Japanese did that after WW11 and look at them today. The Chinese are doing the same, only on a much grander scale.
Very smart people, how dumb are we?

Our so called public purse managers manipulate gormless politicians to hand over public assets to banks whose ethics hover on the razor blade edge of difference between "legal" and "Illegal", or development sharks with even worse "ethics" and that somehow abrogating regulation (Making Law) to supposedly private companies all of whom have the primary objective of bilking the public out of as much money as possible.

We could have had arguably the best regulatory suite in the world, joined the rest of the pacific nations and adopted NZ regulations all for free, and we would have got a safer flying environment than we now have, and a thriving industry, employing lots of people and paying lots of taxes.

Nope, our Murky Mandarins insisted we must go it alone. Net result?, has to be close to $400 million now and rising, thirty years and the end result the death of an innovative industry that used to employ thousands. Net loss to Australia? incalculable.

We could have studied the planets best in security the Israelis, just enough overt "security" to create public confidence and minimise inconvenience, while the "real" security stays hidden in the background, always alert.

Nope, better our system. Racially target white, Anglo Saxon people and promptly put them through a process of maximum completely illogical protocols to ensure they arrive at the aircraft door ready to tear someones head off. They call this "Air Rage". Incidentally all of this handed to private companies with the same primary objective as the airport bilking the public of Money.

I sat on a panel back in the very early seventies to discuss where a second airport Sydney desperately needed should be located. Now after forty six years, finally we are actually going to build build a second airport.
But wait!!...The same Murky Mandarin who so nobly gifted Mcbank a billion dollar a year monopoly, tax free, will no doubt be in there trying to convince gormless politicians that the taxpayer should fund it.

McBank only funds car parks and infrastructure that has nothing to do with aviation but incorporates maximum inconvenience with maximum avenues to bilk users. Their motto, maximise returns, minimise expenditure.These days we have shopping centres and car parks that have a convenient airport incorporated, Mascot should be renamed "Wilsons" car Park and Airport.

Now lets see, Badgeries will be a single runway, bit of a terminal thats about it, and its going to cost How Much?? and take How long to build?? and who's going to run it??

Now if I was do Nuttin Darren I'd be telling Murky to stop pissing in my pocket, book the next flight to "Wellcamp" observe just how a privately owned and run airport who know how to treat customers and acts as a responsible, ethical local business that gives back to the community some of what it takes out rather than syphoning it offshore to well known tax havens.

After he's done that, get down on his knees and beg the "Wagners" to come build and run Sydney's new airport. Mc bank would then lose their monopoly and have to compete. Wonder how far charges would drop at Sydney? Wonder how long before the Wagners would have to build a second runway?

Based on Wellcamp, Badgeries could be up and running in five years or so and quite a few billion wiped off the national debt with a few billion more added to the countries GDP.

Win win or loss loss whats it to be Darren?
Reply

(11-16-2016, 06:58 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Fire sale coming to an airport near you - contaminates for free: Guaranteed to give you 30..60..up to an amazing 300% over the acceptable limit for a contamination dosage, for free or your health back -  Dodgy  

(11-16-2016, 12:39 AM)Gobbledock Wrote:  C'mon DDDDarren, you've got some real spot fires erupting now mate, and it seems like it is just you holding 'one limp hose' to put it out? Where are your mates Barmybaby, Purple Haze Harfield, Wingnut and Conductor Houston???? Throwing you under the bus?
Quote:Calls for more testing to determine the extent of contamination at Gold Coast Airport
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/c0d1ab1dd33557a5fec36ebbc57de767?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=GoldCoastBulletin&td_noGallery=true&td_device=desktop[/img]Lea Emery, lea.emery@news.com.au, Gold Coast Bulletin
November 16, 2016 1:00am
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/c0d1ab1dd33557a5fec36ebbc57de767?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=GoldCoastBulletin&td_noGallery=true&td_device=desktop[/img]

AIRSERVICES Australia has been slammed by community groups for not doing enough to deal with contamination at the Gold Coast Airport.

The federal body which oversees airports nationally, yesterday released the long-awaited results of testing for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in soil and water at the airport.

The same chemicals caused serious health issues at Oakey where they leached into drinking water after being used at the town’s air force base.

The toxic chemical was used in firefighting foam at the Gold Coast airport between 1978 and 2003.

[Image: e8c8efc5b4bdb43919dac20ccfbb79a9?width=650]The Gold Coast Airport.

AirServices Australia had the firefighting training grounds, the border of the airport and the Cobaki Broadwater tested for the chemicals.

PFAS were found in very high levels at the fire-training grounds and at a level equivalent to the federal guideline for safe drinking water near the airport border. No traces were found in the Cobaki Broadwater surface water.

State Environment Minister Steven Miles said the report was far from complete.
“I am concerned that from information made available so far it appears that AirServices Australia needs to do more work to establish potential migration pathways and impacts on aquatic ecosystems, and that these deficiencies need to be acknowledged in the presentation of the results,” he said.

[Image: 5216cc605fc47f01c40ad310379ccee6?width=650]The same chemicals caused serious health issues at Oakey where they leached into drinking water after being used at the town’s air force base.

Tugun Cobaki Alliance spokeswoman Lindy Smith said: “The real information the community wants is lacking.”

Ms Smith said it was of concern none of the testing along Coolangatta Creek was on groundwater, meaning it was not a real picture about potential contamination in the area.

Friends of Currumbin secretary Gloria Baker said the results gave no further information when compared to testing in 2008, the results of which were released this year.

Ms Baker said many residents living just north of the airport used spear pumps and feared the contamination had moved off the airport site.

“It’s a great concern they have not even tested the spear pumps,” she said.

AirServices Australia spokesman Nick Edwards could not say if residents should be concerned.

“It wouldn’t be appropriate for our organisation to be advising people from a health perspective,” he said.

The results had been passed on to the federal and state environmental authorities and AirServices would seek their guidance.



Sure would be a crying shame for Cooly's airport to be better known for its contamination of ground water  with a toxic chemical that can't be removed, than for it to be known as being the gateway airport to the beautiful Gold Coast?

TICK TOCK Houston and Electric Blue

And also today via Gold Coast Bulletin
Quote:[Image: e83b925e6b440496fd5834e8ae75620a?width=1024]The revelation that the chemicals used in firefighting at the airport previously has come as a slap in the face for firefighters.

Sun Community
[/url]Advice to Gold Coast Airport construction workers to be tested for exposure to carcinogens ‘slap in face’ for fire fighters
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/dceb873ef9e475a548fe6be4c5d438f6?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=GoldCoastBulletin&td_device=desktop[/img]
DENIS DOHERTY, Gold Coast Sun
October 16, 2016 1:00am
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/dceb873ef9e475a548fe6be4c5d438f6?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=GoldCoastBulletin&td_device=desktop[/img]
A MOVE to advise construction workers on site at Gold Coast Airport to undertake blood testing for chemicals associated with a now disused firefighting foam has been described as a slap in the face for firefighters.

According to Gold Coast Airport chief operating officer Marion Charlton contractors working on site have been advised to take a precautionary approach to works in regards to PFAS and offering testing such as this would be in line with that approach.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) were components of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) which was used for firefighting at the airport until 2010, and both are suspected of being carcinogenic.

[Image: 0adf92bdab61fbc1f886377395a4d325?width=650]A move to advise construction workers on site at Gold Coast Airport to undertake blood testing for chemicals associated with a now disused firefighting foam has been described as a slap in the face for firefighters.

The move to test workers comes despite Airservices Australia being accused by the union which represents airport firefighters of dragging its feet when it comes to testing firefighters for the chemicals.

According to United Firefighters Union Australia Aviation Branch representative Henry Lyons the group has been pressuring Airservices Australia to activate a clause that would allow extra testing of its members.

“They have so far refused,” he said.

“Our members would have been exposed just as much or more as defence force members who have been offered blood tests.

“It’s a health and safety issue and under the legislation Airservices Australia needs to take this more seriously.”

Tugun Cobaki Alliance president Lindy Smith said the move was a real slap in the face for firefighters considering they would have been in direct contact with the chemicals for a long period of time.

“These chemicals are now globally recognised as serious contaminants with serious health and environmental impacts,” she said.

Ms Smith also slammed Airservices Australia for dragging its heels on the release of a report into the contamination around the airport.

In a statement at the time the group said results would be released in August.

“Initially there were tests in June which were to be finalised in August and now we’re into October and from Airservices own statements and documents there supposedly have been ongoing investigations since 2008 and they are still not available,” Ms Smith said.

“Also NSW authorities have got two major developments at the airport with Project Lift and the ILS where you have substantial earthworks that disturb the ground and surface water authorities have not been provided with any data.

“Residents are fed up and I’ve had a number of calls particularly from residents who live adjacent to airport.

“These people have used groundwater for decades and when you look at Williamstown (Newcastle, NSW) and Oakey where warnings have been given by the Defence Department not to use groundwater and not consume produce from ground contaminated by these chemicals these people are being left in the dark and I think it’s appalling.”

Update to Gold Coast PFAS issue - Confused  

Courtesy ABC News online:

Quote:[url=Fish and waterways near Gold Coast Airport being tested for toxic run-off]Fish and waterways near Gold Coast Airport being tested for toxic run-off
By Charmaine Kane
Updated yesterday at 4:33pmTue 24 Jan 2017, 4:33pm

[Image: 1339578-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
Samples will be taken from Cobaki Lakes behind Gold Coast Airport. (www.goldcoastairport.com)


Seafood sampling has begun to determine how far toxic chemicals have spread from Gold Coast Airport into the surrounding environment.

The decision to begin testing today came after low levels of a once-used firefighting foam were found in soil and groundwater near the Coolangatta airport's boundary last year.
Fish and sediment samples are being collected this week from Cobaki Lakes, which is adjacent to the airport and south of the New South Wales border.

The testing was commissioned by Airservices Australia (AA), the government body that runs firefighting services at the airport.

AA said the project would examine a total of five sediment samples, five surface water samples and collection of six seafood species.

"The project is focused on examining if there is any potential historical per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination affecting local seafood species," an AA statement said.

Quote:"The aim is to better understand if there is any impact which could be attributed to the historical use of PFAS containing firefighting foam."

The chemicals have contaminated Air Force bases at Oakey in south-east Queensland and Williamtown near the New South Wales city of Newcastle.

[Image: 6992900-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
Low levels of firefighting foam residue were found near the airport last year. (CRC CARE)


Member for Tweed Geoff Provest said he had eaten fish from the affected area and potential contamination was a concern.

"It's not a panic stage at the moment. We just need to push hard and get these results and see what is actually there," he said.

"There's some pretty pristine mud flats, mangroves, swamps. It is a fish breeding ground for a lot of the Tweed River and it is quite popular with fishermen.

"There are some pretty good mud crabs and different species that can be obtained in that area … sea mullet, sand mullets, mud crabs and also the Sydney rock oyster."

Consulting firm GHD is overseeing the testing, along with the NSW environment department, with results expected in March.

From other news sites:
TICK..TOCK DDD_MNFI Chester the PFAS PED clock is counting down:
Quote:miniscule 4D (M&M prepared) AAA speech; & the PFAS ticking PED - [Image: confused.gif]  

(PED definition: Politicised Explosive Device)

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

And naturally the overpaid ASA Chairman and chief bus conductor Houstoblame is as quiet as a schoolboy late at night with a hustler magazine! Houston, combined with buccular boy Harfield will act as slowly as possible on this issue. They know the fuse on PFOS has been lit nationwide, they will just be hoping the whole thing explodes long after they have retired.

The billion dollar monopoly known as ASA really has plummeted under these two blokes. Dodgy financial deals, poor governance, land contamination, airspace issues, mass redundancies, dismal culture, profit loss and a host of other problems and yet these two gentlemen continue to be remunerated handsomely and allowed to continue to steer the ship?

TICK TOCK
Reply

Airports update - The good, the bad & ugly. 

At last the miniscule 4D can spruik a relatively less contentious good news aviation story... Wink

Quote:10FEB2017
Essential upgrades to isolated airstrips across Australia
Keeping rural, regional and remote Australian communities connected is the driving force behind the continued rollout of funding under the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Programme


  • 91 aerodrome upgrade projects funded under Round 4 of the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Programme
  • Projects range from rebuilding an entire runway to constructing camel proof fences. Each will improve access to fresh food, medical services, work and education opportunities
Keeping rural, regional and remote Australian communities connected is the driving force behind the continued rollout of funding under the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Programme.
Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said each of the 91 projects funded under the current round meant people living in remote areas would have improved access to services and connections with the rest of the nation.

“The $11.8 million committed to projects under Round 4 will help upgrade airstrips in New South Wales, Queensland, West Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory,” Mr Chester said.

“Australia's tyranny of distance is a way of life for many of our most remote communities, and safe and functioning airstrips are often the only reliable means of transport for freight and urgent services.

“Smooth runways or keeping wildlife away from airstrips can make all the difference in a safe landing. These upgrades will safeguard access to essential health care services including emergency medical evacuations, while also improving access to work and education opportunities.

“Having access to fresh food and water, and indeed access to communities hundreds of kilometres away, is an underappreciated fact in many cities, but for residents in remote communities it is essential.”

Mr Chester said the Royal Flying Doctor Service was a prominent applicant to the round, and a number of remote airstrips to be upgraded were frequently used by the service.
“These vital infrastructure improvements, including new airport lighting, runway resealing and modern satellite-based instrument approaches, are essential to keeping the Royal Flying Doctor Service flying,” he said.

“The RFDS is a magnificent medical provider to remote communities across the nation and we are proud to be able to support their work by ensuring their operations can be conducted as safely as possible. The Australian Government clearly remains committed to improving services in regional and remote communities across Australia.”

Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia CEO Martin Laverty welcomed today's announcement.

“It's common for emus or kangaroos to disrupt aircraft landings on unfenced airstrips during medical emergencies in remote areas. Night landings on some airstrips are also hindered where there is no lighting,” Mr Laverty said.

“Commonwealth funding, and the terrific aviation planning relationship we have with Minister Chester and his Departmental staff, means the Flying Doctor will be better able to deliver emergency medical care to injured or ill Australians across 91 frequently used airstrips.”

The funding is part of the Government's announcement in the 2015–16 Budget of $33.7 million over four years to fund access and safety upgrades for remote community airstrips under the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Programme. Round 4 was the second tranche of upgrades under the 2015–16 Budget funding.

A list of projects approved under the programme is attached. 
&.. the Oz take on that... Wink :
Quote:$11.8m fix lifts flying doctors
[Image: 2a07d06a980b7a0245c74442e441fb3e]12:00amANTHONY KLAN

The federal government is to spend $11.8 million upgrading more than 90 regional airstrips across the country.

Quote:The federal government will spend $11.8 million upgrading more than 90 regional airstrips across the country, with remote Queensland townships Julia Creek and Mornington Island among the biggest winners.

Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester confirmed the latest round of funding as the Australian Airports Association lodged a 2017-18 budget submission warning substantially more was needed to allow facilities to continue operating.

Mr Chester said the funding, the latest round in $33.7m set aside in the 2015-16 budget, would be a major help to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which used many of the airstrips set to be upgraded. “These vital infrastructure improvements, including new airport lighting, runway resealing and modern satellite-based instrument approaches, are essential to keeping the Royal Flying Doctor Service flying,” Mr Chester said.

The government has set aside $3m for an upgrade of the taxiway, runway lighting and aerodrome of the airstrip on Mornington Island, in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
North Queensland’s Julia Creek and Bathurst Island in the Northern Territory would receive $1.17m and $1.5m for runway reconstructions while the Mimili Aboriginal community airstrip would receive $125,000 for the erection of a camel proof fence.

In a letter to treasury, AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said while the $33.7m regional aviation access program provided “much needed assistance”, there were limitations of the program “both in quantum and eligibility”, meaning it was “far from ­adequate” to support regional aviation. “State government assistance has been made available in some states. However, funding is often ad-hoc or insufficient for major remediation works to ­ensure Australian aerodromes continue to operate in a safe and secure manner,” Ms Wilkie writes.

Last September the AAA released a report it commissioned from ACIL Allen Consulting which claimed regional airports were collectively expected to suffer budget deficits of $17m each year for the next decade, leaving a $170m “shortfall in essential infrastructure and maintenance”.

“The AAA has consulted on the report with a number of federal members of parliament, with many acknowledging the challenging environment that regional airports operate within and the need for appropriate government support,” Ms Wilkie wrote in her letter to treasury.

The $11.8m to be announced today had been committed to upgrading airstrips in every state and territory other than the ACT. “Australia’s tyranny of distance is a way of life for many of our most remote communities, and functioning airstrips are often the only reasonable means of transport for freight and urgent services,” Mr Chester said. “Smooth runways or keeping wildlife away from airstrips can make all the difference in a safe landing.”

The Royal Flying Doctors Service of Australia was the applicant behind 41 of the runways to be upgraded in the latest spend, almost half of all projects to be undertaken. Chief executive Martin Laverty said the funding meant the service would be better able to deliver emergency care to “injured or ill Australians across 91 frequently used airstrips”.

“It’s common for emus or kangaroos to disrupt aircraft landings on unfenced airstrips during medical emergencies in remote areas,” Mr Laverty said.

“Night landings on some airstrips are also hindered where there is no lighting.” In NSW 32 airstrips would have lighting installed or repaired or RNAV Area Navigation systems installed as a result of Royal Flying Doctor Service applications, including Ivanhoe in the state’s west and Louth in the northwest.

According to the study commissioned by the AAA, regional airports invested $185m nationwide in 2014-15 to maintain and improve operations.

Just over 60 per cent of regional airports had budget deficits in the year, with an average of 6 per cent. AAA said expenditures at regional airports were expected to rise by a total of 38 per cent over the next decade.

Next a not so good aviation & airports news story with yet another HoR MP asking some more embarrassing questions about the Gold Coast PFAS issue... Confused

Quote:Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:49): I call on the Turnbull government to ensure there is complete transparency with the investigation into potential PFAS contamination at Gold Coast Airport. In July, Airservices engaged an independent environmental consultant to conduct a preliminary site investigation at the airport. The purpose of the investigation was to identify any potential PFAS contamination through targeted soil, groundwater and surface water testing. I note that whilst the test results on the boundary indicated potentially low risk, Airservices continues to work with relevant agencies to determine further testing.

Airservices recently announced on 24 January that it will begin conducting a seafood sampling program in the Cobaki Broadwater adjacent to the Gold Coast Airport. The project is focused on examining if there is any potential historical PFAS contamination affecting local seafood species. In their related media release Airservices stated that they will share the results, which are expected to be available from March, with relevant Commonwealth and state environmental and health regulators and the airport as part of their ongoing work with these stakeholders in taking a risk-based approach to managing PFAS concerns at the Gold Coast Airport. I understand that Airservices will then coordinate with relevant Commonwealth and state agencies to consider the most appropriate approach to keeping the community informed.

Given that so many local community members have contacted me about their concerns—quite relevant concerns—about the potential impact of PFAS, I request that the Turnbull government ensure that Airservices provide all of that information from the investigations in an informative and timely manner to all those interested parties throughout our community, as there is a very strong interest in the result of these investigations.
 
TICK..TOCK...Harfwit, Sir A & 4D, TICK..TOCK indeed... Dodgy
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Let the pork barrelling begin

I'm going to have to take the glass half empty approach on this one boys, sorry.
For starters, the only reason money is now being thrown at airports is because there are elections in the air in both the Federal arena and in some States. They are preparing to buy votes in advance. I am all for regional airports obtaining funding, excellent stuff. However, a few bucks spent on fences and scraping cow shisen off the strips doesn't stimulate the GA economy. Doesn't even come close.

Our industry requires stimulation, not a couple of bandaids on a few sores. We need;

- Tax incentives including cuts for aviation businesses
- Real and actual red tape reduction
- Business friendly and workable regulations
- Additional incentives and reductions for any aviation small business that adds jobs or brings in money to its community
- Direct input, acceptance and accountability from the finance Minister to ensure the above points are actioned
- Direct involvement and support by both Federal and State heads to ensure the above points are actioned.

Otherwise the game of BOHICA continues gentlemen.

Sorry, the tick Tock remains
Reply

Gobbles me old mate,
One also has to wonder just how much the "regulatory burden" adds to the cost of everything. I think people are starting to wake up that the cost of "compliance" across the board is what is making Australia the most expensive country in the world to live and do business in. Our pollies don't notice of course, their focus is over their noses and into the trough, not on the interests of those they represent.

The treasurer bangs on about reducing company tax rates. I would suggest tax cuts are small potatoes compared with unnecessary compliance with never ending rules which never accomplish the imagined problems they were meant to address.

Then of course there is the cost  multiplier of sweetheart union deals struck in collusion with big business basically to defraud the end user.

Finally the self serving bureaucrats add their little cost multiplier to the mix and it's easy to see why the cost of doing anything in this country is so high, the cost of actually making something dwarfed by the costs added by compliance.

Witness "Wellcamp" a single runway, terminal building and infrastructure
Privately built for a couple of hundred million and I imagine a fair percentage of that went to compliance and it was done in a couple of years. Compare that with Badgeries Creek, a single runway, terminal and infrastructure, with estimates running into billions and decades to build.

What has happened to aviation over the years is testament to what happens when mystic, murky Mandarins and their minions are not kept under control by their responsible ministers and creeping regulation is allowed to flourish unhindered with no checks and balances nor any regard to the ultimate cost. Dick Smith coined the phrase "Affordable safety" I think now the public is starting to wake up to the need for "Affordable Regulations". Australia cannot survive as a services only economy, we must make stuff and sell it, for that we must compete least we fall into the trap of so many other old world countries who didn't keep a close eye on the cost benefit bottom line.
Reply

Airports Act in spotlight after YMEN crash - Dodgy

Joseph Wheeler (via the Oz) brings back to ToRs the contentious issues surrounding Government airport lease agreements (in particular secondary airports), that were originally drawn up under the conditions of the Airports Act 1996:
Quote:Profit should never be allowed to override airport safety
Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM February 24, 2017

When is an airport not about ­aviation? In Australia at least, the answer to that question depends on whom you ask.

Residents around most federally leased general aviation airports in Australia might say that there is too much aviation, or that aviation is too close to home. If you ask an aviator who flies to such airports, their answer might be that they prefer flying to “old-fashioned” airfields rather than being made to endure the headaches that come with avoiding ever-increasing developments such as office blocks and shopping centres taking up space on valuable airport land.

While this week’s tragedy at ­Essendon Airport is freshly the subject of investigation, the accident is again an important reminder that lessons are there to be learned about the regulation of planning and development at federally leased airports to ensure the right balance is struck between air safety and commercial operations.

Essendon is one of a handful of Australian airports that were once run by the commonwealth, but privatised in the late 1990s by way of long-term leases to private airport operators.

What those operators learned fairly quickly is that aviation doesn’t pay. In fact, the value to be had from the airport sites was not from fostering the growth of Australia’s general aviation sector at airports like Essendon, or bringing commercial efficiency to the operation of our major air gateways (although that was one positive contribution, some will argue).

No: the value to be had was simply the land. Property like federally leased airport sites was and is in short supply. Typically it is near major cities, with existing road or rail infrastructure to connect them to the outposts of trade. Subleases, with rentals paid by high-volume box-movers and retail mega-warehouses, easily trump the few dollars that can be earned from landing fees from student pilots trying to earn their wings.

And this is why we see ­encroachment on airports by property developments.

Areas that once were grassy and necessary excess spaces for mitigating aviation accidents are now dwindling because they equal money to airport operators. Notwithstanding height limitations and certain use limitations, airports have increasingly come to be associated with commercial development more than aviation.

The upshot is that aviation is being edged out of airports. And of course, while the major impediments such as adherence to Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are mandatory for airport operators to preserve, it is arguable that any further control given to them (for example, permitting temporary intrusions as “controlled activities”, which intrude into that airspace) should solely be the reserve of our air safety regulators.

The Airports Act 1996 and its regulations (which facilitated the sale of long-term leases of major airports to private operators) allow airport operators to make safety-sensitive interim decisions about the protection of airspace used by fare-paying passengers.

This is one of the many concerns open for critique in a public consultation paper published by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (which administers the leased airports), focusing on “Modernising Airspace Protection”. The paper, open for comment until Tuesday, follows the recommendation of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel in 2014, which sought that the department “take a leadership role to ensure the future viability of airport infrastructure is not compromised by poor planning and land-use decisions”. The department “found a number of regulatory gaps ranging from outdated regulatory ­approaches ... regulatory overlap … and considerable scope for improvement in regulatory oversight”.

It must be hoped that this process will help to bring to a head the need to ensure that airports are getting the balance right on safety versus commercial imperatives. Greater planning control on leased airports under the Airports Act; more stringent airspace protection by DIRD and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority than current regulations permit; or, as a last resort, commonwealth buyback of the airports at the end of their lease are all options to review.

The causes of this week’s accident are still to be determined, but at a minimum it serves as a tragic and timely reminder to all airspace users and to the commonwealth that airspace protection at airports is an issue sorely in need of greater oversight.

Influential corporate interests should never trump the primacy of air safety.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of aviation and aerospace law firm IALPG, national head of aviation law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

Next a related story from ABC Local on Brisbane's Archerfield airport:

Quote:Call for urgent safety review of Brisbane's Archerfield Airport after Essendon tragedy
By Lexy Hamilton-Smith and Andree Withey
Updated Wed at 5:35pmWed 22 Feb 2017, 5:35pm
[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Archerfield Airport is located about 10 kilometres from the Brisbane CBD.

Concerns have been raised about development at Brisbane's Archerfield Airport following yesterday's fatal plane crash at Essendon in Melbourne.

Key points:
  • Pilots, local business say dangerous developments are occurring at Archerfield
  • Airport denies projects are putting people at risk
  • Developments include accommodation, training schools
Aviation and community groups are now calling for an urgent review of what they call "dangerous" developments on airport land.

For years the local chamber of commerce has fought the airport's master plan arguing against proposed new facilities like an aviation business park.

President Lindsay Snell said it is was "tombstone mentality" for people to wait until there was a tragedy like Essendon before dealing with the problem.

Ben Morgan from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA) has also been battling over development of secondary airports.

He said Archerfield, like many airports around the country, had been reconfigured.

"It has changed the runway lengths and undertaken a multitude of modifications which have been opposed by the industry," he said.

Mr Morgan said obstacles had been created which could reduce options for a pilot in the case of an emergency.

Archerfield Airport developments:
  • Student accommodation
  • Training schools
  • Maintenance facilities
  • Queensland Government air wing
  • Police air wing
  • Parking areas
Quote:"The safety of pilots, the safety of the flying public needs to be prioritised above the profit interests of these property developer airport owners," he said.

Both groups said appeals to the Federal Government for a review on safety grounds had fallen on deaf ears.

They are hoping now, in wake of this week's tragedy, their concerns will finally be taken seriously.

Mr Morgan is urging Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester to begin a rapid review of policies and mechanisms regarding development plans at secondary airports.

"He needs to assure the Australian public that future developments are going to be given a far tighter degree of investigation when it comes to safety risk analysis," Mr Morgan said.

"And that any building on airport precincts will not pose a safety risk to pilots."

Mr Chester did not comment on Archerfield specifically, but said any developments approved were made with the backing of Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[Image: 8289304-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Five people died when a plane crashes into DFO at Essendon Fields on Tuesday. (Metropolitan Fire Brigade)

'Airports are all about safety': general manager

Archerfield Airport is located just over 10 kilometres from Brisbane's CBD and is in the middle of a busy industrial hub and fast-growing residential area.

The airport was privatised in the late 1990s but remains on Commonwealth-owned land.

The Archerfield Airport Corporation has since injected more than $38 million into the restoration and renewal projects.

General manager Heather Mattes admits ongoing growth has been and continues to be a priority because the airport needed to be run as a commercial airport.

However, Ms Mattes insisted none of the developments were dangerous.

" I reject that totally. Airports are all about safety," she said.

Quote:"All the runways are built and designed and maintained in accordance with civil aviation safety regulations.

"I am a pilot myself and I have landed here at the airport numerous times, aviation safety is our key priority here."

The airport's latest master plan for 2017 to 2037 was closed for public comment on February 17.
    
To follow from the above I note that AOPA Oz has declared they will be conducting an independent investigation into the Essendon crash focussing on retail encroachment at airports. If true I hope they consider advice from the Archerfield Chamber of commerce and the many expert depositions, consultations and historical records they have amassed with their AAT case... Wink

AOPA Oz should also consider a thorough briefing/consultation from one Senator David Fawcett.. Wink





Just saying... Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Essendon fatal crash & Airports - continued.

Via Echo Netdaily... Wink :

Quote:Evans Head group calls for Royal Commission into aviation safety

[Image: aerodrome-copy.jpg]
The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome. (supplied)

An Evans Head group has warned that the Essendon Airport crash must act as a ‘wake-up’ call for the NSW Department of Planning and the Environment (DOPE) in NSW, planning authorities in other states, and the federal government with regard to residential and other forms of development such as shopping centres on and around airports regardless of location.

The group says the federal government seems to have left planning around airports including safety zones entirely to state governments despite the fact that aviation and aviation safety is a cross border issue.

President of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Dr Richard Gates said the most concerning feature of planning around airfields and airports in NSW is that how close residential development is permitted to come to an airfield is determined by a noise nuisance measure, the Australia Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF).

‘The ANEF is a series of contours which reflect increasingly louder noise nuisance profiles for aircraft noise with developments of certain types not permitted within certain contours or with mitigation such as double glazing or sound insulation,’ Dr Gates said.

‘The problem is that the noise contours are used as a surrogate for safety zones around airfield, a quite inappropriate use of a noise nuisance measure.

‘Aircraft noise and risk of accident around airfields are two quite different profiles with accident risk for take-off and landing requiring a much larger land area particularly around the end of runways where accident data (widely respected and used California accident data sets) show that most accidents occur.

‘The problem with the federal aviation authorities is that they have moved to an ‘affordable risk’ model for aviation safety.   This model is based on the fact that aviation accidents in Australia are relatively rare in Australia so if the chances of an accident are 3 in a million take-offs and landings then insurance risk is low and authorities can afford to cover such eventualities should there be a loss of a ‘hull’ [aircraft].”

‘The problem with the model is that you can’t predict when such an accident will occur. While the incidence might be very low it could be the very next flight which crashes into a residential area with loss of life and consequent calls for an airfield to be closed as we have seen at Essendon yet again.’

‘For years the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee has opposed residential development on and around the four airstrips of the State Heritage Listed Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome where Richmond Valley Council has made decisions based on the ANEF noise profile and has given no consideration to larger safety zones which we believe are required to maximise public safety.

‘One of the federal government authorities involved in aviation made it very clear to us that existing residential development at Evans Head was already too close to the runways but council ignored those comments and used the ANEF contours to decide where residential development should be allowed. The problem is that the local planners making the decisions seem to have little or no knowledge of aviation and aviation safety and the potential risk of catastrophic engine failure. But more than that they are not even using the latest ANEF ASA standard in making determinations. A council staff member we spoke to admitted that council did not have the latest standard.’

Dr Gates said that the current proposed OASIS development for the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome was just a repeat of the failed RSL LifeCare project with development being permitted too close to runways. Again the ANEF contours were being used as the determinant for where residential development should go.

Dr Gates said that an experienced aviator, Ron Fisher, with a background in the RAAF and QANTAS and life-long experience as a flying instructor had raised concerns about the risk of a crash on the aerodrome into adjacent residential areas when the RSL development was on the cards based on his own experience of a catastrophic engine failure when he was flying a Mustang for the RAAF. Mr Fisher showed that his aircraft would have crashed into the retirement village had it been in place.



Mr Fisher was roundly ridiculed for his concerns and abused at a JRPP hearing by proponents for the development. Richmond Valley Council ignored what he had to say.

The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee in conjunction with Mr Fisher plotted out California accident data for Evans Head and was able to show that at least 14 aviation incidents would have occurred within the site for the retirement village.

Dr Gates said that Richmond Valley Council has an obligation under a Transfer Deed over the aerodrome with the federal government to prevent land use planning conflict on and around the aerodrome with regard to inappropriate residential development.

‘Not only should council be taking account of aircraft noise but also aviation safety around the airfield. Council needs to protect both residents and aviation by putting in larger safety zones around the aerodrome and commit itself in the public interest to move away from an ‘affordable risk’ model to one of conservative risk management,’ he said.

‘Council already knows that there are problems with safety zones from the aircraft accident in Casino in the residential area at the end of its main runway a couple of years ago yet it is allowing residential development to encroach on the end of its runway.’

Dr Gates said that there was a much larger problem with ANEF standards for Australia with the big developer lobby getting a hold of the standards and planning agenda. There was an attempt at reform of the ANEF which is now almost forty years old and out of date but the federal government was stymied by the big developer lobby which led a campaign against any significant change to ANEF rules and consequently to planning rules.

‘In our view this is a matter which should be investigated by a Royal Commission,’ he said.

Dr Gates who has a background in acoustics and the effects of noise and has published widely in scientific journals asked that his committee be permitted to sit on a review of the ANEF but Standards Australia refused. Standards Australia also refused to consider someone from AOPA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a peak body for aviation in Australia.

‘In our view all of this begs a question not only about ANEF standards in Australia but also planning for safety around Australia’s airfields. The sooner we have a Royal Commission the better. My committee is writing to appropriate authorities about this matter as a matter of urgency. We have made representation on a number of occasions previously. This whole planning mess needs to brought out into the open”.

‘In the interim Richmond Valley Council needs to cease all residential development on both its aerodromes.’
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

(02-24-2017, 09:14 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Airports Act in spotlight after YMEN crash - Dodgy

Joseph Wheeler (via the Oz) brings back to ToRs the contentious issues surrounding Government airport lease agreements (in particular secondary airports), that were originally drawn up under the conditions of the Airports Act 1996:
Quote:Profit should never be allowed to override airport safety
Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM February 24, 2017

Next a related story from ABC Local on Brisbane's Archerfield airport:

Quote:Call for urgent safety review of Brisbane's Archerfield Airport after Essendon tragedy
By Lexy Hamilton-Smith and Andree Withey
Updated Wed at 5:35pmWed 22 Feb 2017, 5:35pm
[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Archerfield Airport is located about 10 kilometres from the Brisbane CBD.

Concerns have been raised about development at Brisbane's Archerfield Airport following yesterday's fatal plane crash at Essendon in Melbourne.

Key points:
  • Pilots, local business say dangerous developments are occurring at Archerfield
  • Airport denies projects are putting people at risk
  • Developments include accommodation, training schools

[Image: 8289304-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Five people died when a plane crashes into DFO at Essendon Fields on Tuesday. (Metropolitan Fire Brigade)
    




M&M's Aviation & Airports division last night in Estimates... Rolleyes  

Via Oz Senate & Youtube A&A and the Essendon crash...  Confused :






MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

"Over on UP an occasional post catches my eye. This one from "Rosinante" certainly lead me into sobering cogitation.

"Mr Creampuff this might add some light to the heat in the discussion.

The proximate cause of the accident at Essendon will be revealed by the ATSB in due course. My intention in posting this as a deeply concerned pilot, in a separate thread is to try to separate the accident and airport issues, if this is possible.

The Airports Act 1996 meant well but on its own has been shown to be incompetent in achieving its original aim and particularly so in the hands of an incompetent regulator.

I hear on my grapevine that a group of well-intentioned honest burghers at Jandakot in the form of their “Airport Chamber of Commerce”, reached a breaking point when the latest iteration of the real estate developers wet dream, the Jandakot Airport 2014 Master Plan was approved by the Minister.

These good burghers apparently exasperated by 20 years of Ministerial lobbying proving fruitless, took unprecedented action against the Minister, not the airport leaseholder, but the Minister, in the AAT, requesting a review of the Jandakot Master Plan 2014 in terms of the Airports Act 1996. The leaseholder was able to gain minor status in the action as a “joined party” with the Minister.

The list of witnesses for their Chamber is impressive.
Why would they do this?

Upon the release of the 2014 Jandakot Airport Master Plan by the Minister, I understand their Chamber resolved that the large amount of non-aviation related real estate development approved and developed at Jandakot Airport had reached a tipping point and that the latest 2014 Master Plan failed in its intended function.
That being, to protect the future of the airport as an airport, and had compromised the aviation safety case.

A Google look at Jandakot Airport suggests it has the most on airport non-aviation related real estate development, built and planned, of any airport in Australia.

The Decision of the Honorable Justice ML Barker Deputy President ruled in effect that the Airports Acts 1996 basically allowed the developer/leaseholder, within the bounds of the CASA MOS, “to do anything they want” in regard to commercial development on the airport. I hear that in the Tribunal, the Airport Leaseholder’s Managing Director in fact said those very words. BarkerJ was of the view that any building/s in the future that infringed on future airport development plans or safety could be later torn down. I don't believe that given BarkerJ's eminent reputation his decision would be found wanting in law.
Loud cheers from the airport leaseholders and their super-annuant shareholders around Australia could be heard.

The decision can be found here. I commend it to your consideration.

Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2016] AATA 705 (12 September 2016)

On face value it seems their AAT action failed to get a Ministerial review of the Master Plan but they did succeed in getting a respected ruling on the ACTUAL powers of the Act as distinct from that currently on foot, vis a vis, that the Act PROTECTS the airports for aviation purposes as they and we previously thought. It also legitimises the real estate development development undertaken at ALL Commonwealth owned airports around Australia.

The recent event at Essendon airport however, has tragically, highlighted and confirmed their fears about industrial and retail over-development of airport land. There was a recent C404 fatal accident in similar terms at Jandakot.

DFO are the innocent party here, but I would love to be a fly on the wall in regard to discussion with them and the airport leaseholder in re removal of their buildings if that were deemed to be necessary. The airport leaseholder had fulfilled their "safety" obligations under the Act.

The Act was originally conceived as a means of protecting and regulating the airport, its primary aviation functions, aviation businesses and users from the depredations of strolling opportunists seeking to make their fortune at its expense, when they leased Commonwealth property to private operators/real estate developers.

The birth of the Act has a long history, but the primary intention of the Government, at least as it was espoused at the time, was that the leaseholder was obliged to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity and that they may use that portion of the area not occupied then, or possibly in the future for aviation purposes, to develop revenue that would assist the leaseholder to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity.

Good idea, at the time, as most of us would recall, none of the airports offered were financially viable on their own and there was a real need for some assistance. There would not otherwise have been any takers.

Ultimately the prices paid by the real estate developers could only have been justified on the basis of the massive real estate development opportunity they saw.

Not surprisingly, the Government was delighted, banked the money and then abandoned the airports to their fate. As we can see at ALL of these airports, that didn't go at all well and I don't need to expand on this here.

So, the MOST important part of the National Transport Infrastructure is in the hands of twelve or thirteen DIFFERENT real estate developers who’s only common bond is the Act and squeezing what financial juice they can out of the lemon. What could possibly go wrong?

I make these observations, from the sidelines and as an observer with some trepidation, as I have been reliably informed that the leaseholder in this particular instance has made strong “suggestions” to the tenants (one of which I am not) that should they support these honest burghers or be seen in any way involved with their AAT action, there would be consequences.

Unconfirmed reports from the 'hood suggest that these burghers have also so far, been banned from future participation in the Ministerially mandated Community Aviation Consultation Group. Interesting times for those at Jandakot.

My observation is that there are, as on all of the airports, many businesses that have closed down or fled since their respective new regimes took hold. As a long time participant in the industry, I have observed that a large number of professionals and their peculiar and scarce technical skills have sadly been lost to us forever.

And whilst I am quick to point out there is no imputation that Essendon Airport had a role in this accident nor Jandakot Airport in their recent fatal, the fact is we now have the latest tragedy.

The Airports have been assiduous in their planning and construction of the buildings on their airports in accordance with how we now understand the Act and that has been ruled to be. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so in this matter.

The answer lies not with the airport leaseholders but with the Airports Act 1996, the Minister and his Department"

You couldn’t make it up, but, oh wait, this is Australian aviation".

The Airport Act 1996 was originally intended to reserve public land already in use by aviation, for aviation, as it was recognized that to function aviation needed clear space on which to commit aviation.

The principle of "user pays" being espoused by the current crop of development sharks
who control our airports is a furphy. The users were paying in registration fees, fuel excise and other charges, the FAC when they were running Bankstown returned a modest profit to the government, I do not have figures for the other secondaries but I imagine they were much the same.

The airports were owned by the people of Australia, debt free.

With no debt to service rents and charges could be kept to modest affordable levels for the industry that occupied them. The land occupied by airports had no intrinsic value other than their ability to permit a unique industry to operate.

The same could be said of our national parks, our beaches, our boat launching ramps.
and other amenities funded by government for the public good, offer them to developers and see how much they are prepared to pay for them.

Hyde Park in Sydney, or Centenary Park have no intrinsic value but imagine what those areas would be worth if the same principles applied to airports were applied to them.

The clever Mandarins gave airport land a value as real estate, not as an airport.

This enabled the development sharks to borrow vast sums of money against this value and it is their debt the industry is being forced to fund. I cannot imagine these sharks were not aware that the secondaries at least were a loss making exercise particularly with the burden of massive debt. One has to wonder what murky deals were done with the bureaucrats to ensure the intent of the Airport Act was subverted and what incentives and political donations were offered.

The genius of the whole scheme is the Government of the day got paid a vast amount of money off the books, all of which has now disappeared into the maw of consolidated revenue, no doubt a lot of it absorbed paying the obscene salaries that the Murky Mandarins enjoy, the very ones that dreamt up the scam. The poor industry and the public are paying for the debt created, the billions generated by the primary airports vanishing to offshore tax havens tax free, the secondaries being slowly but surely being carved up to assuage the greed of the developers, the primaries descending to third world status through lack of investment in aviation Infrastructure.

I believe the whole privatization process has been a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the people of Australia by very clever bureaucrats in collusion with the political elite. One day it just might come back to haunt them.
Reply

(02-28-2017, 10:22 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-24-2017, 09:14 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Airports Act in spotlight after YMEN crash - Dodgy

Joseph Wheeler (via the Oz) brings back to ToRs the contentious issues surrounding Government airport lease agreements (in particular secondary airports), that were originally drawn up under the conditions of the Airports Act 1996:
Quote:Profit should never be allowed to override airport safety
Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM February 24, 2017

Next a related story from ABC Local on Brisbane's Archerfield airport:

Quote:Call for urgent safety review of Brisbane's Archerfield Airport after Essendon tragedy
By Lexy Hamilton-Smith and Andree Withey
Updated Wed at 5:35pmWed 22 Feb 2017, 5:35pm
[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Archerfield Airport is located about 10 kilometres from the Brisbane CBD.

Concerns have been raised about development at Brisbane's Archerfield Airport following yesterday's fatal plane crash at Essendon in Melbourne.

Key points:
  • Pilots, local business say dangerous developments are occurring at Archerfield
  • Airport denies projects are putting people at risk
  • Developments include accommodation, training schools

[Image: 8289304-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Five people died when a plane crashes into DFO at Essendon Fields on Tuesday. (Metropolitan Fire Brigade)
    




M&M's Aviation & Airports division last night in Estimates... Rolleyes  

Via Oz Senate & Youtube A&A and the Essendon crash...  Confused :






MTF...P2 Cool

(02-28-2017, 03:11 PM)thorn bird Wrote:  "Over on UP an occasional post catches my eye. This one from "Rosinante" certainly lead me into sobering cogitation.

"Mr Creampuff this might add some light to the heat in the discussion.

The proximate cause of the accident at Essendon will be revealed by the ATSB in due course. My intention in posting this as a deeply concerned pilot, in a separate thread is to try to separate the accident and airport issues, if this is possible.

The Airports Act 1996 meant well but on its own has been shown to be incompetent in achieving its original aim and particularly so in the hands of an incompetent regulator.

I hear on my grapevine that a group of well-intentioned honest burghers at Jandakot in the form of their “Airport Chamber of Commerce”, reached a breaking point when the latest iteration of the real estate developers wet dream, the Jandakot Airport 2014 Master Plan was approved by the Minister.

These good burghers apparently exasperated by 20 years of Ministerial lobbying proving fruitless, took unprecedented action against the Minister, not the airport leaseholder, but the Minister, in the AAT, requesting a review of the Jandakot Master Plan 2014 in terms of the Airports Act 1996. The leaseholder was able to gain minor status in the action as a “joined party” with the Minister.

The list of witnesses for their Chamber is impressive.
Why would they do this?

Upon the release of the 2014 Jandakot Airport Master Plan by the Minister, I understand their Chamber resolved that the large amount of non-aviation related real estate development approved and developed at Jandakot Airport had reached a tipping point and that the latest 2014 Master Plan failed in its intended function.
That being, to protect the future of the airport as an airport, and had compromised the aviation safety case.

A Google look at Jandakot Airport suggests it has the most on airport non-aviation related real estate development, built and planned, of any airport in Australia.

The Decision of the Honorable Justice ML Barker Deputy President ruled in effect that the Airports Acts 1996 basically allowed the developer/leaseholder, within the bounds of the CASA MOS, “to do anything they want” in regard to commercial development on the airport. I hear that in the Tribunal, the Airport Leaseholder’s Managing Director in fact said those very words. BarkerJ was of the view that any building/s in the future that infringed on future airport development plans or safety could be later torn down. I don't believe that given BarkerJ's eminent reputation his decision would be found wanting in law.
Loud cheers from the airport leaseholders and their super-annuant shareholders around Australia could be heard.

The decision can be found here. I commend it to your consideration.

Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2016] AATA 705 (12 September 2016)

On face value it seems their AAT action failed to get a Ministerial review of the Master Plan but they did succeed in getting a respected ruling on the ACTUAL powers of the Act as distinct from that currently on foot, vis a vis, that the Act PROTECTS the airports for aviation purposes as they and we previously thought. It also legitimises the real estate development development undertaken at ALL Commonwealth owned airports around Australia.

The recent event at Essendon airport however, has tragically, highlighted and confirmed their fears about industrial and retail over-development of airport land. There was a recent C404 fatal accident in similar terms at Jandakot.

DFO are the innocent party here, but I would love to be a fly on the wall in regard to discussion with them and the airport leaseholder in re removal of their buildings if that were deemed to be necessary. The airport leaseholder had fulfilled their "safety" obligations under the Act.

The Act was originally conceived as a means of protecting and regulating the airport, its primary aviation functions, aviation businesses and users from the depredations of strolling opportunists seeking to make their fortune at its expense, when they leased Commonwealth property to private operators/real estate developers.

The birth of the Act has a long history, but the primary intention of the Government, at least as it was espoused at the time, was that the leaseholder was obliged to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity and that they may use that portion of the area not occupied then, or possibly in the future for aviation purposes, to develop revenue that would assist the leaseholder to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity.

Good idea, at the time, as most of us would recall, none of the airports offered were financially viable on their own and there was a real need for some assistance. There would not otherwise have been any takers.

Ultimately the prices paid by the real estate developers could only have been justified on the basis of the massive real estate development opportunity they saw.

Not surprisingly, the Government was delighted, banked the money and then abandoned the airports to their fate. As we can see at ALL of these airports, that didn't go at all well and I don't need to expand on this here.

So, the MOST important part of the National Transport Infrastructure is in the hands of twelve or thirteen DIFFERENT real estate developers who’s only common bond is the Act and squeezing what financial juice they can out of the lemon. What could possibly go wrong?

I make these observations, from the sidelines and as an observer with some trepidation, as I have been reliably informed that the leaseholder in this particular instance has made strong “suggestions” to the tenants (one of which I am not) that should they support these honest burghers or be seen in any way involved with their AAT action, there would be consequences.

Unconfirmed reports from the 'hood suggest that these burghers have also so far, been banned from future participation in the Ministerially mandated Community Aviation Consultation Group. Interesting times for those at Jandakot.

My observation is that there are, as on all of the airports, many businesses that have closed down or fled since their respective new regimes took hold. As a long time participant in the industry, I have observed that a large number of professionals and their peculiar and scarce technical skills have sadly been lost to us forever.

And whilst I am quick to point out there is no imputation that Essendon Airport had a role in this accident nor Jandakot Airport in their recent fatal, the fact is we now have the latest tragedy.

The Airports have been assiduous in their planning and construction of the buildings on their airports in accordance with how we now understand the Act and that has been ruled to be. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so in this matter.

The answer lies not with the airport leaseholders but with the Airports Act 1996, the Minister and his Department"

You couldn’t make it up, but, oh wait, this is Australian aviation".

The Airport Act 1996 was originally intended to reserve public land already in use by aviation, for aviation, as it was recognized that to function aviation needed clear space on which to commit aviation.

The principle of "user pays" being espoused by the current crop of development sharks
who control our airports is a furphy. The users were paying in registration fees, fuel excise and other charges, the FAC when they were running Bankstown returned a modest profit to the government, I do not have figures for the other secondaries but I imagine they were much the same.

The airports were owned by the people of Australia, debt free.

With no debt to service rents and charges could be kept to modest affordable levels for the industry that occupied them. The land occupied by airports had no intrinsic value other than their ability to permit a unique industry to operate.

The same could be said of our national parks, our beaches, our boat launching ramps.
and other amenities funded by government for the public good, offer them to developers and see how much they are prepared to pay for them.

Hyde Park in Sydney, or Centenary Park have no intrinsic value but imagine what those areas would be worth if the same principles applied to airports were applied to them.

The clever Mandarins gave airport land a value as real estate, not as an airport.

This enabled the development sharks to borrow vast sums of money against this value and it is their debt the industry is being forced to fund. I cannot imagine these sharks were not aware that the secondaries at least were a loss making exercise particularly with the burden of massive debt. One has to wonder what murky deals were done with the bureaucrats to ensure the intent of the Airport Act was subverted and what incentives and political donations were offered.

The genius of the whole scheme is the Government of the day got paid a vast amount of money off the books, all of which has now disappeared into the maw of consolidated revenue, no doubt a lot of it absorbed paying the obscene salaries that the Murky Mandarins enjoy, the very ones that dreamt up the scam. The poor industry and the public are paying for the debt created, the billions generated by the primary airports vanishing to offshore tax havens tax free, the secondaries being slowly but surely being carved up to assuage the greed of the developers, the primaries descending to third world status through lack of investment in aviation Infrastructure.

I believe the whole privatization process has been a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the people of Australia by very clever bureaucrats in collusion with the political elite. One day it just might come back to haunt them.
Reply

(02-28-2017, 05:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-28-2017, 10:22 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-24-2017, 09:14 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Airports Act in spotlight after YMEN crash - Dodgy


Quote:Profit should never be allowed to override airport safety
Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM February 24, 2017

Next a related story from ABC Local on Brisbane's Archerfield airport:

Quote:Call for urgent safety review of Brisbane's Archerfield Airport after Essendon tragedy
By Lexy Hamilton-Smith and Andree Withey
Updated Wed at 5:35pmWed 22 Feb 2017, 5:35pm
[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Archerfield Airport is located about 10 kilometres from the Brisbane CBD.

Concerns have been raised about development at Brisbane's Archerfield Airport following yesterday's fatal plane crash at Essendon in Melbourne.

Key points:
  • Pilots, local business say dangerous developments are occurring at Archerfield
  • Airport denies projects are putting people at risk
  • Developments include accommodation, training schools

    




M&M's Aviation & Airports division last night in Estimates... Rolleyes  

Via Oz Senate & Youtube A&A and the Essendon crash...  Confused :




Update: Hansard Senator Fawcett passage... Wink

Listen up MSM read & absorb... Rolleyes

Probably the most important passage of Hansard in regards to the Essendon B200 fatal accident and the encroachment of non-aviation developments on and in the vicinity of a Federal Government leased airport:

Quote: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 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.

MTF...P2
Reply

20/20 vision in the rear view mirror.

You can see now why MM raced in to defend CASA and throw Carmody a life belt when CASA were on stage and NX ventured too close the vexed subject of where CASA see their responsibilities and obligations ending.  Pans-Ops and ‘regulatory advice’.  Fawcett is onto the game, has been from the ‘off’.

Sen. Fawcett: “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.”

This ongoing interest is sadly too little and to late now; the developers and owners have stolen the march. All we have left is the pug marks showing the trail to developers heaven. CASA act to the absolute minimum requirement; aircraft operations conducted at reduced weight may satisfy the Pans-Ops; nothing else needs to be addressed. This stance allows the masterplans to be approved and the rest becomes history.  All legal, neat and tidy with no one to blame.

Sen. Fawcett: “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.

Ergo, if you can’t use the airfield, leave and go somewhere else as the local residents and Council cheer; win-win for them; in come the bulldozers out go the aircraft. Hell if you had any sense at all you’d sell off the aircraft while you can and invest in the airport development; guaranteed, no stress return.  

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.”

Strange statement, considering we have only had the Slick Git, as DAS over the last while; more interested in PR than the safety of the public in the new shopping malls and the aircraft which could potentially bang into them. Gives a whole new concept to ‘BBQ’s-R-Us, don’t it though.

Well, Essendon could have gone that way; fireball and a truckload of crispy critters to cart away. The department knows that the runways are being squeezed to danger point; do they give a monkey’s. Do they hell; all nice and legal and tidy. They even get to tip CASA under the bus. Jolly good, unless you happen to be shopping for a new play station with the grand kids.

Fawcett is a great player and he understands the game; but, alas time and guile have trumped his ace. The shops are there to stay, the airfields are shrinking and the risks increase daily. With great respect and admiration, Fawcett played a good innings but the game is lost, while the crowd watch the King Air burn.

Toot toot.
Reply

Oh I really do wonder about Canberra, the National Capitols airport.
Canberra can be a bitch on those odd days, howling westerly blowing.
Nice slick runways and lots of mechanical turbulence swirling off all those buildings now beginning
to encroach on the main runway, windshear can be a tad fierce at times.
I think I would pass on taking the grandkids to toys are us on days like that, visions of a 737 going in one side and out the other sends a chill up my spine.
I know I know the odds are agin it, but supposing.
How would the Murky Mandarin duck an event like that? I know he's a master of spin but I reckon it would be CV writing time for the minister. Murky would just be shifted to another department, probably even get a pay rise over his already obscene salary.
Reply

Not much in the Aviation Section of todays Australian except a ton of propaganda on defence.
One little snippet caught my eye on page eight is an article from Ean Higgins "Riverina Locals are doing it for themselves".
Its them Wagner's again.
Seems like the local council in Deniliquin has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Wagner's to build a 2km runway at Deniliquin Airport suitable for A320 cargo planes to fly mainly agricultural products to Wellcamp Airport near Toowoomba, connecting with cargo jumbos and shipped overseas taking local produce to South East Asia.
Ean goes on "There's a lot happening in the Riverina: visionary entrepreneurship, innovation, a hunt for export opportunities, new jobs".
If it goes ahead,no doubt the Wagners will build a first class airport for them under budget and in a couple of years.
No doubt CAsA will do everything they can to ensure the whole project from airport to aircraft operator is so burdened with bullshit, economically it may not be feasible, but the Wagner's have proved themselves more than capable of beating the bastards, so here's to them.
Pity they can't be contracted to build Badgeries Creek, save the taxpayers a few billion.
Reply



"Bob the builder, can we build it? - YES WE CAN!!"

Had to laugh when the current WOFTAM 'power games' between the Feds v South Oz pollywaffles was ultimately brought to a head by a couple of innovative billionaire's saying "YES WE CAN", to building a huge battery storage facility inside of 90 days - Luv it! Big Grin

This got me thinking again about the Wagner Wellcamp success story and how it is now inspiring other entrepreneurs, regional communities and collective small to medium businesses to also say "YES WE CAN!!" 

However the Can'tberra pollywaffles continue to squabble amongst themselves, while the aviation safety & infrastructure bureaucratese have unfettered, ungoverned control of aviation safety policy and aviation infrastructure, like airports... Dodgy

A perfect example (amongst many - ask Sandy.. Wink ) of the negative effects of successive governments absconding effective governance of M&M and his minions, is perfectly highlighted in the knock on effect of the ill-advised Airport Act 1996 and the government leased airports.

From the other Aunty last week:
Quote:Sydney Airport profits $100m on car parking in one year
By Nour Haydar

Posted 6 Mar 2017, 1:20pmMon 6 Mar 2017, 1:20pm | Updated 6 Mar 2017, 4:28pmMon 6 Mar 2017, 4:28pm

Sydney Airport made $97.8 million in profit from car parking fees in just one year, a report released by the ACCC shows, as the consumer body calls for greater regulation of airport competition.



Lack of airport regulation costs consumers up to $1.6b in fees: ACCC
By business reporter Michael Janda

Posted 6 Mar 2017, 9:53amMon 6 Mar 2017, 9:53am | Updated 6 Mar 2017, 1:45pmMon 6 Mar 2017, 1:45pm

Airlines and their passengers have paid up to $1.6 billion too much for airport access over the past decade due to a textbook example of how not to privatise monopoly assets, the competition regulator says.
Quote:[Image: 4659100-3x2-340x227.jpg] Photo: Sydney Airport is the nation's most expensive, including a 73 per cent profit margin on parking. (AAP: Paul Miller)

..The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) latest report into Australia's four biggest airports - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth - found that profit margins eased slightly for three of the operators last financial year.

However, Brisbane Airport's profit margin increased to 44.9 per cent, and Sydney Airport's 46.7 per cent profit margin would be amongst the highest in corporate Australia.

The airports have dramatically increased revenue per passenger over the past decade, with Brisbane charges up by two-thirds, Perth 43 per cent, Melbourne almost a third and Sydney up 16 per cent.

However, Sydney's charges remain the highest with $17.27 in revenue per passenger.
"The airlines are concerned that they keep getting higher charges from the airports and, of course, they've got to pass that on to consumers," ACCC chairman Rod Sims told RN Breakfast.

Beyond charges for airlines' use of the tarmac and terminal, Australia's airports are making a killing out of parking.

Mr Sims described the airports' car parking profit margins as "quite amazing", and said they get away with such high charges because they also slug taxis, hire cars and shuttle buses with large, and rising, fees to access the airport for drop-offs and pick-ups.

"Their access charges have gone up quite a lot, so the airports don't face much competition," he said.

"It's a great position to be in where you can have this near monopoly car parking and also make it more difficult for your competitors."

ACCC calls for power to regulate airport charges

Mr Sims said the ACCC would like to be given some specific regulatory powers over airports to limit price increases, but so far it has been denied.

"They're completely unregulated. Various governments over time have set them up that way. We've suggested a bit of regulation over time but governments have said they'd rather they stay unregulated," Mr Sims observed.

"The airlines certainly would support us having some role here, whether it's a negotiate/arbitrate role on, whether it's some regulatory role on car parking fees.

Quote:"Whenever you have a monopoly that is providing services to average consumers, that have to pay directly through their car parking or indirectly through their airline ticket, I think people do get concerned when they make very high margins."

Mr Sims said such poorly handled privatisations, where governments seek to maximise the sale price by allowing monopolies to operate without regulatory oversight, are a key factor behind community opposition to public asset sales.

"They privatised them and simultaneously took the regulations off," he said.   
         
Audio: Airports textbook example of privatisation gone wrong: Sims (Breakfast)

"So people saw privatisation and they saw charges go up a lot, I mean the aeronautical charges doubled on Sydney airport.

"So, of course, don't be surprised when people see privatisation and link it to higher prices because they've seen a lot of it happen."

Mr Sims said it was also undoubtedly a mistake for the Howard Government to have given Sydney Airport a first right of refusal to build and own Sydney's second airport at Badgery's Creek, "in order to inflate how much money they could sell Sydney Airport for".
Quote:"It's fundamentally anti-competitive, and let's hope it doesn't get taken up and we do get an alternative owner," he argued.

Mr Sims said it would be a "great" outcome if the Federal Government built Badgery's Creek, and potentially sold it off to another private owner later.

"Not only would you get the benefits of competition between Badgery's Creek and Sydney Airport, but if you have a common owner of the two airports, that common owner will have an incentive to restrict investment at Badgery's Creek and delay Badgery's Creek so that it can maximise its profits at Sydney Airport."
 
.... Dodgy

Now for the aviation & airports good news - YES WE CAN - stories... Wink :

Quote:Reversing regional decline: Riverina locals doing it for themselves

[Image: 223e53c7edab5cb2b4e32253917debcf?width=650]Dimity and Sally Demamiel outside their general store in Darlington Point, in western NSW’s Riverina district. Picture: James Croucher

[Image: 7d65920d2be3906b85800d3e69da57a7?width=650]Larry Walsh at the state-of-the-art ethanol plant he is about to start operating outside Coleambally, NSW. Picture: James Croucher.
[/url][url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/reversing-regional-decline-riverina-locals-doing-it-for-themselves/news-story/fc115f0c7c68862f972bd872e3ecf5ea#]
Ean Higgins
The Australian
12:00AM March 3, 2017
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Quote:..Further big plans in the Riverina, all essentially about magnifying and expanding the value of the region’s agricultural production, are on the drawing boards.


Edward River Council, which has amalgamated the Deniliquin and Conargo local government areas, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Queensland transport and logistics group Wagners to build a 2km runway at Deniliquin’s airport.

The plan is to use Airbus A320 cargo planes to fly mainly agricultural products to Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, near Toowoomba, a major new airfreight field, where the products will be put on cargo jumbos and shipped overseas.

The goal, in particular, is to sell fresh produce from the Riverina into Southeast Asia.
“It gives us a direct link to Asia from this district,” said Edward River Council’s acting director of economic development and business, John Harvie, a former local mayor.

There’s a lot happening in the Riverina: visionary entrepreneurship, innovation, a hunt for export opportunities, new jobs.

It’s just the sort of thing Malcolm Turnbull has been talking up since he became Prime Minister.

Though unevenly spread, the new business activity is starting to reverse a profound regional decline since the millennium drought and the global financial crisis.
Never­theless, the widespread feeling in the Riverina community is that the upturn is not because of state and federal ­government intervention but ­despite it.

And today, also via the Biz Oz  Wink :
Quote:
Quote:Ex-refugee’s $2bn airport plan

[Image: 9e6f61ab7383ec60620b6c0124c286ed]12:00amROWAN CALLICK

A former Afghan refugee businessman is in talks to finance a $2bn private airport in Melbourne.

A push for a new airport for Melbourne’s fast-growing southeast is gathering pace, with an Afghan refugee-turned-businessman in talks over financing the multi-billion-dollar ­project.

Alande Mustafa Safi’s Paragon Business Group is offering to build an airport near the Port of Hastings for about $2 billion, with additional backing from an overseas investment partner.

This follows successful development of the Brisbane West Wellcamp private airport at Toowoomba in Queensland.

Paragon, with operations in Melbourne, Shanghai, Dubai and Jakarta, is proposing to develop the new Victorian airport in stages: with an initial domestic focus, before boosting infrastructure sufficiently to become an international airport, at an estimated ­additional cost of $5bn.

The proposal for an airport for the fast-growing Melbourne ­region was first aired in the previous state government’s growth strategy, Plan Melbourne, in ­October 2013.

Mr Safi, 34, told The Australian “the plan was well received at the time, but since then no one has been willing to move it ­forward”.

“Now we are doing so, with ­resources channelled through a single source — our own Paragon Fund,” he said.

“Almost 35 per cent of Melbourne’s population live in the southeast. I live there, in Berwick, and it takes almost an hour and a half to drive to Tullamarine airport in normal conditions, not at peak hours.

“Urban growth plans will ­increase rapidly the population much further from Tullamarine.”

[Image: 5f1a8cf7f2d01f9c623ebe195a893c09]Toowoomba’s Brisbane West Wellcamp airport. Picture: Glenn Hunt

Mr Safi said that his initial plan included not only domestic and connecting flights, but also overnight courier services and freighting fresh goods for export, for which there is fast growing ­demand in China and the Middle East.

Fellow Paragon director ­Gerard Kennedy, a commercially ­focused barrister, has begun ­discussing airport concepts with Cardinia Shire Council planners.

Following a visit for discussions with his key overseas partner — whom he declined to identify before the investor’s due diligence process had been completed — Mr Safi said he planned “to be sitting down with the Victorian government to commence dialogue” within weeks.

In the original airport concept, InvestVictoria said Cardinia shire had identified several locations between Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang, both about one hour from central Melbourne by road, as ­potential sites. It said: “This would serve one-third of Victoria’s population, including the 300,000 residents of Gippsland. It would have the benefit of good transport connections and the potential of future rail access.”

The Victorian government would work with local government to identify a preferred site and investigate a process for private sector investment.

By 2050, the strategy document said, the airport catchment would grow to about three million — a similar size to southeast Queensland.

Mr Safi first built a mortgage broking business, with about $700 million under management, then a foreign investment portfolio for potential immigrants, chiefly from China, seeking to come to Australia under the Significant Investor Visa program.

His airport proposal would be delivered through a more recently established funds management business, Paragon Premium Investment Fund, which is focusing on development funding, construction loans and property finance.

Like chalk & cheese - A strange dichotomy indeed, on the one hand an out of control aviation safety & infrastructure bureaucracy; on the other entrepreneurial business world with innovators and investors prepared to put money where their mouth's are to back up their ideas for aviation infrastructure in this country... Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Steam ON please GD; (Nah, just a little bit).

“There have long been concerns of the airport’s close proximity to buildings, shopping centres, and busy freeways.”

Wrong!  - Why (FCOL)  can’t these ‘news’ people get it right?

“There have long been concerns ABOUT the close proximity of buildings, shopping centres, and busy freeway developments encroaching into an airport’s existing public safety buffers”.

Then, there is the constant whining and snivelling from people who bought property under an approach path – cheap- and then start making a fuss about the noise and trying to get airports closed down; aided and abetted by property developers.

Now, we have the same dickheads who ‘develop’ inside an acknowledged ‘danger zone’ acting all surprised when a six ton fireball of fuel and metal bangs into their coffee shop. The airport was there first – got it.  It is the development which is endangering aircraft and passengers; do try to understand that simple fact.

Aye; Steam off GD; (aside) FDS is there a journo out there with a scintilla of grey matter?

Toot toot.
Reply

(03-18-2017, 03:17 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Oakey residents closer to a class action

Tick Tock Halfwit, Houstoblame and Minister NFI.

"Lawyers representing residents in Oakey say they have the final clearance to commence a class action against the Department of Defence"

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-17...fmredir=sm

Might set a precedent for all the other airports that have polluted waterways, of which you arseclowns have tried to cover up.

Tick Tock
Oakey residents given final clearance for class action against Department of Defence
By Katherine Gregory Fri Mar 17 20:35:17 EST 2017


[Image: 6992900-3x2-460x307.jpg]
Photo
PFOS and PFOA are toxins used in firefighting foam.
CRC CARE

Lawyers representing residents in Oakey say they have the final clearance to commence a class action against the Department of Defence.

About 450 residents are demanding financial compensation for their dwindling property prices, because of contaminated groundwater emanating from a Defence base next to the Darling Downs town.

Some residents are steering clear of the action and say repeated publicity about the contamination is causing the town's reputational damage.

The class action has been in the pipeline for some time after revelations some sections of Oakey's groundwater had been contaminated with toxins PFOS and PFOA, which are used in firefighting foam at the nearby Oakey Army Aviation Centre.

Bradley Hudson, one of hundreds of Oakey residents commencing a class action against the department of defence, is a business owner who wants compensation for his property devaluation.

"My property ... probably in its heyday would have been worth something like three-quarters of a million dollars. Now not sure what I'll get for it," Mr Hudson said.
"If we get the property one (class action) up, we get compensated or shifted on, then that will help our health concerns too with PFOS and PFOA by being able to move off a contaminated block."

Shine Lawyers, which is leading the litigation, said it has secured unconditional funding support for the action from company IMF Bentham Limited.

"We've now convinced them that there are enough people and large enough claim for that to be the case and they said, 'OK, we're on board'," legal principal Peter Shannon said.

Mr Shannon said 350 properties and businesses — or about 450 people — are taking part in the action. Oakey's population is in excess of 4,500 people.
Quote:"Not everyone commits until they know it's happening for sure, so [we're] very pleased with the result and we now expect more to join," Mr Shannon said.

Government reports find no strong link between the toxins and human health risks
The Federal Government's public reports into PFOS and PFOA have said there is no strong link to human health risks.

But Mr Shannon said many residents, including Mr Hudson, are using the action to help alleviate their health concerns.

"The health impacts are very relevant to that because that's the concern and the anguish that people feel that effects values," he said.

"We've been agitating for the monitoring of blood. Defence is doing some ongoing monitoring which will help when health issues are clarified."


But both Mr Shannon and other residents PM spoke to — who did not want to go on the record — said the town is very divided over the class action.

Tracey Tierney from Oakey Real Estate said she was gutted by the class action.
"I don't think people realise what they're signing up for," she said.
Quote:"I think there's going to be a lot of heartache by the time it finishes and I think they're going to be waiting a long time.

"No-one wants the contamination. We all realise it is there. We all realise that people need to move on with their lives, but it's just been held up unfortunately by mad media."
She also does not believe property prices have dropped.

"I believe the market has stopped, things aren't selling and that's because of what Oakey is facing through media channels and lending institutions."

Williamtown, north of Newcastle, also lodged a class action against defence over contaminated groundwater.

Mr Shannon said he had also been approached by residents from other affected towns, including Tindal near Katherine, the Gold Coast and Townsville.

The Department of Defence said it could not comment at this stage, as it had not yet been formally notified that the class action had commenced.
More on this story:
Reply

Nuts and raisins.

I don’t understand the way government works – not at all. Military airports for an exemplar of a real ‘head scratcher’. So, the public purse pays the ‘defence’ bills; no problem with that. The public purse pays for the new toys and support equipment, no problem with that. The public purse pays for safety equipment and training, no problem with that. So what am I barking at? The ability to control fire and extricate aircrew and passengers out of a burning aircraft is an essential; equipment, training, support the whole nine yards, willingly and unstintingly paid for by the public purse. Now, we find the ‘stuff’ used to control the fire is dangerous and has contaminated the ground water around some airports. This has not happened through any deliberate act of malice or negligence; nonetheless, people’s health is at risk and their property devalued.

Now ‘they’, those affected, have a fight on their hands to either get the ground water cleaned up or to be compensated; probably both. It was public money used to create the mess; why must more public money be spent now on legal actions, when the public purse will be used to compensate at rectify the situation. No ones looking to ‘blame’ anyone; good intentions with the best of motives; but, the chemicals have created a ‘problem’. Why not just cut out the middle man and fix the mess – from the public purse and save the public a lot of money, time, trouble and aggravation? Now private funds must be expended to fight a government using public money to defend a problem created using public money. It’s nuts. Seems it’s public money happily splashed about to buy things, but when it comes to fixing things, suddenly that public becomes the ‘enemy’ who want to steal their own money from the government to fix a major problem. That’s not nuts, its raisins..

Aye, raisins enough to drive you nuts.

Toot toot………
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)