Airports - Buy two, get one free.

“Too late” she cried, sobbing, "far too bloody late".

Gates - ‘When we requested information supporting the CASA claim, they repeatedly fobbed us off until just recently. While the information they provided did not show the full extent of the hypothetical Public Safety Zone at Essendon, completed drawings showed many houses and part of a Primary School within the zone. Little wonder they weren’t keen to share the information! It confirmed our long held concern that residential and other buildings were far too close to the runway and flight paths of aircraft, a concern expressed by residents around Essendon.’

Second the Choc frog motion for Doc Gates. The quote above is pertinent and reflects the way in which each department interviewed at Estimates ‘ducked’ the responsibilities. Watching the Hansard video provides clear proof of this. The way the ‘responsibility’ parcel is passed about is self evident.

There is an embryonic, saccharine sweet story line which has been creeping into the media; it presents the notion that local council are the ultimate decision makers on development approval; and even intimates that it is they, despite advice to the contrary, are allowing the developments to continue. The councils are at the end of a very long, very weak chain of ‘responsibility’.

It’s all quite disgusting really; people put in harms way and an industry being crippled just for the sake of a few houses and a shopping mall. There is the whole wide land of Australia to build on but these clowns build at the end of active runways – WTD.

Anyone want to bet on Australia’s greatest aviation disaster weighing in and sorting this mess out? No – didn’t think so.

Toot - toot.

The whole sorry saga, since the privatisation needs to be seriously investigated – Royal Commission stuff. Not that it will ever happen; far too many, making far too much easy money for that to happen. Why is it that Australia always seems to act ‘after the fact’ rather than preventing the fact from becoming a living, breathing nightmare.

DIRD proposing to extend the curfew at Essendon to cover *all* aircraft..

Oversight or lack there of - Part IV

Let's have a bit of a look at the Airports Act requirements; specifically Section 92(2):

(2)  If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the draft version in accordance with the notice, the draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

(a)  copies of those comments; and

(b)  a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

(i)  listing the names of those members of the public; and

(ii)  summarising those comments; and

(iii)  demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft plan; and

(iv)  setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

The bollocks below is part of what was provided as the certificate. I can see no names of the public, just a list of agencies, authorities and committees, the only names mentioned are Judy Maddigan and Kelvin Thomson. In the Summary of the views expressed by persons consulted, half of them say "EAPL provided a general briefing on the proposed Bulla precinct development". That's not a view!

[Image: YMEN-MDP-8.jpg]

Who from CASA confirmed the runway transitional surface measurements?

If there were comments provided, then where are the copies, refer 92(2)(a)?

This image and extract from the MDP is clearly at odds with the Part 139 MOS. Dodgy

[Image: YMEN-MDP-4.jpg]

[Image: YMEN-MDP-5.jpg]

The requirements of the MOS have not been taken into account; where in the MDP is it mentioned that they will depart from the requirements below.

[Image: RW-strip-2.jpg]

[Image: RW-strip-1.jpg]

Note in this image the lines indicating 90m and 75m from runway centre line, this is where the gable markers are and from where the dodgy transitional surface commences. Note also the relocation of the perimeter fence and road.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=375]

Clearly the Essendon DFO is dodgy and I'll bet Carmody knows it.

[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]

And from Section 103 of the Airports Act:

(1)  If:

(a)  a building activity is carried out on an airport site; and

(b)  subsection (4) does not apply to the activity; and

©  either:

(i)  the activity was not authorised by an approval granted under the regulations; or

(ii)  if such an approval was granted in relation to the activity—a condition of the approval was contravened;

an authorised person may give another person a written direction requiring the other person:

(d)  to stop work on; or

(e)  to carry out remedial work on; or

(f)  to demolish, dismantle or remove;

the building, structure, earthworks, engineering works, electrical works or hydraulic works concerned.

P7 (butting in) - If that ain’t a Gold star, Tim-Tam post I don’t know what is. Bravo Mr. PB, round of applause to boot.

Attached Files
.jpg Essendon AP.jpg Size: 405.92 KB  Downloads: 115

C'est la poêle qui se moque du chaudron.

I’m not going to write a whole heap of comment here – I’m not; including the speed of taxi. One pilot at least can be only be grateful that the developers had not built a DFO close in. We may however ask one simple question, who the hell taught this guy to fly multi engine aircraft?

You do see why Mr. PB’s post (above) is so very important; don’t you?

Toot – Shriek- toot

From the ABC four corners program

Contamination: The unfolding scandal of toxic water in Australian communities.

“You've been giving your children water that's contaminated with chemicals…. so you're just trying to get your head around what does that mean?”  Katherine resident

It’s one of the biggest environmental scandals in Australian history. Harmful chemicals, leaching into the ground and waterways, contaminating the water relied upon for drinking.

“They became more and more certain…It was also in the food chain, and it was also a risk to human health. Their own report by their own expert made that clear, that there was a risk to human health.” Investigator

These chemicals are the toxic legacy of fire-fighting foam, used for decades on Defence Force bases and other sites around Australia.

“They told us…this is the new asbestos. Those words exactly.  That was them, giving a determination on how bad these foams were and that we had to pay attention to what they were telling us.” Oakey resident

Communities, living in the shadow of three key defence bases, have been trapped in a kind of no-man’s land for the past three years after it was revealed these chemicals, known as PFAS, had seeped out of the bases and contaminated the surroundin
g areas.

“The Department of Defence was careless in their use of this product on the base.   They recklessly used it and they should've been taking more care.” Lawyer

On Monday, Four Corners investigates the gross failures by the Defence Department that led to this chemical contamination.

“I was horrified that this chemical was in such widespread use across Defence, and that we didn't have in place the appropriate measures to manage the potential risks, both to our people and to the environment.” Former Defence Manager

Reporter Linton Besser uncovers the troubling history of the use of these chemicals and reveals just how long the public was kept in the dark.

“They wanted to keep the matter under wraps, so to speak. They didn't want to go public on the issue.”  Investigator

The impact on those affected is profound. Some rely on water supplies trucked in by Defence contractors.   Others are trapped financially, unable to sell, with their homes officially designated as a contamination zone.   All worry about the implications of exposure to these chemicals.

“It's petrifying as a parent. I don't think any parent in Australia would want to be told that, their youngest daughter, who's only four, has got those levels in their blood.”  Oakey resident

Four Corners has discovered that the scale of the problem is continuing to grow as more and more sites around the nation are being tested for contamination.

“It's going to take a very long time to work through all of the issues that are associated with that. It could cost billions of dollars to try and solve this problem.” Former Defence Manager

Contamination, reported by Linton Besser and presented by Sarah Ferguson, goes to air on Monday 9th October at 8.30pm. It is replayed on Tuesday 10th October at 1.00pm and Wednesday 11th at 11pm. It can also be seen on ABC NEWS channel on Saturday at 8.10pm AEST, ABC iviewand at

Okay we know the ABC is sometimes a Tad melodramatic, BUT!

Lots of thunder and noise about defence airports, hand wringing and anguish, yet secondary airports raise not a whimper, wonder why?

PFAS was blown all over some of the GA secondary Airports yet not a question raised.

Bankstown airport for example.

Contaminated with PFAS blown all over land already contaminated by
  • Millions of litres of bunker oil for dust suppression
    • shit pits full of "night soil"
      • Live ammunition buried in pits.
        • All covered over with 4 meters of asbestos contaminated fill on a flood plain that leaches into the Georges river.

          Yet not a whimper, wonder why?

          A vital safety related runway closed to accomodate the land fill, contrary to the airport Act and the head lease for the airport, I wonder why?

          Ah! billionaire development shark spots an opportunity to add to his billions with a nice new DFO allegedly employing thousands of people.

          One can only wonder how much was paid by who to whom to engineer subversion of the law, commonwealth leases and the environment.

Aviation insurance: Liability and whose to blame?

Slight thread drift here but there is a point -  Rolleyes

Joseph Wheeler in today's the Oz:
Quote:A reminder that planes and animals not always a good mix
  • Joseph Wheeler
  • The Australian
  • 12:01AM October 13, 2017
What do 18 cattle found dead on arrival in China, on a flight from Melbourne, and an aircraft col­liding with a kangaroo after landing at Kempsey Aerodrome have in common? They involve animals, aviation and recent successful claims for damages in Aus­tralian courts.

In both cases, the respective courts found that those legally ­responsible were aware of the risks associated with the aircraft and the animals but failed to take adequate precautions to reduce the risk of harm.

For people operating in the aviation industry, concepts of hazards and risk management are common. Yet rarely do we hear about them being applied to or for animals. Whether for live export or wildlife strike risk mitigation, better recognition of what can go wrong and its social and financial importance appears to be needed, as demonstrated by these cases.

The “cattle case” was decided on August 30 by the NSW Court of Appeal: Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Limited v Principle International Pty Ltd. It concerned the packing and loading of cattle on to cargo aircraft for live export to China. The risk at issue was that of harm to the cattle during the flight. When the cattle, loaded into crates, arrived in China having suffocated en route, the ­exporter sued the carrier under the Montreal Convention 1999 for the value of the cattle — incidentally the same international treaty that covers passenger deaths and personal injuries.

The court concluded that the carrier was liable for the cattle deaths because it loaded them on to the lower deck of the aircraft (where there was a lack of ventilation), instead of the upper deck (where there was ventilation). However, further consideration of who was responsible for taking steps to prevent that harm resulted in a reapportionment of blame. The exporter, who packed the cattle into the crate, was aware of the risk of harm to the cattle if they were loaded on the lower deck and failed to take appropriate steps to inform the airline. Thus it was held to be 80 per cent responsible for the loss of the cattle. This meant the exporter only received 20 per cent of the value of the cattle in damages.

The “roo strike case” was ­decided two weeks later on September 13: Five Star Medical Centre Pty Limited v Kempsey Shire Council. This involved an altogether different risk involving ­animals. Shortly after landing, an aircraft collided with a kangaroo, killing the kangaroo and causing $161,195 worth of damage to the aircraft. Luckily no one was ­injured. The aircraft owner sued the council, which operated the aerodrome, for failing to control the kangaroo hazard. There was a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan in place for the aerodrome but aspects of it had not been ­followed.

Expert advice indicated that a kangaroo-proof fence was ­required around the aerodrome to properly mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage to aircraft.

The council acknowledged that it should have complied with procedures in the management plan but it did not install the fencing because of lack of funds. The court nonetheless found the council negligent for not having adequate mechanisms in place to control the kangaroo hazard, particularly without the fencing. ­Because operating the aerodrome was a function the council was not required to carry out, it was determined that it should not have chosen to do so if it didn’t have funding for the fence.

What are the lessons here? On the one hand, for animals that are carried legitimately as cargo, carriers, shippers and freight forwarders need to communicate better when it comes to planning for carrying such a load to ensure humane treatment and minimisation of loss.

On the other hand, when it comes to separating aircraft from animals that have no place near aircraft, those responsible for risk mitigation need to take those risks seriously too, so as to ensure preventable loss of life and damage that inevitably comes with wildlife strikes.

Kangaroo strikes are thankfully relatively rare in Australia but bird strikes are not. The Kempsey case is a reminder for airport operators to remain vigilant against them all.
"..On the other hand, when it comes to separating aircraft from animals that have no place near aircraft, those responsible for risk mitigation need to take those risks seriously too, so as to ensure preventable loss of life and damage that inevitably comes with wildlife strikes..."

Q/ What about who is responsible for separating aircraft from encroaching urban development? Confused

[Image: 4221396001_5330664607001_5330632425001-v...0632425001]

[Image: Australia-Melbourne-Essendon-Airport-769916.jpg]

[Image: Essendon-Airport-Direct-Factory-Outlets....=560%2C533]

While on airport safety and the encroachment of inappropriate and unsafe urban development in the vicinity of Federal Government leased airports; Sandy has forwarded to me the following copy of a Moorabbin airport NOTAM that is very relevant - Wink
    FROM 06 060837 TO PERM

[Image: runways-s.jpg]

MTF...P2 Cool

Can't see this happening here... and my apologies - I had the article open on my phone via the facebook app, and inadvertently closed it before I finished copying it. Still, you get the picture..
Quote:FAA tells City of Tehachapi special treatment at airport must stop

The City of Tehachapi has to make some changes to the how it uses land and hangars at the Tehachapi Municipal Airport after a Federal Aviation Administration conducted a sight survey which revealed many tenants, including the city, were receiving preferential treatment.

September 29th the FAA sent a letter to the city stating if changes weren't made to bring the airport into compliance then future eligibility for FAA grants would be put in jeopardy.

The FAA conducts periodic land use inspections of federally funded airports to detect and correct any inappropriate or unapproved land uses.

Among other things, airport operators must get FAA permission before leasing airport land for non-aeronautical uses. As a condition of the FAA approving a non-aeronautical use, the airport operator must show it would charge fair market value for the land.

The FAA conducted an inspection of Tehachapi Municipal Airport in May. The inspection found that the city’s use of airport property and some tenant lease agreements did not comply with the airport’s federal grant assurances.

According to FAA Spokesman Ian Gregor, specific findings of the May TSP inspection included:

-The lease for the Airport Industrial Center exceeds the FAA’s 50-year maximum lease policy.

-There are non-aeronautical uses of the airport and it appears the tenants were not paying fair market value or leasing for free. The FAA did not approve these uses. It does not appear the city got appraisals of the fair market value of the assets it is renting out for non-aeronautical purposes.

-Two hangars are used by other city agencies for non-aeronautical purposes, rent free. At the same time, there is an aeronautical wait list for hangars.

-The TSP Airport Layout Plan does not reflect non-aeronautical uses.

-A number of non-aeronautical uses may not have been charged fair market value. These include:

o Municipal land use for water sewage flow ponds.

o The Airport Industrial Center.

o Tehachapi Mountain Rodeo Association.

o City rent-free use of two hangars, and city rent-free use of land on which it stores vehicles.

Interesting bit of scuttlebutt bobbed up this morning, have no idea of its veracity but allegedly that paragon of corporate virtue Bankstown Airport limited, in a desperate attempt to accelerate the exodus of GA businesses off the airport thus facilitating the development sharks carve up of the airport. They must be salivating at the millions of $$$ going begging
but for a bunch of aviation fanatics standing in the way.
BAL are to audit the financials of companies renting at the airport with a view to charging them a percentage of their profits. This on top of the outrageous rents and lease tenures.
BAL has already become an energy retailer, buying electricity in bulk and on selling it to tenants, no doubt with a hefty markup.
If all this is for real it really is time for a judicial inquiry of the whole airports privatisation rort.

Following on from the snippets thread an article from IATA regarding the folly of creating privatised monopoly airports.

Pity the mandarins who advised the government that this was a good idea will never be held accountable for their crook advice.

AAPA: IATA challenges privatized airport model
Karen Walker
Oct 26, 2017

IATA director general Alexandre de Juniac

Airport privatization has been a failure that mostly leads to higher fares for airlines but no service benefits, a study soon to be released by IATA finds.
IATA has conducted what it says is an extensive study of airport privatization and expects to release it in the next few days.
Speaking Oct. 25 at the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines annual assembly in Taipei, IATA director general and CEO Alexandre de Juniac said that as governments struggle to fund infrastructure investments—particularly for airports—many see privatization as the solution.
“We have no issue with injecting private sector mentality into the operation of an airport. But our message to governments on infrastructure is that airports perform better in public hands. That is the conclusion of three decades of largely disappointing experiences with airport privatization.
“The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst. But in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority. And we struggle with costs at privatized airports as far flung as Paris, Sydney and Santiago,” de Juniac said.
“To date, we have not seen any long-term success stories. Our message to governments on airport privatization is to be cautious and to consult the industry before making any decisions.”
During a follow-up round table with journalists, de Juniac said the study shows airport privatization “has been a failure.” He said airline fees increase even as airfares go down and the gap becomes “significant,” while no service improvement is seen to justify the extra costs.
He also pointed out that five major hub airports that are consistently ranked as among the best in the world—Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Seoul Incheon and Singapore Changi—are all government owned.
“The privatization model by itself is not a problem, but it shows the state does not care and we have not found one efficient privatized airport,” de Juniac said. “A state privatizes an airport because it needs money, so the interest in aviation is very remote.”
Karen Walker

Part 139 NPRM feedback quietly closes - (sshhh -
Sleepy )

While one NPRM gets introduced with a degree of fanfare - see Alphabets post #148 - another proposed rule amendment slips by seemingly with little fuss or industry outcry... Undecided   

Quote:Today’s the last day to have your say on the proposed updated rules for aerodromes (Part 139). Complete the survey now: 
[Image: DQfACT3UEAEV5x-.jpg]
11:36 AM - 8 Dec 2017
Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and the subsidiary Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) were implemented in 2003. These rules regulate:

  • the operation of certified, registered and ‘certain other’ aerodromes
  • obstacles and hazards
  • aerodrome radio communication services.
By 2014, CASA and industry both recognised that a comprehensive review of the Part 139 legislative framework was necessary. While a review of the rules for fire fighting (Subpart 139.H of CASR) and heliports will be subject to separate consultation, the proposed amendments to Part 139 of CASR and the Part 139 MOS aim to:
  • more closely reflect the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) for Annex 14, Aerodromes to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention)
  • simplify the categorisation of aerodromes by moving to two categories: certified aerodromes (regulated) and uncertified aerodromes (unregulated)
  • introduce a graduated structure for aerodrome certification requirements to ensure that regulatory requirements are commensurate with the operation(s) being conducted at the aerodrome
  • re-write existing regulations in an outcome-based format, where appropriate
  • reduce existing regulatory costs
  • provide a more streamlined and clearer regulatory framework for Part 139.
Why We Are Consulting
CASA recognises the valuable contribution that community and industry consultation makes to the regulatory development process. This notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) sets out the rationale for updating the rules related to aerodromes, describes previous consultation we have conducted and asks you to consider a range of proposals for rule changes.

A copy of the NPRM is provided below. You can read it on this screen using the scroll bar or save it to your computer using the popup options. Annexes to the NPRM are provided in the 'related' section further down this page.
Please read the documents before providing your feedback in the online survey.


Provide your feedback
Online Survey

Not exactly sure but when you refer to the link provided it would seem that comments period closed a week early:

Quote:Closes 15 Dec 2017
Opened 29 Aug 2017

ATMS Standards Section

131 757
Maybe they didn't receive much interest but you'd be a bit pissed if you were preparing a lengthy submission based on the advertised closing date... Confused
While on airports and somewhat related to manmade objects creating mechanical turbulence in the vicinity of airports, the following was brought to my attention by Sandy... Wink
Quote:Cobden Airport under a Cloud, an open letter.                   28th Nov. ‘17

Cobden Airport is threatened by 12 enormous wind turbines planned at nearest distance from Airport 1.4 nautical miles and spread to the north west, against a preferred absolute minimum of 3 nautical miles. Seventy metre blades would reach up around 800 feet into the circuit area. A normal circuit height is 1000 feet, a bad weather circuit may be conducted at 500 feet. Cobden has one north south (night lit) sealed runway. If built in the planned position this wind farm will destroy Cobden Airport. Cobden Airport is community owned and has had much voluntary work and substantial taxpayer funds expended in it’s development.  Privately funded hangars and Aero Club rooms, the latter used as a terminal building, are part and parcel of the infrastructure.
In addition to the obvious obstruction problem and loss of night flying availability, downwind turbulence and wind shear would be dangerous when, as commonly, the wind direction is northerly.
Our Airport puts Cobden and the surrounding district ‘on the map.’ Air ambulance and firefighting are two important uses that will undoubtably finish. Charter flights, training flights and tourist flights will cease, no one would plan ahead to use this airport if the towers are in place. Owned by Council, it would have to consider the liability issues and insurance. If the Corangamite Council, as owner, can cause the Airport to be registered, as was the long term plan, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may provide some protection. Otherwise the go ahead will be a political decision therefore only community opinion might sway the decision in the Airport and community’s favour.
Sandy Reith , member Cobden Aero Club, Commercial Pilot, retired flight instructor with 10,000 hours experience.  Stonyford,  0428 85 88 20  
[Image: Untitled_Clipping_120917_070624_PM.jpg]
MTF...P2 Confused

The slow death of the local airport - Confused  

Between cashed up developers, Chinese investors and encroaching building/wind farm developments - what used to be regarded as essential infrastructure - the local town airport will continue to go the way of the Dodo bird... Confused

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Aviation outrage over Chinese ownership of Merredin airport
[Image: bfe3d60cb3881aac1a05e0f941e4c10a?width=650]
The sign outside Merredin aerodrome. Picture: Colin Murty

The Australian
12:00AM December 27, 2017
[size=undefined]ANDREW BURRELL
[Image: andrew_burrell.png]
WA Chief Reporter


Merredin airport in Western Australia is effectively under the control of a Chinese government enterprise, prompting outrage in aviation circles, as safety concerns shut down its pilot training school.

The airport’s runways, control tower, hangars and all of its assets are 50 per cent owned, and may soon be fully owned, by China’s biggest airline, state-owned China Southern Airlines.

In 1993, the secretive company quietly paid $1 to the WA government to lease the airport for 100 years to use as a base to train thousands of Chinese pilots for employment in the world’s fastest- growing aviation market.

In recent years it has owned the flight school with Canadian company CAE.

So far, more than 2000 pilots have graduated from the ­facility, making it China Southern Airlines’ biggest training base in the world.

For an Australian town’s sole airstrip to be effectively controlled by the Chinese government is unusual.

Anyone who wishes to land at the aerodrome, 260km east of Perth, must seek approval from the flying school. Locals say permission has never been denied, but aviation veteran and businessman Dick Smith believes the airport should not be owned by a foreign company or government.

“It is outrageous that an Aussie pilot can’t go to a country airport without getting approval from the Chinese to land there,” he said.

“I’ve never heard of this happening anywhere.” In recent months, however, the Chinese flying school has suspended its operations in WA after the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raised safety concerns.

Aviation industry sources say the company has continued to pay millions of dollars in wages — without any students — since March this year.

One source said he believed a dispute between Guangzhou-based China Southern Airlines and CAE could lead to China Southern taking full ownership of the flying school within months.

A spokesman for China Southern West Australian Flying College declined to comment.

Merredin shire president Ken Hooper said nobody in town had been able to find out when the flying school would reopen.

“It’s quite important for our economy here but we just can’t get any information,” he said.

A CASA spokesman said the regulator would not publicly discuss details of its dealings with aviation organisations unless serious action was taken, such as suspending or cancelling a certificate.

“CASA and China Southern have been working to address identified safety and regulatory issues over a period of time,” the spokesman said. “CASA is hopeful that China Southern can meet all requirements as soon as possible.”

There is broader concern in the aviation industry about growing foreign ownership and control of pilot training schools in Australia.

With a looming shortage of commercial pilots predicted, there are fears Australia will have to import pilots while foreign-controlled pilot schools in this country send their graduates to China and elsewhere in Asia. At the same time, flight schools claim they are being crippled by skyrocketing costs and over-regulation.

And an update to the Cobden airport debacle, via the Warrnambool 'Standard' Wink :

Quote:Fight for Cobden airport's future hits close to home for Corangamite Shire mayor Jo Beard
  • Kate Zwagerman
RELATED: Fresh plans for wind farm puts airport in nosedive
RELATED: Planning Minister responds to wind farm worry
RELATED: SOS sent out for airstrip

[Image: r0_0_4705_3105_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Taking a stand: Jan O'Connell, Eunie Dawe, Paul Moloney, Warren Ponting, Helen Watts and Stan Williams on the runway at Cobden airport. Picture: Morgan Hancock

RELATED: Cobden airstrip’s role as a lifeline

Corangamite Shire mayor Jo Beard’s reasons for opposing a 12-turbine wind farm that threatens the future of Cobden’s airfield are personal.

The airport has always been part of the Cobden local’s backyard, but its role as a vital community asset was brought home when her husband, Daniel, was involved in a serious car crash.

“It will be 20 years next year that… my husband was involved in a fatality car accident where two people were killed. He was probably one of the worst of the survivors and he was airlifted out of the Cobden airstrip,” she said.

“By the time he got to Melbourne they had to revive him. If he did not have that air ambulance taking him out of Cobden down to Melbourne... he wouldn’t be around.”

She said the strip remained an important landing site for the fixed-wing air ambulance, as well as the helicopter.

Cr Beard also pointed to the council-owned strip’s role in supporting aerial fire-fighting, agricultural spraying and tourism.

Cr Beard told this week’s Corangamite Shire council meeting that she would be standing up with her community and “fighting really hard to make sure that airstrip is still there”.

Plans for the Naroghid wind farm, located directly north of the Cobden airport, are being considered by the state Planning Minister. Corangamite councillors voted to lodge a submission objecting to the project.

Allinta Energy is behind the project, which would build 12 turbines measuring 180 metres high. The closest turbines would be about 2.5 kilometres from the runway, limiting the ability to take off and land and risking the strip’s future registration as a code one airfield.

Cr Lesley Brown said giving the Planning Minister control of wind farm approvals meant there was often little consideration of local people.

“I find it difficult to understand that the state government is the only authority to decide where these wind farms are located,” she said.

[Image: r0_0_5472_3648_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Corangamite Shire mayor Jo Beard. Picture: Rob Gunstone

Cr Helen Durant said the airport provided an important service to the community, businesses and emergency services.

“I hope that common sense will prevail because if it doesn’t and the future of the airstrip is threatened than nothing will stand in the way of inappropriate sited wind towers in the future,” she said.

Cr Neil Trotter said the Planning Minister should “use his power to veto this forthwith”.

Cobden Aero Club member Duncan Morris thanked the council for supporting the strip in its submission.

The airstrip hosted a community day last weekend, with hundreds of people and about 40 planes flying in to show support. Mr Morris said a petition had received about 400 signatures within a couple of days.

“The wind farm commissioner came to our airport and had a look first-hand at what we saw as the troubles. He may not have the final decision, but I’d rather being going into this with his support rather than without it,” he said. “I suspect we’ll get his support.”

Mr Morris said the aero club and hangar owners group were also making a joint submission on the wind farm, which is being drafted up Sydney-based aviation lawyers.

Cobrico dairy farmer Angela Molloy told Tuesday night’s council meeting that the wind farm could impact her family’s right to farm.

“We have three turbines adjacent to our residence, with the first turbine 1.07 kilometres from our house,” she said.

Mrs Molloy said the farm’s fertiliser spreading was contracted to an aerial spraying company operating from the airport, which would not continue if the wind farm went ahead.

“The loss of this spreading pertains to a loss of $70,000 a year. Nothing a dairy farmer can withstand,” she said.

Mrs Molloy also raised concerns over shadow flicker, aviation lighting that could impact on sleep, and planning discrepancies found in the map of the Naroghid wind farm. 

“When I first did a drive-by with another lady we found 40 houses missing off this map. This map has been in circulation since 2006 and we want to know why it hasn’t been picked up. It is disgusting. Where or how has any of this got through without someone checking it?” Mrs Molloy said.

“We now have a planning consultant that has cost us more money and he has found eight houses that range from 1.5 to three kilometres missing off the Naroghid wind farm map.”

Mrs Molloy said they had also received no communication from the wind farm company.
“Because we are objecting we’ve never heard from them,” she said.

MTF...P2  Cool

Security overkill - Final nail in Regionals' coffin?

[Image: d465c115bcba280e0625cb23cbb83d55--multip...curity.jpg]

As a parting gift has 6D AGAD Chester provided the ultimate stake through the heart of Regional airports?

Via the Oz:

Quote:Counter-terrorism crackdown at airports could threaten regional flights

AM By political reporter Melissa Clarke about 2 hours ago

[Image: 9007154-3x2-460x307.jpg]


Regional airports were identified as a weak in security.
ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs

New counter-terrorism measures will soon be unveiled to improve security at regional airports, but concerns are growing the costs involved could make flights to some towns unviable.

The Federal Government's plans for major security upgrades to regional airports is expected to be announced in the next few weeks.

The ABC understands the changes will include mandating more scanning of passengers and baggage at regional airports and in some more remote locations.

Earlier this year, a terrorism plot to smuggle a bomb aboard a flight at Sydney airport was thwarted, but it prompted the Federal Government to re-assess airport security.

Regional airports were identified as a weak link and around 170 have now been reviewed.
How terror changed global airport security

[Image: terror-security-data.jpg]

We take a look at the terrorist attacks and foiled plots that exposed weaknesses in the airline safety system and how they brought about the restrictions we travel by.

Currently, there is no mandatory screening of passengers when a plane weighs less than 20 tonnes, meaning travellers can arrive at major capital city airports unchecked.

In some regional airports, there are carriers flying larger jets that have to scan their passengers, while competitors with smaller jets flying exactly the same routes do not have to.

The ABC understands this will be altered under the changes to be announced, as well as the option of full body scanners being introduced to some of the larger regional airports.

The extra scanning would be a prominent security upgrade, but not necessarily the most effective, according to experts.

"You can scan their bags but if you want to put a bomb on board, you can still do it," aviation security consultant Roger Henning told the ABC.

"You just put the parcel in as air freight, hand it over the counter, it goes on the aeroplane.

"It's a shemozzle."

Regional air service 'already borderline'

[Image: 9237326-3x2-460x307.jpg]

Peter Dutton is expected to make the announcement in January.
ABC News: Marco Catalano

Newly-appointed Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton, is expected to announce the changes in January, as transport safety issues have been absorbed into his new wide-reaching home affairs portfolio.

That concerns Opposition infrastructure and transport spokesman, Anthony Albanese, who wants safety and the needs of regional communities to be factored in alongside counter-terrorism concerns.

If the cost of new security regulations is passed on to owners and operators of regional airlines and airports, it could threaten the viability of services.

Quote:"I'd be concerned about a number of regional airports that operate at very low margins now, that are run by the local governments," Mr Albanese said.

"[They] provide essentially a lifeline to the economy of those regional cities by giving access to the capital cities on a daily basis."

Aviation security consultant, Roger Henning, agreed some of the regional air services were "already borderline, if not already, trading on the edge of absolute insolvency."

[Image: 8542156-3x2-460x307.jpg]

Mr Albanese says there should be a differentiation in security for major and regional airports.
AAP: Dean Lewins

"These airports are vital to people who live outside of capital cities and we've been very slack indeed in terms of addressing their needs."

He believes there needs to be a differentiation between security concerns facing major airports and the safety issues for regional and remote airports.

"It's a security risk but not a terrorist security risk. It's a risk that something will go wrong, an incident will involve an aeroplane."

Mr Dutton declined to comment.

Airfield fencing critical for protecting wildlife

Basic upgrades would go a long way to improving pilot and passenger safety, according the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS).

Proper fencing for smaller airfields would not only keep people out of secure spaces, but also animals.

Wildlife poses "quite a significant threat," said RFDS Operations manager for south-eastern Australia, David Charlton.

"Constantly, throughout the year we're taking measures to avoid large wildlife on runways and within airfield perimeter areas such as kangaroos an other animals.

Quote:"At least once or twice a year we have an event relating to wildlife that not only presents a threat to aviation safety in terms of passengers, staff and patients, but also to the aircraft."

Concerns are not just at dusty airfields in the outback. Wildlife has been a problem for airports such as the Sunshine Coast, Essendon, Taree and others on the New South Wales mid-north coast.

For the RFDS, fencing is critical infrastructure that will help prevent both crashes and malicious attacks.

"You can't add additional security protocols until you've got the basic fencing requirements met, so it certainly appears to be a good place to start."

Hmm...funny how Albo has suddenly become vocal on matters of an aviation nature?  Dodgy

Here's a reminder of what Albo didn't bring to the table as the former Minister oversighting aviation: Of Mandarins & Minions. #63 & fm BITN #402.

Quote:Fawcett highlights government failure on aviation safety recommendations

August 4, 2013 by

[Image: rnCrupPljdUbRPoh-OYzA4Yn2rDzO4OICYZPARMfHg-300x181.jpg]
Senator Fawcett - alarmed by government apathy on aviation safety.

Liberal Senator for South Australia David Fawcett has condemned the federal minister responsible for aviation for “failing to respond to the damning findings of the Senate Inquiry into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) which was released on 23 May 2013.”

“Even the announcement of an external review of the ATSB by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) was not made by the Minister but by the agency in question,” Fawcett added.

“This raises serious concerns about the efficacy of any resulting report unless the Minister ensures that the terms of reference and Australian management of the audit are transparent and independent.”

Senator Fawcett, who chaired the Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations and is a former Army test pilot, told Australian Aviation in July: “The government is not allowed to simply ignore the report and its 26 recommendations.”

Fawcett called on Minister Albanese to ensure the review of the ATSB has the confidence of the aviation industry and the public by adopting Recommendation 8 of the Senate report.

The Senate recommended that “an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.”

“While the engagement of the Canadian TSB is welcome, the gravity of the issues raised in the Senate report means that the Minister should be overseeing the review with the support of an expert panel rather than the ATSB,” Fawcett said.

“It is critical that this review of the ATSB is allowed to examine all sensitive areas of the ATSB investigation processes as identified in the Senate report including the Canley Vale accident”

MTF...P2 Cool

From the Sunraysia Daily..

Quote:Airport’s future stays up in the air

Christopher Testa -

26 Oct 2017, 9 p.m.

A CRISIS meeting failed to resolve an impasse between Mildura Airport Pty Ltd and the general aviation community over a contentious 20-year master plan yesterday.

Mildura councillors last night voted to hold off endorsing the controversial plan until December, with councillors instead endorsing a 28-day public submission period to allow Mildura’s frustrated general aviation operators to provide feedback.

General aviation businesses and representatives of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Aust­ralia (AOPA) met Mildura Airport chair ­Peter O’Donnell before the vote ­yesterday in a bid to secure a formal consultation process with the airport on the master plan.


Quote:Pilots want airport input

Christopher Testa -

1 Dec 2017, 3:30 a.m.

GENERAL aviation pilots based at Mildura Airport want to be given representation on the airport’s board.

Private pilots, aviation businesses and sporting clubs have had their say on a 20-year draft master plan for the airport’s future after Mildura councillors held off ratifying the contentious document.

The general aviation representatives have sent their feedback to the Mildura Airport Pty Ltd (MAPL) board, requesting an urgent review of management’s policy on the acquisition of hangar space and rental increases, a review of the proposed general aviation precinct and the relocation of the general aviation refuelling facility.

(01-29-2018, 04:14 PM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote:  From the Sunraysia Daily..

Quote:Airport’s future stays up in the air

Christopher Testa -

26 Oct 2017, 9 p.m.

A CRISIS meeting failed to resolve an impasse between Mildura Airport Pty Ltd and the general aviation community over a contentious 20-year master plan yesterday.

Mildura councillors last night voted to hold off endorsing the controversial plan until December, with councillors instead endorsing a 28-day public submission period to allow Mildura’s frustrated general aviation operators to provide feedback.

General aviation businesses and representatives of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Aust­ralia (AOPA) met Mildura Airport chair ­Peter O’Donnell before the vote ­yesterday in a bid to secure a formal consultation process with the airport on the master plan.


Quote:Pilots want airport input

Christopher Testa -

1 Dec 2017, 3:30 a.m.

GENERAL aviation pilots based at Mildura Airport want to be given representation on the airport’s board.

Private pilots, aviation businesses and sporting clubs have had their say on a 20-year draft master plan for the airport’s future after Mildura councillors held off ratifying the contentious document.

The general aviation representatives have sent their feedback to the Mildura Airport Pty Ltd (MAPL) board, requesting an urgent review of management’s policy on the acquisition of hangar space and rental increases, a review of the proposed general aviation precinct and the relocation of the general aviation refuelling facility.

Good catch Cap'n - While on airports I note that AOPA are today on their way to Wagga to represent the interests of their members in the Wagga Council proposed landing and parking fees for the airport... Rolleyes

Quote:AOPA Benjamin Morgan‏ @aopaaustralia

On the road, driving to Wagga Wagga to attend Council meeting in support of the Wagga City Aero Club.  Let’s end discriminatory aviation fees and charges and unlock the general aviation tourism potential for the Riverina!

[Image: DUrR2zhUQAA69U9.jpg]

1:52 PM - 29 Jan 2018

Here's a reminder of that particular bunfight - Confused

Via the Daily Advertiser:

 JANUARY 11 2018 - 4:30PM
Wagga City Council dismisses ‘discrimination’ claims by AOPA over proposed airport fees

Lachlan Grey

Local News

[Image: r0_260_3000_1947_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
 AOPA Australia executive director Benjamin Morgan has called on Wagga City Council to reconsider additional airport fees.

Wagga City Council has dismissed claims aircraft owners are being discriminated against by the proposed installment of landing and airport parking fees at Wagga Airport.

It comes after the Aircraft Owner and Pilots Association of Australia released a formal statement calling for Wagga administrators to remove fees in order to “encourage greater use of (the) airport”.

Under the proposed parking fees, visiting fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft could be hit with fees of up to $9.68 per day, per tonne.

In a letter addressed to Wagga City Council general manager Peter Thompson, mayor Greg Conkey, and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, AOPA Australia executive director Benjamin Morgan said the fees were at odds with charges made for other public space assets.

“The City of Wagga is imposing special and unique conditions that discriminate private and private business aircraft owners, requiring them to pay fees and charges that are not expected or levied against their boating, camping, caravanning or road-travelling counterparts,” he said.

“Should a tourist or visitor choose to fly their general aviation aircraft to Wagga, they are required to pay landing fees and parking charges - simply because they used a runway (and) not a highway.”

[Image: r0_67_3782_2193_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
 Wagga City Council general manager Peter Thompson has addressed claims made by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia.

AOPA Australia claimed caravan owners and boat owners in the region weren’t required to pay fees and charges at council owned sites, however, Mr Thompson was succinct in his dismissal.

“The support for the submission would seem to have no direct relevance,” he said.
“The owners of caravan parks routinely charge for the use of their infrastructure as do the owners of rail assets in NSW.”

Mr Thompson also refuted allegations of discrimination against aircraft users and pilots, arguing fees and charges are routinely applied to the state-wide aviation sector.
[Image: r0_0_530_445_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg] Wagga City Council's proposed airport fees compared to other regional airports.

“The proposed charges are not discriminatory towards aircraft owners,” he said.

“Even a cursory investigation of the management of similar facilities across the state reveals that the proposed approach to the management of Wagga Airport is consistent with the approach at other facilities.

The reason for (our) approach is that the airport facility is an expensive asset to construct, operate and maintain.”

Council stated a number of submissions had been made regarding the proposed fees, which would be considered in the coming weeks.

MTF...P2 Cool

BJ's airport conundrums: All woes lead to CASA - Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Planes delayed at busy Hobart

[Image: 6e3df81c98f35ec11e0bea2080a31001]12:00amMATTHEW DENHOLM
Flights and passengers are being delayed at an increasingly busy Hobart airport.

Planes waiting up to ‘half an hour’ to park at Hobart Airport

[Image: 4cbf1a8f99081ab68efa79858b00c16c?width=650]

Flights and passengers are being delayed at an increasingly busy Hobart airport, and the cost of compliance with regulation is blamed by some for holding up a simple fix.

Aviation sources told The Australian that during peak periods aircraft were waiting up to 30 minutes for access to parking bays at Hobart Airport, costing airlines in extra fuel and compounding schedule delays.

The problem is linked to Hobart having only five aircraft parking bays. Sources said a simple solution — using push-back tug vehicles to push the planes out of parking bays — was stymied by costly Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation.

Push-back tugs, commonly used at other major and regional airports, remove the need for pilots to manoeuvre aircraft out of parking bays, freeing up space. At Hobart, it is estimated this would allow three more parking days.

Push-back tugs would also reduce the risk of planes clipping each other when leaving parking bays.

This occurred in Hobart in December 2016, when one Virgin Australia plane clipped the wings of another, which was boarding passengers at the time.

However, sources said any change to the parking apron would trigger CASA regulations and require multi-million upgrades to meet international standards, costs that could drive up landing fees and airfares. Rolleyes

Hobart Airport operations manager Matt Cocker said the current five parking bays were sufficient to deal with daily peak periods — morning, midday and late afternoon — if aircraft kept to the schedule.

However, this schedule was disrupted when planes arrived late. “From time to time, due to scheduling changes or delays inbound, there may be some times when some aircraft may have to wait before moving into a bay,” he said.

Hobart airport has seen a 34 per cent increase in passenger numbers during the past five years, fuelled by Tasmania’s tourism boom.

Mr Cocker said the airport planned to work with airlines to solve the problem. “We’ll work closely with those airlines that come into Hobart in developing options for increased parking positions into the future,” he said.

CASA regulations meant any solution would require approval and investment. “Even line-markings are subject to regulations under the CASA,” he said. Shy

Push-back tugs were one option being discussed.

A CASA spokeswoman said international standards must be met but that cost was considered in making regulatory decisions. - Really Huh

“Apron design, line-marking and lighting are covered by CASA regulations and are aligned with international standards,” she said.

“When performing our regulatory functions, we take into account all relevant considerations, including cost, with safety as our most important consideration. blahblahblahblah - the old CAA section 9A motherhood statement... Dodgy Refer here:  Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all? #1

It is understood the issue is complicated by Hobart Airport’s plans — subject to sufficient demand — to offer access for wide-bodied planes capable of flying international routes.

Those plans would also require an upgrade of the apron.
#1 - Another Chocfrog post from LB off the UP Wink :
Quote:..The reality is that affordable safety is everywhere, and is unavoidably everywhere.

The problem in aviation regulation - particularly in Australia - is that the estimation of the probabilities of things happening - like a double engine failure on a 777 or an engine failure in a C208 or PC12 - are almost invariably grossly overestimated. The required mitigations are, accordingly, almost invariably a gross overreaction. It’s across the regulatory spectrum, from air operator certification to medical certification. The proposal for 20nm CTAF procedures is a specific, recent example.

The reason for this is completely uncontroversial and well-understood. The contemplation of awful consequences - like a double engine failure in a twin jet at 35,000’ over the ocean or a mid-air near a CTAF - results in a natural overestimation of the probabilities of it happening.

Dick’s aeronautical engineer - if he exists - is merely being what’s known as ‘human’. He intuitively ‘knows’ that a four engined-aircraft ‘must’ be safer than a two engined-aircraft. His knowledge and experience and objectivity go out the figurative window when he intuitively ‘knows’ the comparative risks.

‘Everyone’ intuitively ‘knows’ that pilots with CVD ‘must’ not be able to meet the same competence standards as pilots without CVD, and therefore pilots without CVD ‘must’ be riskier than pilots without CVD.

Of course, as a matter of objective fact, the intuition is bollocks. But it is natural (and, purely coincidentally, very lucrative for those who make their living out of safety bureaucracy).

Manifestations of this are everywhere. Look at the component overhaul and replacement periodicities in most GA aircraft designed in the 50s/60s/70s. My favourite is the flap flex drive shafts on Beechcraft. There are aircraft with 10,000 hours, plus, flying around with the original shafts. There are thousands of aircraft with multiple thousands of hours on original shafts. What do you reckon the maintenance manual says about the ‘life’ of those shafts?

And then I think of the poor bastard LAME whom CASA crushed for not having replaced vacuum pumps on a Cessna 310 at 500 hours. The pumps were still going strong after 500 hours, one by a further 886.9 hours and the other by a further 1,599.6 hours. But he had to be crushed because someone had plucked 500 out of his arse to put in a maintenance manual 40 years ago, and the number thus became holy writ the breach of which was a safety heresy. The objective evidence of millions of hours of vacuum pump operation and the collective wisdom of what causes vacuum pump failure were irrelevant. That’s aviation ‘safety’ for ya...

While on the UP - plus very much related to CASA's seemingly absconded airport oversight responsibilities (refer Senate thread post: Beware the Bureaucrat's spin) - and in the lead up to the anniversary of the tragic Essendon DFO B200 accident; I note that there is an interesting thread running with the title - Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy Confused

Quote:717tech -Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy

Interesting email today from the AFAP regarding Essendon RWY26/08.

It mentions that the strip must be at least 300M wide for Precision/ Non Precision Approaches. Due to the DFO and other structures, it’s only 230M.

My question is who’s responsible? Which of the many strict liability offences are we committing by accepting an ILS onto 26?

fujii - ERSA says it’s 300.

717tech - I believe that’s the issue. ERSA is supposedly incorrect and there’s no NOTAM.

fujii - If that’s the case, it’s been wrong for 12 1/2 years or longer if you include construction time.

Falling Leaf - Don't worry, CASA will just construct a 'safety case' and issue a waiver as everyone know's that the horse has well and truly bolted on this one.

Money talks - and the greed, back slapping and dodgy deals that allowed an aerodrome to be converted into a commercial retail district would make a great article.

Now today I note that thunderbird five has put up a very interesting link for the 20 November 2017 RAPAC Victoria meeting minutes:

Quote:3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width

The Convenor introduced the paper (attached) and advised that CASA had now responded in writing. The summary of CASA’s response is as follows:

 - The 180m strip width was consistent with the aerodrome standards that applied at the time when Essendon became a domestic airport following the opening of Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport (circa early 1970s).
- It was also consistent with the Manual of Standards for Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (MOS Part 139) until November 2014, subject to landing minima adjustments.
- A landing minimum penalty applies on the Runway 26 instrument landing system procedures.
- Accordingly, based on the 180m wide runway strip and associated OLS in 2004, the DFO complex did not infringe the OLS.
- The November 2014 version of MOS Part 139 removed the provision for a lesser strip widths to be provided subject to landing minima adjustments.
- Subsequently, the strip width for RWY 08/26 was published with a 300m strip width which resulted in established buildings infringing the OLS.
- After considering a safety case submitted by the airport operator, CASA determined that the risk to aviation safety would be acceptable subject to mitigations including appropriate obstacle lighting and publication in AIP.
- An appropriate legal instrument was issued by CASA in 2015.
- These established buildings are now obstacle lit with low intensity steady red lights and AIPERSA publishes the presence of these buildings.

Some members remained concerned that information published about the runway strip width was not accurate given that there were obstacles within the strip. The Chair advised that based on the information reviewed by CASA, the developments around the runway were compliant with all relevant regulations at the time they were approved and constructed.

The Chair undertook to investigate the concerns raised by members and provide additional detail out of session.

[Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-1.jpg][Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-2.jpg][Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-3.jpg]

And for reference here is the YMEN ERSA link (refer pg 3):

08/26 077 63a PCN 25 /F /C /1400 (203PSI) /T Grooved WID 45 RWS 300
17/35 166 49a PCN 29 /R /C /1400 (203PSI) /T WID 45 RWS 150
Braking SFC friction variable due no grooving on concrete SFC BTN TWY H and RWY 08 THR.

TICK TOCK Barnaby! - Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Cool

Albo mentions the A-word? - UDB!  Rolleyes

BJ is yet to acknowledge aviation and aviation safety are part of his portfolio responsibility? However I note that today in Parliament Albo has drawn a very rare partisan line in the sand on matters of aviation safety... Huh

Via Federation Chamber Hansard:  [Image: pdf.gif]Download Fragment  [Image: video.gif]Watch ParlView Video

Mr ALBANESE  (Grayndler) (12:13): I move:

That this House:

(1) declares:

(a) its support for the vital work performed each and every day by the highly trained professionals providing aviation rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) services to ensure the safety of the flying public;

(b) that the ARFF service is particularly important to the safe operation of airports in regional Australia where it also responds to non-aviation emergencies within its local communities; and

  © that the presence of the ARFF service is key to safeguarding the safety and security at major metropolitan and regional airports around the country, which is critical for international and domestic tourism; and

(2) calls on the Government to reject any proposal to increase the threshold for the provision of ARFF services at airports from the existing 350,000 passenger movements annually, noting that this would preclude the establishment of these services at Proserpine Whitsunday Coast Airport and lead to the removal of these services from the following regional communities: Ballina; Coffs Harbour; Ayres Rock; Gladstone; Hamilton Island; Broome; Karratha; Newman; and Port Hedland.  

Firefighting services at our nation's airports are critical to the safety of travellers. Our nation has an excellent record when it comes to aviation safety. We also have a strong commitment to investment in the emergency services that would be necessary in the event of an accident. Indeed, in 2009, as transport minister in the Labor government, I was proud to deliver a $70 million program to upgrade fire trucks at our nation's busiest airports. It included 33 new trucks, new fire stations at Perth and Maroochydore, new vehicles to meet the needs of the A380 and fire alarm monitoring at 20 locations nationwide.

Safety is also critical at our smaller regional airports. In 2014, the aviation rescue and firefighting services responded to some 6,700 calls relating to airport emergency assistance. That's why I today, through this motion, am calling upon the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to reject the absurd proposal for a reduction in firefighting capacity at regional airports. Current Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations require an aviation fire and rescue service at every Australian airport that has at least 350,000 passengers travelling through it each year. However, CASA has recently accepted recommendations from an infrastructure department aviation rescue and firefighting services regulatory policy review which would weaken this standard. Going forward, the threshold would rise to 500,000 passenger movements a year. This idea makes no sense. The minister for transport should reject it today in the interests of safety and regional economic development. Under the international standards and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization, aviation firefighters are specifically trained. They must be stationed to be able to respond within three minutes to an aircraft crash or fire for the best chance of rescue. Our existing standards and thresholds on provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services reflect Australia's commitment to ICAO standards and recommended practices, including article 9.2.1, which provides that rescue and firefighting equipment and services shall be provided at an aerodrome.

Let's look in practical terms at what the acceptance of this proposal would mean for regional communities that rely upon jobs in tourism and regional aviation to get access to capital cities. Here are some airports that have aviation rescue and firefighting services and are below the 500,000 passenger threshold: Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Ayers Rock, Gladstone, Hamilton Island, Broome, Karratha, Newman and Port Hedland. I understand that, under pressure from local communities and Labor, the government's considering maintaining firefighting services at these airports and then imposing a new threshold from here on in. That, of course, would be good for those airports and communities that have fought to maintain these services, including, of course, the union that represents them. However, it would lead to a two-tiered system. In the future, airports with passenger movements between 350,000 and 500,000 per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities. Other airports are on the cusp of meeting this criterion, including Proserpine. It should have an aviation firefighting service established because 353,000 passengers passed through that airport last year. The government must today state clearly that the Proserpine airport will be provided with rescue and firefighting services. Just make a decision and support this community.

The change being contemplated should be rejected. Anyone who has had the privilege of being a minister in a government knows that, from time to time, bad ideas come forward from the bureaucracy. Some of them, once rejected, keep coming back again and again. This is one of those ideas. It first came to my attention when I was a minister and I banished it. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now. These are issues upon which the minister for transport, who's new to the portfolio, needs to deliver. The fact is that, across the board, issues of aviation safety—the safety of the travelling public—have been bipartisan issues. That needs to continue to be the case. The minister should rule out these proposals today and do it urgently in the interests of those communities, in the interests of firefighting in Australia and in the interests of regional economic development in those communities.

Knowing Albo's track record of 'do nothing' and 'leaving it to the experts' in matters of aviation safety - ref: Three-peat: The Empire (CASA Iron Ring) strikes back. - does anyone else feel themselves reaching for the bucket ( Confused ) when you read some of those motherhood statements and weasel words??  

"...Our existing standards and thresholds on provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services reflect Australia's commitment to ICAO standards and recommended practices..." 

P2 comment - That'd be the commitment that under your watch as minister saw the notified differences to the ICAO SARPs more than triple in number to a peak of 4024 (reference: Mount NCN post #8)

Quote:4024 notified differences for Australia?? Recently I had collated from the 2015 AIP GEN 1.7 SUP that notified differences had grown to a total of 3116. However in actual fact between the 2011 SUP the figure had grown to 4024 but due to the loose ICAO arrangement of only listing NDs every 3 years this was missed. So from my approximate estimate from 2011 to 2014 the NDs had grown by 2500.
Where's BJ?

"...The fact is that, across the board, issues of aviation safety—the safety of the travelling public—have been bipartisan issues. That needs to continue to be the case..." - Hmm...I get the impression that Albo is trying to goad BJ.

Oh well it looks like the fat bloke from NQ is providing top cover - Rolleyes - for BJ on this particular partisan motion.

Reference the Hansard link & also via the Whitsunday Times:

Christensen lets fly over airport safety concerns
5th Feb 2018 12:46 PM

[Image: b881209777z1_20180205131510_000g4jvcreu2...20x465.jpg]
The Whitsunday Coast Airport. Dane Lillingstone

CLAIMS of reduced airport safety services in the Whitsundays is "totally false" according to Federal Member for Dawson George Christensen.  

Mr Christensen shot down the claims of Labor MP Anthony Albanese in Canberra today, that airport rescue and fire-fighting services on Hamilton Island would be cut and that Proserpine would be unable to establish a service.  

In his speech to the Federation Chamber today Mr Albanese stated the LNP Government would implement a tiered system that would mean airport receiving 350,000 and 500,000 passengers per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities.  

"However, it would lead to a two-tiered system. In the future, airports with passenger movements between 350,000 and 500,000 per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities," he said.   

"Both of these claims by Labor on cuts to airport fire and rescue services at Hamilton Island and Proserpine are false," Mr Christensen said.  

"They were false two years ago when they first raised them and they're false now.
"When the United Firefighters Union of Australia Aviation Branch first brought this to my attention, I followed up with the Minister, to ensure that services in my electorate would not be cut."

  Mr Albanese said the Whitsunday Coast Airport near Proserpine was "on the cusp the cusp of meeting this criterion" as it received 350,00 passengers a year.   

"It should have an aviation firefighting service established because 353,000 passengers passed through that airport last year.

The Government must today state clearly that the Proserpine airport will be provided with rescue and firefighting services," Mr Albanese said.   

He called on the LNP to reject changes that would deprive the Whitsunday Coast Airport of aviation firefighting services.   

"Just make a decision and support this community," he said. 
Mr Christensen said the information was clear that existing services "would remain untouched".  

"Also untrue is the claim that Proserpine's Whitsunday Coast Airport will be unable to establish an Aviation Rescue and Fire-Fighting Service," he said.  

"The establishment of services at Proserpine is already underway, and I understand that the case will be presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week.  

"Therefore, the services at Proserpine will not be affected by changes.

The only thing I agree with Anthony Albanese on in relation to airport firefighters is that they do a great job.  

"And I look forward to welcoming new aviation firefighters when services come online at the Whitsunday Coast Airport."

MTF...P2 Cool

Would seem to me that the unions have perhaps put a fly in Albo's ear.

Is there a "Safety case"  for fire services at these regional airports?
In regards to ICAO compliance, it was my understanding that fire services were only required
at international airports.

Can't recall airport fire services ever saving anyone from an aviation disaster
in Australia, I'm open to correction on that.

Would it perhaps make better and more economic sense to train local fire brigades to attend the airports? I suspect airport fire services come under a different union who no doubt would not take lightly another union encroaching on their turf.

Are airport fire services just another bit of fluff, bit like airport security, that give the punters an illusion of "Safety", but no-one ever tells them how much it puts on their ticket price.

Cattle class BBQ, anyone..

One of the ‘shortcomings’ in the dramatic, politician scaring, generalizations is the total lack of accuracy regarding exactly what occurs when a large aircraft ‘crashes’. Take a look at the LA event or any of the crash video – even the Essendon event. A crash is a violent collision between aircraft and whatever it hits. The result is nearly always fire; it is only during the first seconds and minutes of the event that significant saving of life can be achieved. This means rapid evacuation of passengers. The fire trucks cannot help with that – they have established protocols to protect their crew and are there to extinguish the flames etc..

For those on board, those who survive the impact, the imperative is to beat the fire to the nearest exit and get as faraway from the aircraft as possible. This assumes they can actually egress the hull. There exists a wide gulf between the time an orderly evacuation, in controlled conditions takes for certification purposes and the time it takes for a hundred traumatized people to extricate themselves from the cramped confines of a wrecked, dark, smoke filled, burning cabin.

Much as I like the notion of a fire truck on stand-by; to a passenger trapped in the narrow, cramped confines of the seating position, hampered by the incredible amount of spilled carry on baggage; desperately trying get out of the seat row, to find an exit, opening it and getting out, the fire truck is completely irrelevant.

I wonder how many politicians have sat in economy and considered just how difficult it would be to actually get out of their seat to get to the loo, let alone a clear path to an exit in a burning aircraft. Not too bloody many I’ll bet. Remember – if the aircraft is burning there is a chance for explosion – fire and rescue crew will not be allowed inside the danger zone, until the fire is extinguished.

Thankfully, the statistics favour it never happening, but when it does, the survival statistics are against an even chance. The statistics for rescue, by fire crew are even slimmer. But, it’s nice to know they are there.

Toot toot.

3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width

The summary of CASA’s response is as follows:
  • The 180m strip width was consistent with the aerodrome standards that applied at the time when Essendon became a domestic airport following the opening of Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport (circa early 1970s).
  • It was also consistent with the Manual of Standards for Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (MOS Part 139) until November 2014, subject to landing minima adjustments.
  • A landing minimum penalty applies on the Runway 26 instrument landing system procedures.
  • Accordingly, based on the 180m wide runway strip and associated OLS in 2004, the DFO complex did not infringe the OLS.
  • The November 2014 version of MOS Part 139 removed the provision for a lesser strip widths to be provided subject to landing minima adjustments.

Here is the 2004 version of the MOS requirement.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=404]

Interesting to note however that in 2003 the strip width met the 300m MOS requirement.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=331]

So why the need for landing minima adjustments?

Why was it not practicable to provide the full runway strip width if it already met the requirement?

Maybe, just maybe; the landing minima adjustments were needed because of the DFO!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=332]

And from that same 2004 MOS:          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.

So where is the safety case Mr Carmody? Dodgy

Attached Files
.jpg Old MOS.JPG Size: 72.29 KB  Downloads: 74

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)