Airports - Buy two, get one free.

(02-25-2021, 08:35 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  CASA give Senator (WOFTAM) Watt's QON 300 the big IF?? -  Rolleyes

Excerpt's from previous reference post:   

(10-27-2020, 11:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  UTCOC - Example 2

Not that I want to give much oxygen to Labor QLD Senator 'WOFTAM' Watt but it is airport and CASA related so bear with me with the following extract from Senate Estimates Hansard:

Quote:Senator WATT: The particular issue I want to focus on with CASA is the air safety implications of the realignment of the Northern Road and the impact that has on the public safety area. I appreciate that you haven't read the Auditor-General's report in full. Before I go into it, are you aware that one of the contentious issues in this whole scandal is the realignment of the Northern Road to make it closer to the Western Sydney airport boundary?

Mr Carmody : I'm generally aware, yes, but not in detail.

Senator WATT: In the Auditor-General's report, paragraph 2.27, it states:

The proposed road alignment runs through the HIAL system for Runway 05R. L&B—

Landrum & Brown, which is the department's aviation consultants—

… has advised that this has the potential to cause serious disruptions to operation on Runway 05R.

The proposed road alignment runs through the PSZ for Runway 05R. L&B recommends a detailed risk assessment.

Did CASA undertake any detailed risk assessment involving the Western Sydney airport and the change to risk that resulted from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take that on notice; I'm not aware. We are involved in a Western Sydney technical working group. We participate in an executive-level steering group about the airport, but that's it. So I wouldn't know, and I'll have to take the question on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Senator, could I table something to assist. This was in 2015. The Landrum & Brown advice, the final advice, was quite different to the advice that was in the body of the report, but it is contained in the appendix to the report.

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

Mr Atkinson : As I understand, CASA was quite involved and consulted on it, and it was found to be fine.

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

Mr Atkinson : In the discussions around the Northern Road in 2015.

Senator WATT: Okay. Is it the case that CASA is the agency that regulates and advises the department on the safety risks of airport developments and roads and other infrastructure that adjoins it?

Mr Carmody : For federally leased airports, that's correct; we provide advice to the department, and I'm sure that we are one of the many sources of advice that the department receives...

First I call bullshit on this statement... Dodgy

...Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

...No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice...

 Throughout Senate Estimates there were many examples of where a Dept or agency would throw to video conference facilities for witness testimony back at the Dept/agency HQ. So IMO there is no excuse for the required airport specialists not to be available at short notice -  Shy



Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.


Hmm...so the Secretary is quite obviously aware of the fact that QLD is the only State or Territory that has established a model in law for public safety zones around airports. It goes without saying that the Secretary should also be cognisant of his own department's NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK and it's guidelines for the establishment of public safety zones around airports:

Quote:Purpose of Guideline 

1. To provide guidance to Australian Government, state, territory and local government decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

2. To inform a more consistent approach to the application of Public Safety Areas (PSAs) at and near Australian airports.

Which brings me to CASA's big IF AQON 300... Dodgy

Quote:Question Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example. Mr Atkinson: Just obviously. Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is. Mr Atkinson: The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland. Mr Carmody: Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

Answer
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) agreed in November 2018 provides guidance to state and territories on the application of PSAs.

All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes. Queensland and New South Wales (for Western Sydney Airport) have requirements for the application of PSAs.

It is common for roads outside of the airport to pass close to the end of a runway and there are examples of this throughout Australia, including Sydney (Kingsford Smith Airport) and Canberra. Canberra for instance has Pialligo Avenue located within 50m of the runway pavement, with High Intensity Approach Lighting operating across the road.

Ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber300
"..All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes..."


Hmm...incoming??    

MTF...P2  Tongue

AMROBA Addendum: 

Reference: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-2.pdf

Quote:
Regulatory “Theft” – Its Real

This term was recently used by a politician, Mark Latham, in relation to people losing their properties as part of the new Western Sydney Airport development.

Aviation airport businesses have been, and continue to be, affected by “regulatory theft” policies that governments include in aviation Acts and Regulations that they basically created to split the aviation bureaucracy into a number of departments and agencies in 1998.

In particular, under the Airports Act, 1988, aviation businesses at metro and other airports have gone from ‘permanency of residency’ on airports to total uncertainty and many now live on a week by week arrangement depending on the (non-aviation) property development focus of current airport operators. Ministers approve airport development plans. Your Minister.

      Airports bring benefits of the community, not just aviation businesses.
      The more aviation businesses, the more benefits are brought to the community.
      Less aviation businesses, less benefits are brought to the community.
      If you only have an airstrip left, who will use it to bring benefits to the community?
      This government endorsed model replaces aviation with non-aviation businesses.

Worse still, aviation businesses are now being given terminating leases so the property developers can replace their businesses with non-aviation businesses.

We have an Act that states the airport must primarily be used for aviation but just about all airports have a Minister approved Master Plan where airport property development is primarily the development of non-aviation commercial businesses at the expense of aviation businesses.

The collapsing of General Aviation since 1988 is not based on other economic or social reasons, it is really based on the regulatory “theft” of aviation dedicated premises at airports by government endorsed programs that replace aviation businesses with non-aviation commercial industrial site development.

Political party policies are nothing but public relations spin. In fact they are purposely misguiding spin treating small to medium aviation employers and employees as fools.

Senior bureaucrats that implement, or are supposed to implement political party policies, must also accept their role in the destruction of mainly airport located general aviation businesses, including manufacturers, design, training and private participation, in preference for other non-airline businesses.

Regulatory ”theft” is an apt description of the Airports Act and demonstrates the short term vision of our bureaucrats and politicians towards general aviation. 

Now that aviation businesses are being replaced with non-aviation businesses, less aviation businesses means less use of the airstrip and benefits to the local community. 

That is when the airport operators will lobby the government of the day to close the airstrip and taxiways for more non-aviation businesses. These property developers are too smart for the average politician or bureaucrat as many of our closed aviation businesses have found out.

The Minister, current and past, have created this decline of general aviation when they sign Airport Master Plans that include the replacement of aviation with non-aviation businesses. 

Foreign countries have a different approach, they see aviation as a sector with jobs.

Their governments actively obtain recognition of the aviation capabilities.  

International recognition has one big advantage to local aviation, it requires Australian aviation Acts and Regulations to be as close as practical with the ICAO Annexes Standards and Practices. This means harmonised with the FARs which the whole of GA supports.
Reply

AMROBA Addendum II: Minister’s Approved Master Plans

Don’t Blame Airport Operators

They Have Minister Approval for Non-Aviation Property Development


THOUGH THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE BASED ON THE NON-AVIATION PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AT MOORABBIN AIRPORT, IT IS SYSTEMATIC.
BASICALLY, THE SAME APPLIES TO ALL METRO, AND OTHER AIRPORT MASTER PLANS THAT THE MINISTER, PAST AND PRESENT, HAVE APPROVED.


IT IS NOT WHAT AVIATION PARTICIPANTS EXPECTED
IS IT “SOUND DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION”?


Airport Act: The objects of this Act are as follows:
(a) to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia;
So the Minister, past and present, approval on non-aviation development of
airports is the “sound development of civil aviation.” Airport Act: Part 2—Leasing and management of airport Airport leases are subject to the following key rules:
• An airport-lessee company has a statutory obligation to use the airport
site as an airport.
• An airport-lessee company’s sole business will be to run the airport.

(Go to AMROBA PDF link above &/or the AP blog: https://auntypru.com/amroba-breaking-new...ter-plans/ ..to view the very disturbing phots etc of the ongoing decimation of Moorabbin airport).
Reply

Bored rigid;

The following is my feeble attempt to paraphrase an (IMO) interesting discussion which developed last evening. Not a full house BRB indaba, but enough to seriously discuss the 'risks' real and imagined presented by large buildings close to a landing area. Essentially, logical lines of 'argument' but with only one 'consensus' of any merit being reached. Interesting enough (to the really bored) for a short blurb I thought. Essendon kicked it off. It went something like this:-

Essendon: Tall buildings & light aircraft.

Those against: the main discourse featured Essendon and the multi engine aircraft with problems. There are 'a lot' of charter class 'light twins' which do not have 'guaranteed' (certified) climb performance with an engine failed, particularly in the just airborne range of speed. Until the aircraft is at an airspeed which will allow a positive rate of climb and 'cleaned up' (flap and undercarriage retracted) they are vulnerable until reaching a 'clearance height' (i.e. missing the building). Turns are not encouraged during this vulnerable period. Manufacturers often state in flight manuals; 'no turns' below a specific height and to do so is not only fraught with peril, but is technically illegal. (Hobson's choice).

Those converse: cite the 'numbers'. The number of engine failures during the 'critical' first stage of take of is a very, very low one. The period of 'vulnerability' is very short (seconds) up to perhaps a minute (hot day – heavy load). They also point out that many (many) airfields have much larger obstacles of the natural variety (rocks and trees and stuff) which can spoil your day.

The solution is unpalatable, (commercially) and operationally unrealistic. Using manufacturer data one can reduce the take off weight (TOW) to a point where the 'good book' says climb on one engine is 'possible' though not guaranteed. But: that is based on manufacturer test and certification data; a brand new, factory prepared airframe and engines; flown by a skilled test pilot, under ideal conditions. For 'transport' class the demands made are much higher, but for the 'utility' class those rigorous standards need not be met. So, it becomes a toss up; the mathematics supporting an acceptable level of risk. Tall buildings, trees or mountains matter little once the 'critical' period gate is passed. One could safely wager that 99.999% of operations will be trouble free and as safe as possible. The pub test – would I let my loved ones fly in a light twin? Yes I would. BRB voted 86% in favour; 10% would consider on the day.

Which brought us single engine light aircraft; we excluded the Caravan and the Pilatus PC12. The 'high risk' area is flight training. Here, tall buildings close in to the runway can and do, in the 'right conditions', create an increased safety risk; there can be no doubt about it. But, what are the 'right conditions'? Here's the thing: runways are mostly oriented to take advantage of the prevailing wind conditions (give or take). Buildings which stand alongside a runway (parallel – ish) do not present much of a threat provided the wind flows down the runway (more or less within sensible limits); however the wind is rarely, if ever so obliging. So it becomes a matter of safety to determine 'the right conditions' which produce an elevated risk level to aircraft taking off and landing. This can be calculated, indeed there are thousands of research documents defining and describing the effect 'wind' has on buildings, great and small. Then it becomes a simple matter of passing along 'advice' to operating aircraft that 'windshear' or 'vortex' are 'probable' on a given day. Control towers are most obliging when it comes to passing on this advice, a regular occurrence and most welcome. The old saw of being forewarned and forearmed is a proven asset. For most aircraft, it is a routine matter and qualified, experienced pilots are fully capable of handling errant wind phenomena; a routine daily event, world wide.

But, what of the rest? The inexperienced part time private operator, the unqualified trainee, student venturing out on first solo exercises. Realistically,common sense and instructor advice would prevent all but the most fool hardy from trying to fly in 'silly' conditions and mostly, the quirks of the aerodrome wind shifts are well known, and so the 'safety' equation' is balanced – not bullet proof, but mostly at an acceptable risk level.

This ain't rocket science or engineering brilliance; building 'close' to runways can and does present difficulties which can be clearly defined. With mathematical precision. So why is there no study defining the 'risk matrix' a building presents prior to construction being authorised? As it stands, buildings are erected right up to the minimum 'boundaries' as defined by regulation. Fair enough – all legal; but where is the risk analysis? Where is the NOTAM which says that runway 18 is subject to undershoot wind sheer when the wind is between 160° and 200° and above 10 knots.

In short - no one has an 'operational' problem with buildings on the airfield – provided that close in structures, those which can affect air operations during the critical periods of flight (take off and landing) have been identified, subjected to analysis and the risks associated with various wind conditions are published and available. 

Aye, just a twiddle to pass the time. The Essendon accident and the shabby treatment of that accident still rankle; the delays and obfuscation (read arse covering) deserve an inquiry – a real one, no holds barred. If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck – odds are it is a Duck.
[Image: stability-of-highrise-buildings-13-638.j...1492505879]
See how to protect the building -and how two vortices are produced. Happy landings indeed.
Toot – toot.-.
Reply

United we conquer...divided we fall -  Rolleyes

Reference via the Mick Mack thread:

(02-27-2021, 09:46 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  The McDonaught Aviation shame file continues to grow??Confused 



Next via the AP blog, library and the airports thread:

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-3-01-20-the-year-of-the-ox/
[Image: sbg-3-1-21-1024x723.jpg] 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/amroba-breaking-new...ter-plans/https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid11855

[Image: YMMB-1-1024x576.jpg]

[Image: YMMB-13-1024x584.jpg]

Of course all fully supported and endorsed by our miniscule McDonaught, the witless wonder from Wagga... Blush 

Which brings me back to this pic (with embellishments) borrowed from this Betoota Advocate article... Wink

[Image: Mick-Mack-gagged.jpg]

Quote:Liberal Party Put In Place Measures To Protect Their Non-Idiot Image While PM Is On Holidays

To follow up on the above, with the latest disturbing tales from the YMMB, via Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:[Image: mb_development-21.jpg]

MACCI rallies Aviation Businesses as New Master Plan looms

1 April 2021

Comments 0 Comments


Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc, (MACCI) has encouraged aviation businesses to make submissions to the new airport master plan to help stave off commercial development that is seen to be strangling the airport.

Tenants became alarmed in July last year when they were handed six-month eviction notices to allow Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) to bulldoze a large part of the northern apron and begin development of new commercial, non-aviation buildings.

Several of those evicted were not given alternative premises to move into, and fears are rising the the 2020 draft master plan due for release in mid-April will herald the destruction of even more aviation infrastructure.

At a networking function at Royal Victorian Aero Club last night, MACCI president Rob Simpson stressed the dire situation facing aviation businesses and encouraged the gathering to voice objections, especially given the 2015 master plan attracted only six submissions.

"We can't do anything about the 2015 master plan," Simpson said. "The problems we are seeing with that plan is that they are picking and choosing what they decide to do and not to do. There are these wonderful glossy things in there, but they may do absolutely nothing going forward for aviation. They may do nothing for us to stay in business.

"We all know, literally, they really don't care; we're just a thorn in their side rather than a viable income source."

Simpson's company, Simpson Aeroelectrics was one of the companies evicted last year.

"I got six months notice," he said. "On 13 June I was told my eviction date was 29 December, and I had no legal recourse. The letter said the notice was irrevocable ... I've lost 50% of my business with the demolition of that hangar.

"Do you want that for your business? If you don't want it, get behind the chamber."

Simpson's sentiments were echoed by Councillor Tracey Davies from City of Kingston, who expressed her concerns about the future of the airport and predicted more dire circumstances if people did not respond during the master plan consultation period.

"The time for submissions will shortly arrive ... I would really suggest that everyone looks at that master plan and if you don't want to read that document, at least put in a response outlining the difficulties you have, because if nobody responds to the Department of Infrastructure, they're going to think everything is fine," Davies said.

"I've walked around this area, and I'm really concerned about the number of warehouses around this site, and I've had a couple of briefings by tenants and one from MAC, and I'm a little bit concerned about some of the inconsistencies about what I've been told and what I've seen.

"You should set out your individual concerns, that the airport is being strangled ... that you haven't got enough space for planes to land, that the costs you're being charged for your rent is ridiculous and that it seems to be skewed towards commercial non-aviation tenants."

MAC is owned by the giant Goodman logistics and property development conglomerate, which aviation businesses have accused of being reluctant to engage on issues and described as "unhelpful."

Simpson said he believed the best was to counter Goodman was as a collective rather than as individual companies.

"What we need is for everyone to get together," he stressed. "The problems we've seen recently are dividing everyone, and they've done that time and time again.

"It's quite simple: bit-by-bit-by-bit they chip away until it gets to the stage that we don't care. We're too traumatised to care, we just plain give up.

"If you want this airport to flourish, you've got to get off your bums and not not care."

MAACI was formed around 10 years ago and currently has 15 members. The chamber hopes the impending loss of more infrastructure will encourage more people to join and strengthen the voice for aviation tenants on the airport.


Plus from this week's (day early) LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...april-2021

Quote:...Storm clouds are gathering over Moorabbin again. The next draft master plan is due in a couple of weeks are there aren't many operators on the airport that believe the MP will yield a vibrant future for aviation on a patch that has been a GA mainstay since 1949. Leaseholder Goodman Group recently ploughed up the western end of the northern apron, razed several hangars and evicted operators without offering alternative homes for the businesses. According to Goodman's 2015 master plan, all of this was considered surplus to aviation needs. It is expected that Goodman–a property development behemoth–will find more "surplus infrastructure" in the next master plan, which has operators feeling very vulnerable. None of this, however, is new ... it was all in a the last master plan that drew only six submissions from the aviation community. Such low levels of feedback are effectively a green-light for the department to approve the master plan. Now, in the shadow of a growing construction site where aeroplanes were once tied-down, airport operators are understanding the fight they are in. But they're not alone, or rather, they shouldn't be alone. Moorabbin Airport is an asset for everyone in aviation. There wouldn't be many licensed pilots in Victoria that haven't landed there, and almost none that haven't used businesses based there. Skylines, AvPlan, Royal Vic ... all of these are assets for everyone in aviation. We are all stakeholders and all have a right to have our say. When the draft master plan is released, it should not be only the Moorabbin operators who pull it apart and register their objections; it should be everyone in GA right across Australia. And that goes also for the futures of Bankstown, Camden, Archerfield, Jandakot, Parafield and every airport in the nation where the Moorabbin story is being repeated. It is the entire industry's responsibility to defend the infrastructure that benefits us all...

"...the 2020 draft master plan due for release in mid-April..." - Thinking out loud??...this means that not long after the miniscule (with the advice of the DARD) will actually have to make a decision to whether he will sign the Master Plan. Leading into an election year this could be yet another significant wedge for ALL of industry to get behind and support the efforts of the YMMB aviation tenants and the MACCI -  Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Tongue   
Reply

There’s little point in taking to Goodmans, only action by the Commonwealth can stop Goodmans from pursuing their commercial goals. To think otherwise is to waste time and energy. Government must be persuaded that irreplaceable airport land should not be given away to non aviation uses.
To an outsider there are adjacent golf courses protected by governments (state) but the Commonwealth calmly stands aside while our Commonwealth owned airports are being taken over by commercial property developers. How stupid can you get!
Reply

Top 100 Golf courses in Victoria.

You may read (and drool) over the list – HERE -.

Each fully capable of becoming 'development' for the frenzied shopper. Consider the list of aerodromes available to Melbourne; then consider how many could support regional transport class aircraft. It is a bloody short list. But wait; there's more. Didn't the Commonwealth hold the land on which our nations airfields were built? So, the 'nation' paid for and owns that land – don't it? In essence Melbourne has three aerodromes; Tullamarine; Essendon and Moorabin. Two of those capable of supporting  serious transport – one a 'back-up' and a haven for Charter operations and flight training. Count Avalon if you must - (just try to build a monstrosity on that one: Ha!).

So why is Commonwealth land (land the tax paying public paid for and 'theoretically' own) being flogged off at 'peppercorn' rates? Try to buy Royal Melbourne golf course (privately owned for profit) and build a concrete monstrosity which impinges on the third; fifth and seventh hole. Lord, I can hear the howls and protest now. The increased traffic in and out, the noise, the offended little committees – all up in arms; resident action groups – the whole nine yards. But the nation gets to loose one airport (bought and paid for by them)  - for no return - and never a Dickie bird of protest?

Bloody silly; ain't it – when you think it through. Ayup - 'We got ripped off - once again'.

[Image: ECZwyUqUIAE7ToN?format=jpg&name=small]
Reply

Via Aus Flying - Moorabbin update.

Quote:[Image: mb_aerial_mod21.jpg]


Moorabbin Master Plan signals More Apron Destruction

16 April 2021
Comments 0 Comments

A Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) published for comment this week has flagged further loss of main apron space at Moorabbin Airport.

Tenants were shocked last year as Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) issued six-month eviction notices ahead of the western part of the apron and taxiway being redeveloped for commercial use, resulting in loss of businesses, hangars and aircraft parking spaces.

The 2021 PDMP heralds further loss of the main apron as MAC expands its industrial precinct on the airport's western boundary, threatening several well-established aviation businesses.

According to the PDMP, the land-use concept outlined is based around MAC's aviation objectives.

"Consistent with prior Master Plans, land use in Master Plan 2021 is framed around aviation objectives and activities. Precincts are planned in response to safety, airspace, our flight training role and aviation infrastructure," MAC says in the PDMP.

"Airport land identified for non-aviation purposes rings aviation land and as it is developed renews and upgrades legacy infrastructure for benefit of aviation and non-aviation customers."

The master plan states that 44 hectares of land may be developed for non-aviation purposes over the next eight years, leaving 40 hectares for aviation support businesses. MAC also states it intends to increase the movement areas by 10,000 sqm, redesign the layout to provide more airside sites, move infrastructure closer to the runways and develop facilities at the northern apron for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) companies.

Organisations that stand to lose premises when the western end of the main apron is transferred from the airside zone to the landside zone include Tristar Aviation and Moorabbin Flying Services, both of which have made substantial investments in their respective operations.

Tristar Aviation's Geoff Fleming said the PDMP cast a shadow over the school's future, but the aviation community was rallying around them.

"The support from the wider aviation community has been amazing," he told Australian Flying. "This is our 29th year in business at Moorabbin Airport and even after last year's COVID lockdown, business in increasing.

"At the moment we have no idea as to whether there are any alternative plans for our relocation."

MAC is projecting an increase in movements from 286,000 to 375,000 by the end of the planning period, 90% of which is flight training. CAE Oxford is thought to account for 25% of all training movements. MAC has invested $17 million in aviation support, including a $10 million facility for CAE.

MAC also has stated that aircraft parking for up to 720 aircraft could be possible over the life of the master plan, although some of that is planned for the triangle of land between the thresholds of runways 35 and 31, which tenants on the airport have labeled as impractical and dangerous.

The preliminary draft master plan has been published on the MAC website and is open for comments until 12 July, after which the document must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport before it comes into effect.

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (MACCI) has encouraged all airport tenants to respond to the PDMP after the 2015 plan attracted only six submissions.
Reply

You forgot a bit old Son-

"Say, from whence

You owe this strange intelligence? or why

Upon this blasted heath you stop our way

With such prophetic greeting?"
Reply

Moorabbin Airport Extinction Plan Continues -  Confused

(04-19-2021, 06:35 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Via Aus Flying - Moorabbin update.

Quote:[Image: mb_aerial_mod21.jpg]


Moorabbin Master Plan signals More Apron Destruction

16 April 2021
Comments 0 Comments

A Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) published for comment this week has flagged further loss of main apron space at Moorabbin Airport.

Tenants were shocked last year as Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) issued six-month eviction notices ahead of the western part of the apron and taxiway being redeveloped for commercial use, resulting in loss of businesses, hangars and aircraft parking spaces.

The 2021 PDMP heralds further loss of the main apron as MAC expands its industrial precinct on the airport's western boundary, threatening several well-established aviation businesses.

According to the PDMP, the land-use concept outlined is based around MAC's aviation objectives.

"Consistent with prior Master Plans, land use in Master Plan 2021 is framed around aviation objectives and activities. Precincts are planned in response to safety, airspace, our flight training role and aviation infrastructure," MAC says in the PDMP.

"Airport land identified for non-aviation purposes rings aviation land and as it is developed renews and upgrades legacy infrastructure for benefit of aviation and non-aviation customers."

The master plan states that 44 hectares of land may be developed for non-aviation purposes over the next eight years, leaving 40 hectares for aviation support businesses. MAC also states it intends to increase the movement areas by 10,000 sqm, redesign the layout to provide more airside sites, move infrastructure closer to the runways and develop facilities at the northern apron for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) companies.

Organisations that stand to lose premises when the western end of the main apron is transferred from the airside zone to the landside zone include Tristar Aviation and Moorabbin Flying Services, both of which have made substantial investments in their respective operations.

Tristar Aviation's Geoff Fleming said the PDMP cast a shadow over the school's future, but the aviation community was rallying around them.

"The support from the wider aviation community has been amazing," he told Australian Flying. "This is our 29th year in business at Moorabbin Airport and even after last year's COVID lockdown, business in increasing.

"At the moment we have no idea as to whether there are any alternative plans for our relocation."

MAC is projecting an increase in movements from 286,000 to 375,000 by the end of the planning period, 90% of which is flight training. CAE Oxford is thought to account for 25% of all training movements. MAC has invested $17 million in aviation support, including a $10 million facility for CAE.

MAC also has stated that aircraft parking for up to 720 aircraft could be possible over the life of the master plan, although some of that is planned for the triangle of land between the thresholds of runways 35 and 31, which tenants on the airport have labeled as impractical and dangerous.

The preliminary draft master plan has been published on the MAC website and is open for comments until 12 July, after which the document must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport before it comes into effect.

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (MACCI) has encouraged all airport tenants to respond to the PDMP after the 2015 plan attracted only six submissions.

Plus via the LMH: https://www.australianflying.com.au/the-...april-2021

Quote:...There are some very nervous operators at Moorabbin Airport, and the recently released 2021 Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) has not only justified the jitters, but amplified them into out-right despair. After seeing bulldozers plough up large tracts of aeroplane movement area to accommodate non-aviation development, the PDMP has done nothing but offer more of the same for main-apron tenants. Despite talk of expanded apron space and increased parking, there is a confusing undercurrent to the plan: MAC acknowledges that Moorabbin is essentially a training base, but is putting schools at risk by ousting them from their buildings, and the master plan contains no clear solutions. With the case of MROs that were evicted by the 2015 plan, MAC is building new premises on the northern apron for them to lease, but flying schools are not MROs. Well-established schools like Tristar and Moorabbin Flying Services have poured sweat and money into making Moorabbin a successful flight training hub, only to find themselves effectively discarded. MAC has invested $10 million for new premises for CAE Oxford, a foreign company, but has gone completely backward in their support for smaller Australian-owned customers. With Soar Aviation collapsing having done little for aviation except take up circuit space, you would think MAC might turn towards the established schools to help them achieve the forecast increase in movements touted in the PDMP. There's an old saying in business: it is easier to keep an existing customer than it is to find a new one. MAC seems to have forgotten that. It would be very appropriate if a flood of submissions to the PDMP was to remind them...


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

RE Bankstown Airport

Dear Prime Minister,

Bankstown was originally planned by the Commonwealth Government as an airport site in 1929.

It was not until 1940 with the outbreak of world war two when Australia suddenly realised there was a dearth of airports in Australia from which to defend the country.

The formal proclamation of the Bankstown airfield project occurred under the National Security Act on 7 June 1940. The urgency was such that work began immediately.

By 1942, with the threat of Japanese invasion Bankstown became the main fighter base by the United States air force for the defence of Sydney.

After the end of the second world war Bankstown continued to develop as a training and general aviation airfield and to support various aviation Defence projects. At its height, over eight thousand people were employed directly in support of aviation industries based at the airport.

We were led to believe, when privatisation of secondary airports was first mooted, that the Government recognised, as an industry, aviation was somewhat unique as it required an airport to function. An airport is also necessary for recreational pilots, much the same as boat ramps are needed for boating people.

We were led to believe that protections would be placed in the Airports Act and in the Airport leases that would protect the airports as airports reserved for present and future aviation use and growth.

We were led to believe when privatisation occurred that a fair price would be paid to the Commonwealth basically the people of Australia.
In 2002 the State government of NSW valued the land at Bankstown being in excess of a Billion dollars, yet a large bank purchased the leases for the three airports in the Sydney basin for around two hundred and fifty million dollars, one of which they sold for that amount, basically gaining two airports for free.

Was a fair price paid or were the Australian Taxpayers swindled?

We were led to believe that Bankstown Airport was Commonwealth land therefore State Government fees and regulations could be bypassed, no State government stamp duty was paid on the leases, nor scrutiny by the State government of any development that has occurred and planned in the future.

Were the people of NSW swindled?

We were led to believe that the Airport Act prohibits a trust from owning and airport lease.
The NSW superannuation fund now owns the lease. Is a superannuation fund not a trust?

We were also led to believe that development companies were prohibited from owning or controlling airports. Are ALTIS property partners not a property development company?

Is this not contrary to the ACT?

In the course of various owners’ control of the secondary airports, aviation businesses have been subjected to the predatory behaviour of development sharks with draconian increases in rents, forced to either relocate or close their doors, resulting in ever diminishing aviation activity. In Bankstown’s case a runway and taxiways were closed against safety advice, to facilitate non-aviation development. Fully a third of the airport land has been subject to or slated for industrial development with more to follow according to so called “Master Plans” approved by the responsible minister.

So much for reserving the airport for aviation present or future use. The development sharks make billions at the expense of aviation and the general public.

Bankstown airport since its initial development has been highly contaminated, both from wartime use and in the years after. In their quest for profits the development companies have compounded that contamination by bypassing State EPA approvals on the pretext that Bankstown was exempt as commonwealth land. Large quantities of asbestos contaminated soil was used to build over the floodplain of the runway they closed for industrial development. This reclamation work could also exacerbate flooding upstream in the Georges river as it creates a bottle neck through which floodwater must pass.

Should this occur will the taxpayers be liable for claimed compensation by those affected?

Building very large structures near an Airport was never a good idea. Building them right up to the boundaries of runways is almost lunacy. Large structures generate vortices in the air, even with a fairly gentle breeze they can extend out to a kilometre from the structure. Bankstown is by and large a training airport; very inexperienced pilots learn to fly there in very small aircraft. The closure of the only north south runway in the Sydney basin to facilitate warehouse construction poses a considerable hazard for these trainees. Add in strong vortexes generated by these buildings compounds the safety risk, Bankstown tower now repeatedly warns aircraft of windshear in the touch down zone when southerly winds are blowing.

Could the Airport users and the Australian public be forgiven for imagining some very dodgy practices have occurred in the pursuit of the holey dollar. We may live to regret allowing that to happen, as we did in 1940.

Choc frog - well said TB. Vortex and wind shear analysis is where? Safety case examined where?. About time government took some responsibility for dangerous, uncontrolled development of irreplaceable aviation infrastructure. Bugger it; two Choc frogs - damn the expense.....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)