Airports - Buy two, get one free.

Aviation Safety ownership (CAA NZ) vs No Care, No Responsibility (CASA) -  Blush

In the course of doing some AP research, into the CAA NZed Part 77 and associated legislative instruments/regulations for the effective oversight of navigable airspace outside of the airport perimeter, I came across a fascinating document that IMO perfectly highlights the bizarre dichotomy of a mature, world leading and ICAO compliant NAA (ie CAA NZ) versus our mob (CASA) who, on the overwhelming evidence, are completely disassociated from all reality when it comes to properly and proactively addressing/mitigating true aviation safety risk... Dodgy           

First to set the scene some references - ref 1: Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.

(04-23-2019, 10:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ...This bizarre situation where the aviation safety regulator's oversight responsibilities apparently stop at the airport fence and airspace boundaries is perfectly highlighted in the recently publicly released consultation company AviPro's review of the proposed HLS for the new Tweed Heads hospital: ref - https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/...iation.pdf
 
Quote:...Currently within Australia, there are no set rules or regulations applicable to the design, construction or placement of HLS’...

...CASA, as the regulator of aviation in Australia, divested itself of direct responsibility in the early 1990s and currently provides only basic operating guidelines via Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 92-2 (2) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Onshore Helicopter Landing Sites...
    
Ref - November 2009
Quote:Legislative Framework

R - 1 Authority to make Regulations: That the Civil Aviation Act is reviewed in the context of ensuring that CASA has the power to make regulations specifically concerning buildings, structures and objects that are located away from the vicinity of a certified or registered aerodrome...

Regulatory Structure

R - 3 Option 1 – Creation of Part 77 Objects that Affect Navigable Airspace

This option is designed to group all obstacle related regulation within one CASR Part. It is proposed that this CASR Part is designated CASR Part 77. This brings the regulation of obstacles in Australia in line with the regulatory structure applied in the United States and New Zealand.

For this option it is recommended that:

• CASA to start the process of developing new a CASR Part 77 that satisfies the recommendations outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 4
• the scope of the new CASR Part 77 includes all obstacles whether within the vicinity of an aerodrome or outside the vicinity of an aerodrome and the obstacle requirements and marking and lighting standards set out in CASR Part 139 be transferred to the new CASR Part 77

• the new CASR Part 77 include the standards for the notification of structures, buildings and objects that are in line with FAR Part 77
• the new CASR Part 77 include the following elements... 

Hmm...how did we get from November 2009 with a regulator that was proactively putting forward recommendations to effectively mitigate safety risk and oversight aviation safety issues outside the airport perimeter fence, to the situation today where it is apparently acceptable to have 1000s of innocent public, totally oblivious to the latent safety risk of shopping at a DFO complex next to an active runway handling high capacity jet aircraft each day - UDB... Dodgy  

Reference 2: The noble Art - Embuggerance post #174 
[quote pid='10237' dateline='1556233603']
...All this bogus crap about the safety of Angel Flight and yet there the DFO still sits... Dodgy

Ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid10225 & https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...uhi6j.html

Quote:..Helen van den Berg was spokeswoman for a campaign to close Essendon Airport for 13 years – but the group wound itself up two years ago after realising the fight was pointless.

"Why argue when nobody will act? You saw today, the premier shut down the argument about closing so quickly because commerce takes precedence over people," she said.

Labor's 1996 federal election campaign promised to shut the airport and turn it into film studios.

Ms van den Berg, who lives in Niddrie, said air safety bureaucrats had warned at that time that Essendon needed a far bigger buffer around its runways...

...Ms van den Berg said the aircraft in Tuesday's accident might have had more chance of reducing the crash severity if there had been open space around it.

"If I buy a ticket for Tullamarine, I know there is a buffer of green space around it. At Essendon, there's nothing."

...But Essendon Fields residents on Tuesday voiced their concerns about the height of buildings close to the airport.

Stephen Moore saw the aftermath of the plane crashing into the shopping centre. He was surprised "a building of that height that close to an airport" had been allowed...


...Brian, who did not want to give his last name, called the height of the apartments "ridiculous". The 55-year-old has lived most of his life in Essendon and said if the plane had missed the DFO, it would have hit the apartments.

"I don't know how they got away with building it that high that close to the airport. It's silly. When I was a kid, we were told off for flying kites."




[Image: 2230123_1547522994967.jpg]

Ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/essendon-airport-dfo-plans-call-safety-planning-into-question-20190115-p50re4.html

[/quote]

Keeping the above picture in mind the following is an extract from the now 22 year old, 28 page CAA NZ Part 77:

Quote:Ref -  https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/ru...dation.pdf

(1) it is located within an instrument flight procedures area that is
specified in ICAO document 8168–OPS/611, including standard
arrival routes, initial, intermediate, final, visual and missed
approach segment areas, departure areas and standard instrument
departure routes, and would result in—

(i) the vertical distance between any point on the structure
and an established minimum instrument flight altitude
within that area or segment being less than obstacle
clearance required for the instrument flight procedure; or
(ii) additional or new ceiling or visibility restrictions or a
change in flight procedures applicable to departures
within that area; or...

Okay now the reference document which you'll note was promulgated over a decade ago -  Blush

https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/aerodromes/Guidance_Material_Aerodromes.pdf

Quote:Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an
Aerodrome

Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director of Civil
Aviation whenever a person intends to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an aerodrome.

This notice will enable the Director to identify whether the use of the airspace associated
with the aerodrome proposal will be a hazard to other established airspace users. It will
also allow identification of problems to do with the safety of persons and property on the
ground.

It is also necessary to consider efficient use of airspace at an early stage. The Director,
after receiving such notice, will give advice on the effects the proposal would have on the
use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the safety of persons and property on the
ground. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal
made.

The Part 157 rule requirements and Part 157 Advisory Circular are available on the CAA
web site www.caa.govt.nz

There is also a Part 157 information leaflet available from CAA or at:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/Aero_S...7_info.pdf

Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace

Civil Aviation Rule Part 77 prescribes rules for a person proposing to construct or alter a
structure that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace; or use of a structure, lights,
lasers, weapons, or pyrotechnics, that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace.
There are several areas that require a Part 77 application for a determination on such
objects and activities including:
• A structure that extends more than 60 m in height above the ground level at its site.
• A structure that exceeds the general tree height in the area by 18 m and is located in
an area of low level aerial activity or other low flying activity, or in a low flying
zone or low level route as prescribed under Part 71.
• A structure that is located below the approach or take-off surfaces of an aerodrome
as defined in Part 77.
• A structure that penetrates the obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome. 
A person proposing to use a structure that may discharge efflux at a velocity in
excess of 4.3 m per second through an obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome
or higher than 60 metres above ground level.
• A person proposing to operate a light or a laser if the light or laser is liable to
endanger aircraft.
• A person or organisation that proposes to use a weapon that fires or launches a
projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome
boundary, or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.
• A person who proposes to stage a pyrotechnics display that involves the firing or
launching of a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an
aerodrome boundary or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.

A person proposing to construct or alter a structure must notify the Director of Civil
Aviation 90 days before the proposed date of commencement of construction or alteration.

The specific requirements are detailed in Civil Aviation Rule 77.13.

An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made.
Full details and information on Part 77 requirements are available in the Part 77 Rule
which can be accessed at the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz.

..Local Authority Zoning

The CAA encourage local authorities to protect aerodromes in their areas to ensure the
long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the aircraft operations, and the
safety of persons and property. In addition to the required obstacle limitation surfaces other
areas can be specifically zoned to assure that future uses of the land are compatible with
airport operations and to protect persons and property. Zoning solely to obstacle limitation
surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or
uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas.

In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for
the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ
is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which
do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements
that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of
public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping
centres. 

Summary

Aerodromes have an important role in aviation safety in particular the safety of aircraft and
passengers. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Authority oversees aviation safety based
upon international aviation requirements. It is important that persons wanting to alter land
use near an aerodrome do so in consultation with the aerodrome operator, the relevant local
authority and, where necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority.

It is important that land use changes near aerodromes are also compliant with any Civil
Aviation Rule requirements.

Contacting the CAA

The Aeronautical Services Unit of the CAA has responsibilities for the oversight of the
services supporting the New Zealand aviation system. The unit is responsible for
certification and surveillance of aerodromes and heliports, and air traffic,
telecommunications, navigation, meteorological and aeronautical information services.

The unit also has responsibilities regarding airspace and Part 77 determinations for objects
affecting navigable airspace, such as structures, fireworks, unmanned balloons, kites and
model aircraft. They can offer advice on matters relating to Part 139 certificated
aerodromes and Part 157 aerodrome determinations.

They can be contacted by phoning the CAA on 04 560 9400 or through specific contact
details on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz
To follow that refreshing, informative and totally transparent regulatory guidance document - that highlights so clearly the difference between the CAA NZ ownership/effective oversight of anything affecting air navigation and public safety from air navigation outside of a Federally leased airport perimeter fence vs our self-serving, self-preserving, draconian Big-R regulator - the following is a link for the way the CAA NZ conduct their CAR 157 aeronautical studies and final determinations:

Quote:The Determination will be issued to the proponent, appropriate local authorities, and those who made submissions. The Determination will also be published on the Civil Aviation Authority website at www.caa.govt.nz
     
Meanwhile in Dunceunda land AIOS reaches epidemic proportions... Blush ref - AIOS - & the 21st Century??

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

(04-25-2019, 08:31 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  Dear Politicians

This is what happens and how  - imagine this accident @ Essendon - tomorrow.


(04-26-2019, 12:44 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Aviation Safety ownership (CAA NZ) vs No Care, No Responsibility (CASA) -  Blush

In the course of doing some AP research, into the CAA NZed Part 77 and associated legislative instruments/regulations for the effective oversight of navigable airspace outside of the airport perimeter, I came across a fascinating document that IMO perfectly highlights the bizarre dichotomy of a mature, world leading and ICAO compliant NAA (ie CAA NZ) versus our mob (CASA) who, on the overwhelming evidence, are completely disassociated from all reality when it comes to properly and proactively addressing/mitigating true aviation safety risk... Dodgy           

First to set the scene some references - ref 1: Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.

(04-23-2019, 10:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ...This bizarre situation where the aviation safety regulator's oversight responsibilities apparently stop at the airport fence and airspace boundaries is perfectly highlighted in the recently publicly released consultation company AviPro's review of the proposed HLS for the new Tweed Heads hospital: ref - https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/...iation.pdf
 
Quote:...Currently within Australia, there are no set rules or regulations applicable to the design, construction or placement of HLS’...

...CASA, as the regulator of aviation in Australia, divested itself of direct responsibility in the early 1990s and currently provides only basic operating guidelines via Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 92-2 (2) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Onshore Helicopter Landing Sites...
    
Ref - November 2009
Quote:Legislative Framework

R - 1 Authority to make Regulations: That the Civil Aviation Act is reviewed in the context of ensuring that CASA has the power to make regulations specifically concerning buildings, structures and objects that are located away from the vicinity of a certified or registered aerodrome...

Regulatory Structure

R - 3 Option 1 – Creation of Part 77 Objects that Affect Navigable Airspace

This option is designed to group all obstacle related regulation within one CASR Part. It is proposed that this CASR Part is designated CASR Part 77. This brings the regulation of obstacles in Australia in line with the regulatory structure applied in the United States and New Zealand.

For this option it is recommended that:

• CASA to start the process of developing new a CASR Part 77 that satisfies the recommendations outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 4
• the scope of the new CASR Part 77 includes all obstacles whether within the vicinity of an aerodrome or outside the vicinity of an aerodrome and the obstacle requirements and marking and lighting standards set out in CASR Part 139 be transferred to the new CASR Part 77

• the new CASR Part 77 include the standards for the notification of structures, buildings and objects that are in line with FAR Part 77
• the new CASR Part 77 include the following elements... 

Hmm...how did we get from November 2009 with a regulator that was proactively putting forward recommendations to effectively mitigate safety risk and oversight aviation safety issues outside the airport perimeter fence, to the situation today where it is apparently acceptable to have 1000s of innocent public, totally oblivious to the latent safety risk of shopping at a DFO complex next to an active runway handling high capacity jet aircraft each day - UDB... Dodgy  

Reference 2: The noble Art - Embuggerance post #174 
[quote pid='10237' dateline='1556233603']
...All this bogus crap about the safety of Angel Flight and yet there the DFO still sits... Dodgy

Ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid10225 & https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...uhi6j.html

Quote:..Helen van den Berg was spokeswoman for a campaign to close Essendon Airport for 13 years – but the group wound itself up two years ago after realising the fight was pointless.

"Why argue when nobody will act? You saw today, the premier shut down the argument about closing so quickly because commerce takes precedence over people," she said.

Labor's 1996 federal election campaign promised to shut the airport and turn it into film studios.

Ms van den Berg, who lives in Niddrie, said air safety bureaucrats had warned at that time that Essendon needed a far bigger buffer around its runways...

...Ms van den Berg said the aircraft in Tuesday's accident might have had more chance of reducing the crash severity if there had been open space around it.

"If I buy a ticket for Tullamarine, I know there is a buffer of green space around it. At Essendon, there's nothing."

...But Essendon Fields residents on Tuesday voiced their concerns about the height of buildings close to the airport.

Stephen Moore saw the aftermath of the plane crashing into the shopping centre. He was surprised "a building of that height that close to an airport" had been allowed...


...Brian, who did not want to give his last name, called the height of the apartments "ridiculous". The 55-year-old has lived most of his life in Essendon and said if the plane had missed the DFO, it would have hit the apartments.

"I don't know how they got away with building it that high that close to the airport. It's silly. When I was a kid, we were told off for flying kites."




[Image: 2230123_1547522994967.jpg]

Ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/essendon-airport-dfo-plans-call-safety-planning-into-question-20190115-p50re4.html

Keeping the above picture in mind the following is an extract from the now 22 year old, 28 page CAA NZ Part 77:

Quote:Ref -  https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/ru...dation.pdf

(1) it is located within an instrument flight procedures area that is
specified in ICAO document 8168–OPS/611, including standard
arrival routes, initial, intermediate, final, visual and missed
approach segment areas, departure areas and standard instrument
departure routes, and would result in—

(i) the vertical distance between any point on the structure
and an established minimum instrument flight altitude
within that area or segment being less than obstacle
clearance required for the instrument flight procedure; or
(ii) additional or new ceiling or visibility restrictions or a
change in flight procedures applicable to departures
within that area; or...

Okay now the reference document which you'll note was promulgated over a decade ago -  Blush

https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/aerodromes/Guidance_Material_Aerodromes.pdf

Quote:Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an
Aerodrome

Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director of Civil
Aviation whenever a person intends to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an aerodrome.

This notice will enable the Director to identify whether the use of the airspace associated
with the aerodrome proposal will be a hazard to other established airspace users. It will
also allow identification of problems to do with the safety of persons and property on the
ground.

It is also necessary to consider efficient use of airspace at an early stage. The Director,
after receiving such notice, will give advice on the effects the proposal would have on the
use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the safety of persons and property on the
ground. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal
made.

The Part 157 rule requirements and Part 157 Advisory Circular are available on the CAA
web site www.caa.govt.nz

There is also a Part 157 information leaflet available from CAA or at:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/Aero_S...7_info.pdf

Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace

Civil Aviation Rule Part 77 prescribes rules for a person proposing to construct or alter a
structure that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace; or use of a structure, lights,
lasers, weapons, or pyrotechnics, that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace.
There are several areas that require a Part 77 application for a determination on such
objects and activities including:
• A structure that extends more than 60 m in height above the ground level at its site.
• A structure that exceeds the general tree height in the area by 18 m and is located in
an area of low level aerial activity or other low flying activity, or in a low flying
zone or low level route as prescribed under Part 71.
• A structure that is located below the approach or take-off surfaces of an aerodrome
as defined in Part 77.
• A structure that penetrates the obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome. 
A person proposing to use a structure that may discharge efflux at a velocity in
excess of 4.3 m per second through an obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome
or higher than 60 metres above ground level.
• A person proposing to operate a light or a laser if the light or laser is liable to
endanger aircraft.
• A person or organisation that proposes to use a weapon that fires or launches a
projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome
boundary, or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.
• A person who proposes to stage a pyrotechnics display that involves the firing or
launching of a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an
aerodrome boundary or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.

A person proposing to construct or alter a structure must notify the Director of Civil
Aviation 90 days before the proposed date of commencement of construction or alteration.

The specific requirements are detailed in Civil Aviation Rule 77.13.

An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made.
Full details and information on Part 77 requirements are available in the Part 77 Rule
which can be accessed at the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz.

..Local Authority Zoning

The CAA encourage local authorities to protect aerodromes in their areas to ensure the
long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the aircraft operations, and the
safety of persons and property. In addition to the required obstacle limitation surfaces other
areas can be specifically zoned to assure that future uses of the land are compatible with
airport operations and to protect persons and property. Zoning solely to obstacle limitation
surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or
uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas.

In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for
the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ
is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which
do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements
that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of
public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping
centres. 

Summary

Aerodromes have an important role in aviation safety in particular the safety of aircraft and
passengers. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Authority oversees aviation safety based
upon international aviation requirements. It is important that persons wanting to alter land
use near an aerodrome do so in consultation with the aerodrome operator, the relevant local
authority and, where necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority.

It is important that land use changes near aerodromes are also compliant with any Civil
Aviation Rule requirements.

Contacting the CAA

The Aeronautical Services Unit of the CAA has responsibilities for the oversight of the
services supporting the New Zealand aviation system. The unit is responsible for
certification and surveillance of aerodromes and heliports, and air traffic,
telecommunications, navigation, meteorological and aeronautical information services.

The unit also has responsibilities regarding airspace and Part 77 determinations for objects
affecting navigable airspace, such as structures, fireworks, unmanned balloons, kites and
model aircraft. They can offer advice on matters relating to Part 139 certificated
aerodromes and Part 157 aerodrome determinations.

They can be contacted by phoning the CAA on 04 560 9400 or through specific contact
details on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz
To follow that refreshing, informative and totally transparent regulatory guidance document - that highlights so clearly the difference between the CAA NZ ownership/effective oversight of anything affecting air navigation and public safety from air navigation outside of a Federally leased airport perimeter fence vs our self-serving, self-preserving, draconian Big-R regulator - the following is a link for the way the CAA NZ conduct their CAR 157 aeronautical studies and final determinations:

Quote:The Determination will be issued to the proponent, appropriate local authorities, and those who made submissions. The Determination will also be published on the Civil Aviation Authority website at www.caa.govt.nz
     
Meanwhile in Dunceunda land AIOS reaches epidemic proportions... Blush ref - AIOS - & the 21st Century??

MTF...P2  Cool
[/quote]
Reply

Tyabb Airport bunfight update -  Confused

Cap'n Wannabe forwarded this MR from the Mornington Council: 

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/...UMRW17aO-Q

Quote: Wrote:Media statement regarding the Tyabb Airfield

Media statement regarding the Tyabb Airfield


11 June 2019

The Tyabb authorised landing area has operated in Tyabb since the early 1960’s, when planning approval was granted by the then Minister for Local Government. At the time the constraints of the site were recognised, including its proximity to the Tyabb township, but the airfield was considered acceptable primarily as a small scale club based facility. The initial permit included four conditions, one of which prohibited take-offs and landings on Sunday mornings between 9.30 am and 10.30am to avoid conflict with church service times.

Council does acknowledge that over the years the level of activity at and around the authorised landing area has increased.

Furthermore, the Tyabb township has changed significantly since the 1960’s and the number of people living in and around Tyabb has increased.

In response to these changes the Council has attempted to work with the privately operated Peninsula Aero Club for more than a decade to modernise the relevant planning approvals that exist on the site. Unfortunately this could not be resolved and therefore this led Council to develop the Tyabb Airfield Precinct Plan in conjunction with the Peninsula Aero Club, local businesses and the broader Tyabb community. The plan was subsequently adopted by Council in 2017.

A critical element of the Tyabb Airfield Precinct Plan was the preparation of a more detailed Airfield Master Plan and Aircraft Noise Management Plan. The Peninsula Aero Club, the owners and operators of the main landing area related facilities agreed to prepare the Master Plan and to engage in public consultation whilst Council commissioned a professional noise assessment study to facilitate the concurrent preparation of a noise management plan.

Council is the responsible authority to ensure that land uses operate in accordance with the planning permit conditions. As a result of recent community complaints about the Sunday morning curfew, Council encouraged the Aero Club to lodge applications to delete the Sunday curfew. Council has the ability to place new conditions on existing planning permits and it was proposed to seek the development of a Master Plan and also implement a more appropriate curfew for flying (sundown on Saturday evening through to 9am on Sunday morning) having regard to the change in circumstances since the 1960’s. However, the applications were withdrawn by the Peninsula Aero Club prior to a final decision by Council.

Council has recently advised the Peninsula Aero Club and other landowners and businesses in the precinct, that there aren’t any existing planning approvals and there is a need to follow due process and comply with the planning scheme.

We encourage and will work with all businesses across the Shire to ensure they comply with the planning scheme so they can operate legally and successfully.

Council are ultimately seeking the preparation and approval of an agreed Airfield Master Plan and Noise Management Plan covering all aspects of the current and future operations, and linked to updated planning permit approvals for the precinct. This would ensure the appropriate use and development of the authorised landing ground, whilst improving the amenity of residents now and in the future.

And yesterday from the LMH:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...bb_002.jpg]



Community rallies around Tyabb Airport Operators
12 June 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

Peninsula Aero Club (PAC) president Jack Vevers has said he is humbled by the community support in the wake of the local shire issuing orders for Tyabb Airport businesses to stop operating.

Last week, the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (MPSC) stated that businesses on the airport would have to cease operations because permits could not be found.

Businesses, including PAC, either stopped work or wound back their operations significantly. Private operations continued from the airport because it was unclear whether or not the MPSC letters effected the use of the land as an airport.

Last night, a large proportion of the 550-strong PAC gathered at Tyabb to discuss the issue and express their support for the action PAC intends to take. Vevers would not rule out that action including a legal challenge in the Supreme Court and a claim for damages.
Vevers said the support of the members and the general community has forced action from MPSC CEO John Baker.

"It's really quite humbling to see the community come out and support aviation," Vevers told Australian Flying. "The members and a lot of the community are behind us and they've put enough pressure on the council that after two weeks of silence the council CEO has picked up the phone and called me this morning.

"They're preparing to talk to us about how we move forward and get things stabilised. I can't say that the war is over. There's still a lot to do, but I'm really pleased that the CEO has decided to make contact and he's talking in a very conciliatory way to resolve this, so that's a good start."

Vevers believes the council action has the potential to cause a lot of damage, which has generated the interest from both the aviation community and the local community.

"This started off as a planning issue," he said, "but it's quickly evolved into an employment and family issue because of all the jobs that have been put at risk. That's indefensible by the shire, so they're starting to see reason now, which is great.

"We still contend that we have permits. There's no question in my mind that we have permits to operate."

A petition raised on change.org by a local Tyabb woman has garnered nearly 9000 signatures by this morning and posters on Tyabb community Facebook groups have also expressed support.

PAC has organised a community event this Saturday at Tyabb Airport for local people, and is encouraging all members of the aviation community to come along and support the aero club in its fight with the council.

"There's a lot of demand from the community to understand more about this, our side of the story," Vevers said, "so we've decided to have an open discussion and allow people to come down so we can tell them where we're at.

"Also, we want to thank them for their fantastic support."


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...dABth4j.99


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

From the MP News..

There was also a bit on ACA, unfortunately you need to sign up to actually watch it.  For those willing to do that, it starts at 16:30 or thereabouts.

EDIT:  Found the video on farcebook..



Quote:Talks to clear air over Tyabb

AN uneasy truce was in place over the Tyabb Airfield dispute last week in the lead-up to a meeting between the Mornington Peninsula Shire CEO John Baker and Peninsula Aero Club president Jack Vevers.

The meeting, scheduled for yesterday (Monday 17 June), comes after the warring parties sought common ground in their row over missing or non-existent permits and contentious flying hours.

The mayor Cr David Gill said on Friday that there could be issues such as workers’ compensation insurance if businesses were operating at the airfield without permits.

The aero club was stunned when the council issued a stop-work order, Monday 3 June, saying it was unable to find permits issued subsequent to the original 1965 permit which gave the 55-year-old club the right to operate. (“Shire’s order grounds airfield” The News 12/6/19).

Mr Vevers slammed the ban saying it put 100 jobs and vital emergency services at risk and grounded the club’s 550 members.

Early last week the council in a statement said it acknowledged that over the years the level of activity at the airfield had increased and the surrounding population grown.

The council said it had “attempted to work with the … Peninsula Aero Club for more than a decade to modernise the relevant planning approvals that exist on the site”.

It said it had “advised the club and other landowners and businesses in the precinct that there aren’t any existing planning approvals and there is a need to follow due process and comply with the planning scheme”.

“We encourage and will work with all businesses across the shire to ensure they comply with the planning scheme so they can operate legally and successfully,” the statement said.

“Council are ultimately seeking the preparation and approval of an agreed airfield master plan and noise management plan covering all aspects of the current and future operations, and linked to updated planning permit approvals for the precinct.”

Mr Vevers said on Thursday the shire’s Mr Baker had “reached out to start discussions”.

“I am really pleased about that. It’s what should have happened in the first place. There are no egos in this. We want to get people back to work.”

The meeting comes as a shire-appointed Queen’s Counsel conducts a “full legal review, in order to provide clear information … regarding the conditions of all current planning permits currently applying to the Tyabb Airfield”. The report has a 30 June deadline.
& via the Oz:
Quote:[Image: 04dacf1a6db5b8baeeef2ea49b1f6730]

Missing permits ground holiday destination airport



The future of a regional Victoria airfield is on the line today when a council sits down with local pilots to resolve the curious case of missing operating permits.

Many of the 11 businesses at the Tyabb Airfield on the Mornington Peninsula have operated on the site since the late 1960s, when the only rule they had to observe was no flying between 9.30am and 10.30am on Sundays for church.

The church is now a cafe and has been for 28 years, but in ­response to lobbying from residents, council sought to add a condition to the airfield extending the curfew from dusk on Saturday to 9am on Sunday.

Mornington Peninsula Shire Mayor David Gill said that was when they discovered permits did not exist for businesses such as the Peninsula Aero Club flying school. In response “cease and desist” notices were distributed to various landholders on the airfield site, instructing them to stop work until appropriate permits were found.

“We are not trying to shut down an airport,” Mr Gill said.

“We’re trying to help them do the things they want to do but it has to be along the same lines as every other business in Australia has to. It’s pretty simple.”

Mr Gill said the council was simply trying to follow due process and a curfew was a reasonable starting point. “For years the situation has been 24 hours, seven days a week of flying. We’ve been hard-pressed to find an airport in Australia that operates like that. Not even Sydney operates like that,’’ he said. Peninsula Aero Club president Jack Vevers said it was an extraordinary situation based on the dislike of the airfield by a “vocal minority” within the community.

“What (council) did unexpectedly and without warning was they walked in and dropped all these stop-work notices on ourselves at the aero club and a number of businesses that operate at the airport and have been operating for more than half a century,” Mr Vevers said.

“It was brutal and abrupt with no explanation other than a few lines in these letters which were technically poorly produced.”

He said a “minor planning issue” had been turned into a huge social problem that threatened the livelihoods of 100 people working at the site.

“Many businesses have been here for so long they transcend the planning scheme. But you can’t just suddenly walk in and close them up,” Mr Vevers said.

Helicopter Resources managing director Bill English said the “cease and desist” notice would prevent his business from maintaining helicopters on site.

“It so happens we don’t have anything in the workshop at the moment but it will affect our ­future,” Mr English said. “We have another workshop in Hobart so that’s always an option (to relocate work there) but that would be ­disruptive to a lot of people.” Mr Vevers said the airfield was of vital importance to the Mornington Peninsula, which had a population of 164,000 but received seven million visitors a year.

“A lot of things hang off the success of the airport; it’s really having a significant impact on the town,” Mr Vevers said. “People want to trust their council but it’s frightening to think a council has the power to not be looking after people but destroying their livelihoods in such an ­abrupt way without discussion.”

Mr Gill denied the council was being manipulated by a vocal minority. “Council’s not influenced by who makes the loudest noise,” he said.

“If there’s anyone who makes a lot of noise it’s the airfield because they don’t like what’s happening.”
Reply

We’d better all move to Houston Texas where there are no zoning rules and hence zero permits to worry about. This also means that property pricing is far more a product of a free market without our artificial land use restrictions. Restrictions in accordance with politicians and a horde of expensive so called “planners.”

The system of government restricting private property land use, laughingly dubbed “planning,” was progressively implemented largely in the 70s and property prices have rollicked along ever since. Councils grow fat on “planning” fees and employ many “planners” to prevent, restrict, restrain and slow the otherwise legitimate aspirations of land owners.

You can’t do that I hear some say. Well, Before Planning (BP) was really biting we reached a point where we could buy USD$1.50 for every $1.00 Aussie. BP property was available anywhere and affordable for newcomers as well established citizens. No so now, no wonder unrest between the have and have nots. BP people were not saddled with huge mortgage loads and had money and land to build homes and businesses upon. BP the four major banks weren’t bloated with mortgage loan books. BP you could live in the most appropriate density housing in the area that suited best, probably much closer to your work thus saving travel expenses.

BP we were more efficient and we had virtually no unemployment. Yes other factors too, but looking over to Houston again, over the last twenty-five years or thereabouts, its grown from four million to six million and residential property prices are half or less compared to Melbourne or Sydney. Internet search that if you wish and drool at what’s available to them. No wonder very strong growth and prosperity in Houston. If Texans were looking at our Tyabb saga they would be wondering if we had lost our marbles.
Reply

Furthermore, Quote as reported:-

“Mr Gill denied the council was being manipulated by a vocal minority. “Council’s not influenced by who makes the loudest noise,” he said.

“If there’s anyone who makes a lot of noise it’s the airfield because they don’t like what’s happening.”

The perfect example of the ultimate threat to our freedoms and prosperity, the derisive, supercilious and derogatory answer to a reasonable question. One question, who is driving this extraordinary action? Another, why is this happening, and happening now? If not a vocal minority then some other party or parties must be behind this. It could be the “planners,” along with a compliant council, showing their muscle or some other body that stands to benefit.

In my opinion all of the affected airport people should carry on with their normal business and defy the council orders. Who does this Council they think they are? They only exist by virtue of an Act of State Parliament, a compliant animal of the Andrews government, perhaps the orders have come from Dan.
Reply

Allegedly the council wants the aero club to stump up for a development plan.
Ie. the development sharks have an eye on the land.

"to present an 'airport management plan".
Their kidding aren't they?

Look at the capital city secondary airport "management plans" if you want an example of a boondoggle.

Not one of them ever stuck to a "Plan". The plan was the basis for making the changes.
To abrogate the intention of the Airports Act.
To circumvent the clauses in the leases they signed to maintain the airports in the condition they were in when they took them over
To abrogate their responsibilities regarding environmental issues by excusing themselves from compliance on the pretext that the airports were Commonwealth land and environmental laws didn't apply to them.
To circumvent building codes.
To price aviation off the airport to facilitate non aviation development

I wonder when the next council elections are? I expect significant donations to re-election funds.
Reply

Cobden sets precedent in non-aviation development proposals around airports??

Nearly missed this ( Blush ) but in the area of airports we actually have a good news story for a change... Wink

First via the Warrnambool Standard:

Quote:JUNE 5 2019 - 3:30PM
VCAT rejects application for Naroghid wind farm, Cobden aviation community welcomes decision

Kyra Gillespie

[Image: r0_0_5472_3648_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

 Victory: Pilots and community supporters praise tribunal decision to reject the construction of wind turbines to the north of the airport. Pictured in 2017 protesting at the Cobden Airport. Picture: Rob Gunstone

A PROPOSED wind farm near the Cobden airport will not go ahead due to safety concerns and its potential to harm the habitat of the critically endangered southern bent-winged bat.


The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled on June 3 that no permit would be granted for the Naroghid wind farm following an eight-day hearing.


Developer Alinta Energy had planned for a 12 turbine wind farm on farmland north-west of Cobden, the latest in a string of wind farm proposals for the site since 2006.


But pilots feared a collision with the 180-metre high turbines, some proposed to be just 2.5 kilometres from the airfield's northern runway, amid concerns the Corangamite Shire Council-owned site facing closure if the development went ahead.


The tribunal found the development's impact on the airfield and nearby roosting sites for the southern bent-wing bat outweighed the project's "favourable" clean energy qualities.


Corangamite Shire Council mayor Neil Trotter applauded the decision, but said the dispute was drawn out and costly for the council.

"We were concerned we would have to look for a new site if the wind farm went ahead," Cr Trotter said.


"It means the council had to spend quite a bit of money to take this to VCAT, and it's money on the face of it that we probably wouldn't have had to spend if common sense had prevailed."

Alinta spokeswoman Megan Taylor said an appeal might be on the cards.

[Image: r0_0_5472_3648_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Turbines: Alinta Energy may appeal the tribunal's decision. Photo: Sitthixay Ditthavong


"Alinta Energy notes the decision from VCAT and will take time to review the determination and assess whether a modified proposal might be feasible," Ms Taylor said. 


"We will always work to develop projects in collaboration with local communities and with safety as the highest priory."

However Duncan Morris, a spokesperson for the Cobden Aero Club leading the charge against the development, said the applicant "refused' to communicate with the club.


"If they do try to appeal or start again with a fresh application we hope they would try to work with us, because they refused to deal with us at any point," he said.


"This decision is really good for the town, there are plenty of places to build these things that don't affect existing community assets.


"These towers would have been 180 metres high, with the closest one about 1.4 nautical miles directly in front of the airstrip which would seriously impede a takeoff towards it and also the landing if you had to come around it or over it. 

"It was in the middle of our flight path."

[Image: r0_0_4207_2805_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
 Shutdown fears: Warren Ponting showing off where the wind turbines would be in relation to the airport. Picture: Morgan Hancock


The $100 million project would have placed 12, 180-metre-high turbines that would produce between 43.2-48 megawatts across an 835 hectare area, which would have powered around 14,000 households according to Climate Council estimates. 


Planning Minister Richard Wynne said he would have refused the application for two reasons.


"The significant concern about the effect of the wind farm turbines on the safety and efficiency of the Cobden airfield ... and the impact on the critically endangered southern bent-wing bat," he said.


Opponents to the wind farm development also cited the vital role that the Cobden Airport played in fighting the St Patrick's Day fires and peat fires, and feared the impact on emergency service accessibility if the airstrip was to cease operation as a result of the turbines.


READ more: St Patrick's Day fires highlight importance of Cobden airport amid wind farm fears


"Not only is the airport great for the community and great for the people that use it, it's also very important to have that available for emergency services such as air ambulance and aviation rescue fire fighters," Aero Club president Don Mackinnon said.


"It would have made it nearly unusable."


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority said turbulence is possible for a distance of 16 times the rotor of a turbine.


"CASA advises that the proposed wind farm will create an unnacceptable risk to the safety of aircraft operations at Cobden Aerodrome," the aviation authority said in a statement to VCAT.

Shadow Minister for Aviation Gordon Rich-Phillips welcomed the news.

"Congratulations to the Cobden Aero Club and Cobden community more generally which has fought this ill conceived proposal for several years," he wrote on Facebook.

And via the LMH:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...cobden.jpg]



Cobden beats the Wind Farm
27 June 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The small airport at Cobden in Victoria has proven to be a mouse that roared after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) refused an application to build a wind farm on the airport flight path.

Naroghid Wind Farm Pty Ltd wanted to build 12 wind turbines that would reach 180 metres above ground level positioned only 2 km north-west of Cobden township in Victoria's western district. Naroghid took the matter to VCAT after the Victorian Planning Minister failed to make a decision within the statutory time.

Supporters of Cobden Airport argued that the proposed wind turbines would have significant impacts on flying operations, including:
  • restricting the ability to take off and depart directly to the north
  • restricting the ability to approach and land from the north, including but not limited to straight in approaches
  • creation of turbulence in the circuit area to the west of the runway when northerly through to westerly winds are blowing
  • preventing night time use
  • limiting the ability to extend a circuit leg when manoeuvring in response to slower aircraft in the circuit
  • being a visual distraction to pilots, thereby adding to operational risk factors during a critical phase of flight.

The Minister told VCAT that if the application for review had not been made, the permit would have been because of the impact on Cobden Airport and the endangered Southern Bent Wing Bat. The minister proposed that VCAT should refuse the permit for the same reasons.
VCAT agreed, and on 3 June ruled that a permit not be granted.

" ...we acknowledge that there are aspects of the proposal which weigh in its favour, including the delivery of renewable energy and its minimisation of amenity impacts on nearby properties," states the VCAT ruling handed down by members Ian Potts and Michelle Blackburn.
"However we do not consider these benefits to outweigh ... the material impact that we have found the proposal will have on the safety of the current aviation operations at the Cobden airfield. Measures needed to address these safety impacts will have an impact on the efficient use of the Cobden airfield, and give rise to a new land use conflict between aircraft operations and the amenity of Cobden residents.

"While it may be possible for the proposal to be altered to address our concerns about the airfield and for further field surveys to satisfactorily address the likely risk to the Southern Bent-wing Bat, these are not matters which can be addressed by simple modifications to the proposal or by allowing a short period for further information to be provided under an interim decision.

"As a result, we have refused to grant a permit for the proposal."

The VCAT ruling elaborated further on what it says would be significant impacts on the airfield, stating that if they approved the permit it would be up to the Cobden airfield to undertake changes to operations to address the additional safety risks, stop night operations and relocate the existing circuit area away from less sensitive farming land to an area around the town itself.

"We consider these impacts of the proposal on the current use of an existing public asset to be a factor which weighs against it," the ruling says. "We consider this to be a significant factor given that the Cobden airfield is an asset expressly recognised in the scheme, with policy support for the protection of its ongoing operation and the community benefits that arise from its use.

"We also consider reducing the existing separation between the use of the airfield and the township of Cobden, so that aircraft using the airfield would fly closer to the Cobden township, creates a situation of potential land use conflict which is inconsistent with orderly planning and which could impact on the amenity of the residents of the Cobden township.

"This detriment to the Cobden township as a whole is another matter which we consider weighs against the proposal when assessing its net community benefit."

Naroghid developer Alinta Energy is believed to be reviewing the decision to see if a modified proposal may be possible.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...0yiPWWU.99

See what can happen when a community unites... Wink

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Well done all; let’s hope that is an end to an arrogant proposal which simply expected the local council, aerodrome and operators to like it or lump it. Seems no one, from the Mayor down thought much of this and took the company on. That is worth a round of well deserved applause for the Council and mayor, motivation (cost of building a new airport) aside.

“[amid] concerns the Corangamite Shire Council-owned site facing closure if the development went ahead.

“Corangamite Shire Council mayor Neil Trotter applauded the decision, but said the dispute was drawn out and costly for the council.”

"It means the council had to spend quite a bit of money to take this to VCAT, and it's money on the face of it that we probably wouldn't have had to spend if common sense had prevailed."

Strange business is politics though; Richard Riordan; local member for Polwarth (Libs) failed to comment, let alone grab a photo opportunity. But the Vic, planning minister gets a mention for a job well done. Even the “Shadow Minister' for Aviation Gordon Rich-Phillips welcomed the news” and yet, not a peep out of McDonaught – but, the best bit:-

"CASA advises that the proposed wind farm will create an unacceptable risk to the safety of aircraft operations at Cobden Aerodrome," the aviation authority said in a statement to VCAT.

Well done CASA, a most refreshing and welcome line of common sense which would carry a lot of weight in any sane hearing of the matter. Thank you.

Just my obs – FWIW; nice to know Cobden is still on the map and active.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Quote:Essendon Airport plans to narrow runways with stroke of a pen

Essendon Airport's owners want to narrow its runways by repainting them in order to put new commercial buildings around the airfield, a plan which a peak pilots' body has warned would compromise safety.

The airport is owned by the families of rich-listers Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and its latest master plan reveals a desire to develop retail buildings and officesnext to the Tullamarine Freeway, mirroring where the DFO shopping centre sits today.

[Image: e6a737f96602ef7eddd332f2867cb2495b2a2395]

The plan proposes painting new lines on runways to reduce their technical width from 45 metres to 30 metres, and downgrading the main runway from "code 4" to "code 3", meaning operators of some larger aircraft would need additional accreditation to use it.

The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association, a union-aligned group that represents pilots on safety matters, says the plan reduces safety margins in the event of a plane going off the runway.

"The proposal ... will reduce the airport's viability as an aviation precinct and more importantly, increase the risk to aircraft operators, passengers and the general public," the association will say in its submission to a public consultation process for the plans.

"In our opinion, approval processes have been abused or ignored to promote non-aviation property uses at the expense of safety for aviation operations."

The association said the pitch to narrow the runways was to make it possible to construct more buildings closer to them.

A spokesman for Essendon Airport said that "the runway characteristics of the new master plan do not in any way reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport".

"Safety is always the number one priority in our airport operations," he said.

The planning of buildings around Essendon Airport has been in the spotlight since the February 2017 crash of a Beechcraft King Air light aircraft into the side of the DFO building. All five people on board were killed.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau ruled the crash was caused by pilot error, but then launched a separate investigation into how the DFO was approved and built "from an aviation safety perspective".

The findings of that investigation have been expected since the start of this year.

The Age revealed in January that the airport's DFO shopping centre was built within the 300-metre buffer zone recommended by the United Nations' aviation safety body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The airport has maintained that the correct runway strip width, essentially a buffer zone either side of the runway to safeguard planes if they run off the tarmac, has always been 180 metres.

The 2017 incident was the latest in a history of accidents related to planes departing the airport.

In 1978, a plane in a training flight came down shortly after it took off from the airport, ploughing into a nearby house and killing all six residents.

Another tragedy occurred in 1986 when the engine of an ambulance aircraft failed after taking off. The plane narrowly missed houses and powerlines as it came down, bursting into flames as it hit the ground and killing all six passengers.

In 1993, five people were seriously injured and six houses damaged when a plane crashed after taking off.

In 2001, trucking billionaire Lindsay Fox and businessman Max Beck acquired a 99-year lease on the federally owned airport, which is home to Australia's largest corporate jet base and Victoria's emergency air services.

A spokeswoman for Emergency Management Victoria said the fire services aircraft based at Essendon last summer were suitable for use on a code 3 runway.

Public submissions on the airport's master plan close on Tuesday. The plan and any submissions received will then be sent to the federal Transport Minister for approval.
Reply

Quote:

A spokesman for Essendon Airport said that "the runway characteristics of the new master plan do not in any way reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport".

Err, scuse me, what about utility and viability for aviation? Perhaps scrutiny of the 99 year Commonwealth leases and the clauses pertaining to the prohibition of reducing utility, and not maintaining the airport in it's original condition.
A so called master plan is just a convenient way of circumventing the intention of the lease.


Quote:

"Safety is always the number one priority in our airport operations," he said.

No it's not, MONEY is the number one priority.

Quote:

"In our opinion, approval processes have been abused or ignored to promote non-aviation property uses at the expense of safety for aviation operations."

Thats what happens when airports are given to development sharks to manage.

Quote:

"Public submissions on the airport's master plan close on Tuesday. The plan and any submissions received will then be sent to the federal Transport Minister for approval".

For approval, read rubber stamp, could be nice little political donation to follow.
Reply

(07-02-2019, 09:42 AM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote:  
Quote:Essendon Airport plans to narrow runways with stroke of a pen

Essendon Airport's owners want to narrow its runways by repainting them in order to put new commercial buildings around the airfield, a plan which a peak pilots' body has warned would compromise safety.

The airport is owned by the families of rich-listers Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and its latest master plan reveals a desire to develop retail buildings and officesnext to the Tullamarine Freeway, mirroring where the DFO shopping centre sits today.

[Image: e6a737f96602ef7eddd332f2867cb2495b2a2395]

The plan proposes painting new lines on runways to reduce their technical width from 45 metres to 30 metres, and downgrading the main runway from "code 4" to "code 3", meaning operators of some larger aircraft would need additional accreditation to use it.

The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association, a union-aligned group that represents pilots on safety matters, says the plan reduces safety margins in the event of a plane going off the runway.

"The proposal ... will reduce the airport's viability as an aviation precinct and more importantly, increase the risk to aircraft operators, passengers and the general public," the association will say in its submission to a public consultation process for the plans.

"In our opinion, approval processes have been abused or ignored to promote non-aviation property uses at the expense of safety for aviation operations."

The association said the pitch to narrow the runways was to make it possible to construct more buildings closer to them.

A spokesman for Essendon Airport said that "the runway characteristics of the new master plan do not in any way reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport".

"Safety is always the number one priority in our airport operations," he said.

The planning of buildings around Essendon Airport has been in the spotlight since the February 2017 crash of a Beechcraft King Air light aircraft into the side of the DFO building. All five people on board were killed.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau ruled the crash was caused by pilot error, but then launched a separate investigation into how the DFO was approved and built "from an aviation safety perspective".

The findings of that investigation have been expected since the start of this year.

The Age revealed in January that the airport's DFO shopping centre was built within the 300-metre buffer zone recommended by the United Nations' aviation safety body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The airport has maintained that the correct runway strip width, essentially a buffer zone either side of the runway to safeguard planes if they run off the tarmac, has always been 180 metres.

The 2017 incident was the latest in a history of accidents related to planes departing the airport.

In 1978, a plane in a training flight came down shortly after it took off from the airport, ploughing into a nearby house and killing all six residents.

Another tragedy occurred in 1986 when the engine of an ambulance aircraft failed after taking off. The plane narrowly missed houses and powerlines as it came down, bursting into flames as it hit the ground and killing all six passengers.

In 1993, five people were seriously injured and six houses damaged when a plane crashed after taking off.

In 2001, trucking billionaire Lindsay Fox and businessman Max Beck acquired a 99-year lease on the federally owned airport, which is home to Australia's largest corporate jet base and Victoria's emergency air services.

A spokeswoman for Emergency Management Victoria said the fire services aircraft based at Essendon last summer were suitable for use on a code 3 runway.

Public submissions on the airport's master plan close on Tuesday. The plan and any submissions received will then be sent to the federal Transport Minister for approval.

(07-02-2019, 11:27 AM)thorn bird Wrote:  Quote:

A spokesman for Essendon Airport said that "the runway characteristics of the new master plan do not in any way reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport".

Err, scuse me, what about utility and viability for aviation? Perhaps scrutiny of the 99 year Commonwealth leases and the clauses pertaining to the prohibition of reducing utility, and not maintaining the airport in it's original condition.
A so called master plan is just a convenient way of circumventing the intention of the lease.


Quote:

"Safety is always the number one priority in our airport operations," he said.

No it's not, MONEY is the number one priority.

Quote:

"In our opinion, approval processes have been abused or ignored to promote non-aviation property uses at the expense of safety for aviation operations."

Thats what happens when airports are given to development sharks to manage.

Quote:

"Public submissions on the airport's master plan close on Tuesday. The plan and any submissions received will then be sent to the federal Transport Minister for approval".

For approval, read rubber stamp, could be nice little political donation to follow.

Good catch CW... Wink

Funny how these things work but here is some relevant parallels with the Addison Texas BE350i accident which tragically killed 10 people:

(07-02-2019, 11:16 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Choppagirl: Dallas and Essendon - sound similar?

(07-02-2019, 06:04 AM)Choppagirl Wrote:  https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/07/01/addi...e-unknown/

North Texas Teens, Parents Among 10 Killed In Addison Plane Crash

UPDATED: July 1, 2019 2:04 PM

https://cbsloc.al/2Npf3VO

ADDISON (CBSDFW.COM)
 – John Paul II High School in Plano confirmed two students were among those killed in a plane crash at the Addison Municipal Airport.

Sophomore Alice Maritato and All Saints Catholic School 8th grader Dylan Maritato were on the plane when it when down. The teenager’s mother, Ornella Ellard, and stepfather, Brian Ellard, were also onboard and are included in the 10 people confirmed dead.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators returned to the scene early Monday morning.

The twin-engine Beechcraft King Air plane crashed into a private hangar just after 9:00 a.m. Sunday. Moments after the plane slammed into the building Air Traffic Control radioed, “Everybody just standby, we had a accident on the field… so expect not to go out anytime soon.”

Federal officials have confirmed two crew members and eight passengers were on the plane and all lost their lives. Witnesses say the plane had just taken off when it veered hard left and dropped its wing.

The plane burst into flames when it hit the hanger, sending thick black smoke billing into the air. Before nightfall on Sunday investigators were able to walk through the charred crash scene.
 
[Image: plane2.jpg?w=550&h=291]

Officials are still trying to determine what caused the plane, that was headed from Addison to St. Petersburg Florida, to go down and say their focus today will be on trying to find perishable evidence. Experts say investigators will most likely start by looking at engine failure, pilot error and weight issues as possible causes of the crash.

In addition to identifying the dead, investigators are also gathering background information on those at the controls of the plane.

“We do not know the condition of the flight crew in terms of their prior experience,” explained National Transportation Safety Board Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg. “We don’t know if they’ve flown together or not. But that will definitely come out in the investigation. There will be a deep dive into the pilot’s background.”

It’s unclear what communication the plane had with air traffic controllers.

According to Landsberg, there was some initial confusion about the owner of plane because the craft had recently been sold and the tail number changed. Monday morning the plane’s former owner, “Planemasters” out of Chicago, confirmed that the plane was sold to Addison-based “EE Operations” and the new tail number was registered in April.

[Image: hangar.jpg?w=550&h=306]

Damage to an airplane hangar after a plane crash killed 10 people at the Addison Municipal Airport. (credit: Chopper 11)

NTSB lead investigator Jennifer Rodi said investigators will be, “… looking into the man, the machine, and the environment. Man specifically; the flight crew onboard‚ their training, knowledge and experience as it applies to the aircraft and the operations.”

Early Monday afternoon CBS 11 News confirmed that all of the passengers on the plane were members of the Bent Tree Country Club in Dallas.

NTSB investigators are soliciting help from witnesses, looking for any photos or videos that might have been shot of the crash.

& also via CBS news national:

Quote:"I've never seen anything like that": Witness describes deadly Texas plane crash

Addison, Texas
 — New details are emerging about the victims of a small plane crash outside Dallas. All 10 people on board were killed Sunday morning when the plane crashed into a hangar just after takeoff.

Among the passengers who died was Alice Maritato, a sophomore in high school and her brother, middle school student Dylan Maritato. They were traveling with their mother, Ornella and step-father Brian Ellard, heading to St. Petersburg, Florida.

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board found the cockpit voice recorder late Sunday night.

Pilot David Snell witnessed the crash from a nearby hangar.

"Myself and my other pilot friend, we knew that the plane was not producing the type of takeoff power that it typically would by the sound, plus it wasn't climbing the way it typically would and it appeared a little tail low and we knew that airplane was in trouble," he said.

The twin-engine Beechcraft Super King was taking off at the north end of the airport. Witnesses said it lifted off the runway, reaching about 300 feet, when it began losing power and altitude. The plane then veered left and dropped its left wing, before slamming into the hangar. 

"All my years of flying I've never seen anything like that. But my thoughts are for the families, the people, the lives changed and there's nothing you can do about it," Snell said.

There is security video of the accident, but it's not expected to be released until the final report is released. A preliminary report could come out in a few weeks.

And the official NTSB update:



Obviously way to early to speculate but like Choppagirl I can see the similarities with the YMEN DFO accident. However I can also see some stark differences i.e Multi-crew aircraft, possibly operating under Part 91 etc..etc

There is also a notable difference in the professionalism and clinical handling of the initial phases of the AAI (reference the NTSB presser above).

IMO there are in fact more similarities to the Wichita B200 accident: see - The HVH YMEN DFO faery tale grows

 [Image: 20141030-0-C-1.jpg]

Also it should be noted neither of the buildings were built alongside the active runways, nor were the buildings a massive shopping complex with the potential for on ground casualties in their thousands:

[Image: D-bsXXIUwAAHwj8.jpg]

Quote:Essendon Airport Pty Ltd (EAPL) has prepared a preliminary version of its draft Master Plan 2019. Public consultation commences Tuesday 2 April 2019 for a period of 60 business days.
The preliminary draft Master Plan can be downloaded free of charge throughout the consultation period from the links below:
ESSENDON FIELDS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2019 PRELIMINARY DRAFT (INCLUDING APPENDICES) (36MB)
ESSENDON FIELDS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2019 PRELIMINARY DRAFT (MAIN DOCUMENT EXCLUDING APPENDICES) (21MB)
APPENDIX A: PRESCRIBED AIRSPACE CHARTS (7MB)
APPENDIX B: VACANT PARCELS OF AIRPORT LAND (446KB)
APPENDIX C: LAND USE PLAN (5MB)
APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 2019 – 2027 (2MB)



[Image: D-dKIIBUcAAatfk.jpg]
 


Knowing our bunch of numpties overseeing aviation safety the Addison prang probably won't even cause a whimper of interest. But it should, because if nothing else it highlights how potentially reducing internationally recognised public and aviation safety margins around airports is fraught with danger. 

When we get some more details from the Addison accident we will overlay on the YMEN runways 17/35 and 08/26 to see where the same accident would have impacted.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development.  Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI.  Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy.  They can fly from somewhere else.  

Methinks the long term plan is to close down the airfield altogether using the ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ method big developers have honed to perfection with tacit government approval.  It goes something like this:  ‘hey mate, stick in the application, no worries.  We’ll take care of it..  it’ll go through the normal approvals process using the flawed ‘affordable risk’ methodology we’ve been using for years without consequence.  Don’t worry about all that international shit.  We give lip service to that so it looks as if we are meeting that standard when nothing could be....well, you know.  Then when you find there’s reduced air traffic you can put an argument for further reductions in width and length and we’ll go with that because, clearly, aviation is giving you a poor ROI...we can’t have that, can we?  We can’t stifle the market place!  And Bob’s your father’s brother. Oh, and about that donation for a good cause........!

Of course this is a purely fictional account of what might happen bearing no resemblance to those living or dead!  

 In the interim the public and fliers are at risk and not just along the sides of runways but at the ends where there ARE NO PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES courtesy NASF which is not interested in looking after the public at end of runways for established airfields.  Nup, you’re on your own.  School kids, local residents count for nothing.  Just an affordable payout should things go pear-shaped.  Tells us something about the value governments puts on human life.  The message, for those of you who’ve missed it, is humans are a commodity with a certain value, and that value is the price of doing business.  How much are you worth!
Reply

DicDoc,

aint that the truth.
Reply

[Image: 65507699_2437709092955294_83911234034314...e=5D7E0A52]

(07-02-2019, 07:33 PM)DicDoc Wrote:  Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development.  Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI.  Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy.  They can fly from somewhere else.  

Methinks the long term plan is to close down the airfield altogether using the ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ method big developers have honed to perfection with tacit government approval.  It goes something like this:  ‘hey mate, stick in the application, no worries.  We’ll take care of it..  it’ll go through the normal approvals process using the flawed ‘affordable risk’ methodology we’ve been using for years without consequence.  Don’t worry about all that international shit.  We give lip service to that so it looks as if we are meeting that standard when nothing could be....well, you know.  Then when you find there’s reduced air traffic you can put an argument for further reductions in width and length and we’ll go with that because, clearly, aviation is giving you a poor ROI...we can’t have that, can we?  We can’t stifle the market place!  And Bob’s your father’s brother. Oh, and about that donation for a good cause........!

Of course this is a purely fictional account of what might happen bearing no resemblance to those living or dead!  

 In the interim the public and fliers are at risk and not just along the sides of runways but at the ends where there ARE NO PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES courtesy NASF which is not interested in looking after the public at end of runways for established airfields.  Nup, you’re on your own.  School kids, local residents count for nothing.  Just an affordable payout should things go pear-shaped.  Tells us something about the value governments puts on human life.  The message, for those of you who’ve missed it, is humans are a commodity with a certain value, and that value is the price of doing business.  How much are you worth!

Update: Via the AFAP

Quote:Link: https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-fir...79Kn2B6js8

Essendon Airport Propose Runway Changes To Develop To New Shopping Centre  
 
The high profile owners of Essendon Airport want to narrow the runways, to develop a new shopping district opposite the current DFO. "It would set a very worrying precedent for our other federal airports around the country," says #YourAFAP.

&..

Quote:

278 Views

9 News Melbourne
July 2 at 4:30 PM ·

Essendon Airport's operators want to narrow its runways in order to put new commercial buildings around the airfield. It's a masterplan which a peak pilots' body has warned would compromise safety.

#9News | http://9News.com.au



#Pilots have slammed moves by the owners of Essendon Fields Airport to narrow runways in a bid to make room for a giant shopping complex and offices. Essendon #airport is owned by Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and both men want more bang for their buck. Pilots don’t want the proposal to get off the ground, saying it would compromise #safety. Public submissions on the master plan close today. (AFAP Safety & Technical Manager) Marcus Diamond said he was “baffled” to learn about the plan, particularly given a report investigating how the Essendon DFO was approved still hadn’t been released.

Pilots angered by bold new plans for Essendon airport

02/07/2019

MACQUARIE NATIONAL NEWS
 

 

[Image: essairpoi6fGetty.jpg?resize=600%2C400]

Pilots have slammed moves by the owners of Essendon Fields Airport to narrow runways in a bid to make room for a giant shopping complex and offices.

Essendon airport is owned by Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and both men want more bang for their buck.

But the Airline Pilots’ Association says the only bang they’ll get under this plan is a potential crash.

The Age is reporting the master plan is virtually a mirror image of DFO, which sits next to the Tullamarine Freeway.

It also involves painting new lines on the runways, effectively narrowing them to make room for the development.

Pilots don’t want the proposal to get off the ground, saying it would compromise safety.

Public submissions on the master plan close today.

Marcus Diamond, from the Australian Air Pilots Federation, told 3AW it was a recipe for disaster.

He said he was “baffled” to learn about the plan, particularly given a report investigating how the Essendon DFO was approved still hadn’t been released.

A plane crashed into that DFO building in 2017, killing five people.

“You really shouldn’t be making any changes to this airport until that ATSB report comes out,” Mr Diamond said.


https://omny.fm/shows/mornings-with-neil...ation-of-a
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Are the Reds coming to New England?  Confused


Quote:[Image: 2a12e5977a1d3a34e125d4c1d4bb7950_normal.jpeg]

Anthony Klan @Anthony_Klan

Hi all, a month ago I resigned from The Australian after 15 years. I had, and have, serious misgivings about the direction that is now being taken. Australia faces unprecedented external threats. To do otherwise, I felt, would be treasonous. DM me with any and all leads. ThanksSmile


Having jumped from the Newscorp ship the Klanman is now back and opening up with a rip snorter, via michaelwest.com.au -  Rolleyes   

Quote:Mayday: two shadowy Chinese corporations behind Virgin’s plan to control Australian airbase

Jul 25, 2019 |

[Image: pilots-3-1.jpg]

This is the story the Murdoch press buried. Investigative reporter, Anthony Klan, defected from The Australian newspaper after News Corp bosses muzzled his investigations, including this expose into secret Chinese plans to establish a mega-pilot training facility on an Australian airforce training facility.


Virgin Australia may have misled all levels of Australian government and has made dubious public claims about the true identity of its shadowy Chinese partners in its secretive proposal to take control of the nation’s biggest military pilot school, at an RAAF training facility in Tamworth NSW.

It can be revealed that the nation’s second biggest airline failed to inform the NSW Government, the Federal Government, the English speaking media – and even Tamworth council – about any foreign involvement in its proposal whatsoever, despite that mega-project being “certified” by the Chinese Communist Party a year ago.

It can also be revealed that Virgin Australia has made dubious public claims, denying the involvement of one of its two key partners in the project, despite those claims being easily disproved by conducting relatively simple company searches.
National security experts, including Swinburne University of Technology Professor John Fitzgerald, have described Virgin Australia’s secretive push in Tamworth as extremely concerning.

They warn the proposal appears to be a re-run of the highly controversial 2015 dealwhereby the Chinese Communist Party-linked Landbridge Group was granted a 99-year lease over the Port of Darwin, a move which drew an angry rebuke from then US President Barrack Obama.

[Image: bae.jpg]

Virgin Australia, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is overwhelmingly foreign-owned. Chinese entities owned at least 42 per cent of the airline at the end of last financial year.

Serious concerns about Virgin’s Tamworth mega-school proposal – including that it appeared to be secretly planning to take control of the facility with two highly questionable Chinese conglomerates – were first raised on the morning of March 22 this year, in an article which appeared on The Australian newspaper’s website (but not in print).


Cover-up


Virgin fiercely rejected those allegations and ran an aggressive and unethical – but until now, largely successful – campaign to prevent journalists from continuing to dig into the matter, and from publishing any further articles.


The Australian has not published a word on the matter since that initial March 22 online story. It can now be revealed the issues raised in that article were entirely accurate. There is much more.


Searches of company databases in Australia and Hong Kong reveal that Virgin Australia’s partners in its plans to gain control of the current Tamworth RAAF training facility are Chinese conglomerate HNA Group – which has close links to the Chinese Communist Party – and Winbright Overseas Investment Limited.


Winbright Overseas Investment Limited is a company domiciled in the British Virgin Islands, a prominent tax haven, and is an arm of the shadowy Chinese conglomerate the Beijing Winbright Investment Co. Virgin Australia has repeatedly, strenuously, denied having any involvement whatsoever with Winbright.


Barnaby Joyce, local government in the dark


Despite holding a string of formal meetings, and Virgin Australia claiming to have been “completely transparent” about the Tamworth proposal, the NSW Government, federal member for New England Barnaby Joyce and the Tamworth Regional Council all say they had no idea about any foreign involvement in the proposed Tamworth mega-school before that March 22 article.

That was despite the Communist Party of China having officially “certified” the proposed Australian mega-project in, or before, August last year – at least seven months earlier.

[Image: barnaby2-300x200.jpg]

In October last year Virgin Australia announced its plans to create the Tamworth facility but made no reference to HNA Group, Winbright, or to having any partners in the project whatsoever.


In meetings with government in Australia, Virgin Australia has said it is creating the facility in conjunction with a small Australian-registered company called the Australian International Aviation College.


The AIAC operates a small flight school and is based at Port Macquarie on the NSW mid-north coast. However Virgin Australia failed to disclose to government that the innocuously-named AIAC is in fact owned by Chinese conglomerates HNA Group (80 per cent) and Winbright (10 per cent).


HNA Group and the Chinese Communist Party


HNA Group, one of Virgin Australia’s two key partners in the Tamworth proposal, is a highly controversial Chinese conglomerate which owns Hainan Airlines, along with a mixed-bag of other investments.


“HNA’s ownership structure is so opaque that some other market regulators have acted to prevent its involvement in acquisitions and mergers,” Professor Fitzgerald said.


“It is closely bound up with the CCP party state and acts on the party’s instructions. “The firm and its private foundation are heavily involved in ‘donations’ for political influence in the USA and internationally,” he said.


Quote:Cagey Chinese raider HNA needs eye of FIRB



 

HNA Group, whose chairman and co-founder Wang Jian died mid-last year in unusual circumstances after apparently falling from a wall in France, has also raised serious concerns among governments and security experts around the world, given its opaque structure and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.


That murkiness has led to a number of groups, such as Bank of America, refusing to do business with it.

Separate from the Tamworth proposal, HNA Group has for several years owned about 20 per cent of the shares in the ASX-listed Virgin Australia. The Virgin stake was part of a global acquisition binge where HNA swooped on $US40 billion worth of acquisitions across six continents in two years.

Professor Fitzgerald said it was remarkable that long-standing connection between HNA Group and Virgin Australia had not yet been properly questioned, given that the serious concerns around HNA Group were well known among security experts.

[Image: john-fitzgerald-150x150.jpg]

“Given all this is public information, it has long baffled me that no-one has called Virgin to account for its corporate association with HNA,” Professor Fitzgerald said.


HNA Group is a well-known advocate of Beijing’s so-called Belt and Road global infrastructure roll-out, which is seen by many experts as being used by Beijing to advance its military interests by stealth.


Security experts have raised serious concerns that HNA Group’s current secretive advances on the RAAF facility – which sits adjacent to Tamworth Regional Airport’s large, military-grade runway, just 300km north of Sydney – could form part of Beijing’s clandestine military push.


HNA Group and Winbright have repeatedly failed to respond to requests for comment in recent weeks. AIAC has also declined to comment.


Monster proposal at military facility


The site that Virgin Australia, HNA Group and Beijing Winbright Investment Co are seeking to gain control of is a specialised military training facility that for the past three decades has been at the heart of the Australian Defence Force’s aviation training operations.


Since the 1990’s, it has been leased by Tamworth Regional Council to British defence giant BAE Systems, which has been contracted by the Australian Defence Force to train RAAF recruits at the facility.

In 2015 the Australian Defence Force put to tender a new, 25-year multi-billion dollar pilot training contract for that training role, and BAE Systems lost the bid to US defence group Lockheed Martin.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-07-16-at-7.32.19-PM-1024x794.png]

Lockheed Martin will train RAAF pilots from a base in Sale, Victoria. BAE Systems will cease training RAAF pilots in Tamworth by October 31. A September 2015 [color=#b52727]ABC article about BAE Systems losing its ADF contract underscored the specialised military nature of the Tamworth facility.


It quoted MP Mr Joyce who cited other possible tenants for the facility, including the Republic of Singapore Air Force, the Royal Brunei Air Force and the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.


“We are currently in negotiations with them in expanding their use of that facility,” Mr Joyce told the ABC.

“Our base in Tamworth will continue to be used and we’ve had the Prime Minister (Abbott) of Australia over in Singapore talking about Tamworth’s base to the Singaporean Prime Minister, to see what we can do to make that facility more available for them.”


At the same time, BAE’s Director of Aerospace, Steve Drury, highlighted the massive size of the Tamworth military facility, telling the ABC: “The deal we have with Defence is quite large and so I don’t think any one single contract can actually replace it”.


“We’re talking about a combination of possible futures that we can have and we’re also interested in determining whether civil flying training can be done in that facility.”


Mega-school for Chinese pilots, not Australians


Virgin Australia and its two Chinese conglomerate partners are well aware of the size of the Tamworth facility. Under their proposal, they would train 500 students at a time there, making it one of the biggest flight schools in the nation.


Such a mega-facility would be well beyond the needs of Virgin Australia: it currently trains between 10 and 40 pilots at a time at its existing facilities.


However, in a statement – which Virgin Australia has attempted to distance itself from – HNA Group and Winbright have told Chinese language media in Australia that the facility will actually be aimed squarely at Chinese nationals.


“It is aimed at Chinese high school graduates and undergraduate students under 26 years of age from overseas Chinese university students,” that statement quoted HNA Group and Winbright as saying.


Take-off


Virgin Australia’s plans to create a flight school in Tamworth first became general public knowledge on October 31 last year. In a statement on its webpage, Virgin Australia announced it would develop a “world-class pilot training school” at Tamworth Regional Airport after being “chosen” to do so by Tamworth Regional Council, which owns and operates that airport.

Qantas had been considering creating a flight school at the Tamworth facility, but instead chose to create a school in Toowoomba in southeast Queensland.


In its announcement, Virgin Australian made no reference to any foreign involvement in the project, or to any partners whatsoever.

Five months later, the March 22 online article in The Australian reported that not only were Chinese conglomerates HNA Group (owner of Hainan Airlines) and Winbright understood to be involved in the proposal, but that those two conglomerates – and Virgin Australia – had actually “officially launched” the project at a Chinese-language media only ceremony in Sydney on August 16 last year.




TIMELINE
  • August 2018: Chinese language media only press conference is held in Sydney to announce the “offical launch” of pilot school mega-project, which has Chinese government approval.

  • October 24 2018: Virgin Australia meets with NSW Government but refers to its partner in the proposed Tamworth project only as AIAC, making no reference to the two Chinese conglomerates.

  • Oct 31 2018: Virgin Australia publicly announces plans for a pilot facility in Tamworth, but makes no mention of any partners, offshore or otherwise.

  • March 6 2019: The date Virgin Australia claims to have lodged an application with the Foreign Investment Review Board regarding the mega-school proposal.

  • March 22 2019: Online article in The Australian newspaper reveals project “official launch” for Chinese language media seven months earlier. It was partnered by Virgin Australia and named proponents as China’s Hainan Airlines (HNA Group) and China’s Winbright Aviation. (Not another word has been published by The Australian on the matter since).

  • March-April 2019: Virgin Australia attacks that March 22 online article and says its mega-school partner is “AIAC”. Claims to have zero connection to Winbright. Denies the legitimacy of the August launch to Chinese language media, saying it has “no idea” about it.

  • July 2019: Company documents show ultimate owners of AIAC are in fact HNA Group and Winbright, proving false Virgin Australia’s claims that Winbright has zero involvement in the Tamworth mega-project.
That was two-and-a-half months before Virgin Australia made its vague October 31 announcement about the Tamworth facility, which made no reference to HNA Group, Winbright or to any other partners.

A press statement about that August 16 “official launch”, made only to Chinese language media, is here.

The statement, which appears to have been translated into English, says the mega-school was “aimed at Chinese high school graduates and undergraduates”.

“On August 16th, the launch ceremony of Winbright Aviation and Hainan Airlines Joint Pilot Training Project——‘The Dream Begins Here’ was successfully held in Sydney,” it states.

“The launch was jointly sponsored by Winbright Aviation, Hainan Airlines, Southern Cross University and the Australian International Aviation College (AIAC).”

Virgin Australia senior executive Peter Cai gave a speech at the launch and is photographed at the launch alongside members of the two Chinese conglomerates.

“Partners included Virgin Australia and the University of New South Wales China Association, local medias (sic) and agencies,” the statement says.

[Image: chin.media_.conf_.jpg]

Despite the reference to “local media”, it is understood only Chinese language publications were invited to that August launch, and it was not covered by any English language media outlets.


Chinese language newspapers in Australia have recently been the subject of substantial security concerns.


In parliamentary committee hearings, security experts have warned the federal government that almost all such publications have been bought up by, or are controlled by, entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party.


Despite Mr Cai’s presence at the launch, Virgin Australia has claimed it had “no idea” about the launch and denied it was related to its Tamworth mega-school proposal.


Mega school officially “certified” by Chinese Communist Party


Remarkably, that August 2018 press release states that the new mega-school had been “certified” by China’s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Administration of China. “This project is the only CAAC-certified airline pilot training program in Australia,” the statement says.


It says Chinese high school and university students could begin training at the flight school after meeting a series of requirements including passing physical examination, psychological tests and a theoretical examination.


After those were met, “a training agreement can be signed with the shipping department and a full flight training at the aviation school.”


“After that, they will be able to sign a labor contract with the shipping division and become an airline pilot,” the statement says.


Australian Government and authorities had no idea


In response to the March 22 online report in The Australian, and despite Virgin Australia’s repeated claims that it had been “100 per cent transparent” about the Tamworth proposal, federal member for New England Barnaby Joyce said he was shocked and had “no idea”of any foreign involvement.

“I thought it was Virgin,” Mr Joyce said of the proposal, calling on Virgin Australia to come clean. Likewise, the office of NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian also denied knowledge of any foreign involvement in the Virgin Australia mega-school project, when contacted by this reporter.

[Image: gladys-150x150.jpg]

“This is first we’ve heard of it,” spokesman Miles Godfrey said in March.


After repeated requests for information over many days, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet spokesman Matthew Sun distanced the NSW government from the project entirely, and said it was a matter for Tamworth council.


“Tamworth Regional Council independently made an agreement with Virgin Australia regarding the proposed Tamworth flight school,” Mr Sun said in a written statement.

“There was no NSW Government involvement in that specific decision.”


The statement continued: “Tamworth Regional Council announced its partnership on 31 October 2018”. “Questions regarding the selection and due-due-diligence process undertaken by Council prior to the announcement should be directed to Tamworth Regional Council”.

But remarkably, even Tamworth Regional Council had no idea of the involvement of major foreign conglomerates in Virgin Australia’s proposal before reading about it in that March 22 online article in The Australian.

[Image: paul-bennett.jpg]

Days later, Tamworth Regional Council general manager Paul Bennett told local paper The Northern Daily Leader that the council had been in talks with Virgin Australia but it had had “no dealings with Chinese aviation giants Hainan and Winbright Aviation”.


“Any Chinese involvement in the Virgin Australia pilot training school is news to Tamworth Regional Council,” Mr Bennett told The Northern Daily Leader.


“Council had never heard of Winbright Aviation until the story was published in national media [last week].”


Aviation veteran and former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Dick Smith, was equally dumbfounded by the revelations.


“Virgin I thought was Aussie-owned but in fact it’s pretty well completely foreign-owned and it looks like it is completely Chinese government controlled,” Mr Smith said. “I am desperately worried about aviation and for this to be done secretly is just unbelievable.”


Virgin denies secret Chinese involvement


In response to the revelations in the March 22 online report in The Australian, Virgin Australia published a media statement attacking the article.

“The idea that we are in secret talks is completely untrue, and any suggestion that this is anything other than confidential, commercial negotiations would be wholly unsubstantiated,” Virgin Australia’s Ms Armstrong wrote.

[Image: dick-smith2-150x150.jpg]

The airline claimed the press statement regarding the August 16, 2018 Chinese media-only launch (link above) was somehow false; that Virgin Australia had “no idea” where the statement had come from and that Virgin Australia had not been involved in that launch.


Ms Armstrong said that in August Virgin Australia had not yet formalised the deal with Tamworth Regional Council.

Virgin Australia ruled out having any involvement with Winbright whatsoever and said that the airline had “no intention to work with” Winbright in the future.


“Virgin Australia has no involvement with Winbright Aviation and has no intention to work with Winbright Aviation as their model doesn’t suit our requirements,” Ms Armstrong said.


She continued: “A Virgin Australia representative was at a conference where Winbright announced a partnership with Southern Cross University, however in no way does this indicate a partnership between Virgin Australia and Winbright.”

… but the documents


Irrespective of Virgin Australia’s aggressive denials, company records show Virgin Australia and Winbright Aviation are very much business partners in the proposed Tamworth aviation school.

The August 16 press release, which named Winbright and HNA Group as partnering with Virgin Australia in the mega-project, was spot-on.

[Image: libby.armstrong2.jpg]

The small Port Macquarie flight school, AIAC, is 80 per cent ultimately owned by HNA Group and 10 per cent owned by Winbright Overseas Investment Limited. Further, AIAC and Winbright share a common company director.

Security experts said Virgin Australia’s blanket dubious denials of any involvement with Winbright raised very serious concerns.


Either Virgin Australia was deliberately making dubious claims about who it proposed to create the mega-school with, or it did not know who it was actually entering into business with.


“If Virgin doesn’t even know who it is in business with here, in relation to an Australian registered company, how on earth is it going to have any idea about what HNA Group actually gets up to in China?” one national security expert said.


Those repeat dubious claims came on top of Virgin Australia’s failure to disclose to government in Australia the involvement of major foreign conglomerates in the Tamworth proposal.


When asked how Virgin Australia’s claims to have been “100 per cent transparent” about the mega-school project could be true, given all the secrecy and dubious claims, spokeswoman Libby Armstrong pointed to a formal meeting Virgin Australia held with the NSW Government and Tamworth Regional Council on October 24 last year.


“This meeting involved the department of Premier and Cabinet, the Deputy Premier of NSW and his chief of staff, the Member for Tamworth, the NSW Department of Industry, the Tamworth Regional Council Mayor, and the general manager for Tamworth Regional Council,” Virgin spokeswoman Ms Armstrong said.


“In this meeting, Virgin Australia’s proposed involvement with AIAC was fully disclosed.” However, at the meeting, Virgin Australia failed to disclose that AIAC was actually owned and controlled by HNA Group and Winbright.


In a final argument, Ms Armstrong defended Virgin Australia’s dubious claims of secretive dealings with the two Chinese conglomerates, saying “nothing has been signed” in relation to the Tamworth mega-school proposal.


This is despite Virgin having entered an agreement with Tamworth council last year, publicly announcing the project on October 31, and having lodged a formal application with Foreign Investment Review Board on March 6.

That FIRB application is the final step in the process.


The decision to approve or reject the proposal lies solely with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

———————–

About the author


The author is an investigative journalist. He worked for The Australian newspaper from 2004 to May 16 2019. This article also appears at anthonyklan.com.


Author bio

Investigative journalist specialising in corporate malfeasance and corruption.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-07-16-at-8.07.30-PM-150x150.png]

His investigations into the likes of superannuation, Google Australia, financial planning and Pink Batts have informed government policy and brought reform in Australia.

This is the first in a series of stories which the Murdoch media declined to pursue.

Have a tip-off or story idea? Email anthonyklan@protonmail.com
Anthony.klan@twitter
Mob: 0403 873 899 WhatsApp / Signal / Telegram.

Awards.


Awards:

  • News Corporation Australia journalist of the year, Sir Keith Murdoch Award for Excellence in Journalism, 2010; (finalist) 2018
.

  • Walkley Award for Business Journalism, all media, 2007

  • Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year, (finalist) 2010

  • News Corporation Australia Business Journalist of the Year, 2007; 2011; 2014

  • News Corporation Australia Business Journalist of the Year (highly commended) 2009; (finalist) 2016; (finalist) 2018

  • Citi Journalism Award for Excellence, Personal Finance, 2015

  • Citi Journalism Award for Excellence, Broadcast (finalist) 2016

  • NSW Kennedy Award for Outstanding Investigative Reporting (finalist) 2015

  • NSW Kennedy Award for Outstanding Finance Reporting (finalist) 2015; (finalist) 2016

  • Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) Excellence in Investigative Reporting (finalist) 2016

  • Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) the Scoop Award (finalist) 2016
-

  • Best News Journalist, IT Journalism Awards 2018

Quote:When it comes to tax, it’s Virgin by name and Virgin by nature


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Oh well P2,

very interesting article, makes a change from stories about property development sharks building DFO's next to runways. The way it's going with the Australian selloff, one wonders if Mandarin should be taught as a compulsory language subject in our schools.
Reply

Alphabets led by A4ANZ challenge Airport monopolies -  Rolleyes

Via the A4ANZ: http://www.a4anz.com/documents/A4ANZ_MR-...lition.pdf


Quote:Airport Users Call on Government to Adopt ACCC Recommendations on Monopoly Airports

Retailers, operators of rental cars, commercial passenger vehicles, off-airport car parking, and ride-share drivers, have
joined with major airlines in warning that the Government’s productivity agenda will be held back if they don’t act on
the important issue of monopoly airports.

Leading the call was Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) Chairman, Professor Graeme Samuel AC, who
said today that it was well understood that Australia’s monopoly airports were now the only privatised infrastructure
assets in Australia not appropriately regulated for the protection of consumers.

Professor Samuel, a former Chairman of the ACCC, said, “For decades now, Australian travellers have felt the impact
of monopoly pricing at our airports, and the ACCC has repeatedly said that we have a problem. But while other
sectors have caught up with regulatory regimes that better reflect consumer interests and expectations, the
Productivity Commission (PC) – inexplicably – seems intent on retaining the status quo for airports.”

“In practice, this means inefficient, protracted negotiations, disputes that end up in court, costing millions of dollars,
and creating uncertainty over investment. The system has passed its use-by date; it’s neither efficient nor effective.”
The impact of this is not only felt by the airlines; it follows passengers at every stage of their journey. On-airport
retailers are another group seeking a fairer deal. Russell Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Australian Retailers
Association, said “With current economic conditions and retail spending, it is hardly the time for the government to
endorse the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that permits airports to continue to charge monopoly rents
unchecked. Compared to traditional shopping centres, there is a lack of transparency on lease terms at some airports,
and airport rents are much higher. But there is no scope for negotiation on terms and conditions, and many airport
lease clauses prohibit retailers from speaking out. There needs to be a system to hold the monopolists to account,
just like there is in other sectors.”

The Australian Finance Industry Association (AFIA), who represent rental car operators, also supports sensible,
evidence-based reforms to encourage better negotiations and resolve disputes. AFIA CEO, Helen Gordon said,
“Consumers bear the brunt of high airport charges, with a significant proportion of the cost for a car rental
representing passed-on costs charged by the airports to the operator. While the rental car operators provided the
Productivity Commission with compelling evidence, including the fact that it is more expensive for them to operate at
Australian airports than LAX, Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle, it is unclear how this was taken into account by the
Commission.”

Other ground transport operators have also pointed to the significant imbalance in negotiating power they face when
trying to strike a deal with a monopoly airport operator over landside area access fees. President of the Commercial
Passenger Vehicle Association of Australia, Mr André Baruch, said that the solution to this was not complex nor
unreasonable, and had worked in other sectors. “All we’re asking for is for the same to apply to airports: an open,
transparent and inclusive process.”

Ride Share Drivers Association of Australia’s President Ms Rosalina Kariotakis agreed that the current system does not
support ground transport operators to bargain efficiently or effectively with monopoly airports. “Drivers have simply
been forced to accept airport access fee increases – in some cases over 200% in 4 years – which in turn pushes the
prices up for passengers.”

The off-airport parking operators, who provide alternative options for travellers who don’t want to pay exorbitant airport parking charges, face similar challenges when dealing with the unconstrained market power of airport operators keen to protect their carpark profits, which can be as much as 70% at some airports. Adam Wilson from Andrew’s Airport Parking said that the issues go beyond the fees being charged. “Over time, discussion has become cursory and lacking any genuine consultation; it’s not a negotiation, but a determination. And despite significant and unjustified increases in access fees, the infrastructure and services for off-airport parking remain largely unchanged.”

As the biggest customer of airports, the impact on airlines is not just felt by the domestic carriers. Rejecting the PC’s Draft Report suggestion to simply do more monitoring, the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia’s Executive Director Barry Abrams said, “We fail to see how a revamped airport monitoring report will deliver any useful improvement. It will not change the assignment of commercial accountabilities between the airport operators and international airlines, which underpin the problems in airport services we see today.”

“International airlines can see a large gap between the performance outcomes considered acceptable by the PC and the outcomes they reasonably expect for the prices charged. There is plenty of room for improvement in airport services supporting better outcomes for passengers and airlines; ones which could deliver an estimated $270 million in operating efficiencies over the next 5 years.” Mr Abrams said.

Also expressing concern was the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “It is a fact that the current lighthanded regime of economic regulation is ineffective in protecting the interests of airlines, passengers, and the people and businesses accessing the terminal precinct. With the aviation industry being an important economic contributor, supporting over 700,000 Australian jobs, and contributing $69 billion or 5.5% of the country’s GDP, the Australian Government needs to put in place policies that support the sustainable development of the industry and its contributions to the Australian economy,” said Conrad Clifford, IATA’s Regional Vice President for Asia-Pacific.

These are significant factors in a country as large as Australia. As the Deputy Prime Minister said recently, air travel for millions of Australians is not optional. Regional Aviation Association of Australia Chairman, Jim Davis, said that all parties needed to work to together on the challenging dynamics of the regional aviation sector. “We see many Council-owned regional airports being regarded as a cash-generating unit rather than an essential community transport service. The fact that airports are able to charge airlines for new infrastructure which in many cases is not justified or is planned without consultation, just adds unnecessary cost to travel. It is not fair to regional communities to allow this to continue, yet that is what the PC have proposed.”

A4ANZ CEO, Dr Alison Roberts, said that with the Government keen to stimulate economic growth, levelling the playing field for negotiations between monopoly airports and their customers seeking a fair and reasonable deal, would be a good place to start. “We need a regime that encourages innovation and efficiency and we don’t have that right now; instead we have costly, protracted negotiations, and some airports making super-profits – at nearly 3 times the rate of the banks. All ultimately at the expense of consumers. It’s unconscionable that the PC would expect Government to rubber stamp this system.”

“What is needed – and what has been proposed by the ACCC – isn’t complex. Access to arbitration when negotiations break down should be provided for all airports with monopoly characteristics. This is standard, commercial practice - why should airports be treated differently to other important infrastructure?”

The collective group of airport users are calling on the Government to consider a more appropriate regulatory approach, for the good of Australian consumers and the economy. A4ANZ CEO Dr Roberts said, “Airlines and other airport users have been doing their bit, in a competitive environment, to offer choice to consumers and keep downward pressure on pricing. We have welcomed the Government’s recently stated commitment to do its part to keep aviation costs down, and their drive for greater productivity. Fundamental to achieving these goals, however, is getting the regulatory settings for airports right, and this reform is long overdue.”

Media Enquiries:
Lead contact: A4ANZ Chairman Graeme Samuel on 0408 335 555

Please direct any company-specific media enquiries to the relevant organisation’s media team.

Plus AOPA Oz throw in behind A4ANZ:

Quote:Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia
6 hrs
·


A4ANZ CHAIRMAN PROF GRAEME SAMUEL AC

Appreciated the opportunity today, to discuss general aviation industry concerns regarding privatised airport monopolies with Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) Chairman, Prof Graeme Samuel AC.

AOPA Australia and our GA alliance partners are looking forward to working closely with A4ANZ to strengthen communication and awareness of the negative impacts on general aviation, building a stronger industry alliance and drive for critical change.

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

[Image: 69928874_1640802136050705_56735341202070...e=5DF69365]

Plus very much related AOPA Oz take on Redcliffe Airport leaseholders cause:

Quote:REDCLIFFE AIRPORT COMMUNITY REJECT 400% INCREASES IN LEASEHOLD RATES

Aircraft owners, pilots, aviation business and airport leaseholders have come together to reject unsustainable property leasehold rate increases demanded by Moreton Bay Regional Council airport, that would expose the community to increases of up to 400% and beyond.

[Image: 70342905_1641003849363867_88694447672016...e=5E09D679]

Hmm...luv the yellow shoes -  Big Grin
 
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)