[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-19-07-20-pictur...-of-words/



Ref: GROUP HOPES QUARRY QUESTIONS WILL CRUSH FLIGHT PATH PLANS

Read and absorb the ABC Sunshine Coast 4 October 2019 FB post (link above):

GROUP HOPES QUARRY QUESTIONS WILL CRUSH FLIGHT PATH PLANS

Rocks hitting planes is one of the concerns a Sunshine Coast community group has about planned flight paths.

The Sunshine Coast Council's current flight path proposal means planes will fly over a planned quarry at Yandina Creek.

The land, at 945 North Arm Yandina Creek Road, is owned by Parklands Bluemetal Pty Ltd.

Parklands lodged an initial development application in 2009.

In the same year, MJG Consultants developed flight path concepts.

In October 2011, the Sunshine Coast Council refused the quarry's development application on planning grounds with Parklands appealing the decision shortly after.

In a submission to the Queensland Coordinator-General, Flight Path Forum has detailed a July 2012 meeting between Steve Adams of Leading Edge Aviation Planning Professionals, Sunshine Coast Airport, a business unit of council and Airservices Australia.

In the submission, an email from Mr Adams states it was his opinion "blasting at the location is completely incompatible with aviation activities involving approach and departure of commercial aircraft."

After receiving that advice, council's solicitor added an 'aviation safety issue' to their grounds for DA refusal.

However Flight Path Forum president Cheryl Sykes said council "failed" to disclose the safety risk in its 2014 Environmental Impact Statement.

"It's quite clear when you look at the terms of reference for the environmental impact statement - which the Queensland Coordinator-General puts together - council had an obligation, a requirement to disclose a project that would impact the current project (new runway construction)," said Ms Sykes.

"This clearly impacts that project, council were arguing that in court."

"Council are wearing two hats - they're acting as a developer of a major infrastructure project with the airport.

At the same time they're acting as a regulator of development."

Ms Sykes said a "proper transparent fully accountable review" was needed to investigate the issue.

A spokesperson for Sunshine Coast Council said that:

"Through two legal appeals, the Planning and Environment Court and the Queensland Court of Appeal have determined, based on expert advice on aviation safety issues, that there were no unacceptable safety issues arising from the Quarry if the applicable conditions are in place.

While the Quarry application has been approved by the Courts, the approval does not take effect until the conditions are resolved.

The proposed flight paths have been in the public domain for nearly five years and have been the subject of extensive public information and consultation processes along the way. The proposed Quarry development and the relevant appeals and decisions have been in the public domain for at least eight years."

The spokesperson said CASA had been given "appropriate and full disclosure" of the blasting issues relating to the proposed Quarry and that any pending approvals would be "determined by CASA - not council." - Determined by CASA?? - Yeah right...

Now referring to Greens Senator Larissa Waters QON 229 and 230 (ref: QON from the Greens) :

(QON 229)...CASA has previously advised the public that a quarry site at Yandina Creek had

been subject to a Danger Area application in 2014, but found to pose no threat to

aviation safety at the Sunshine Coast airport. However, documents released under FOI

indicate that no application was ever made or assessed. Following an investigation,

the Queensland Coordinator General asserted in a report that CASA "thinks that the

[Sunshine Coast] airport operations should close during blasting sessions" at the

quarry. Does CASA concede that no Danger Area application was received? Does

CASA intend to take any action to correct the public advice that the quarry had been

assessed and determined not to be a Danger Area? Is it CASA's view that the

Sunshine Coast airport should close during blasting operations at the Yandina Creek
quarry? If not, what was the basis for the Coordinator-General's assertion?...

(QON 230)...CASA has proposed to manage the risks posed by the proximity of the quarry to

flight paths by including a plume symbol on the Visual Terrain Chart, but not to avoid

overflights. When determining mitigation measures, did CASA consider the Regular

Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft operations from only the existing north-south

aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) ?

Was CASA satisfied that the condition regarding the plume symbol was sufficient to

mitigate the risks from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry

being 5 nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to

aircraft at the aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have

any significance when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry?

Given the potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like

blasting, was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area

declaration? If not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal

recommended an exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up

to an altitude of 3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA / OAR? If CASA /

OAR received a copy of the Joint Experts' recommendations, what action was taken

in response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of

blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who

undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no

assessment was made, why not? Does CASA or OAR have any relationship with Mr

Guselli, expert witness for the quarry operator, that could give rise to an actual or

perceived conflict of interest? What consideration has been given to minimising the

risks posed by the quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not
been pursued?...

Hmm...cover-up of a cock-up or pure complacency and lazy ineptitude? - either way with these and other questions, it is not a very good look for the million dollar man Harfwit and the soon to be outgoing Patron Saint of Aviation Safety St Commode to be at the helm of government agencies tasked with mitigating such safety issues as potential fly rock coming up through the cockpit floor and taking out the flying pilot on final approach to Runway 13...       

MTF...P2