[Peetwo]

Dots-n-dashes on the tick-a-box NASF implementation - 

Ref: Second the City of Kingston call for a proper inquiry into Federally leased Airports

Referencing the following extract from the Kingston submission:

"..Over the past 12 months the State Government of Victoria, through an Advisory Committee, attempted to
ensure that planning around airports consider the potential safety and amenity impacts on the surrounding communities and that airport operations are protected. The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (MAESSAC) is now trying to determine how the NASF can be implemented into planning schemes in Victoria..."

Doing a Google search for the 'MAESSAC' will lead you to this link: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...-committee

This in turn will lead you to the submissions page: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...ubmissions

Within that link the Kingston Council has 2 submissions but it is to the 1st one to which I want to refer: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/37220/4835

In reference to the MAESSAC submissions I note the Dept made a submission: 

Submission 17 - Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
PDF (1.52 MB)

Besides the usual bureaucratic, weasel-worded, motherhood statements I draw attention to the following:

...In 2019, the NASAG sought public submissions as part of a review of implementation of the
NASF. This review looked at the implementation of the NASF across planning jurisdictions
throughout Australia. Finalisation of a report on the review findings is currently on hold due to an
additional workload arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Submissions to the review are available
to view on the NASF portal
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...n-national-
airports-safeguarding-framework.aspx

Referring to the provided link, I note the following:

..On 21 August 2019, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) agreed to undertake a review of implementation of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF).

The Review is intended to consider implementation of the NASF across jurisdictions; and seeks submissions from all levels of government, industry and community stakeholders.

Finalisation of the NASF Implementation Review and Forward Work Program are currently on hold due to temporary reallocation of resources arising from the current COVID-19 crisis...

 

In referring to the NASF review submissions page I note that AusALPA made a fairly scathing submission addressing many of the falsehoods and deficiencies contained within the NASF...

While CASA has proven to be particularly weak in airspace protection, the reality is that they are weak regulators in all of the safety-related Guideline areas. More often than not, CASA hides behind a lack of legislated authority - but even where they do provide advice, as best as we can tell, it rarely if ever reflects any philosophical strength.

AusALPA considers this weakness to be primarily a function of the constraints placed on CASA by DITCRD, which clings to the legacy of the encroachment on safety matters of the Airports Act 1996 as well as to an apparent over-sensitivity to Constitutional matters related to land use planning despite the aviation safety consequences. Although ICAO does not provide standards for the safety-related Guideline topics, that absence is no impediment to Australia imposing its own standards.

We believe that CASR Part 139 is the natural home for these standards.

Nonetheless, the protection of prescribed airspace needs a complete overhaul. At the moment, the only protection of prescribed airspace is empowered by Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, of which paradoxically Guideline F at paragraph 23 outlines a workaround. That legislation only affects the 22 leased Commonwealth airports and is regulated by DITCRD, not CASA – at all other airports, CASA imposes a duty on the airport operator to prescribe and protect the OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces notwithstanding the lack of authority and power of the airport operator to protect that airspace.

AusALPA has no visibility of the extent to which State, Territory or local governments provide protection of that airspace from encroachment, if at all.

The Opacity of Implementation and Decision-making

AusALPA’s greatest difficulty is that, as the primary users most exposed to the safety risks, we continually need to force our way into the various debates and consultations.

Our greatest disappointment is that DITCRD, CASA and airport operators all actively frustrate scrutiny of compliance with the NASF – a complete failure to act in the public interest and to accept public accountability for actions, decisions and outcomes.

With very few exceptions, airports exist to serve the Australian public and the safety-related standards and processes exist so that we can make their travel as uneventful as possible. None of the safety-related standards and processes exist for the benefit of officers of DITCRD, CASA or the airport operators – AusALPA strongly believes that a total change of mindset is required.

Currently, the only visibility of the application of the NASF that we get is through the MDP process at the leased Commonwealth airports. Only Canberra and Sydney proactively engage with us, otherwise we have to hope that our very limited resources detect the notification of a pdMDP on individual airport websites within the relevant consultation window. We do not believe that such a hit-or-miss system for those major airports is the best that can be done in the interests of aviation safety.

Complicating the MDP issue a little further, the recent Airports Amendment Act 2018 increased the monetary threshold for MDP treatment to $25M, fortunately somewhat less than the $35M proposed. Our view is that environmental and operational risk consequences are not well correlated with project size and complexity and that increasing the threshold only hides more projects from public scrutiny.

AusALPA recently engaged with the Airport Building Controller (ABC) at Essendon in regard to a building that was under construction in close proximity to the runway and which appeared to penetrate the published OLS within even the inappropriately While CASA has proven to be particularly weak in airspace protection, the reality is that they are weak regulators in all of the safety-related Guideline areas. More often than not, CASA hides behind a lack of legislated authority - but even where they do provide advice, as best as we can tell, it rarely if ever reflects any philosophical strength.

AusALPA considers this weakness to be primarily a function of the constraints placed on CASA by DITCRD, which clings to the legacy of the encroachment on safety matters of the Airports Act 1996 as well as to an apparent over-sensitivity to Constitutional matters related to land use planning despite the aviation safety consequences. Although ICAO does not provide standards for the safety-related Guideline topics, that absence is no impediment to Australia imposing its own standards.

We believe that CASR Part 139 is the natural home for these standards.

Nonetheless, the protection of prescribed airspace needs a complete overhaul. At the moment, the only protection of prescribed airspace is empowered by Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, of which paradoxically Guideline F at paragraph 23 outlines a workaround. That legislation only affects the 22 leased Commonwealth airports and is regulated by DITCRD, not CASA – at all other airports, CASA imposes a duty on the airport operator to prescribe and protect the OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces notwithstanding the lack of authority and power of the airport operator to protect that airspace.

AusALPA has no visibility of the extent to which State, Territory or local governments provide protection of that airspace from encroachment, if at all.

The Opacity of Implementation and Decision-making

AusALPA’s greatest difficulty is that, as the primary users most exposed to the safety risks, we continually need to force our way into the various debates and consultations.

Our greatest disappointment is that DITCRD, CASA and airport operators all actively frustrate scrutiny of compliance with the NASF – a complete failure to act in the public interest and to accept public accountability for actions, decisions and outcomes.

With very few exceptions, airports exist to serve the Australian public and the safety-related standards and processes exist so that we can make their travel as uneventful as possible. None of the safety-related standards and processes exist for the benefit of officers of DITCRD, CASA or the airport operators – AusALPA strongly believes that a total change of mindset is required.

Currently, the only visibility of the application of the NASF that we get is through the MDP process at the leased Commonwealth airports. Only Canberra and Sydney proactively engage with us, otherwise we have to hope that our very limited resources detect the notification of a pdMDP on individual airport websites within the relevant consultation window. We do not believe that such a hit-or-miss system for those major airports is the best that can be done in the interests of aviation safety.

Complicating the MDP issue a little further, the recent Airports Amendment Act 2018 increased the monetary threshold for MDP treatment to $25M, fortunately somewhat less than the $35M proposed. Our view is that environmental and operational risk consequences are not well correlated with project size and complexity and that increasing the threshold only hides more projects from public scrutiny.

AusALPA recently engaged with the Airport Building Controller (ABC) at Essendon in regard to a building that was under construction in close proximity to the runway and which appeared to penetrate the published OLS within even the inappropriately significantly different pathways for administrative and judicial review or other forms of dispute resolution. The NASF is silent in this regard.

A Way Forward

To be clear, AusALPA recognises that the economic decisions surrounding airports, i.e. determining the balance between the economic benefits of developments and the detriments to the accessibility, efficiency and capacity of an airport, rest entirely with the relevant jurisdiction within which the airport is situated or which retains legal control. The issues of enforceability and dispute resolution of development approvals would remain consistent with those jurisdictional norms.

However, contrary to current practice, we are proposing that the assessment, mitigation and enforcement of the safety consequences of all relevant developments be ceded by those jurisdictions to CASA as an independent decision-maker.

Consequently, CASA needs to change its model of how airport standards are applied and enforced so as to obviate the gaming of the system so exemplified by the Essendon experience or by the uncontrolled expansion of the thousands of airspace penetrations at Sydney. As a further consequence, DITCRD should seek major amendments to the Airports Act 1996 that change the current subservient and excessively constrained role attributed to CASA and that also clarify the safety considerations that ABCs must undertake in regard to minor developments.

Furthermore, we are proposing that the visibility of developments affecting the safety outcomes at airports is vastly improved in all jurisdictions.

The public interest is best served by accepting that the potential hazard created by a development is on or near an airport not a function of cost but rather the amalgam of the issues set out in the Guidelines. Each jurisdiction should commit to a public register of development proposals that may present a potential hazard to safe airport operations, enhanced by a published list of stakeholders who are alerted to each new relevant development submitted to the jurisdiction for approval.

The rest needs to be read because IMO it is important and highlights the disconnection between the NASAG process (through the NASF) and reality. The NASF concept is a good start but it needs to be embedded in Federal and State legislation so that Local govt and airport operators aren't left to their own devices in interpreting and choosing which parts of the NASF they will comply with to suit their agenda.

Reference Kingston City RRAT submission:

The privatisation of federal airports was meant to do the exact opposite by assisting in bolstering of the aviation industry. It is a now a unique situation where privatised airport leaseholders are able to hold unique and often unregulated monopoly powers which negatively impact the aviation industry and sidestep State and Local planning powers. Developments (non-aviation) can completely disregard existing residential neighbours and provide serious negative amenity outcomes with no checks or balances available. Practical examples are reinforced through Council’s submission to the 2021 preliminary draft masterplan.

The critical role that Moorabbin Airport, as well as other regional and rural airports, cannot be downplayed. They are a vital part of the nation’s transport infrastructure. The ongoing viability of Moorabbin Airport is now being called into question with aviation tenants questioning whether there will be enough space set aside for aviation both now and into the future.

Given the current situation at Moorabbin Airport and the pending (imminent) release of the MAESSAC report and the fact the NASF review was started 2 years ago, wouldn't it be an opportune time to restart the review, asking again for submissions, using the Moorabbin Airport as a test case for the effectiveness (or not) of the NASF?

Finally on the Kingston City call for expanding the GA inquiry looking into Federally leased airports, consideration should be given for the newly minted SSP to be given the task (test case) of reviewing safety risk mitigation procedures (NASF) of airports and their surrounding airspace (OLS PAN-OPs, PSAs, windshear etc.).

MTF...P2 

ps As an interesting parallel aside, I see that the ATSB Essendon DFO approval process investigation was recently updated (5 Nov 2021: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-010/ ) with the estimated date for completion now set for the 1st quarter of 2022??