[Peetwo]

Dots-n-dashes to the re-writing of the Airport Act and regs?

Excellent catch "K", the Brissy Times article IMO highlights yet again the unusually progressive and forward thinking approach the Dept now has under DPM Barnaby's leadership...

"..The government took the unusual step of establishing the forum, while the official review was already under way, when noise-rattled Brisbane residents complained they lacked faith in the independence of Airservices Australia after it seemingly ignored their concerns for 12 months..."

This refreshing approach is also reflected in the timeliness of the answering of Senate Supplementary Estimates QON  

Subject related AQON examples:

 2. Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum advertisement.pdf

107. AIRSERVICES - Community Engagement operation costs.pdf

109. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review (PIR)- Conflict of interest.pdf

110. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review - Scope.pdf

111. AIRSERVICES - Brisbane Post-Implementation Review - Design principles.pdf

The AQON in reply to the Greens and Labor Senators also highlight how this progressive approach has cleverly countered much of the potential negative political point scoring that the Labor/Greens coalition were trying to develop. 

Next:

EWH catching up on Dept consult on Airports Act etc.

Via the Yaffa:

Government opens Consultation on Airports Regulations

19 Jan 2022
Consultation has opened on six pieces of airport regulation scheduled to sunset in April 2024. Read more

This 'smart politics' IMO is also apparent in the Government's action timeline on the review/reform agenda for the Airport Act and it's relevant regs.

Which brings me back to the review consult and potential submissions: 

"..The Federal Government and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport has been under constant pressure from the general aviation community to review practices around oversight of federally-leased airports to restrain operators from converting airport land into commercial developments at the expense of aviation businesses.

This review is expected to cover many of the areas of concern..."

 With a request from Auntypru for the BRB to consider a possible PAIN_Net submission to the review I thought now might be the time to resurface a AP SBG blog post that ironically was published close to this time 3 years ago in the lead up to the last election: 

“Let sleeping dogs lie — who wants to rouse them?”

Of course this SBG edition was one of a string of SBG posts that examined the many questions and disconnections that came after the September 2018 release of the ATSB final report into the tragic Essendon DFO B200 accident and also the  fast approaching 4 year ATSB investigation into the Essendon DFO building approval process (ie. AO-2018-010).

Which brings me to the following little gem that IMO almost perfectly encapsulates the reason(s) why it is so important that the Airport Act and regulations need to be urgently amended/rewritten...

ESSENDON FIELDS STATEMENT – FINAL ATSB REPORT
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018|IN AIRPORT|BY ESSENDON FIELDS

Essendon Fields Airport today welcomed the release of the final ATSB report into the tragic events on 21 February 2017 which resulted in the deaths of five people.

The release of this final ATSB report is important to help ensure some closure for the widows of the victims both in the United States and Australia and the thoughts and best wishes of everyone at Essendon Fields are always with those families.

The ATSB investigation has confirmed in great detail the circumstances relevant to the events of that day. The report’s finding outlines clear contributing factors to this accident and additional factors that increased the risk of what happened in February 2017. The report provides several strong safety messages relevant for the entire aviation industry.

The significant public interest into the circumstances of this tragedy will ensure the learnings from this report will strengthen the already impressive safety record for the entire aviation industry in Australia. Safety remains the first priority at Essendon Fields at all times.

The final ATSB report makes it clear the operation or conditions at Essendon Fields Airport played no role in this terrible crash.

The report confirms that the presence of the DFO building struck by the aircraft did not increase the severity or the consequences of this accident. This building is not subject to further investigation.

The ATSB is conducting a separate investigation into the approval process of two other buildings at Essendon Fields DFO. We note those buildings were approved by CASA prior to construction. Those two buildings did not contribute to this accident.

Essendon Fields Airport looks forward to the release of the report into the building approval process and will continue to work co-operatively with the ATSB on this investigation. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further on this matter.

Chris Cowan, CEO

 
(WALOB - The part in bold UDB??) 

Hmm..."were approved by CASA prior to construction" - I thought it was the ABC that did that?

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

..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...

Finally let's refer to (the only true Government SME) Senator David Fawcett:

1st nearly 10 years ago:

 

Plus nearly 5 years ago:

Much..much MTF - P2