[Peetwo]

Dots-n-dashes on the road to Popinjay's DFO cover-up report??? - 

Still trying to get my head around the level of bureaucratic obfuscation and arse-covering (including miniscule rump) deployed by those responsible for the administration, oversight and safety risk mitigation of our aviation industries...  

In the case of the Essendon Fields, airport aviation safety risk mitigation (highlighted by the still standing DFO complex) has taken a serious backward step in preference for non-aviation development illegally encroaching on the internationally accepted standards (IE ICAO Annex 14 Vol 1) for airports able to accommodate the safe operations of international and domestic bizjet arrivals and departures. 

IMO this whole cover-up charade was clearly highlighted by (the combined pilot union) AusALPA back in September 2020:

AusALPA believes that deep and latent safety problems exist in the system of airports regulation where aviation safety considerations are made secondary to development objectives. AusALPA asserts that the regulatory system is flawed due to an inappropriate bias that mandates that development proposals or airspace penetrations must be granted unless almost impossible to achieve risk thresholds are breached.

AusALPA hopes that the final report also addresses other related matters that have occurred at Essendon since the commencement of this investigation, AusALPA calls for the establishment of a high level Government Review to address the safety and economic regulation issues of Australia’s airports with an aim to genuinely reform airspace protection and other operational safeguards at Australia’s airports.

        
Obviously the AusALPA calls for a 'high level Government Review' fell on very deaf and dumb (under the bubble) bureaucratic ears because all we got in response to the HVH splintered off AI-2018-010 investigation was this from the duck-up fairies in the Department of everything (including transport):

The Department acknowledges the views of CASA were not included in the Bulla Road Precinct MDP submitted to the Minister for consideration in 2004. However, the Department’s method of mitigating risk from not receiving the CASA advice within the statutory timeframe was to recommend a condition be imposed on the development. This condition required Essendon Airport Pty Ltd ‘to consult with CASA during the construction of the proposed development and comply with any safety requirements specified by that agency’.

The Department’s MDP process now includes an arrangement with CASA and Airservices for seeking advice on safety in accordance with the requirements under the Act. A specific format for receiving these views in the assessment of MDPs is not prescribed in the Act. This ensures advice from CASA and Airservices is in a format that is flexible and fit for purpose.

The Department has received confirmation from CASA and Airservices of their ongoing commitment to provide safety and operational advice on Master Plans and MDPs. The Department will continue to work closely with CASA and Airservices to ensure the existing approach remains fit for purpose.

 And this from Su_Spence, as a DIP to the investigation, less than a year ago:

On 8 November 2022, in response to a draft of this report, CASA emphasised they now consider that the non-compliance notice was incorrectly issued in 2014. CASA said it should have been issued as an administrative non-compliance to EAPL for not having documented information in the aerodrome manual about the standards the runway strip and OLS complied with.

So less than a year ago (under the now Albo Govt and his aviation la'King miniscule) CASA suddenly decides to backtrack on their previously issued (8 years before) NCN to EAPL. The disconnections within both the Department statement (safety issue) and the CASA 'emphasised' statement above is quite remarkable and hard to reconcile given that in all this time the ICAO standard dimensions (RWS width, approach transitional slope etc..etc) for a grade 4 precision approach runway has not changed in I believe at least 70 years. Quote from ICAO Annex 14 1st edition:    

1.2.3 Width.

1.2.3.1 RECOMMENDATION. - Instrument runways. The strip including an instrument runway should extend to a distance of at least 150 metres (500 feet) on each side of the centre line of the runway throughout the length of the strip.

For quick reference and to keep all the to and fro bureaucratic obfuscation and arse-covering in perspective here is the ATSB produced report timeline:



  Quote: "1970- 1971 Domestic regular public transport and international flights transferred from Essendon to Tullamarine (Melbourne Airport). The runway 08/26 strip width was reduced from 300 m to 180 m..."  

To put the above in context the period between 1971 to 1996 the oversight and regulation of airports switched between DCA, the Department of Transport and then to the start of the Airport privatisation policy of the Hawke Government with the formation of the FAC in 1988. This meant that for the better part of 30 years, despite RW26 being reduced to a RWS width of 180m, any non-aviation building development proposals, that could possibly intrude on any ICAO Annex 14 OLS requirements for any of the Essendon Airport runways, would have to have been approved by the applicable regulator at the time. Perhaps this was the reason that the reduction in the RW 26 strip width was tolerated or simply forgotten about?? 

Next POI on the timeline - quote: "2001 The inner edge of the runway 26 approach surface (part of the obstacle limitation surfaces) was changed from 180 m to 300 m..."

Perhaps with the transition of the Federally owned airports to privitisation, alarm bells suddenly rang for some in the aviation bureaucracy that the EAPL airport leasees might exploit the obvious legal weaknesses of the Airports Act 1996 to fuel their greater ambitions for a lucrative urban development carve up, starting with the Annex 14 illegal RW26 reduced runway strip width?? Therefore by increasing the runway 26 approach surface to 300m had the same effect for upholding the Annex 14 OLS standards for a precision approach runway. 

Next the proof is definitely in the pudding - quote from timeline:

2003 The EAPL airport master plan was approved, which included a proposal for a retail centre at the Bulla Road Precinct, alongside runway 08/26.

---

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) provided advice to EAPL indicating that the part of the transitional surface (another part of the obstacle limitation surface) alongside the runway 08/26 strip was based on the published 180 m strip width (while the inner edge of the approach surface had to be 300 m for runway 26). This information was used by EAPL in their major development plan for the Bulla Road Precinct.

 
Which as history now shows led to EAPL finally getting Ministerial approval for their masterplan in 2004: "..The major development plan was approved by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The Bulla Road Precinct was located proximate to runway 08/26 to avoid infringing a transitional surface and strip width based on 180 m..."
  
That tick and flick process was what ultimately led to this interpretation and final outcome for the edge of the DFO complex alongside runway 26: 



....  

We then ffwd to the 2012 and 2014 CASA audits with findings and a NCN issued with now EAPL non-compliance with the required runway strip width OLS requirements. 

This ultimately led to CASA issuing a exemption: "..CASA issued instrument 153/15 to EAPL. This required runway 08/26 to have a published strip width of 300 m, and any obstacles that penetrated the obstacle limitation surfaces to be illuminated and notified in the En Route Supplement Australia for pilot/aircraft operator awareness. With the 300 m strip width, the northern portions of buildings from the retail centre infringed the transitional surface and were now considered obstacles.." 

We then go full circle back to the ridiculous Grandfathering clause that EAPL have seemingly interpreted to their ultimate advantage: "..EAPL stated in their aerodrome manual that the runway 08/26 strip width had been grandfathered against the Airport Engineering Instructions (1970). The width was returned to 180 m and the part of the transitional surface alongside the strip was moved inwards with this change. The inner edge of the approach surface for runway 26 remained at 300 m.."

And: CASA accepted the grandfathering and revoked instrument 153/15. With the 180 m strip width, the retail centre no longer infringed the transitional surface. The lighting and notification requirements were subsequently removed. 

The underlined is simply unbelievable, for what it effectively is saying is that pilot(s) conducting an ILS approach (or RNP) in anger have ICAO Annex 14 OLS protection up unto the point of crossing the runway threshold. After that point all bets are off...  



Finally perhaps the following was influential in why EAPL (plus all the Federal powers to be) have seemingly backtracked on their plans to chop and dice YMEN to some kind of GA airpark or (God forbid) mega-vertiport...  

Via Austrade:

Aerospace servicing takes off as Bombardier expands in Australia

June 2021

Business jet manufacturer Bombardier is investing in Australia to grow its aircraft aftermarket support network in the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia’s burgeoning demand for business aircraft convinced the company to invest in a $25 million Maintenance Repair Overhaul (MRO) facility at Victoria’s Essendon Fields airport.

In this case study, Vice President and General Manager for Bombardier’s Parts and Services, Christopher Debergh, discusses how the Melbourne project got off the ground, including:

• why Australia is a good fit for Bombardier and vice versa
  
• how Austrade helped Bombardier to set up faster in Australia than in other countries
  
• the importance of a local partner and a supportive regulatory environment.
  

Debergh says Austrade was instrumental in helping Bombardier set up in Australia.

‘Austrade helped put together the pieces that go into setting up successful operations in another country. We knew exactly where to go, who to talk to, which agencies we needed to align ourselves with, and how the labour market worked.’

Why Australia for aerospace

Australia has been at the forefront of aviation and aerospace innovation for 100 years. This is due to the vast distances between major cities and the transport needs of thousands of remote communities.

‘Australia is a key market for Bombardier, and we’ve got close to 100 Bombardier aircraft here,’ says Debergh. ‘It’s a huge country and there are a fair number of smaller business aircraft already in the air. Our Learjet and Challenger aircraft, for example, are often used as medevac aircraft.

‘Because of its remoteness, you need large aircraft to fly from Australia to other major continents. We’ve got the Global 7500, the largest business jet you can get, which has a range of 7,700 nautical miles (14,260 km). So, from a customer perspective, Australia is a very good, solid base for us.’

A new aerospace centre of excellence for Australia, New Zealand the Pacific

The new 4,700 m2 Melbourne Service Centre is due to commence operations in early 2022. It will provide a major boost for the Australian aviation sector.

The mid-tier site will deliver a number of services to Bombardier aircraft across the region, including scheduled and drop-in maintenance, modifications, avionics installations and ground support. The centre will be able to service two luxury Global 7500 aircraft at the same time.

‘It is also going to be one of our parts distribution depots,’ says Debergh. ‘We have five of these in the world, and this one will be the central depot for Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.’

---

Via ABN:


September 27, 2022
Aviation
Bombardier Expands Worldwide Footprint with Grand Opening of New Service Centre in Australia

• New state-of-the-art facility in Melbourne will further enhance Bombardier’s customer service footprint in Asia-Pacific
  
• Melbourne Service Centre will provide quick and efficient maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) capabilities for all Bombardier business aircraft, including a parts depot and back shop capabilities
  
• An important market for Bombardier, Australia is also part of a comprehensive worldwide aftermarket network expansion
  

Bombardier today announced the grand opening of its new Melbourne Service Centre at Essendon Fields Airport in Melbourne, Australia. The new facility is a testament to Bombardier’s commitment to the Australian market and establishes a key building block in its growing global customer support network. At full capacity, the new OEM-operated Melbourne Service Centre will add 65 aerospace jobs in the community, including more than 48 highly skilled technicians and boost Bombardier’s customer service footprint in Asia-Pacific by some 50,000 square feet.

Australia is a key market for Bombardier with more than 80 aircraft in its Australian business fleet. Bombardier is also the OEM with the largest percentage of deliveries in Australia, representing 31% of the market (47% for medium and large business jets). This new, highly efficient facility will serve as an important gateway to Asia-Pacific, serving as a key focal point for customers in the region and for future growth prospects of the Bombardier fleet.

“The addition of the Melbourne Service Centre is the latest in a series of worldwide infrastructure investments aimed at enhancing Bombardier’s customer service capacity in line with our 2025 plan,” said Éric Martel, President and CEO, Bombardier. “In the past year, we have added close to one million square feet of service capacity in several key locations, solidifying our plan to bring more Bombardier jets home no matter where they operate.”

     
I'd say a pretty good reason for EAPL maintaining RW26 as a precision approach runway (even if internationally illegal)...  

MTF...P2