[Peetwo]

AusALPA explains the importance of maintaining OLS safety standards?? - 

Reference previous post:

"..Essendon Fields Airport director Andrew Nicholls insisted there was no safety issue at the airport. In a letter to airfield users, Mr Nicholls said the change returned the runway to the same width it was from 1972 to 2015.

“This will not reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport,” Mr Nicholls wrote.

“There will be no impact on the landing minimums.”

A [/size]CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields..."

The ignorance or arrogance of the EAPL Airport Director beggars belief. Effectively he is saying that after the inbuilt protections of the RW26 ILS at the minima are passed (or after wheels up on runway 17), OLS safety margins are no longer assured and pilots and their aircraft are on their own.

Safety may not have been reduced but I would argue that the internationally agreed to safety standards certainly have. Remember that the DFO building parapet wall was cynically built to within millimetres of the OLS (ICAO Annex 14/PANOPS defined) transitional slopes for both runway 26/08 and 17/35. Plus it should also be remembered that after EAPL took up CASA's suggestion of Grandfathering RW26 to the 1972 180m runway strip width, that when CASA revoked the legislative exemption 153/15, that EAPL took down the DFO obstruction warning lights...  

Moving onto the question of whether Essendon airport was the test case for how much urban developers could push the dizzy limit for encroaching on (internationally recognised) airport runway and public safety buffers...

...back to Budget Estimates for another Senator Fawcett probing on the lack of oversight and ignorance of the increased safety risk posed by encroachment of non-aviation development at airports:

Via AusALPA 18 July 2018: Accepting Penetrations of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces at Australian Airports









MTF...P2