[Peetwo]

AIPA on non-aviation Airport development etc..etc

Via the DK thread:

AIPA Green Paper submission: AIOS endemic under YSCB BUBBLE?? - 



Via AIPA:

AIPA’s Submission to Aviation Green Paper – Towards 2050

November 2023

AIPA has submitted a response to the Aviation Green Paper, expressing support for green goals while emphasizing the economic and connectivity role of aviation. AIPA calls for a comprehensive National Policy and a purposeful White Paper to benefit the aviation sector. Key areas addressed include safeguarding regional airports, balancing environmental goals, disappointment in noise-centric planning, advocating for general aviation support, addressing safety concerns in emerging technologies, and calling for regulatory transparency and agency fitness checks. The submission also emphasizes addressing workforce shortages, supporting Australia's global aviation leadership, and expressing concerns about the international airport designation process. AIPA remains committed to these priorities for the upcoming White Paper.

Click HERE to read the detailed submission.

From page 4:

3. Airport Development Planning Processes and Noise

It is disappointing that this theme is couched in terms of noise management. AIPA recognises the political sensitivity of noise generally, and have consistently communicated our position that pilots are minimising both the emissions and noise footprint of the aircraft we fly within the capabilities of the technology.

Importantly, there are safety considerations that limit our attempts to maximise efficiency. Flight path management is constrained by the need to avoid excessive tailwinds or crosswinds or manoeuvres that compromise handling and performance margins.

Whilst recognising the amenity of a peaceful lifestyle, our immediate and most compelling duty of care is to our passengers, followed closely by that to people on the ground under the immediate flight path of the aircraft.

Noise is but one obvious element to be considered in airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms. It is very difficult to avoid concluding that emphasising noise is just another way for DITRDCA to divert attention from the comprehensive failures inherent in both the legislation and the implementation of the framework by DITRDCA, aided and abetted by CASA.

AIPA believes that the proposed theme should be amended by removing the words “airport development”
so that it now encompasses all facets of aviation system planning to embrace noise considerations.

The new theme would be “planning processes and consultation mechanisms that consider the impact and changing nature of aircraft noise and related expectations on the role of noise sharing and curfew arrangements”.

An additional theme of “how to improve the development and safeguarding of Australia’s aviation infrastructure” would then allow the examination of airport development planning, airport and airspace safeguarding and Commonwealth airport lease management free of the politics of noise.

It is useful to re-examine some legislative history in support of those proposed changes.

The Airports Amendment Act 2010

The Airports Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 September 2010 and was passed by the House on 25 October 2010. The purpose of the Bill was to bring into effect the legislative reforms announced in the 2009 White Paper, to improve the regulatory framework in relation to planning. The Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an Inquiry into the Bill and published its report in November 2010.

The Committee report records the laudable aims of the amendments that were, in large measure, to ensure that the leased Commonwealth airports retained their primary purpose as airports, that “incompatible” developments would be controlled and that consultation mechanisms would be improved by creating a more transparent regulatory framework that balances the interests of communities with the need for ongoing infrastructure investment on airport land. The Bill was enacted and received assent on 17 December 2010.

The Airports Amendment Act 2018

The Airports Amendment Bill 2016 was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (committee) for inquiry on 9 February 2017. The purpose of the Bill was to amend several administrative arrangements relating to MPs and MDPs, to offer 'more flexible, proportionate' and efficient regulatory responses. The Bill proposed to extend the Master Plan cycle and to increase the monetary threshold for Master Development Plans (MDPs) from $20M to $35M. The Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an Inquiry into the Bill and published its report in March 2018.

AIPA unsuccessfully called for a provision requiring an MDP to properly consider developments 'likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport' and that may 'compromise the efficient operation of airports'. Such a provision would require operational risks to be assessed, regardless of development costs. In any event, the monetary trigger for MDPs was subsequently amended to $25M. The Bill was enacted and received assent on 21 September 2018.

The Senate Committee report also included a relevant comment on the Essendon DFO accident:

4.45 The recently announced ATSB investigation into the building approval process for buildings around Essendon Airport, resulting from the Essendon crash, will play an important role in progressing discussions about aviation safety in relation to urban development. As previously noted, the findings of this investigation should be carefully considered in the context of legislative changes to airport planning laws.
4.46 The committee hopes that the important work of NASAG goes some way to addressing the concerns of stakeholders about building and structures near runways, and the impact these have on safe aircraft operation.
4.47 It appears to the committee that the encroachment of developments, be they residential or commercial, on and near airport land presents significant safety concerns. It is essential that safety in and around airports is given proper consideration at all times, without being overridden by commercial pressures.
4.48 The committee is of the view that a holistic approach should be taken to airport planning, and this should be reflected in the MP process. It should be incumbent on all airport lessees, developers and planners to do more than the bare minimum to adhere to airport planning legislation and frameworks, in order to give proper consideration to broader safety considerations.

Where are we now?

In relation to the ATSB investigation into the building approval process at Essendon2, AIPA understands that the final report has been significantly delayed during the Directly Involved Parties (DIP) process by DITRDCA and CASA and that the investigation is no longer supported by the Chief Commissioner.

The first draft report was provided to DIPs in the last quarter of 2019, yet the anticipated completion date is this quarter of 2023. Although we had great expectations that the ATSB would provide valuable insight into the planning controls on Commonwealth leased airports, that is no longer the case.

Protection of the airspace at Essendon has been an abject failure. In our view, the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) have been manipulated by the Airport Lease Company (ALC) to promote non-aviation development, watched by a profoundly powerless CASA and accepted by a disinterested DITRDCA. The approval of the iFly building revealed that NASF Guideline B studies were not required by the Airport Building Controller, DITRDCA or CASA despite what we estimated was a penetration of the OLS by several metres and its immediate proximity to the runway.

At Moorabbin, we have the general aviation industry being squeezed out by non-aviation-related activities as well as the creation of building-induced turbulence on the runways. Perhaps more stunningly, after having the proposed Master Plan rejected by the Minister, the ALC refuses to further engage with stakeholders on the revised plan, apparently with the support of DITRDCA. In our strong view, nothing could be further from the aims of the Airports Amendment Act 2010 – instead of transparency, we now have secrecy and obfuscation writ large.

In Sydney, continuing concerns about turbulence from the activities in Port Botany has revealed that under the definition of a “controlled activity” in s182 of the Airports Act 1996 ships that sail into Hayes Dock are excluded from the ambit of S182(1)© because they are not “attached to, or in physical contact with, the ground” and, moreover, if a transiting ship penetrates prescribed airspace before docking, the act of mooring the vessel cannot change the nature of the existing penetration into a “controlled activity”.

Apparently DITRDCA might consider whether ships are really obstacles when the current regulations sunset in 2024. That fact that both CASA and DITRDCA have known for the last three years that the very physical obstruction of the Queen Mary parked at the end of the north-south runways is legally invisible yet there has been no action by either agency on safety or any other grounds beggar’s belief. It is emblematic of the systemic failure of airport and airspace safeguarding since 2009.

What do we need to do?

AIPA believes that the problems endemic in airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms require an independent expert inquiry to examine the legislative and cultural failures and to reset the way forward.
In any event, airport and airspace safeguarding should not be left to guidelines that have no force of law in any jurisdiction and, even when there is some degree of legislative power, enforcement should not be left in the hands of the institutionally timid DITRDCA.

The proposed changes to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) as detailed in the ICAO State Letter are due to come into effect in November 2028. These surfaces include an Obstacle Free Surface (OFS) and an Obstacle Evaluation Surface (OES). The OFS is based on rigorous statistical analysis and rationale which is “justifiable and defendable”. The OFS will be steeper, narrower and shorter in length allowing more airspace to be used for development. The stated aim, however, is that:

Obstacle Free Surfaces (OFS) shall not be penetrated, except for special considerations for existing terrain and obstacles – (approach, transitional and balked landing surfaces are to be categorised as OFS).

Airspace Protection exists only in name and is limited to Federal Leased Airports. The NASF needs to be legislated in every State and Territory (as was the undertaking) rather than relying on them as Guidelines, which has not worked in practice. Proper zoning needs to be enforced to prevent residential properties being built close to airports or under known or future flight paths. Finally, a better mechanism needs to be established to prevent permanent penetrations of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. The new ICAO OLS Standards and Recommended Practices are scheduled to be implemented in 2028. Without a “Head of Power”, such as the Part 77 (used in the US and NZ), abuses of the system will continue and with the reduced OLS dimensions, the situation will be worse than today.

The aforementioned “special considerations” are existing terrain and obstacles, the latter to be considered after an aeronautical study which may result in their removal or the requirement for (additional) mitigation. New obstacles should not be allowed. This new surface, however, will be meaningless, without a “Head of Power” to enforce it, such as the Part 77- SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE, as exists in the USA and New Zealand. Without this, the new OFS will have reduced the airspace for aviation without protecting it and there will continue to be frequent penetrations of the OLS being approved, as is presently the case.

ICAO proposed a “standardised” OES but provides the flexibility for airports to tailor it to their operations. An aeronautical study will be triggered if the OES is penetrated and, although the criteria is laid out in the PANS-Aerodrome, there are no “rules” on who will perform this study and who will be the arbiter. Without strict oversight, these “performance-based regulations” will enable abuses and further encroachment into the so-called protected airspace.

The onus should be on the proponent to provide the safety case, whilst the overriding priorities must remain the safety and regularity of flight.

The White Paper needs to commit to a complete overhaul of the management and safeguarding of vital Commonwealth assets.

Hmm...I wonder if AIPA could provide/have provided a briefing for the Shadow Minister Senator McKenzie?

153. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber153

Question
1. Chapter 7 of the ATSB report titled ''Aerodrome design standards and the Bulla Road Precinct development at Essendon Fields Airport'' notes that there was no regulatory assurance framework between CASA and Airservices to the Department of Infrastructure prior to 2019.

Will the Department be conducting an audit on all structures constructed prior to 2019, on federal aviation land, to ensure compliance with the current safety standards, as these structures were approved prior to the safety assurance framework being implemented?

2. If this has been undertaken, what evidence does the Department of Infrastructure have on the results?

154. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber154

Question
Under the Airports Act, the Department of Infrastructure are meant to ensure all airport master plans and major development plans comply with the relevant state or territories planning scheme.
How did the Minister confirm the veracity of what is contained in the master plan or major development plan and that it complies with the relevant planning schemes?

155. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber155

Question
1. Under the Airports Act, any construction totalling greater than $25M requires a major development plan. Note that Airports Act stipulates that any projects constructed concurrently and consecutively should be aggregated to the $25M.

Did the clearing of the aviation land, construction of these three buildings and the road cost more than $25M? If it is considered to be under $25M, how was this assessed?

2. Was an exemption sought from the major development plan process?

3. Was an exemption approved from the major development plan process?

156. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber156

Question
Given the department's previous concerns from the 2015 Master Plan at Moorabbin, in looking at other similar training airports around the country, has the development of the non-aviation sector at Moorabbin overshadowed aviation development to the expense of General Aviation?

157. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber157

Question

1. Is the Department of Infrastructure aware that despite government policy that no tenant was to be evicted during the COVID pandemic, Moorabbin Airport Corporation was evicting tenants during this time under these lease arrangements?
2. If the Minister will not meet with the Airport tenants, would the Department be willing to meet with them and to explain the reasons why the Masterplan was approved?

MTF...P2