Shovel and bucket please GD.
"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."
Would someone, anyone, please explain how reducing the operational length of a runway improves ‘safety’. Someone wants to build a DFO on a low rent location i.e. at the airport; fine. But to build it up to a razor thin boundary line, within a ‘flight path’ zone is corporately irresponsible. Both the owners and the airport operators in the litigation cross hairs. Artificially shortening the effective, operational length of a runway achieves nothing. The King Air was airborne well within the artificial constraints of runway length; but it finished its journey well within the discarded safety buffer zone limitations. The aerial shot show the building is right up against the fence which defines the ‘minimum’ (repeat) ‘minimum’ mandated splay boundaries. It may well be legal, indeed it probably is. It may well have brought some small benefit to the airport operators, indeed it probably did; but what a price in human life to pay for a few more square feet of rentable floor space. Legal OK, but sensible? No way.
Chris Cowan, the chief executive of Essendon Airport, said yesterday the preliminary investig-ation showed “much of the speculation to date has been wrong and has not been appropriate, especially to the victims’ grieving families”.
How ducking ‘cynical’ and manipulative can you get? There is no bloody speculation, that aircraft hit the building; someone built it, someone approved that building; someone persuaded the CASA to approve a reduction in operational runway length; someone placed many lives at risk. It is entirely appropriate that the grieving families be made aware of the avenues for seeking compensation from those who profited by seriously reducing the safety margins at the airport. If for no other reason than to prevent fools encroaching on aerodrome land and safe areas without due consideration for the safety of the public and the aircraft, passengers and crew. Not only is it fool hardy, it is wrong.
“Tragically this accident could have happened at any airport in the world,” he said. “It’s a reality of modern society that airports operate in proximity to urban environments.”
No it could not: sensible countries have sensible rules; any legal counsel worth his exorbitant fees would kick a hole in that spurious argument before you could say aircraft impinge on my car park. What a shameless bunch of twats without conscience or integrity this ‘pro development’ crowd are. To have this accident happen then start shifting the blame around to avoid litigation is beyond description.
Cranky? Who, me? Nah; you ain’t seen nothing yet, just warming up the boilers.
Toot- toot.
"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."
Would someone, anyone, please explain how reducing the operational length of a runway improves ‘safety’. Someone wants to build a DFO on a low rent location i.e. at the airport; fine. But to build it up to a razor thin boundary line, within a ‘flight path’ zone is corporately irresponsible. Both the owners and the airport operators in the litigation cross hairs. Artificially shortening the effective, operational length of a runway achieves nothing. The King Air was airborne well within the artificial constraints of runway length; but it finished its journey well within the discarded safety buffer zone limitations. The aerial shot show the building is right up against the fence which defines the ‘minimum’ (repeat) ‘minimum’ mandated splay boundaries. It may well be legal, indeed it probably is. It may well have brought some small benefit to the airport operators, indeed it probably did; but what a price in human life to pay for a few more square feet of rentable floor space. Legal OK, but sensible? No way.
Chris Cowan, the chief executive of Essendon Airport, said yesterday the preliminary investig-ation showed “much of the speculation to date has been wrong and has not been appropriate, especially to the victims’ grieving families”.
How ducking ‘cynical’ and manipulative can you get? There is no bloody speculation, that aircraft hit the building; someone built it, someone approved that building; someone persuaded the CASA to approve a reduction in operational runway length; someone placed many lives at risk. It is entirely appropriate that the grieving families be made aware of the avenues for seeking compensation from those who profited by seriously reducing the safety margins at the airport. If for no other reason than to prevent fools encroaching on aerodrome land and safe areas without due consideration for the safety of the public and the aircraft, passengers and crew. Not only is it fool hardy, it is wrong.
“Tragically this accident could have happened at any airport in the world,” he said. “It’s a reality of modern society that airports operate in proximity to urban environments.”
No it could not: sensible countries have sensible rules; any legal counsel worth his exorbitant fees would kick a hole in that spurious argument before you could say aircraft impinge on my car park. What a shameless bunch of twats without conscience or integrity this ‘pro development’ crowd are. To have this accident happen then start shifting the blame around to avoid litigation is beyond description.
Cranky? Who, me? Nah; you ain’t seen nothing yet, just warming up the boilers.
Toot- toot.