[Peetwo]

A stitch in time saves - five? nine? ten? twenty?  

Mr Peabody nails it - well done that man...  

(proverb - if you sort out a problem immediately it may save extra work later.)

SBG 02/04/17 - One topic & one topic only


For your interest thorny...

A Little Perspective or a Lot of Stupidity

From the 139 MOS.

“The transitional surface comprises inclined planes that originate at the lower edge from the side of the runway strip (the overall strip), and the side of the approach surface that is below the inner horizontal surface, and finishes where the upper edge is located in the plane of the inner horizontal surface.

The transitional surface slopes upwards and outward at a specified rate and is to be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centreline of the runway.”

My understanding for the Essendon runways is that you project a line at 14.3 degrees at right angles to the runway centreline to an altitude of 45 metres (the inner horizontal surface). This line is labelled as the Transitional Line.

The transitional surface is then the sloping plane between the edge of the air strip and the transitional line. According to the MOS “The transitional surface should be used for building height control.”




So what's happening at the other end.

Continuing on the "V" theme of historical and referring to this week's SBG with the Archerfield overhead and part of Senator Burston's YSBK QON:

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

..b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements
The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.
What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation...

Going back through the substantial PAIN_Net archives I finally stumbled on the Senate Estimates historical reference that the above quotes had pinged in my memory...

Rewind to the 20 October 2014 RRAT Supplementary Estimates Hansard, where Senator Fawcett was questioning the Department's (at the time) Executive Director of the Aviation & Airports Division, Mr Doherty:

Senator FAWCETT:  Mr Doherty, last estimates I asked you about the planning process, particularly as it applied to Archerfield in terms of calculating runway length. You undertook on notice to look at the process, including CASA's approach, which they had taken on notice just the night before. Did you have a look at CASA's response to that question? (reference May Budget Estimates: AAA AQON & CASA AQON)

Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?

Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quite legitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.

Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.

Answer:
In relation to a particular aircraft’s suitability to operate to a particular runway at an aerodrome, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4 is applicable to aeroplanes, not above 5700 kg, conducting regular public transport operations (single-engine aeroplanes only), private operations, aerial work operations (excluding agricultural operations ) and charter operations. The take-off distance required can be determined for a level, short, dry, grass surface with factors of between 1.15 and 1.25 applied to the distance in the Aircraft Flight Manual for certain maximum take-off weights.

However, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. CAO 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.
Determining whether the take-off distance available is adequate to ensure safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command.

---

Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?

Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.

Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately.

Answer:
An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.

CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report “Archerfield Airport Planning Issues” they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length.

Where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. Civil Aviation Order 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.

Mr Doherty : At this stage we have not gone through that issue in detail. I think what is important here is that the runway proposal at Archerfield has not been approved at this stage. While it is indicated as their idea in the master plan, it would need to go through major development proposal to be approved.

Senator FAWCETT:  Can I just cut you off in the interests of time. You have got that in your written answer from last time. In the Manual of Standards, part 139, section 6.2.21, says:

The length of a runway must be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended

Is it a reasonable assumption that at Archerfield that includes the current fleet of aircraft to operate—things like the King Airs, Navajos, Conquests, that operate out of Archerfield?

Mr Doherty : That is the sort of issue that we would explore in more detail at the MDP.

Senator FAWCETT: Can I put to you CASA's position in their answer on notice. When I quizzed them about whether or not they required the airport to use the factoring, which is the operational requirements pilots have to comply with, CASA's response was:

An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.

If you are relying on CASA to give you assurance that the airport has done its calculations properly, and CASA's view is the airport can do whatever they like and the pilot must adapt, how are you going to enforce the intent of MOS 139 that we do not degrade the capability of an airport? Under that current interpretation by CASA, and what has been proposed at the moment at Archerfield, it would degrade the airport for the operators of at least three of the most common light charter twin aircraft.

Mr Doherty : That would be a concern to us if that was the result. I cannot answer you in detail at this stage, except to say that that is the issue that we would look at in the MDP process. From what you say, it sounds like we would need to be very careful about the question that we asked to make sure that we got advice which gave us a proper answer about whether this is likely to impact the traffic and the future traffic at the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  As well as asking CASA, would you also ask the operators for input as to what the impact would be on them with the factors that CASA required them to impose upon their operations.

Mr Doherty : One part of the MDP process is a consultation with stakeholders—and the public, for that matter—in the process, and we would welcome that sort of input from the operators about the effect that a proposal would have on their operations and their aspirations for the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  Can you give any guarantee to this committee that, if that feedback indicated the proposed change would degrade the operational capability of the airport, that approval would not be granted?

Mr Doherty : I can only indicate what I think is the inclination of us as the department who would be providing advice. At the end of the day the decision rests with the minister, and I cannot speculate about the range of issues that might come into play.

Senator FAWCETT:  But would you recommend an MDP be approved if it degraded the operational capability of an airport?

Mr Doherty : I think I have indicated my previous answer that we certainly would be looking to maintain the capacity of the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The risk is to aviation generally because the land is worth more if you put units and factories on it than land aeroplanes on it. The long-term corporate interest of the owner might mean, bugger it, we do not need the planes. We really do need to put some thought into how we are going to protect the long-term future of general aviation. The Bankstown crosswind issue is a really good example—'It just snuck up on us.' Anyhow, we will come to that. Thank you very much. We will move on to Airservices Australia.

    
Or in pictures:

All for the record of course -



MTF...P2