[Peetwo]

Tell 'im 'e's dreamin' -  

Index and Answers to Questions on Notice (uploaded when available)

• Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio
  
• Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio
  

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;
i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

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.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017

---

113 - CASA - XENOPHON - ESSENDON DFO APPROVAL

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

115
27/02/2017

---

114 - CASA - O’SULLIVAN(CHAIR) - SAFETY ADVICE

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.

 

Still no sign of the AQON - see HERE - but given the due date has been extended to 26 April and the list of QON has grown with some very sticky questions (like those from Senator Burston above), I guess we can cut M&M and his minions a bit of slack...

However if M&M (& CO) think that means he will quietly O&O his part in the YMEN DFO accident causal chain, "tell him he's dreaming" - The Castle 1997.

NX quote: "...also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here..."

Reference article:

There are no restrictions on how close development can be to airport runways, raising questions about safety after today’s crash at Essendon Airport. Picture Alex Coppel.
Why are there no rules about how close developments can be to airport runways
Claire Bickers, National Political Reporter, News Corp Australia Network
February 21, 2017 6:41pm

AUSTRALIA currently has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways.

Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, Australia has no State or Commonwealth legislation that restricts development based on the risk of an aircraft crash.

Master plans for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports for the next 20 years do not contain public safety zones (PSZ).

A National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group has signalled that it will consider creating guidelines for the zones but as yet none have been published.

Essendon Airport has one of the closest off-airport developments of any airport in Australia. Picture: David Caird

PSZs would restrict building within a certain distance from the takeoff and landing end of a runway, with calculations based on the statistical chance of a fatal crash at the particular location.

Essendon Airport, where five people were tragically killed today when a charter plane crashed into a nearby Direct Factory Outlet, has the one of the closest off-airport developments of any airport in Australia.

The DFO complex is within 500m of the runway.

A policeman photographs a plane wheel on the freeway. Picture: AFP

Moorabbin Airport in Victoria also has a DFO and an indoor children's’ play centre within about 500m of the runway, Bankstown in NSW has a Bunnings within about 500m of the runway, and Adelaide Airport has a Harbour Town within 500m of the runway.

The masterplan for Sydney Airport contains no public safety zones.

According to the Sydney masterplan for development to 2033: “no legislation or guidelines exist at a federal or state level governing permissible land uses with respect to aircraft crash risk.”

Perth airport’s masterplan contains a similar reference.

“An aircraft crash is an extremely rare event,” the Perth plan states.

[b]RELATED: Australia’s aviation history littered with tragedies
[/b]
“There is currently no legislation or guidelines at a Commonwealth or State level governing permissible land use taking into account the risk of aircraft crash.

“Off-airport land use zoning falls within the jurisdiction of the state government.”

Adelaide airport’s masterplan notes that the South Australian Government is considering the inclusion of suitable PSZs at the end of runways to “limit development to landscaped buffers or other development that does not generate large numbers of people gathering in one place”.

A gaping burnt out hole remains in the side of the DFO complex at Essendon Airport after a charter plane crashed just after take off. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

Meanwhile, more than 30 of the UK’s 125 licensed airports have public safety zones.

PSZs at Heathrow, the world’s sixth busiest airport, extend from between 489m to 1412m depending on the runway and are reviewed every seven years to remain in line with the level of traffic.

An aerial photograph of Bankstown Airport. There’s a Bunnings Warehouse just 500 metres from the runway. Picture: Kelly Rohan

The National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group established a National Airports Safeguarding Framework for Australia in 2012 but it has yet to include guidelines for public safety zones.

To date, the framework covers:
— measures for managing aircraft noise
— the risk of building generated windshear and turbulence at airports
— the risk of wildlife strikes in the vicinity of airports
— the risk of wind turbine farms as physical obstacles to air navigation
— the risk of distractions to pilots from lighting in the vicinity of airports
— the risk of intrusions into the protected operational airspace of airports
— and the protection of Communications, Navigation and Surveillance infrastructure.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has been contacted for comment.

"..Master plans for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports for the next 20 years do not contain public safety zones (PSZ).

A National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group has signalled that it will consider creating guidelines for the zones but as yet none have been published..."

Ah yes the NASAG, a thought bubble with good intentions, birthed by Albo & the Rudd government in their 'Great White Elephant' aviation paper. Unfortunately, like a lot of thought bubbles designed to 'close the loop' on identified dormant but serious safety issues, they invariably get lost in the self-serving bureaucratic process.

To highlight this normalised deficiency in bureaucratic process, the following Senate Hansard extract from Senator Fawcett nearly 2 years ago, in a 2nd reading debate on a previous Airport Amendments bill:

...It is that long-term planning that I would like to turn to now.


I give credit to the former government for their aviation green paper and the white paper and the NASAG process that came out of that, which is the safeguarding of our airports process. It is the whole idea of trying to get co-operation between the federal government, state governments and local governments around planning permissions to safeguard airports. I am a little disappointed that it seems to have plateaued and the hard work of taking the policy concept and implementing it appears to have stalled. That may not all be the federal government's fault. It takes cooperation from states and local governments as well to make those things happen. We are seeing a lot of discussion with the Federation white paper and the COAG processes. I think both sides of politics suffer the frustration of our three levels of government and sometimes not being able to drive very good common sense ideas through. But can I say that NASAG and the process of protecting our airports and the airspace that goes with them are things that we do need in the national interest to get some alignment between the federal government, of whichever political persuasion, and the state and local governments. Why? Because it is important to our economy and it is important to lots of social functions—things like banking, mail services and medical services. Where we do not protect airports and the airspace, we will see a degradation in the ability of the aviation industry to service Australia in the manner in which we have become accustomed. The reason it is important for this process to be in place is that I frequently come across people at both local and state government levels who are interested in developing their communities, and I fully understand and appreciate that. Whether it is housing close to airports or large high-rise buildings in a capital city that infringe into the airspace,—the PANS-OPS criteria—those things have a direct impact on the viability of airlines to carry the kind of loads they look at.

In South Australia, for example, there was a great deal of contention a year or so back when people looked at the height of the city buildings and complained about what they called the archaic regulations that stopped us having even higher buildings. There was quite some discussion in the media about that and a bit of a head of steam developing in that these were really archaic rules, we should change them and we should have higher buildings. People did not realise that the height limits were actually related to operations out of the airport. If you were taking off from Adelaide Airport on the north-easterly runway and were flying on a cloudy day with a low-cloud base or by night and you had an engine failure in a large transport aircraft with passengers or cargo, then the airspace has to allow for the worst-case in terms of your performance and your climb configuration for you to control the emergency and then return the aircraft to the airfield. If you build higher buildings, then the aircraft has to be able to out-climb the worst-case, which is an intersection with that building. This means that the operators are constrained to carrying less fuel, which means that they go a shorter distance, or they have to off-load passengers or cargo. Eventually, you start constraining the operations to the point where airlines are not prepared to actually service that centre.

The long-term planning that NASAG envisaged is something that is really important for us to get into place. We have seen some benefits with Western Sydney in how the site was originally identified as early as 1969. As a result, the Australian government acquired a site of approximately 1,700 acres over the next decade or so. Land that has been reserved is now having very tangible inputs. For example, around noise and curfew, the fact that those long-term planning restrictions have been associated with that land has largely protected it from incompatible residential development. That means that the typical noise footprint for aircraft does not affect the same number of people it would if unencumbered building had been allowed in those areas. It is going to affect only around 3,900 residents, whereas a similar noise footprint at Kingsford Smith affects nearly 130,000 residents.

Technology for aircraft is getting better, particularly with precision vertical navigation options. Australia is now one of the greatest users, particularly at Kingsford Smith airport. That and new generation aircraft with high-bypass ratio engines, with a low-noise signature, means that we can get higher volumes of traffic into airports. The point I am trying to make here is that long-term planning that allowed us to set aside that land is now going to have a very tangible benefit. That means Western Sydney Airport will be capable of having 24-hour operations. It will not necessarily have to have a curfew. The planning, combined with advancing technology, gives great capability which will benefit our economy and the number of jobs that can grow at Western Sydney Airport.

As we look at these kinds of developments and the threats enveloping other airports—and in your own state, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you would have seen media recently about Perth Airport and concerns about residential development—there are great concerns around incompatible development. Certainly, there are great concerns as I look at places like Archerfield, Bankstown and Jandakot in Western Australia. I just want to lay out, again, for both sides of politics that, for all levels of government, whether we do it through the Reform of the federation white paper or through the COAG process, we need to get on top of the NASAG concepts. I would argue that we even need to extend it to include what the Queensland government has, which are areas set aside in the approach and take-off paths of runway which allow for the fact that many secondary airports service single-engine aircraft with trainees. There is a danger that, if you have a failure, then, obviously, aircraft can come down in the area. Queensland has done a very good job of quarantining, if you like, a splay at the end of a runway. That is something we should be looking at more on a national basis.

So it is an important process, and I would certainly encourage state and local government associations to look at how they can work constructively with the federal government and realise that this is not just about a loss of rates they may suffer if they cannot build a particular subdivision of housing right next to an airport. If they look at the broader impact, the direct jobs associated with an airport and, also, what the airport enables in terms of tourism, in terms of business travel and, particularly, in terms of export for so many of our small- to medium-sized businesses, the economic impact on the state of having a reduced capability in that airport would be extreme. We really do need to take a long-term view around the issues of airport planning.

 
Or if you prefer (2 segments) in pictures...

MTF...P2