Fatal attractions.
Thanks Mr. P; CF overruled – Tim Tam awarded instead. But, what a headscratcher this becoming. So many differing points of view – after the fact. One certain fact is that the buildings are there now, which probably opens up a monster can of juicy worms for the legal eagles; the insurance company’s, the corporation’s, the airport’s, the operator’s and the government’s. All of that before the ‘plaintive’ team get into the game. The parcel passing music must long and loud by now, the speed breath-taking.
Someone ‘approved’ those buildings. Should those building be deemed ‘illegal’ and a danger then the ramifications are the stuff of legal nightmare. Somehow, not only at Essendon, this aggressive intrusion into ‘airport’ airspace has been allowed to creep in, unchecked and unbalanced. There’ll be hell to pay if the buildings need to be demolished; mind you, those buildings will have crumbled to dust long before the legal battles are over.
Someone ‘approved’ the rules which allowed those buildings to exist where they are. Someone signed off on the ‘master plan’ for the aerodrome and took a big gamble. What are the chances of aircraft smashing into buildings? Not great, I’ll grant you; however, here we sit looking at the wreckage.
![[Image: 1491813940129.png]](http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/v/8/s/s/7/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvfsb7.png/1491813940129.png)
It is a shame that airport development has been so grossly manipulated and badly managed. Done properly, it is an advantage to aviation; provided some of the profit is reinvested in the airport itself. Makes perfectly good sense to utilize ‘vacant’ space for ‘commercial’ purposes. What does not make sense is putting those facilities in harms way, taking the chance of another accident occurring or even playing the numbers game and hoping an ailing aircraft lands on the roof next door.
Just for the moment, let's set aside ‘operational’ matters and consider the implications of unfettered, aggressive development. As it stands right now, justification for placing a McDonalds ‘taxi-through’ outlet adjacent to a taxiway could happen as the ‘creeping’ inward of development happens. Aircraft being squeezed into ever tighter confines; reduced loads, increased performance risks and the ‘spin’ that the airport is too close to the buildings being accepted as correct.
What then? To whom may aircraft operators address their legitimate concerns? Certainly not CASA, definitely not ATSB and absolutely not to the DoIT. America, Britain and lots of Europe have development about the aerodrome; lots of. But they have rules. You could not; not in a million, build there in the way Essendon is being developed. One chance in ten to the minus three seems like great odds until a King Air fireball lands on the roof and the legal costs far outweigh any saving and the compensation claims outstrip profit. Will the government act to ensure the safety of people shopping within the active precincts of an operational runway? Do not hold your breath; they’ll be scampering about saying ‘not my fault’. It’s a ducking shambles, a dangerous, grubby, cynical shambles.
Sorry Mr. P, I digress; ramble over. P2 and I were having the ‘distraction’ discussion the other day, even Pygmalion got a mention. Inconclusive, was probably the best result. Personally, I can’t see that a structure (obstacle) that close to the runway would ‘distract’. At many airports around the world there are all manner of impediments, both man made and natural; Hong Kong (old) for example, or even Townsville. Rocks and trees and stuff have always been there to be dealt with as best you may. Provided the aircraft is fully functional and reasonable precautions are taken then all should be well. It’s when things are not normal that the wheels tend to come off; and, distraction comes in many forms. Take the Dash 8 crash which occurred because both pilots were fussing about the undercarriage as a classic; many, many similar tales are available for consideration. What are the odds of having a PT6 quit at just the right time, at just the right place, with a building in just the right spot, at just the right height to be lethal. Then consider the chances of a pilot harbouring a deep seated ‘self fulfilling prophesy’ that one day he may hit those buildings. The odds are astronomical; however…
Murphy (not Dan) flies with all of us, ever present.
![[Image: Untitled_Clipping_032917_113634_AM.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Untitled_Clipping_032917_113634_AM.jpg)
Toot toot.
Thanks Mr. P; CF overruled – Tim Tam awarded instead. But, what a headscratcher this becoming. So many differing points of view – after the fact. One certain fact is that the buildings are there now, which probably opens up a monster can of juicy worms for the legal eagles; the insurance company’s, the corporation’s, the airport’s, the operator’s and the government’s. All of that before the ‘plaintive’ team get into the game. The parcel passing music must long and loud by now, the speed breath-taking.
Someone ‘approved’ those buildings. Should those building be deemed ‘illegal’ and a danger then the ramifications are the stuff of legal nightmare. Somehow, not only at Essendon, this aggressive intrusion into ‘airport’ airspace has been allowed to creep in, unchecked and unbalanced. There’ll be hell to pay if the buildings need to be demolished; mind you, those buildings will have crumbled to dust long before the legal battles are over.
Someone ‘approved’ the rules which allowed those buildings to exist where they are. Someone signed off on the ‘master plan’ for the aerodrome and took a big gamble. What are the chances of aircraft smashing into buildings? Not great, I’ll grant you; however, here we sit looking at the wreckage.
It is a shame that airport development has been so grossly manipulated and badly managed. Done properly, it is an advantage to aviation; provided some of the profit is reinvested in the airport itself. Makes perfectly good sense to utilize ‘vacant’ space for ‘commercial’ purposes. What does not make sense is putting those facilities in harms way, taking the chance of another accident occurring or even playing the numbers game and hoping an ailing aircraft lands on the roof next door.
Just for the moment, let's set aside ‘operational’ matters and consider the implications of unfettered, aggressive development. As it stands right now, justification for placing a McDonalds ‘taxi-through’ outlet adjacent to a taxiway could happen as the ‘creeping’ inward of development happens. Aircraft being squeezed into ever tighter confines; reduced loads, increased performance risks and the ‘spin’ that the airport is too close to the buildings being accepted as correct.
What then? To whom may aircraft operators address their legitimate concerns? Certainly not CASA, definitely not ATSB and absolutely not to the DoIT. America, Britain and lots of Europe have development about the aerodrome; lots of. But they have rules. You could not; not in a million, build there in the way Essendon is being developed. One chance in ten to the minus three seems like great odds until a King Air fireball lands on the roof and the legal costs far outweigh any saving and the compensation claims outstrip profit. Will the government act to ensure the safety of people shopping within the active precincts of an operational runway? Do not hold your breath; they’ll be scampering about saying ‘not my fault’. It’s a ducking shambles, a dangerous, grubby, cynical shambles.
Sorry Mr. P, I digress; ramble over. P2 and I were having the ‘distraction’ discussion the other day, even Pygmalion got a mention. Inconclusive, was probably the best result. Personally, I can’t see that a structure (obstacle) that close to the runway would ‘distract’. At many airports around the world there are all manner of impediments, both man made and natural; Hong Kong (old) for example, or even Townsville. Rocks and trees and stuff have always been there to be dealt with as best you may. Provided the aircraft is fully functional and reasonable precautions are taken then all should be well. It’s when things are not normal that the wheels tend to come off; and, distraction comes in many forms. Take the Dash 8 crash which occurred because both pilots were fussing about the undercarriage as a classic; many, many similar tales are available for consideration. What are the odds of having a PT6 quit at just the right time, at just the right place, with a building in just the right spot, at just the right height to be lethal. Then consider the chances of a pilot harbouring a deep seated ‘self fulfilling prophesy’ that one day he may hit those buildings. The odds are astronomical; however…
Murphy (not Dan) flies with all of us, ever present.
Toot toot.