[Peetwo]

"Fits Within the Template".......Pigs Arse!! Part 3

We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West.

Perhaps it is too far back and the facts too hard to dig up. Maybe a visit to the northern end of Essendon airport can refresh some memories.  

In April 2006 the airstrip is mostly compliant with the exception of some shrubs and a small building. Note the position of the perimeter fence.



In November 2006 a new fence appears along the perimeter road. That's odd; why would you build a fence some 45m inside the airstrip? 45m is just a few metres shy of the wing span of a 767 by the way.



Ah there's the answer; we needed some extra buildings and a covered parking area for all the new cars that don't fit in the Car Yards at the Wirraway Road Precinct.



In 2015 another bloody fence appears, along with some earth works to boot. Can't be anything much you say?



Ah just as one would have anticipated; a public access road to the new Fox Hangar and to the next stage, Hart Precinct. Who would have thought that you could save so much land by putting the road on the air strip....brilliant, gives heaps more room for development!!! Installing a decorative concrete wall along the road is a great touch.... also gives a great place to pile up excavated material.....cheaper than trucking the stuff out!!



I must say I am looking forward to CASA's explanation on all of this.......someone must have approved it.......the Senators responses will be an added treat!  :D

PB

As usual a very well researched but troubling post indeed Mr PB ;)  

Just on this comment: "..We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West..."

Is this the QON to which you are referring?
   

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

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.

If so then the answers to QON 113 & 114 were belatedly added to the Additional Estimates AQON on the 19th May: PDF 59KB

Here was the brief half-arsed, weasel worded AQON: 

Answer:

Under the Airports Act 1996, the Minister must, in deciding whether to approve a Major Development Plan (MDP), have regard to the views of CASA in so far as they relate to safety aspects of the plan. CASA’s advice is limited to matters concerning the safety of aircraft operations.

Consistent with those requirements, the Department consulted CASA on the MDP for Essendon Airport in mid 2004. CASA noted that the Airport is required to comply with the relevant civil aviation regulations.

In relation to Public Safety Zones, please refer to 114.

I think that means CASA have thrown the department and the minister at the time under the bus??

However from the May Budget Estimates I get the feeling that the Senators (with the possible exception of Senator Fawcett) were either not aware; or had not had a chance to disseminate AQONs 113 & 114.

Excerpts from Hansard:

Mr Tiede : In the Essendon sense, there was no Victorian definition of a public safety zone. I applied the Queensland parameters, as a hypothetical, to the Essendon runway and concluded, as I expressed to the Senate last time.

Senator XENOPHON: The question that he asked you—what empirical material you drew on to reach that conclusion that having a public safety zone protected area would not have played a part in the role of the accident at Essendon on February 21—I do not think you have answered that, or have I missed something?

Mr Tiede : Just to be clear, the Queensland legislation specifies a set of parameters for the dimensions of a public safety zone. Those dimensions were applied at the end of the Essendon runway—

Senator XENOPHON: I am sorry, we are at cross purposes. I understand, but I am asking: what is CASA's view? I am not so interested in the Queensland legislation. I want to know what CASA, as the peak air safety regulator in this country, says about public safety zones. Should there be a public safety zone? What distance from the end or an approach to a runway between buildings, and what size of buildings, should there be in the context of ensuring maximum public safety?

Mr Carmody : We were at cross purposes. I think Mr Tiede was responding to the questions in the letter. My colleagues from the department might have a view on public safety zones, but—

Senator XENOPHON: I am asking you as the peak regulatory body...

---

&..

..Senator XENOPHON: I will ask this of you, Mr Carmody. I do not understand this. Has CASA actually got a view as to what buildings, and what height of buildings or structures, should be near an airport?

Mr Carmody : We certainly do. If I may, we are at cross-purposes here in terms of public safety zones at the end of runways versus buildings on and around airports. We have a very specific view on buildings and on penetrations through the obstacle limitation surface of buildings around airports. We have a very clear view and we are involved in that process. But with the debate on the public safety zone, which is routinely at the end of the runway, I think we are actually talking at cross-purposes in terms of the debate at the moment. We are actively involved if you use Essendon as an example, and the buildings that are onsite at Essendon—or any other airport; Canberra airport, for that matter.

Senator XENOPHON: So you do not have a view?

Mr Carmody : We always have a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.

Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede : CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

Senator XENOPHON: Do those obstacle limitation surfaces need to be reviewed in light of the DFO accident?

Mr Tiede : The obstacle limitation surfaces are drawn from some quite detailed ICAO specifications—International Civil Aviation Organization specifications—that are very detailed and very longstanding. We model our regulations on that information. ICAO is in a process of reviewing the OLS. The issue with that, of course, is that any outcomes are some time downstream. CASA participates in that work of ICAO as a member of the working group that is looking at this.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede : These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Mr Carmody : We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...

 
Tied-in-knots -"..So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—..."

But does it Mr Tied-in-knots, does it really?? 

Back to you Mr PB.