[Peetwo]

M&M lesson on how to obfuscate the QON -  

Previous reference:

FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout -

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

Senator Sterle wrote the following QON addressed to the Department's Western Sydney (Airport) Unit :

158
000324
WSU
STERLE
FLIGHT PATH DESIGN FOR WSA

Part B, Chapter 7 of the Western Sydney Airport EIS states the following:

"The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be responsible for delivering the flight path design for the proposed Western Sydney Airport, working in close collaboration with Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The proposed airspace design arrangements will be formally referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). CASA would ultimately approve the proposed airspace management arrangements, including the authorisation of final flight paths, before the commencement of operations.”

Question: What steps has the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development taken to develop:

a. Air Routes
b. Arrival and Departure Procedures
c. Instrument and Visual Approach Procedures for Western Sydney Airport?
d. What involvement has Air Service Australia had in this work?

How does the government intend that these will be developed? What is and will be the involvement of private sector organisations in this and related airspace design?

If this work is being undertaken by private sector organisations, what process has the Department followed for the issue of tenders and selection of contractors and consultants in this respect?

---

159
000325
WSU
STERLE
VIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES FOR BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

---

160
000326
WSU
STERLE
WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES AT BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.
Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

AQON from WSU:

QON_Western_Sydney_Unit.pdf Size: 43.89 KB  Downloads: 0

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

Answer:

1 – 2. The Commonwealth is solely responsible for determining the flight paths for Western Sydney Airport.

The airspace design process will comply with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan. The final airspace design process (including flight paths and operating procedures) will be determined through the process presented in the Airport Plan.

The Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA) has been established to enable the views of the community, industry, local government and other stakeholders to be heard and taken into account in the planning and development of Western Sydney Airport. Bankstown Airport Ltd, operating as Sydney Metro Airports, is represented on FOWSA by its Chief Executive Officer. FOWSA will be consulted on the airspace and flight path design process for the airport among other matters. As part of the airspace design process, the Department will also consult directly with aerodrome operators and airspace users about their current and future airspace needs and the airspace requirements for Western Sydney Airport.

---

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport
Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.

Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

Answer:

The airspace design process will be conducted in accordance with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan, which among other things requires the Commonwealth to consult with stakeholders including the aviation industry and other airspace users. The final airspace design process (including flight paths, height of aircraft operations and
potential noise exposure levels) will be determined through the processes set out in the Airport Plan.

Not sure where that leaves AOPA Oz but I can certainly recognise the word weasel deflection - God help the GA industry because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that our WOFTAM NFI miniscule never will...


MTF...P2