[MrPeaBody]

Safety Case?????

Some interesting developments on the DFO investigation. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion over runway 26; but let’s get back to 17/35 for a moment.

The runway is code 3 and 45m wide, so a visit to that 2004 version of the MOS again.



As this photo from 2003 shows; there is a fence encroaching on a full strip width of 300m. Could the fence have not been moved, say a few meters to the east?



Well yes, the fence could be moved…………and it was moved……….40 odd meters west!



But you say there must to have been further impediments to make it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement?

As this photo from 2006 shows there were in fact small shrubs and a building.  Could these not have been taken away? An afternoon with a slab of VB, a chainsaw and a bull dozer would surely have done the trick.



Well yes they could have been taken way…………..and they were…….to make way for a public access road (amongst other things).



So, there is a fence that can be moved and some shrubs and building that can be taken away; so, what is it that makes it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement.

Could it be a series of developments?

And again, from that 2004 MOS:

6.2.18.4          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.


Ah yes; the SAFETY CASE????????????????????

It did seem to be missing from the FOI on the DFO development....just saying!