Airports - Buy two, get one free.

C’mon guys, get along and play together. Runways, planes, airports, buildings, turbulence..... WHO CARES! We have NOTAM’s! Miles and miles of letters, numbers, acronyms, symbols and they can be printed out in volumes and carried on the flight deck!! That makes things safe. All good. No worries. Move along please.....
Reply

A Fox in the Dept & miniscule's chookhouse shed? Rolleyes

Reference from above in a short exercise of joining the dots  Wink :

(10-18-2018, 01:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  YSCB in stoush with RAAA - Rolleyes

The following is a link for the RAAA submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the airports: https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_...rports.pdf
Quote:
Quote:Case study 8

Canberra Airport
For Canberra Airport, Airservices Australia has been obliged to put the following warning in its En Route Supplement Australia: “During strong westerly winds TURB may be experienced in touch down area LDG RWY 35” This warning of turbulence resulted from airline pilots complaining about a safety issue arising from severe turbulence caused by a hangar that was built too close to the runway. The hangar could have been placed further away from the runway if the land behind the hangar was not being used for non-aeronautical commercial development. Additionally, the ATSB undertook an investigation as a result of an Air Safety Incident Report relating to severe wind turbulence over the threshold of Runway 12 at Canberra due to buildings being too close to that threshold. The report was released in 2011 and noted s i g n i f i c a n t shortcomings and a commensurate reduction in safety as a result of poor consideration of the effect of non-aeronautical developments near Runway 12.

It must be noted that some airports achieve the balance between aeronautical and nonaeronautical development and Essendon Airport is a good example where significant non-aeronautical development has taken place without compromising aeronautical infrastructure. P2 - Note how the RAAA have cleverly stepped around the YMEN DFO prang by stating that they haven't compromised 'aeronautical infrastructure (ps will come back to this bollocks statement very soon)  

Unfortunately for the RAAA took umbrage to the above case study and responded to the PC inquiry with this... Rolleyes :

Quote:This submission is related to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) submission dated September 2018 which alleges that Canberra Airport has experienced a reduction in safety due to the wind effects of development too close to Runway 12.

We would like to definitively go on record noting that every building, aviation and commercial, has been approved, both before and after construction, through proper channels which include aviation safety regulators, CASA and Airservices. These allegations are not supported by fact.

Further, the Qantas Hangar and the Majura Office Park buildings have been in position for more than ten years. Aviation users have continued operations since the buildings were complete. We have heard from pilots, who have used this airport for decades, both before and after the construction of these buildings, that from time to time, planes have experienced turbulence due to combinations of Canberra’s unique terrain, and varying wind directions and velocities. This happened sporadically before construction of these buildings, as well as after. There is no pattern of increased claims of turbulence.

Additionally, over the past 20 years, we have had rare turbulent events on 35 Arrival in North Easterly wind (no buildings near), including heavy landings. We log all of these events.

We take allegations of any potential threat to safety very seriously, and Canberra Airport’s risk analysis warns ‘pilots of the rare potential weather event,’ a practical, reasonable and diligent safety management tactic.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please let us know if you have any additional queries.
 

And also from the RAAA submission:

Quote:The Importance of Regional Services This is recognised by different Governments and various schemes exist to assist in the provision of regional air services. At the Commonwealth level there is the Enroute Charges Scheme, the Remote Aviation Access Program and the Remote Areas Services Subsidy while at the State level there are some route subsidies, notably in Queensland. These generally target very remote areas but regional aviation also provides essential air services in not so remote areas. A number of local governments value the need for essential air services by partnering with small airline operators to open new routes or re-establish closed routes throug h incentive deals in relation to passenger charges or other start-up costs. Some have assisted the introduction of routes by arranging meetings with and surveying local businesses to gauge the level of support for a new or re-introduced route. For example, Essendon Airport and Sharp Airlines and Coffs Harbour Airport and Corporate Air. 

Quote:Case study 5

Essendon Airport

Essendon is in close proximity to Melbourne Airport and has to compete with them to attract airline and corporate operators. When it became apparent that existing operators at Essendon were experiencing difficulties with arrivals and departures due to airspace conflicts with Melbourne Airport, Essendon engaged an independent expert at their own expense to consult with Airservices Australia in order to improve the Air Traffic Services into their airport. While the RAAA takes nothing away from Essendon Airport management, who are genuinely interested in fostering aviation at their airport, it must be noted that this is a rare case where market power does not exist.
 

Next this from the Oz yesterday:


Quote:Rich-listers in $100m super fund deal to help airport take off

Billionaire Lindsay Fox and fellow rich-lister Max Beck have clinched a deal for their Essendon Airport to raise $100 million in long-term debt from three Australian superannuation funds.

AustralianSuper, the country’s biggest industry super fund, Cbus and fund manager IFM Investors have agreed to lend the money to Mr Fox and Mr Beck’s privately held Essendon Fields over 10 years in a deal understood to be led by Westpac’s institutional bank.

The groundbreaking deal follows that of billionaire Anthony Pratt, who last year arranged with AustralianSuper and IFM to lend $150m to his cardboard box maker and paper recycling firm Visy over 10 years in a deal also led by Westpac.

He has expressed interest in making further agreements with super funds in Australia, and is using the $150m to refinance existing senior debt.

As owners of private companies, the billionaires and rich-listers do not have access to equity markets, making them more reliant on traditional bank financing.

Mr Pratt has promoted the super funds as an alternative source of money. His 2017 deal was one of the first by a large, privately owned Australian company with super funds, and was similar to deals worth more than $500m he has struck in the US in the past two decades to drive the rapid growth of Visy’s sister company Pratt Industries.

A source told The Australian that the Essendon Fields deal mirrored the one arranged by Mr Pratt last year.

Essendon Fields is jointly owned by long-time friends Mr Fox, a transport magnate, and Mr Beck, a property developer.

The duo’s rapid construction at Essendon has left the precinct with a book value of about $1 billion.

The long-term debt will help continue property development at the airport precinct, where management want to build more office towers to complement the large car yard zone and Hyatt Place hotel and conference centre that was opened last year.

It also comes at a time when bank lending practices have come under close scrutiny at the banking royal commission.

Mr Fox, who made the bulk of his estimated $3.56bn fortune from the Linfox logistics and trucking giant, has expressed some frustration with the banks, while Mr Pratt has previously enlisted the help of former Prime Minister Paul Keating to promote his cause.

Mr Pratt has championed the idea of convincing super funds about the merits of lending to Australia’s large and medium-sized businesses, which could allow corporations to bypass the traditional bank lenders or equity markets to fund their expansion plans.

His Pratt Industries has funded the building of several paper mills in the US, typically with money raised in long-term 25-year debt from pension and super funds.

Last year, Pratt Industries had a super fund bond raising of $200m of 30-year debt, which was a mixture of tax-exempt and taxable bonds.

Mr Pratt has previously revealed that all of the debt he has raised in the US has been long-term and at fixed rates, whereas in Australia that figure is closer to 40 per cent.

Another rich-lister, Christian Beck — no relation to Max Beck — last year reportedly raised $350m for his search and software business InfoTrack.

The money was raised from a variety of institutions throughout Asia, including Singapore and Hong Kong, along with Australian and Canadian pension funds, and was arranged by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.

Essendon Airport is the biggest corporate jet base in Australia and still runs an operating airport.

It has the largest car dealership precinct in Australia with 15 car sellers.

Its owners are keen to build more office towers.

They plan to roll out one every 18 months.

Mr Fox and Mr Beck paid $22 million to the federal government for a 99-year lease 17 years ago on land that is about 11km from the Melbourne CBD.

Which all kind of makes sense of the miniscule's impromptu YMEN visit back on August 9 2018:

[Image: DkXCAfRU8AAcZqH.jpg]

...and dare I say it the ATSB topcover - "the pilot did it" - snowjob of the YMEN DFO accident investigation: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/post-9339.html#pid9339

Ah yes money talks -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

And the YMEN DFO accident fairy tale growsDodgy

HVH and the ATSB are now under the false premise that they have effectively killed/whitewashed the MSM and public interest in the YMEN DFO accident and investigation with the standard "..nothing to see here - the pilot did it..". 

So in the interest of joining the dots and getting back to ToRs on what exactly Hoody's topcover agency is attempting to whitewash in their bollocks YMEN DFO accident report - AO-2017-024:  https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-024/

Dot 1

Quote:Bulla Road Precinct – Retail Outlet Centre approval process

Although there were exceedances identified with the Essendon Airport overall obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), ZCR did not collide with the sections of the outlet centre which breached the OLS. In addition, the outlet centre did not impinge on the required obstacle clearance zones for a departure from runway 17.

It was unlikely that the outlet centre had an influence on the severity of the accident. In the absence of the Retail Outlet Centre buildings, the aircraft’s trajectory would likely have resulted in the aircraft colliding with the Tullamarine freeway, east of the Bulla Road overpass. Dashboard camera footage provided to the ATSB indicated that there was a significant amount of traffic on the Tullamarine Freeway at the time, with potential for casualties on the ground.

The reasons for the OLS breaches were complex and related to the airport operator’s obligation to establish an OLS in accordance with applicable standards and CASA advice to, and oversight of, the airport operator. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to adequately examine the issues found with the outlet centre building approval processes. Consequently, the ATSB has initiated a separate investigation, AI-2018-010. That investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport.
 
And ref: AI-2018-010


Quote:On 21 February 2017, a building that is part of the Essendon Airport Bulla Road Precinct retail centre was struck by a Beechcraft King Air B200 (VH-ZCR). The ATSB’s preliminary report for this accident was published in March 2017. This preliminary report stated that the approval process for this building would be a matter for further investigation.

The building was part of the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre development, which was proposed by the lessee of Essendon Airport in 2003 and approved by the Federal Government in 2004.

Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development, and not to delay the final report into the accident from February 2017, the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately.

The investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

Dot 2

Somewhat ironically, given his past association and ongoing support for the Iron Ring led Big R-regulator, the following reference comes from one Ironbar's (Ron Bartsch) AvLaw blog...  Blush

Ref: https://avlaw.com.au/atsb-report-no-safety-management/

Quote:ATSB Finds No Safety Management Principles in Department Decision-Making

A recent ATSB investigation highlights the importance of safety management-based approaches in assessing applications for buildings that may affect air safety.

In May 2018, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released its Final Report (ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774258/ai...-final.pdfentitled Building approval process for structures in the vicinity of Australian airports. The Report found that the requirements contained in the Airports Act 1996 (Cth), the prime legislation that governs the planning framework for federally-leased airports, may not provide the proper safety management approach that it was intended to provide.

Application giving rise to report

In October 2009, Hume City Council applied to operators at Essendon Airport to build a radio mast on top of the council office building in Broadmeadows, Victoria. Pictured below shows existing antennas (circled in red) and the proposed radio mast (indicated by a blue arrow).[/url]

[Image: HCC-building.png][img=468x0]https://avlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HCC-building.png[/img]

Source: ATSB Report AI-2013-102 page 1 © Commonwealth of Australia 2018
[size=undefined]
The application identified that the building and masts had not been approved under the relevant regulations, the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (Cth). These regulations required that any proposed construction breaching protected airspace around certain airports be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (now known as the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities).  This particular application was for a mast that intruded into protected airspace, which included airspace defined by the airport’s ‘obstacle limitation surfaces’ (OLS). The Secretary was required to approve this proposal unless it would have an unacceptable effect on the safety (ref: http://unacceptable%20effect%20on%20the%20safety%20of%20existing%20or%20future%20air%20transport%20operations/ ) of existing or future air transport operations.

The initial response from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was that the building and masts were hazardous to aircraft and therefore should be marked and lit. The proposed radio was simply a further hazard. The Department considered this advice to be inadequate and instructed CASA to find that either the application for the mast had an unacceptable effect on safety or it did not. CASA ultimately found in the negative but advised on lighting and marking requirements.

ATSB finds no application of safety principles

The ATSB carried out an investigation four years later in 2013 into the procedures of these decision-making processes. This was done as a response to a REPCON report received in September 2012 (P2 comment - bizarrely the ATSB REPCON database doesn't appear to go back to 2012??) expressing concerns a proper safety case was not conducted on the proposal. The ATSB’s Final Report concluded that whilst the procedure was compliant with the Airports Act 1996 and the Regulations, it “did not require the application of risk management principles to the Department’s consideration”. This was highlighted as a safety issue.

The Department instead adopted a prescriptive rather than a safety management-based approach in its decision-making. This meant that the process required an answer to the question of whether the obstacle was either acceptable or unacceptable. This was a simple binary approach and did not involve the application of safety management principles. The Department did not even have the necessary expertise or resources to make such an assessment. Because of this, they relied on CASA’s advice. The Department weighted CASA’s opinion above all others and there was nothing to suggest CASA was provided with all relevant safety information.

Such an approach was contrary to the risk-based approach advocated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). ICAO had required member States in 2006 to establish a State Safety Programme, which the Department adopted in 2011. Australia’s program identified certain laws relevant to the oversight of safety in aviation. That legislation included the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and several other regulations. Interestingly, the Airports Act 1996 and its Regulations were not included. (P2 comment - UDB???)

What has been done

The Department has now advised that it will confer with key stakeholders in the process in relation to risk management practices. It released a Public Consultation Paper (ref: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_protection/Airspace-Protection.pdf ) in December 2016 entitled Modernising Airspace Protection. It has also initiated public consultation. AvLaw Consulting is [url=https://avlaw.com.au/submissions-close-modernising-airspace-protection-consultation-paper/]pleased
 to have contributed to this consultation. You can see our submission here: AvLaw – Modernising Airspace Protection – 28 Feb 17 – FINAL (ref: https://avlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/...-FINAL.pdf.

This case demonstrates the importance of safety management approaches within our government institutions. ICAO considers the safety management approach ‘best practice’ and has been adopted by numerous countries around the world. If you need any advice on safety for a building application, do not hesitate to consult our aviation and construction experts at AvLaw Consulting.[/size]

Hmm...so I wonder why the ATSB feels the need to do basically a repeat of their July 2013 initiated investigation?? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-010/

Quote:On 21 February 2017, a building that is part of the Essendon Airport Bulla Road Precinct retail centre was struck by a Beechcraft King Air B200 (VH-ZCR). The ATSB’s preliminary report for this accident was published in March 2017. This preliminary report stated that the approval process for this building would be a matter for further investigation.

The building was part of the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre development, which was proposed by the lessee of Essendon Airport in 2003 and approved by the Federal Government in 2004.

Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development, and not to delay the final report into the accident from February 2017, the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately.

The investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.
  
Dot 3

Although it took nearly 5 years to complete (P2 -  Dodgy Huh ) (ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2013-102/ ) the ATSB did manage to identify a significant hole in the cheese:
Quote:The use of risk management principles when considering an application under the Airports (Protected Airspace) Regulations
The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities adopted a prescriptive approach to the Hume City Council building application within the obstacle limitation area of Essendon Airport, which was in accordance with the process prescribed under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, but did not require the application of risk management principles to the department’s consideration.
Safety issue details Issue number:
AI-2013-102-SI-01
Who it affects:
Airports managing protected airspace associated with their runways
Status:
Safety action pending

The question there is when was this significant safety issue 1st identified? Another question is - why wasn't the 2013 investigation and final report referred to in either the YMEN DFO accident final report; or in the (AI-2018-010) above summary??  Dodgy

MTF? Yes lots...P2  Cool
Reply

Joining the dots continued on YMEN DFO attempted cover-up -  Dodgy


Extract from "V" off the Accidents - Domestic thread: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103...ml#pid9334

Quote:Ventus - The advertising towers ?


Note shadows for height, and the "framework" of the closest one.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=416]

Following up on the "V" post I refer from page 60 of this Dept FOI document: 

03/07/17 Essendon DFO development plan (17-96): https://infrastructure.gov.au/department..._17-96.pdf

[Image: Dq4CT2EU4AArDlx.jpg]

Although a bit blurry, I believe the height of the advertising towers is listed as 15.5m. It would appear that this height plus the height of the building on the northern side of the DFO (7.5m) is governed by the 1 in 7 OLS gradient table (refer page 59 & 63):

[Image: Dq4JPkpU0AAuqnd.jpg]


[Image: Dq4CcJTU8AATdxf.jpg]


Therefore by definition the DFO building is in compliance with the ICAO/PAN-OPS/ CASR Part 139 OLS requirements and did not require prior approval or exemption from the Dept or CASA. 

However given YMEN is Federal Govt leased airport it also falls under the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (ref Ironbar above or: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...cr1988441/ ):

Quote:
3. Prohibition of the construction of buildings in specified areas  
4. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 25 feet in height in specified areas  
5. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 50 feet in height in specified areas  
6.Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 150 feet in height in certain areas 

  

Okay so the 7.5m falls under the prohibited 25 ft height requirement but the advertising towers exceed both the 25ft and 50 ft prohibited construction of buildings requirement??

References:




I also note with those regs that other than the height restrictions for building construction there is no mention about 'safety zones' or safety buffer areas around airports. 

For the benefit of NASAG perhaps a consultation with the Californian State authority CalTrans would be helpful; or even a reference to chapter 3 of their  Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ref:  http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aerona...ndbook.pdf ) for a mature take on mitigating risk around airports... Wink 
However I guess this would mean having to admit that there is a problem in the first place - TICK TOCK miniscule 8G McDo'Naught...TICK TOCK indeed -  Confused 

MTF....P2  Cool
Reply

Hayward Executive Airport Safety Zone Policy Overlay - Zone 1 and 2 at Essendon

[Image: attachment.php?aid=427]


Attached Files
.jpg Essendon Zone Overlay.jpg Size: 309.23 KB  Downloads: 193
Reply

(11-07-2018, 03:31 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote:  Hayward Executive Airport Safety Zone Policy Overlay - Zone 1 and 2 at Essendon

[Image: attachment.php?aid=427]

Excellent stuff Mr PB... Wink  Mr PB if we reference the Caltrans Airport Planning Use Handbook - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aerona...ndbook.pdf - from page 55 thru to pg 61-63, you can see that there is a basic template for different size and capacity runways:

  [Image: DrZL224VsAA48L1.jpg]

[Image: DrZL8y4U4AASs97.jpg]

[Image: DrZMDhwUUAA_iZg.jpg]



Using that as a guide would it be possible to overlay zones 3 thru to 6 on the YMEN runways? 

I also note in your PM to me your reference to the Hayward table 3-2...
[Image: DoyE1OEU0AAi-V_.jpg]

 ...and the people per acre at the top of the table where zone 1 thru 3 list acceptable levels of 10, 40 & 80 respectively and how in business hours the DFO complex could have up to a 1000 people - very disturbing... Confused 

I also wonder Mr PB if it would be possible to work out what the concentration of open land is around the DFO and whether it comes anywhere near meeting the 40% recommended requirement for zone 2 under the Californian State laws? 

MTF? - Yes much!...P2  Cool
Reply

TICK TOCK CAIRNS AIRPORT

It seems that Cairns airports issues just won’t go away. It all started a couple of years ago when GA were purposefully squeezed out by deliberate and sustained fees and charges increases aimed at booting them out. Then the airports fantasy of a Heli precinct east of the airport was crushed due to them not considering mangrove impact. Then their fantasy of a DFO being built where the existing GA precinct is on the western side was squashed due to PFOS contamination. Add into the mix a constant run of operations non-conformances and a culture of hiding things and you have a toxic mix. They recently changed security providers and have had a plethora of issues including AMS (OTS) systems test failures. Probably due in part to 7 or 8 NQA security managers bailing in less than 8 years as nobody can stand the now COO bully and her incompetent sidekick. Recently the airport has been pounded again, this time by CASA, for non-conformances which again have been caused in part by a toxic management culture hell bent on hiding problems rather than fixing them. You would think that after 20 years the root cause would be obvious - the COO.

Just another poorly managed airport where our landing fees and charges are meant to provide us with a safe and secure operating environment, yet all we get is harassed by incompetent ARO fools on power trips and we get to park our aircraft on a shitty GA surface that is constantly crumbling and damaging props.
Reply

AAA conference: Airports want to keep with the current regulatory regime. 

Via Oz Aviation today: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/11...certainty/

Quote:MELBOURNE AIRPORT CEO URGES REGULATORY CERTAINTY
written by Jordan Chong November 13, 2018

[Image: MELAIRPORT_JAN_2015_MELBOURNEAIRPORT.jpg?w=750]
An aerial shot of Tullamarine. (Melbourne Airport)

Melbourne Airport chief executive Lyell Strambi says the energy sector is a good example of what happens to an industry facing regulatory uncertainty and has urged the aviation sector not to go down the same path.

The regulation of Australia’s airports is currently the subject of a Productivity Commission inquiry (ref: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/06...s-inquiry/ ).

Submissions to the inquiry, which commenced in June, have included calls to change the current regulatory arrangements for the nation’s airports, which some have described as natural monopolies with no effective competition or reason to change or innovate and calls to change.

In response, the Australian Airports Association (AAA) told the Productivity Commission the current framework had led to better quality of service outcomes, cheaper airfares for passengers and increased discounts to airlines on international charges.

Strambi said investment and superannuation funds, which hold large stakes in a number of Australia’s major airports, wanted regulatory certainty.

“It really concerns me greatly to see some of the regulatory uncertainty and upheaval in some other segments at the moment,” Strambi told the AAA national conference in Brisbane on Tuesday.

“You know the change in the energy market at the moment, that constant change, I think is just having a chilling effect on investment.

“We as a nation can’t afford that kind of attitude towards investment in airports. The cost would be huge to us.”

[Image: Terminal-Aerial_750.jpg?resize=750%2C420]
Melbourne Tullamarine is revamping its Terminal 3, the home of Virgin Australia. (Virgin Australia)

The terms of reference indicated the Productivity Commission would seek to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the current arrangements and determine whether they remained appropriate.

Further, the inquiry would consider the “appropriate economic regulation of airport services, including the effectiveness of the price and quality of service monitoring” to promote the economically efficient operation of, and timely investment in, airports and related industries; minimise unnecessary compliance costs; and facilitate commercially negotiated outcomes in airport operations.

An indication of what is at stake can be gleaned from some of the strong language used in a number of submissions.

For example, the AAA called the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s criticisms “ill-founded slurs”, described sections of the airline industry’s push for change as a “campaign of disparagement” and accused IATA of leading an “ill-informed global debate” on the topic.


Quote:The AAA called the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s criticisms “ill-founded slurs”

Meanwhile, airline industry group Airlines for Australian and New Zealand (A4ANZ) said the current regulatory model was “powerless to curtail airports’ market power”.

And Qantas said Australia’s airports displayed monopolistic behaviour and have been “price gouging” everyone from the airlines to the cafes that rent retail space in the terminal to the taxis that pick up and drop off passengers kerbside.

Strambi said the current regulatory system was far from broken.

“All the credible evidence that we are seeing to date suggests to us the light-handed regulatory regime actually works really well and serves the country well and will continue to do so,” he said.

“I would say that while airports can technically be described as monopolies, we certainly don’t behave like one. Our airports really have to compete hard for traffic and not just amongst the local airports but actually on a world scale.

“Airlines actually are free to move their capacity to the most profitable routes and that keeps a really hard-edged focus on what we are doing and it is important.”

“Of course that movement of capacity is not binary and airlines have to be cognisant of the market and the demand that is there but they do have choices that they can make, certainly at the fringe of their schedules.

“Together these effects really provide a strong incentive for our airports to price aeronautical services really competitively.”

[Image: IMG_2378_750.jpg?w=750]


Melbourne Airport chief executive Lyell Strambi at the 2018 AAA national conference.

Tullamarine handled 36.7 million passengers in calendar 2017, comprising 25.8 million domestic passengers and 10.9 million international passengers.

In keeping with broader trends, the highest growth rates were on international passengers, as more tourists from the broader Asia Pacific region headed to Australia.

By contrast, the domestic market remained flat.

Figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) show domestic regular public transport (RPT) capacity, measured by available seat kilometres (ASK), was lower for a second straight year in 2017/18, dropping 0.2 per cent in the 12 months to June 30 2018 compared with the prior corresponding period. The number of RPT aircraft trips decreased by one per cent.

However, the number of available seats on RPT flights rose 0.3 per cent.
Meanwhile, the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) most recent traffic report noted demand, measured by revenue passenger kilometres (RPK). fell 0.9 per cent in September, compared with a year earlier.

“The bigger picture is that RPKs have now broadly tracked sideways in seasonally adjusted terms over the past year or so,” the IATA report said.

Strambi, who previously was chief executive of Qantas’s domestic operations, said this broadly flat domestic market was proving a financial boom for Australia’s local carriers.

“We do need our airlines to be successful,” Strambi said.


Quote:“We do need our airlines to be successful,” Strambi said.

“But it is also true that a constraint in growth is not a bad thing for the bottom line of an incumbent airline at a particular port.

“You only have to look at what is happening in the domestic market at the moment to actually see this live example, to see the effect of this so-called domestic market capacity discipline that is really driving domestic profitability up.

“But we have to remember that comes at a cost of higher airfares and suppression of demand and that has a much wider effect.”

[Image: QANTAS-VIRGIN-AUSTRALIA-AIRCRAFT-BNE-APR....jpg?w=750]
Qantas and Virgin Australia have kept domestic capacity flat over the past two years. (Rob Finlayson)[/size]
While on Airports I note the following "Dear Sarah" open email from Sandy to his local MP... Wink :

Quote:Dear Sarah,


In recent times I notice conditions imposed by airport operators that infringe the principal purpose of publicly available, Government registered airports, that is that they can be used by pilots safely and predictably at any time. 

For example, not just as a destination, but also as an alternate airport in case of any changing condition in flight, such as unforeseen weather, which might make a diversion the prudent choice. Similarly much as roads are expected to be freely available to licenced drivers with registered vehicles, one can pull up on the road side or into a bay as required. 

One case is a new requirement at Wynyard airport in Tasmania where airside personnel are required to wear “reflective vests,” in addition to displaying the ‘ASIC’ Identity Card ($288 every 2 years). In more than 50 years of professional flying, including piloting into every capital city airport, I cannot imagine where such a requirement would have had any advantage to anyone. Airport ground workers perhaps;  but charter pilots or private pilots at those airports are always escorted, though they, having been landing charge priced out of such use, would be very rare at capital city airports nowadays. 

Another is Olympic Dam (near Andamooka) the BHP controlled airport in South Australia, where one is required to have two lots of indemnity insurance of $20 million and one cannot use the airport at certain times as dictated by BHP either side of their frequent company flights. 

SA Senator David Fawcett please take note, hundreds of light aircraft used to visit Andamooka Opal Fields, now virtually none and the town is dying. 

Thus General Aviation is inhibited from using such airports, airports that are gaining the advantages of government registration. Freedom of movement is a very important element of our nation, creeping bureaucratisation like this inhibits business and all the other advantages of General Aviation in the transport mix. 

I would like to know from the Minister for Transport if he accepts the conditions imposed as outlined, and in particular, if he agrees with and endorses the status at Wynyard, should not the requirement of wearing reflective vests be applied to the public road system in Australia? 

Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Kind regards,

Sandy 
 
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Federal Govt continues to obfuscate decades old airport safety issue?   

Having been tasked by Aunty Pru - Huh - to troll through decade old Estimates Hansard where Shane Carmody was a feature at Fort Fumble (CASA) -  Huh - I happened to come across an interesting passage of Hansard that featured none other than Sterlo submitting a QON to the then Murky and crew at the department... Rolleyes

Quote:Senator STERLE—I want to raise with you an article at page 8 of the Australian on
Tuesday where it is reported that the minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport
because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane. Are you aware of that?

Mr Mrdak—That is correct. The minister has recently rejected a major development
proposal by the Sydney Airport Corporation for a retail commercial development in close
proximity to the runways of Sydney airport.

Senator STERLE—Do you know how high that building would have been?

Mr Mrdak—My recollection is of the order of 18 metres. I can check that. It is of that
order.

Senator STERLE—Would you be able to tell me the size of the chimney stack for the
Perth brickworks?

Mr Mrdak—I will come back to you on that.

Senator STERLE—You may want to take this on notice, Mr Mrdak. How close to the end
of the runway is that chimney stack?

Mr Williams—We will take on notice the exact details. The assessment took into account
the potential impact on what is called the obstacle limitation surface which is the protection of airspace in and around the airport. The chimney stack came well within the height limitations of the obstacle limitation surface. It did not penetrate the OLS. The assessment said that the plume that would come out of the chimney stack would not penetrate and cause a potential impact on aviation operations. The conditions on the approval also highlight towards the end that, once the brickworks is operational, if the speed of the plume coming out of the stack is different to what was proposed or modelled in the MDP, that would need to be referred back to CASA and to Airservices for further assessment.


Senator STERLE—I will get you to take it on notice. Can you come back to me with the
height and the distance from the end of the runway. I have no further questions.

Somewhat irrelevant (IMO) this was the answer to the good Senator's QON:


Quote:Answer:
The height of the stack is 37 metres above ground level.
The distance of the brickworks stack to the closest end of Runway 06/24 is
approximately 1,350 metres and the stack is offset from the centreline of the runway
by approximately 450 metres.
  
What perked my interest was Sterlo's reference to the...

 "..minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane.."

A quick Google did not bring up the Oz article but it did bring up a SMH article (or three):


Quote:Sydney Airport shops plan thrown out

By Jessica Irvine
13 February 2007 — 2:00am


The Transport Minister Mark Vaile has rejected a revised proposal by Sydney Airport to build a large shopping centre and business park onsite.

Mr Vaile cited "public safety" concerns for the decision, expressing concern about the proximity of the proposed shopping centre to the end of runways.

"I am not satisfied that SACL [Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd] has fully assessed and addressed the issue of public safety,'' Mr Vaile said in a statement.

"My decision also had regard to the level of uncertainty that remains regarding the potential impact the development could have on local traffic around the airport," Mr Vaile said.

The revised proposal was for a 48,000-square metre outlet centre, bulky goods/homemaker centre and discount store, 2000 square metres of office space, commerical buildings and 2412 parking spaces in the south-east precinct of the airport.

Under the Airports Act 1996, the minister has the power to reject proposals submitted by the operators of leased federal airports.

AAP Reports: Sydney Airport chief executive Russell Balding said the company was committed to ensuring public safety.

"More work will be done on the issues of concern to the minister,'' he said.

"Sydney Airport understands that given this decision it will need to undertake additional analysis and work before deciding whether to again submit the retail centre for the government's consideration.

"Should Sydney Airport make a decision to proceed further with the proposal there would be a new round of public consultation.''

&..

Quote:Airport shopping mall grounded


13 February 2007 — 11:00am

IT WASN'T quite in the jaw-dropping league of unexpected decisions, but the Macquarie Bank empire found yesterday that it's not always going to get its own way over the future of Sydney Airport.

With its influence over the airport already causing the bank some turbulence regarding the $11 billion takeover of Qantas - since rival airlines are not happy it is likely to end up unduly controlling both - the Federal Government showed a surprisingly tough line by rejecting a $200 million plan to build a massive retail centre on land next to Sydney's three runways.

Transport minister Mark Vaile knocked back the proposal on safety grounds because he feared a jumbo jet could plough into the shopping centre if it overshot the third runway.

I haven't been able (yet) to find the basis for the Minister's decision on aviation safety grounds and whether it was because the shopping precinct proposal would impinge on the ICAO Annex 14 defined OLS; or the... 

Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (ref Ironbar above or: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...cr1988441/ ):

Quote: Wrote:
3. Prohibition of the construction of buildings in specified areas  
4. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 25 feet in height in specified areas  
5. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 50 feet in height in specified areas  
6.Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 150 feet in height in certain areas 

 
..., however I can fully understand why Sterlo attempted to garner a 'please explain' on why it was the Minister Mark Vaille rejected the SACL proposal for a shopping precinct onsite at Sydney airport but did not reject the Perth Airport MDP application for a brickworks development proposal within the Federally controlled airspace surrounding the Perth airport. 
 
IMO the former Minister's decision also sets a precedent for rejecting the construction of high capacity public shopping precincts in close proximity to Federally controlled/leased airports. 
It is therefore deeply disturbing that one year after the former Minister made that decision the ICAO audit team identified a parallel safety issue in regards to...(refer pic)

[Image: DrrQtQlVAAAh3Uu.jpg]   
...and again nearly a decade later...(refer pic)

[Image: DrC4MctUUAE67m1.jpg]

....and yet despite having a supposedly fully compliant ICAO Annex 19 State safety management system (SSP) this repeatedly ICAO and Minister identified significant safety issue is STILL yet to be effectively risk mitigated by any or all directly interested parties responsible for the effective implementation of the ICAO Annex 19 SSP - PLEASE EXPLAIN??



MTF...P2  Dodgy 

Ps If you think too deeply about the following dept QON and attachments you'll despair that we are being controlled as an industry by bureaucratic morons; or you can quite simply think of it as an episode of yes minister or Utopia... Big Grin : 
.pdf aaa.pdf Size: 575.02 KB  Downloads: 4
.pdf aaa05attach.pdf Size: 308.45 KB  Downloads: 3
Reply

Sterlo on a mission on transport safety matters??

Reference the RRAT committee "Other Committee Activities" web page link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...Activities

Note that on top of the "Oversight of CASA" inquiry there has also been hearings into the "Oversight of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities", looking into road safety and heavy vehicle regulation:

Quote:Oversight of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

Public Hearing

Monday 19 November 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 118KB), Hansard transcript - (PDF 124KB)
Monday 3 December 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 99KB)

Answers to Questions on Notice

Answers to Questions taken on Notice by Mr Bill McKinley, Chief of Staff, Australian Trucking Association, at a public hearing on 19 November 2018. Received on Friday 30 November 2018 - (PDF 675KB  )

Tabled Documents

Regulatory Impact Statement extracts (heavy vehicles), tabled by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities at a public hearing on 3 December 2018 - (PDF 12660KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en)


And yesterday there was a "Oversight of AMSA" public hearing...

Quote:Oversight of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority

Public Hearing


Tuesday 4 December 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 96KB)

Tabled Documents

Opening statement of Mr Mick Kinley, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, tabled at a public hearing on 4 December 2018 - (PDF 50KB)
   
..which the CEO of AMSA explained his understanding for the public hearing in the opening paragraph of his opening statement:

Quote:"..I understand the purpose of the hearing is to consider how AMSA has implemented headcounts and other safety measures, following the coronial findings in relation to the death of Mr Damian Mills in Western Australia in 2014, and that the Committee is also interested in the decision not to proceed with prosecutions in the matter..."

A couple of passing strange issues struck me about these hearings; first there was a similarity to the long ongoing 'Performance of Airservices inquiry (see here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ustralia45); second is this a new committee strategy for isolating individual agencies/departments that the committee has oversight concerns over? 

Last but by no means least, isn't it particularly concerning that all these agencies and the department are supposedly meant to be effectively oversighted by a responsible Minister of the Crown? 

This embarrassing situation where the miniscule is repeatedly MIA was perhaps best summed up by Sterlo in this Youtube segment: 
   
After the AMSA hearing yesterday there was another hearing into ASA, Harfwit and the OneSKY trough feeders:- https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...c_Hearings 

Until the Hansard is out I won't bother to rehash any of yesterday's hearing but to explain the purpose for this hearing please refer to Harfwit's 30 November correspondence to the committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...6cbaef0cc8 
   
Quite obviously the committee were unimpressed with the ASA evidence provided yesterday because I note that today in the Senate Senator Sterle had a proposed inquiry motion agreed to:


Quote:Mover

[Image: picture.jpg?width=30]
Senator Sterle


*# Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Sterle): To move—That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the second sitting day in August 2019:
The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports, with particular reference to:

  1. the current standards applicable to the provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services relating to community safety and the emergency personnel safety;
  2. the standards for the provision of emergency response at Australian airports, including emergency medical response and response to structure fires and other incidents;
  3. the comparison of safe systems of emergency response standards and systems of work for firefighting and rescue operations for structure fires, aircraft rescue, emergency medical response and other emergency incidents;
  4. the consideration of best practice, including relevant international standards;
  5. the mechanisms and criteria for the review of the provisions of safety standards for the provision of rescue and firefighting services, if any;
  6. a review of Airservices Australia policy and administration of aviation rescue and firefighting services;
  7. the effectiveness and independence of the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), to uphold aviation rescue and firefighting safety standards;
  8. the impact on Australia’s national and international reputation and aviation safety record as a result of any lowering of aviation rescue and firefighting services; and
  9. any other related matters.
  
I find g & h of particular interest, especially when you consider the high profile findings/deficiencies of the ICAO 2017 final audit report (ref: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...t_full.pdf ) under AGA (Annex 14), in particular No 2: 
Quote:AGA:

1) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements on Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at aerodromes.
2) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements for the provision of rescue and firefighting (RFF) services at aerodromes, which take into account the aerodrome location and the surrounding terrain.

Perhaps the committee should be requesting a copy of the corrective action plan and an update on what stage the proposed corrective actions are at?

Quote:5. FOLLOW-UP ACTION


5.1 In accordance with the MOU agreed to between Australia and ICAO, Australia replied in a letter dated 23 February 2018 that it had no comments on the draft report and also reiterated its commitment to develop its CAPs accordingly.

5.2 According to the MOU, the State undertakes to submit its updated CAPs directly on the USOAP CMA online framework (https://www.icao.int/usoap) within 45 days after receipt of this final report.

5.3 The CAPs should provide specific actions and estimated implementation dates, as well as a responsible office for taking action to correct the deficiencies identified in the findings. Further guidance on how to develop effective CAPs is outlined in the “Guidance for States on Developing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)”, which can be found in the “CMA Library” of the online framework.

5.4 ICAO will provide Australia with feedback on the acceptability of the proposed updated CAPs. If any proposed corrective actions do not fully address the associated findings, the State will be notified accordingly.

5.5 If no CAP is submitted, ICAO will contact Australia to determine the reasons for not providing a CAP and report its findings to Council.
 
 While they are at it could we also get an update on where the proposed corrective actions are for this finding/deficiency?

Quote:AGA:

Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.
 
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

180 minutes and 50 feet? - The difference between Australia's worst aviation disaster and yet another.."the dead pilot ducked up"...and killed himself plus (fill in the number?) 4 innocent pax:



(NB: 180 minutes because that is the difference in the time of day between the peak trading period when there could have been over a 1000 people on site at the DFO and when the crash actually occurred)

Now let's rewind back to December 2004 when the then Minister John Anderson signed off on the proposed Bulla Rd precinct DFO building development plan: see FOI 17-96: https://infrastructure.gov.au/department..._17-96.pdf 


[Image: Untitled_Clipping_121018_121551_PM.jpg]

 

Note at (e) that CASA did not provide a view but down the track (after the DFO was approved) they did provide input and exemptions for 7 identified OLS breaches:


Quote:Ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-024/ - The airport data for Essendon included seven obstacles that breached the airport’s obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS). Four of those obstacles infringed the runway 26 transitional surface component of the OLS and were associated with two buildings within the outlet centre that were not struck by the aircraft. CASA accepted the breaches in 2015 after the airport operator applied lighting and colour to the obstacles to mitigate their risk to aircraft operations.
 
However besides these Annex 14 identified OLS breaches it does not appear that CASA provided a view/opinion on the possible public safety implications of building a shopping centre complex that has a parking capacity for up to 1900 vehicles (i.e a minimum of 1900 people)?

Which makes it passing strange that a bit over 2 years later it would appear, the supreme expert authority on all matters of an aviation safety nature, offered very contrary advice to the then Minister for Transport Mark Vaille?  
Quote:Ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/sydney-a...dpgh3.html


"...Mr Vaile cited "public safety" concerns for the decision, expressing concern about the proximity of the proposed shopping centre to the end of runways..."

& ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/airport-...dpglb.html

"...Transport minister Mark Vaile knocked back the proposal on safety grounds because he feared a jumbo jet could plough into the shopping centre if it overshot the third runway..."
  
What makes all this even more bizarre is that the CASA bureaucrat that would have helped facilitate that CASA 'view'/'opinion' would have been the same individual that said to Senator Fawcett at Senate Estimates...(see Carmody's response to Sen Fawcett's question at about 02:30 min):



How is it remotely possible that CC could not remember the advice given to a Minister a decade before on the very same issues to which Senator Fawcett was referring?  Dodgy

Hmm...maybe CC has early onset Alzheimer's?  Rolleyes 


MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Speaking of overshooting runways... Big Grin

Reply

The political quandary of commercial development around Airports - Undecided

[Image: 4221396001_5330664607001_5330632425001-v...0632425001]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/setting-the-odds-and-playing-em/

Quote:K said: ...But consider, just for a moment, the difference 10 feet and a couple of hours would have made to the Essendon tragedy. Had that aircraft been 10 foot lower, departed an hour or two later; there would have been an epic disaster. A five ton bomb slamming into a building, packed full of people. Had that building not been there, the odds of survival increased considerably. A fall of government would be IMO, the loose change of the fall out...

[Image: HNBUurNiWvbnrhE-800x450-noPad.jpg?1523468694]

The above image featured on a Property Observer article written by Professor Michael Buxton and titled - 'Airport privatisations have put profit before public safety and good planning' - which IMO perfectly highlights the strange jurisdiction juxtaposition (Federal, State and Local governments) of all Federally owned and leased airports:

Quote:GUEST OBSERVER

The plane crash at Essendon Airport showed the folly of allowing runways to co-exist with commercial development.

Tullamarine Airport opened in 1970 partly because of the risk to housing from aircraft at Essendon. Why, then, have authorities allowed extensive new development within Essendon Airport’s boundaries between housing and runways?

Between 1997 and 2003, the federal government provided 99-year airport leases to private consortia, raising A$8.5 billion. This process illustrates how privatisation can lead to unaccountable incremental actions and impacts that public authorities didn’t anticipate.

Since then, in effect, lessees have enjoyed the privileged position in Australian planning law of being able to decide their own futures. The exclusion of such large areas as airports from broader metropolitan planning threatens orderly planning on a grand scale.

Planning academics Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker have argued:

The prospect of market opportunities from property development and commercial initiatives was a key factor in the high prices secured for airport leases.

This process was compromised if higher prices than those justified by leases were reciprocated by commercial approvals. Any future development assessment would be predetermined towards approval. This would prevent fair consideration of objections, resulting in a lack of proper scrutiny in the public interest.

Airport business is booming

Commercial development is now integrated with traditional airport operations across Australia. But aside from possible reciprocal financial expectations, privatisation has provided extraordinary bargains to lessees through large capital and operational returns.

Linfox Group and Beck Corporation, for example, made a reported payment in 2001 of $22 million for a lease on 305 hectares of prime inner-urban land at Essendon Airport. They have turned this into a projected $1 billion enterprise over the next decade. One-quarter of the airport is leased to commercial tenants.

Business zones adjoin or wrap around runways. The plane crashed into a large retail DFO complex. An eight-storey 150-bed hotel, conference centre, a five-storey office block, private hospital, supermarket, auto centre and much else have also been built or are planned. Projected employment in the precinct is 18,000.

Air traffic has expanded significantly too. Essendon is home to executive air, charter, freight, media and regional air services, air ambulance, police and private aircraft. Essendon is Australia’s largest corporate jet base.

All this activity reinforces the public danger from the incompatibility of air and commercial land uses under privatised governance arrangements.

Operators bypass state planning rules

Under the Airports Act, Essendon Airports Pty Ltd must prepare a management plan outlining airport development for 20 years. The privatised management of airports inherited the Commonwealth’s constitutional overriding of state and territory land-use planning provisions. Master plans must only address “consistency” with state and local planning schemes.

However, airport lessees are not required to act on submissions. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd gave “due regard to all written comments”, then forwarded submissions and its master plan to the federal government. The Commonwealth approved the plan in 2014 regardless of broader urban planning considerations.

Victorian government planning policy has attempted to concentrate commercial development in mixed-use centres well served by public transport. Essendon Airport is a classic road-based, out-of-centre location. It was not identified as an activity centre in Melbourne metropolitan planning. But, for 30 years, no Victorian government has shown an appetite for curbing out-of-centre development.

The 2014 metropolitan plan, Plan Melbourne, proposed to “investigate opportunities for… increased development and employment” at Essendon. Airport management submitted a case to the revised metropolitan strategy process for recognition as an activity centre.

State and local authorities originally expressed concern at the proposal to construct the DFO at Essendon Airport. However, more recently, local and state attitudes have changed.

In 2014, the Liberal planning minister, Matthew Guy, announced a new airport employment precinct and a partnership between the developers, Metropolitan Planning Authority and state and local governments. The airport was identified as both a key transport gateway and important commercial area.

Labor Niddrie MP Ben Carroll also welcomed the expansion of commercial activities. Moonee Valley Council expressed concerns but did not oppose the major proposed land uses. Councillors expressed the view that Essendon Fields is “an important economic hub” and a “vibrant business precinct”.

The then federal infrastructure minister, Warren Truss, said in 2015 that:

Airports are now business destinations in their own right and provide a powerful economic engine for their home region and local communities.

In similar language, Essendon Airport Pty Ltd CEO Chris Cowan said that:

Essendon Airport [provides] a unique opportunity to reinforce its activity centre function by realising non-aviation development potential.

Everybody is now speaking from the same script.

State and local policy has increasingly become aligned with the Commonwealth helping to further the private interests of airport operators at increasing risk to the public.

Instead, airport governance should redefine Commonwealth responsibilities to its citizens and be integrated with broader metropolitan planning. This ultimately may mean closing down airport operations at Essendon.

Michael Buxton is professor of Environment and Planning, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted here.
   
"..Instead, airport governance should redefine Commonwealth responsibilities to its citizens and be integrated with broader metropolitan planning. This ultimately may mean closing down airport operations at Essendon.." - I guess someone forgot to inform LinFox and the Beck corporation that the operation of YMEN as a fully functioning corporate airport will in the not to distant future be going the way of the Dodo bird... Rolleyes

However this dilemma with airports has been a political football ever since the Federal Government first embarked on privatising Commonwealth owned airports and legislating the leasing arrangements for those airports under the Airports Act 1996 (ref: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00109 ).

It is interesting to note that every time an amendment to the Airports Act is proposed by the government of the day the politics become particularly shambolic and fractured. As an example the following are some extracts from Hansard of the 2nd reading debate of the 2006 Airports Amendment Bill (20 March 2007): ref - https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates...03-20.51.2

Quote:Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Martin Ferguson moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.




Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) - ..In my comments in this debate, I will focus on two aspects of airport development and management which have particular and significant implications for Perth Airport: firstly, the government’s attitude to airport development, particularly with regard to the development of a brickworks at Perth Airport; and, secondly, the financial relationship between Perth Airport and Belmont City Council. Other members have spoken about the BGC brickworks at Perth Airport. This development is causing considerable concern in the local community because of the proximity of that development to residential housing. In the context of the consideration of this bill, it is difficult to explain to a local community why on earth they should trust the planning regime for airports when the government has delivered a decision to place a significant brickworks facility in Perth on airport land and opposite housing.
The government’s decision to approve the brickworks is made all the more curious when you compare that decision with the decision of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 12 February this year to reject an application for a retail development at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. At that time, the minister stated that he rejected the Sydney airport development because of traffic and safety concerns. I believe the minister made the right call with that development and I commend him for it. But that decision is totally inconsistent with the decision by the minister’s hapless predecessor to approve the brickworks development at Perth Airport. This development needs further and serious consideration, given the local community’s concerns. But this government has thumbed its nose at the concerns of local communities in an arrogant and out-of-touch fashion. In fact, the brickworks construction has already commenced.
The problem is not so much with the planning regime but with the poor judgement of the government in failing to consider surrounding land uses in its decisions about commercial developments at airports. The government’s record on airport development means that we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval time lines. This is because in many respects the government’s management of airport planning issues has provoked significant distrust of the process. I believe that the minister and the government must have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. Part of the problem is that a department specialising in transport is trying to make planning decisions when it has no expertise in this area.



Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) - ...I want to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Batman. I had the opportunity to second the amendment back when this issue was first debated on 1 March. That amendment says:
... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act, through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth Brickworks site, located opposite a residential area and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact an local road infrastructure.
As member for Wills my own personal interest is in the Essendon Airport site and its future.
By way of background: we have had rapid growth in non-aviation development at Essendon Airport and at other airports in recent years in the wake of the privatisation and leasing-out arrangements which the government has entered into. That development has had some good features—and it is certainly my view that the Essendon Airport site has outlived its aviation usefulness and that its future lies in non-aviation activities—but it has not come without problems, and I think that some of those have been created through essentially poor implementation of the planning and approval process by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. If you look at Essendon, Adelaide and Perth, you will see that local communities have been sensitive to some of the commercial developments at airports, and rightfully so. It is indeed difficult to explain to a local community why they should trust the planning regime for airports—a regime in which they have no effective say—when successive ministers have delivered decisions like that in Perth of placing a brickworks on airport land opposite a residential development.
The government’s record on airport development with things like the Perth brickworks or retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon means that we need to be cautious. Frankly, on this side of the House we are not prepared to accept reductions in consultation or approval time lines. The minister and the government have to have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. We hope the minister has learnt from things like Harbour Town in Adelaide and the Direct Factory OutletsDFOs, at Essendon that he and the government need to take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. Local councils, state governments and local communities expect and are entitled to serious consideration of these issues...



Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) - State and local governments’ development and planning laws do not apply to developments at federal airport sites. Yet it is these governments that bear the cost of improved traffic management and provision of public transport. On 12 February the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, finally rejected the draft development plan for Sydney airport. His publicly stated reason for blocking the proposal was that he was not satisfied with the assessment of all public safety issues. Let us be clear: the Australian Labor Party always supports putting safety before profit. But you have to ask why it took so long for the minister to arrive at this conclusion when state and local governments and local communities were all stating that this was the case.
I first objected to the proposal in parliament more than a year ago. It was clear from the outset that this proposed development was never about improving services to travellers. It was all about using a hole in Commonwealth legislation to make money for big developers. The plan, which included a 48,000-square-metre outlet centre, commercial buildings and thousands of parking spaces, would have created chaos for surrounding areas. It would have placed incredible strain on infrastructure, public transport systems, small businesses and residential developments.
Despite the minister’s decision, Sydney airport is unlikely to stop submitting in the future similar plans that would impact adversely on local communities. In fact, the airport company has already drawn up a draft development plan for a retail complex, including a cinema and a supermarket. It is plain that the laws exempting airport land from local and state government planning controls are flawed and that the amendments we are debating today do not take us any closer to fixing the problem. The Commonwealth government’s control of the development of federal airports also characterises the government’s failure when it comes to infrastructure. The proposed amendments simply fail to deal with the major planning issues that arise out of non-aviation development activity. They fail to put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure that airport operators contribute to financing the development of the infrastructure required to support the proposed level of development. This government has no long-term plan for financing Australia’s infrastructure needs, let alone those short-term infrastructure needs created by federal government decision making. The only plan that the Howard government has to address the $90 billion shortfall in infrastructure, a figure estimated by the Business Council of Australia, is to blame the states.
The Airports Amendment Bill is yet another example of bad policy by a government that wants to seize control of state powers but take no responsibility for the consequences. The Commonwealth government has consistently refused to participate in discussions with state and territory governments over the need for a national policy for urban development. Yet the Commonwealth continues to control the planning and development of airport sites with little regard for the consequences this might have on local communities and how this might impact on surrounding infrastructure. The Howard government simply cannot have it both ways: they either get serious about developing a national policy for urban infrastructure development or get out of controlling non-aviation airport developments that have consequences for the urban areas that surround them.

Note how public safety does get a mention but then gets lost in the political rhetoric and the greater community interests/concerns like aircraft noise and traffic congestion... Undecided  

Now compare that to the mature balanced approach to urban development policy around airports by the Californian State Govt: ref - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-...ml#pid9510http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ns#pid9391

Like chalk and cheese... Dodgy 

MTF...P2  
     
Reply

Airports and how to Get One Free -  deal of the decade.

It’s probably all nice and legal and all; but I’d be demanding to see the bank accounts of every single person working for the council mentioned and a forensic audit of same.

I mean you have to be sure that the airport is being sold solely for the benefit of the community; to the common good. So, once the money changes hands and the aerodrome is lost; it would only be a responsible act to ‘track’ how the funds received were fed back into the community. That way the Council and councillors can retain their credibility, honour and a supportable defence against future corruption allegations.

Have at it Georgetown. Gifted land, community effort and money donated to provide a much needed asset – and no return for that effort or investment – hell; I’d be asking questions too.

Courtesy of The Examiner.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Joining the dots & dashes on the road to the Hooded Canary defamation of a dead pilot??

Reference SBG 23/12/18: https://auntypru.com/when-the-hurlyburly...t-and-won/

[Image: DvP4OOZU0AAUfTI.jpg]

Ok let's rewind to the days after the tragic Essendon DFO accident where a certain gentleman, Dr Richard Gates from Evan's Head NSW, straight away saw the significant implications for Local, State and Federal Government of the DFO accident ( note how Dr Gates was miles ahead of the game with the international and Caltrans connections - in bold) : https://www.echo.net.au/2017/02/evans-he...on-safety/


Quote:Evans Head group calls for Royal Commission into aviation safety

[Image: aerodrome-copy.jpg][img=565x0]https://www.echo.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/aerodrome-copy.jpg[/img]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome. (supplied)

An Evans Head group has warned that the Essendon Airport crash must act as a ‘wake-up’ call for the NSW Department of Planning and the Environment (DOPE) in NSW, planning authorities in other states, and the federal government with regard to residential and other forms of development such as shopping centres on and around airports regardless of location.

The group says the federal government seems to have left planning around airports including safety zones entirely to state governments despite the fact that aviation and aviation safety is a cross border issue.

President of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Dr Richard Gates said the most concerning feature of planning around airfields and airports in NSW is that how close residential development is permitted to come to an airfield is determined by a noise nuisance measure, the Australia Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF).

‘The ANEF is a series of contours which reflect increasingly louder noise nuisance profiles for aircraft noise with developments of certain types not permitted within certain contours or with mitigation such as double glazing or sound insulation,’ Dr Gates said.

‘The problem is that the noise contours are used as a surrogate for safety zones around airfield, a quite inappropriate use of a noise nuisance measure.

‘Aircraft noise and risk of accident around airfields are two quite different profiles with accident risk for take-off and landing requiring a much larger land area particularly around the end of runways where accident data (widely respected and used California accident data sets) show that most accidents occur.

‘The problem with the federal aviation authorities is that they have moved to an ‘affordable risk’ model for aviation safety.   This model is based on the fact that aviation accidents in Australia are relatively rare in Australia so if the chances of an accident are 3 in a million take-offs and landings then insurance risk is low and authorities can afford to cover such eventualities should there be a loss of a ‘hull’ [aircraft].”

‘The problem with the model is that you can’t predict when such an accident will occur. While the incidence might be very low it could be the very next flight which crashes into a residential area with loss of life and consequent calls for an airfield to be closed as we have seen at Essendon yet again.’

‘For years the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee has opposed residential development on and around the four airstrips of the State Heritage Listed Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome where Richmond Valley Council has made decisions based on the ANEF noise profile and has given no consideration to larger safety zones which we believe are required to maximise public safety.

‘One of the federal government authorities involved in aviation made it very clear to us that existing residential development at Evans Head was already too close to the runways but council ignored those comments and used the ANEF contours to decide where residential development should be allowed. The problem is that the local planners making the decisions seem to have little or no knowledge of aviation and aviation safety and the potential risk of catastrophic engine failure. But more than that they are not even using the latest ANEF ASA standard in making determinations. A council staff member we spoke to admitted that council did not have the latest standard.’

Dr Gates said that the current proposed OASIS development for the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome was just a repeat of the failed RSL LifeCare project with development being permitted too close to runways. Again the ANEF contours were being used as the determinant for where residential development should go.

Dr Gates said that an experienced aviator, Ron Fisher, with a background in the RAAF and QANTAS and life-long experience as a flying instructor had raised concerns about the risk of a crash on the aerodrome into adjacent residential areas when the RSL development was on the cards based on his own experience of a catastrophic engine failure when he was flying a Mustang for the RAAF. Mr Fisher showed that his aircraft would have crashed into the retirement village had it been in place (https://vimeo.com/29029804).

Mr Fisher was roundly ridiculed for his concerns and abused at a JRPP hearing by proponents for the development. Richmond Valley Council ignored what he had to say.

The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee in conjunction with Mr Fisher plotted out California accident data for Evans Head and was able to show that at least 14 aviation incidents would have occurred within the site for the retirement village.

Dr Gates said that Richmond Valley Council has an obligation under a Transfer Deed over the aerodrome with the federal government to prevent land use planning conflict on and around the aerodrome with regard to inappropriate residential development.

‘Not only should council be taking account of aircraft noise but also aviation safety around the airfield. Council needs to protect both residents and aviation by putting in larger safety zones around the aerodrome and commit itself in the public interest to move away from an ‘affordable risk’ model to one of conservative risk management,’ he said.

‘Council already knows that there are problems with safety zones from the aircraft accident in Casino in the residential area at the end of its main runway a couple of years ago yet it is allowing residential development to encroach on the end of its runway.’

Dr Gates said that there was a much larger problem with ANEF standards for Australia with the big developer lobby getting a hold of the standards and planning agenda. There was an attempt at reform of the ANEF which is now almost forty years old and out of date but the federal government was stymied by the big developer lobby which led a campaign against any significant change to ANEF rules and consequently to planning rules.

‘In our view this is a matter which should be investigated by a Royal Commission,’ he said.
Dr Gates who has a background in acoustics and the effects of noise and has published widely in scientific journals asked that his committee be permitted to sit on a review of the ANEF but Standards Australia refused. Standards Australia also refused to consider someone from AOPA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a peak body for aviation in Australia.

‘In our view all of this begs a question not only about ANEF standards in Australia but also planning for safety around Australia’s airfields. The sooner we have a Royal Commission the better. My committee is writing to appropriate authorities about this matter as a matter of urgency. We have made representation on a number of occasions previously. This whole planning mess needs to brought out into the open”.

‘In the interim Richmond Valley Council needs to cease all residential development on both its aerodromes.’
[/color]
    
This was also brought up with the Dept in Senate Estimates a couple of days later:





 And also with Carmody and CASA who firmly flat batted all responsibility and liability back to the Department (see answers to QON 113 & 114 - 
.pdf 05_CASA.pdf Size: 57.91 KB  Downloads: 0
):

 

Now let's fast forward to Budget Estimates where former Senator X first brought up the correspondence from Dr Gates to Carmody: 

Quote:
Quote:Note the following is the correspondence chain between Dr Gates and Carmody, as tabled by NX:
[Image: Doc-4.jpg]

[Image: Doc-5.1.jpg][Image: Doc-5.2.jpg]


& the attempted Carmody bureaucratese 'fob off' reply to Dr Gates:

[Image: Doc-6.jpg]
The Hooded Canary and the ATSB also featured (this time) in relation to their investigation into the DFO accident:

 Mr Hood : "..I might add that Mr Macleod, is a very highly respected former armoury officer and a pilot, with experience with military Black Hawk helicopter. He leads a very fine team of investigators. I am confident they are going to leave no stone unturned..." 
Hansard ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...%2F0000%22
Presumably the Hooded Canary's investigators did 'leave no stone unturned' so one has to wonder (much like with the 1st & 2nd Pelair Final Reports) how much of the 1st DRAFT report was conveniently omitted by the Chief Commissioner and his fellow commissioners in their commission report review process??
Finally in the timeline for 2017 Dr Gates fired off another salvo via the Echonet Daily (note the safety zone depictions using the Californian Caltrans format) ... Rolleyes
Quote: September 25, 2017 | by Echonetdaily

Public safety put at risk by airport developments

[Image: Airport-Safety-2-640x438.jpg]
This map shows that a section of the approved manufactured homes development at Evans Head airport is in the public safety zone. (supplied)

The state government and Richmond Valley Council have been accused of putting the interests of developers over public safety by approving residential and commercial buildings near airport runways.

The criticism followed the recent approval of a manufactured homes development near runways at the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome.

Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee president Dr Richard Gates said the failure of the NSW government to mandate Public Safety Zones around airfields and airports was nothing short of criminal negligence.

Dr Gates said information received from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in relation to a fatal plane crash at Essendon Airport showed that houses and a primary school were in the public safety zone.

‘For years the NSW State government has used an outdated ‘noise nuisance measure’, the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast or ‘ANEF’, to determine how close residential and commercial buildings can be built near runways,’ Dr Gates said.

‘However there is substantial international research which shows that aircraft noise is not an appropriate safety measure to determine how close construction should be to an active runway to be safe.

‘Local, state and federal governments have known that the ANEF is the wrong measure and have failed to act. The exception is Queensland which has Public Safety Areas around its airfields to shield the public from the risk of aircraft accident and to give aviators room to move should there be a problem.

‘While the federal government has provided a National Airports Safeguarding Framework based on the advice of the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG), the framework does not include public safety zones, which begs the question ‘why have they been left out’ particularly when these are standard practice in most first world countries and the Queensland government has adopted them for their airfields?’

‘It is very clear the big developer lobby has captured the safety agenda and land use planning policy and is influencing policy and standards and planning decisions in ways which are not in the public interest. They are gobbling up our aviation infrastructure through inappropriate encroachment aided and abetted by the State.’

‘We have been making formal and informal representations about these matters for years to all levels of government, their bureaucracies and Senate Estimates. With one of our submissions to the federal government we were the subject of an FOI request. It would seem that what we had to say touched a raw nerve with the big developers and their powerful lobby groups. ”

“What brought the matter of Public Safety Zones to a head for us was the fatal Essendon aircraft crash earlier this year and discussion about it at Senate Estimates. CASA indicated that even if there had been a legislated Public Safety Areas, the accident would have occurred outside that ‘hypothetical safety zone’.

‘When we requested information supporting the CASA claim, they repeatedly fobbed us off until just recently. While the information they provided did not show the full extent of the hypothetical Public Safety Zone at Essendon, completed drawings showed many houses and part of a Primary School within the zone. Little wonder they weren’t keen to share the information! It confirmed our long held concern that residential and other buildings were far too close to the runway and flight paths of aircraft, a concern expressed by residents around Essendon.’

[Image: Airport-Safety-1-640x452.jpg]
The public safety zone at Casino airport. (supplied)

In light of this information and armed with the model used by CASA based on the Queensland standard, we plotted out the Public Safety Zones for both airfields controlled by Richmond Valley Council at Casino (Figure 1) and Evans Head (Figure 2).

For both airfields Council has approved extensive residential development well within Public Safety Zones where aircraft mishaps are most likely to occur. Council used the inappropriate ANEF or noise nuisance measure to make their determinations and no consideration was given to Public Safety Zones whatsoever . You have to wonder if they are even aware of them which begs questions of local government having the necessary expertise to make planning decisions involving the specialist area of aviation safety.”

The Joint Regional Planning Panel, which recently determined that a Manufactured Homes Estate could be built immediately adjacent to the airfield at Evans Head, also failed to take account of public safety areas in its deliberations and relied on council advice.

With regard to Casino Airport substantial residential development has occurred within the hypothetical Public Safety Zone. There has been at least one aircraft accident near a house in that zone.

‘In our view Richmond Valley Council and the State government must urgently put airfield public safety issues first, and implement appropriate legislation to make sure both the public and aviation interests are protected”.

‘Further, there needs to be a careful reconsideration of the “Affordable Risk Model” used by governments in risk assessment in aviation so that the public interest and human life and not moneyed interests come first.

‘When governments put money ahead of human safety, particularly when a problem can easily be fixed, there is not only a moral problem but a legal liability issue.


Hmm...Dr Gates certainly nailed it back then - wonder why he has since gone all quiet??

MTF? Definitely - that's a promise...P2  Wink
Reply

P2;

Hmm...Dr Gates certainly nailed it back then - wonder why he has since gone all quiet??

He is still around P2! The good Doctor is to Council what AuntyPru is to the Minister - a giant pain in the ass! Dr Gates is a very vocal member of the community who doesn’t hesitate in calling out Council at every opportunity on matters including, but not limited to - the aerodrome, pedestrian crossings, rates, environmental matters, Council developments, dredging, dams, beaches and even the local historical society.

As an active IOS member of the Evans Head community he seems to be spread across numerous issues that ironically are mostly caused by a useless local government Council. Hopefully he is keeping his finger on the aviation pulse and when he is called to duty he will once again succinctly thumb his nose and raise his middle finger to the numerous bureaucracies and governments that have his ire......

‘Safe Council shenanigans for all’
Reply

Joining the dots & dashes on the road to the HC defamation of a dead pilot - Part II


(12-26-2018, 09:39 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Reference SBG 23/12/18: https://auntypru.com/when-the-hurlyburly...t-and-won/

[Image: DvP4OOZU0AAUfTI.jpg]

(12-26-2018, 10:31 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  P2;

Hmm...Dr Gates certainly nailed it back then - wonder why he has since gone all quiet??

He is still around P2! The good Doctor is to Council what AuntyPru is to the Minister - a giant pain in the ass! Dr Gates is a very vocal member of the community who doesn’t hesitate in calling out Council at every opportunity on matters including, but not limited to - the aerodrome, pedestrian crossings, rates, environmental matters, Council developments, dredging, dams, beaches and even the local historical society.

As an active IOS member of the Evans Head community he seems to be spread across numerous issues that ironically are mostly caused by a useless local government Council. Hopefully he is keeping his finger on the aviation pulse and when he is called to duty he will once again succinctly thumb his nose and raise his middle finger to the numerous bureaucracies and governments that have his ire......

‘Safe Council shenanigans for all’

Indeed Gobbles it doesn't take much Google trolling to get a sense of how much of an activist the good Dr G has been on all manner of Local, State and Federal Govt causes... Rolleyes 



[Image: dr-richard-gates-spcc.jpg]

ref:  https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+richa...66&bih=657× 675


However one of the links that caught my eye was the good Doctor's ASRR submission and subsequent comments on the ASRR report:

1) https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...dacted.pdf

2) https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ee_inc.pdf

Quote:30 June 2014
Comments on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review

1. My Committee appreciates the complex nature of the matters covered in the review.
2. While some attention was given to the problem of aviation safety and planning around aerodromes we do not believe that this important topic received the attention it deserves. The now out-of-date Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) tool is being used as a surrogate for safety zones around many Australian airfields for planning purposes by both State and Local authorities. There is no evidence that a noise nuisance measure determined through political decision-making in the early 1980’s is an appropriate metric or tool for determining the safety zones around airfields. It is inappropriate for planners to be using this measure to determine where structures will or will not be built relative to active runways, etc. Should there be a loss of a large hull on take-off or landing in a built-up area this question will undoubtedly be raised in any investigation particularly given that the current risk model being used in the industry is one of “affordable risk”. This problem must be dealt with as a matter of urgency notwithstanding improvements in aircraft technology, etc. Safety zones need to be determined using appropriate empirical data such as those found in California Aircraft Accident Data sets. Boundary determinations need to be made by a Federal agency not State or Local governments who do not have the expertise. As it presently stands delegation of planning responsibility to State and Local authorities looks very much like rail gauge determinations of the 19th Century. There must be Australia-wide uniformity to ensure safety across Australia.
We note in passing interference by the ‘big developer lobby’ is Australian Standard 2021 with regard to the ANEF. This matter should be the subject of independent investigation given the use of this standard for planning purposes and determination of safety zones around airfields. Whose interests are being looked after here?
3. My Committee has dealt with the Department of Transport and Infrastructure under various names now for many years. In our view this Department has been very unhelpful and indeed obstructive, legalistic and heavily politicised. In our view aviation safety should be dealt with independently by an expert body arms length from government control. With regard to appointments to such a body there must be at least one person who is expert in human decision-making and human factors. It appears to us that such expertise seems to be wanting in many of the processes under review. There should be an Amicus Curiae developed by appropriate expertise in this area to inform decision-making. 
4. We are very concerned about the affordable risk model being used for many decisions. There are better models which have not been canvassed. Safety should not be the subject of the political process of the day but a reflection of the best empirical information available.
5. Appointments to senior positions must not be on a short term contract basis. Those on contract are more likely to be responsive to political masters if they are seeking contract renewal. This is not good from a safety perspective. Contracts inhibit arms-length and fearless advice. P2 HEAR! HEAR! to Dr G and the choccy frog is in the mail -  Wink

Dr Richard Gates, President


Attached to the submission was a (Commonwealth Ombudsman forced) letter of correspondence from the former ATSB Chief Commissioner Beaker -  Dodgy   


[Image: Beaker-1.jpg]

[Image: Beaker-2.jpg]

[Image: Beaker-3.jpg]


Ah yes Beaker's (& now the Hooded Canary's) BASR (beyond all sensible reason) supreme model for providing impenetrable topcover support for all Govt agencies that maybe smeared with possible 3rd party libelous excrement from a non-independent aviation accident investigation.  Angry  

In this particular case I can now fully understand why it was Beaker reinforced that he didn't 'see the associated safety issue as significant', after all Beaker (along with M&M) was up to his nuts in all kinds of dodgy dealings with the Commonwealth lease agreements loosely accommodated for under the carefully crafted Airports Act 1996 - FDS!  Dodgy 

However that was before Max Quartermain (may he RIP  Angel ) inconveniently smashed a B200 into the Essendon DFO. Kind of makes sense now of why it was the Hooded Canary was so determined to eliminate all the other slices of cheese (including, once again, organisational factors) and slate all blame to the pilot:


Quote:[Image: DvDzvIaU0AArgIc.jpg] 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/when-the-hurlyburly...t-and-won/
                 
MTF? Wad'ya reckon...P2  Cool
Reply

There were ten in the bed –

P2 has provided a great deal of data relating not only to the proposed development of a new hospital at Tweed Heads, but to the general disregard for public safety in and around our aerodromes. This latest debacle has been caught in the slips – before ground is actually broken and the building ‘exists’. Unlike the DFO at Essendon which, like Topsy, grew and grew, without any adult supervision. Indeed, the responsibility ball was passed around so quickly that it is almost impossible to determine how the minister was prepared to sign the wretched approval and on who’s say so. Result five dead, a fire and the potential for carnage on a grand scale. I’ll say it again – ‘we’ were incredibly lucky that the Essendon crash of a five ton aircraft at better than 200 Kph, into a potentially busy shopping complex was NOT very nearly one of the worlds worst aviation disasters.

Doc. Gates is heavily involved in the proposed siting of a new hospital – P2 has provided the ‘words and music’ .– HERE.

One particular paragraph from Gates ../

"There are better solutions to the current problem such as a new location for the hospital.  Health claims it reviewed 30 potential sites for the hospital.  Surely one of these would be better than the current site? The State government needs to make the site evaluation process public so that we can see how the current site was chosen.  Public access to this process is critical to public confidence in our institutions and the political process for this controversial hospital site."  

/.. grabbed my attention. The sentence (my bolding) gets to the heart of the matter. I have asked a couple of folk, developer types I know, how the process really works. In short, it is not ‘corrupt’ in fact it is completely legal. It works like this: the sequence and timing of events is super critical, a bit like the three card trick, or; the shell game. Let’s say you own a parcel of land; then one day a Benz or Beemer pulls up at the farm gate and a fellah say’s “I’d like to buy that tract of land down there, by your Southern boundary”. You scratch your head for while, working out the value then add a healthy margin and state your price. “Deal” say’s the buyer and so it is done. Speculators DO NOT part with a bucket full of cash just because the view of the swamp appeals to their sense of nature and beauty. Now the local council (or whatever) announce there is to be a new hospital built on that land, the site has been deemed the ‘best’ spot for it. Cui bono?  

The only ‘problematic’ parts left are public protests and ‘safety’ concerns; but reports are written for those who pay for them, it is a wordsmiths business to shade and colour the reports, not actually ‘lying’ through their teeth, but eloquently shading the ‘awkward’ bits to seem ‘plausible’. Aye, tis a game worthy of Caligula; Machiavelli would have approved.

Before there is a major catastrophe (for the government) involving the deaths of the public or patients in a hospital; someone needs to get a rope on developments around airports. The British system, developed and researched by the USA into a scientific ‘formula’ for reducing and mitigating the risks of aircraft, the public and buildings colliding is freely available. Why can that code not be made into law? A honest man could sort it out – but where; in this godforsaken political environment do you find one that species?

Toot – toot & MTF. (Lots and lots)…………

Reply

There’s gold in them thar hills

I’ve always believed (yes I’m a synic) that when it comes to Government infrastructure and land acquisition you need to follow the money trail. Of Lordy, just look at Bankstown airport and the murky mischievous dealing surrounding it and you get my drift. Anyway, a half billion dollar hospital development on farmland would hold lots of juicy rewards for someone, somewhere.
- Who currently owns the land?
- Who used to own the land?
- Was it always zoned for some kind of large scale hospital precinct? If not, when was it rezoned? Who owned the land at that precise moment in time?
- In regards to the documents relating to the lands ownership both currently and previously, it is easy to follow the bouncing ball?
- Again, regarding land ownership what companies, businesses, individuals and other related entities have owned a stake in the land prior to and post approval for the Hospital?

The Gobbledock has seen many many shonky, crooked, brazenly corrupt activities in his many years in the business world. Governments and their power brokers are the worst. Out of a bad bunch, Local Government (Council) are by far the worst. Councillors, Mayors, Council CEO’s and executive management all work hand in hand, on the ground in the local community, in the same locale where many have lived all of their lives and have made a comfy living ‘wheeling, dealing and favouring’ select community business interests. And it’s not been done out of love for their constituents! Do you honestly think a person would become Mayor or Councillor for $20k per year giving up their time, energy, evenings and life because ‘they care for the communities best interests’? If you think that, you really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

$534 million Tweed Valley Hospital on Cudgen farmland.

https://m.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/dev...s/3412468/

Follow the bouncing ball......

Tick $$$$$$ Tock
Reply

TICK TOCK goes the DFO disaster warning clock - Part II

(01-07-2019, 10:36 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ...This brings me to the present - 2 months ago our dopey NFI miniscule signed off on the NASF guideline on PSAs (Public Safety Areas) around airports: (ref here for links: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...lines.aspx )

Quote:The new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline I on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) was agreed by Ministers at the Transport and Infrastructure Council on 9 November 2018.

PSAs are designated areas of land at the end of airport runways within which certain planning restrictions may apply. The new PSA Guideline was developed to mitigate the risk of on-ground fatalities from an aircraft incident, by informing a consistent approach to land use at the end of Australian airport runways.

In March 2018, the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the new NASF Guideline - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018.
Submissions were considered by NASAG and used to inform further drafting of the Guideline.
 
 
Of interest...is that when you search the Dept website or Google any of the combinations around NASF consultation etc..etc you will not find any submissions from any relevant stakeholders. This would appear to indicate that although the Dept has said they have consulted there is NO public record of such consultation - WTF?  Dodgy

However I did stumble across one letter of correspondence from AusALPA to 'Dear (Old) Lachie ( Big Grin )' from the Dept which IMO absolutely nailed the significant and (disturbingly) still outstanding safety issues surrounding (inappropriately unsafe - ala YMEN DFO) urban development encroachment around airports... Dodgy  

Ref: https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1136/17-10...-zones.pdf


Quote:...More than any other stakeholders, our members sample the positives and negatives of
our approach to airport safeguarding every day. Consequently, AusALPA is committed
to the NASF and the Guidelines as well as the long-term strategy of a single broadbased
national approach to safeguarding aviation infrastructure at all levels of government across
Australia.

The Downside of Federalism

AusALPA is entirely sympathetic to the difficulties faced by DIRD in trying to influence
the States to adopt robust safeguarding measures for our aviation infrastructure. While
we understand that the States are wary of the economic consequences of various
safeguarding proposals, history already tells us that failure to act decisively and at the
first opportunity will not be forgiven in the aftermath of a major accident.


We were astounded to discover that the UK, following the recommendations of the
Committee on Safeguarding Policy (the Le Maitre Committee), has had Public Safety
Zones (PSZs) in place at major UK airports since 1958. The US has had the
equivalent prior to 1989 and the Netherlands reviewed their existing policy settings
following the 1992 El Al crash after take-off that killed 39 people on the ground.

While we note that DIRD has been trying to get agreement from the States on PSZs for
about a decade, AusALPA strongly suggests that the NASAG should closely ponder on
the irony that we in Australia will still not have national PSZ planning restrictions in
place some 60 years after the Le Maitre Committee in the UK provided all the
necessary public safety policy considerations. NASAG should take no comfort in
Australia’s good fortune in regard to major aviation accidents and certainly should not
continue to prevaricate in establishing a universally stringent set of safeguarding rules.

Our Major Concerns

Our major concerns in this particular safety/public risk debate are about the extent to
which both the economic consequences and the size of the affected population may be
understated in order to nudge the risk management aspects across the line.

Economic Consequences

The Covering Document states:

The introduction of a PSZ will not have any impact upon existing properties.
While it may be true that existing land use remains unaffected under this proposal, the
principled approach set out in the UK Department of Transport Circular 01/2010
Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones includes:

The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil
airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working
or congregating in Public Safety Zones and that, over time, the number should be
reduced as circumstances allow.


The proposed Guideline appears to be ignoring this issue as well as the fact that any
future planning restrictions will have a material effect on property values, especially
where lucrative redevelopment options will now be prevented. AusALPA suggests that
these economic consequences, while regrettable, are nevertheless necessary for the
greater public good.

Spatial Considerations

AusALPA is particularly concerned about this quote from the Covering Document and
its apparent influence on the Draft Guideline:

Data collated by the International Civil Aviation Organization indicates that, while
statistically very low, accidents that occur during the take-off or landing phase are
most likely to occur within 1km before the runway on landing or within 500m
beyond the runway end on take-off.

We are concerned because the dataset and the basis for these conclusions are not
identified in the document and are not readily found in extensive internet searches. For
example, the only ICAO work cited in the early NLR studies (see NLR CR-2000-147)
was a 1980 document, since withdrawn.

Our own research into the accident location data suggests that the unsubstantiated
“most likely to occur” statement is statistically and evidentially problematic, particularly
in regard to take-off overshoot and landing undershoot accidents. We have attached
two pages extracted from NLR CR-2000-147 that amply demonstrate the inaccuracy of
this unsubstantiated and misleading assertion.

The documented outcomes of the UK and Netherlands approach suggest that the 1:105
public risk boundary often extends to around three or four times this distance at high
traffic runways. We have attached a clear and relevant figure from NLR TP-2013-550
that of itself clearly illustrates that using 1000m as a filter for development
consideration as stated in paragraphs 56-59 of the Draft Guideline is, while better than
nothing, is a most inappropriate distortion of the public risk.

Is NASAG Showing Leadership?


While we note the politics of Commonwealth/State cooperation attendant upon land
use issues and we recognise the difficulties in even getting this far, AusALPA is
strongly of the view that the NASAG needs to free itself of excessive dependence on
past decisions and to avoid the “two bob each way” approach taken in this draft:

The approach to PSZs in Australia, through the proposed new NASF Guideline,
provides flexibility for state/territory governments to be proactive and identify and
map PSZs at airports, or take a reactive approach and consider public safety risk
on a case-by-case basis in response to development proposals in close proximity
to airport runways.

There needs to be acceptance of the history of poor safeguarding decisions in the past.
However, we need to move forward by ensuring that we take positive steps to reduce
the readily foreseeable risks. The introduction of a single uniform approach to PSZs for
all significant airports is one such step.

Queensland’s PSZ Legacy

AusALPA applauds Queensland for their leadership in airport safeguarding. We have
no doubt that the Queensland public has been far better served in regard to public risk
management at their airports than can be said of any other Australian State.

Nonetheless, the current approach to PSZs in Queensland is deficient to the extent that
it is inconsistent in applying land use restrictions to areas of identical risk. While
AusALPA would dearly like to understand the rationale for truncating the PSZ at 1000m
along the centreline beyond the threshold, the reality is that the full extent of the risk
contours have been known for decades and inappropriate development at 1001m on
the centreline may well be at far greater risk than developments located closer than
1000m but further off the centreline.

AusALPA therefore questions whether offering the Queensland example as a future
option for other States is defensible, given that NASAG knows the model is deficient.

Western Sydney Airport

AusALPA is disappointed that the Western Sydney Unit and DIRD were unwilling or
unable to negotiate with NSW to implement a full set of untruncated PSZs at Western
Sydney Airport, despite it being a greenfields site with essentially no legacy land use
planning problems.

In effect, the Commonwealth has undermined any future agreement to fully risk-based
PSZs by opting for a truncated zone which ignores the real risk contours. Moreover,
that decision opens the door for incompatible land use options just beyond 1000m that
may also fail the societal risk tolerance that is otherwise avoided by population density
controls.

The statement at paragraph 8 on page 13 of the Draft Guideline is demonstrably
untrue: the so-called 1000m ‘clearance zone’ does not “cover the area of highest safety
risk”.

International Standards

The covering document states that: “There is no international standard promulgated by
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for PSZs.” However, while that
statement is accurate, it is not complete. ICAO does provide some guidance in
Chapter 5 Land Use Planning of Part 2 Land Use and Environmental Control of ICAO
Doc 9184 Airport Planning Manual (3rd edition). While that guidance in Doc 9184
basically describes only the Netherlands process, it also mentions other circumstances
where external risk assessment is required.

In any event, AusALPA views the ICAO approach as entirely supportive of the
production of appropriate risk contours, as distinct from “one size fits all” templates that
are of varying correlation with the real risk to the public.

US DoD Accident Potential Zones

While recognising the value of the Annex A to Attachment 3 to the Draft Guideline,
AusALPA does not believe that the illustrated public safety areas are appropriate for
the Australian NASF. The US classification of runways as the controlling variable is
naive and over simplistic – it is not consistent with Australian aviation infrastructure
usage or consequence modelling and the areas appear to significantly exceed that
required by the iso-risk contours.

World’s Best Practice


We recognise that there are a number of ways various jurisdictions approach PSZs.
Some approaches (US DoD, QLD) are clearly deficient while there remains some
debate about whether individual or societal risk assessments are preferable. However,
“world’s best practice” is most often a function of popularity rather than absolute quality
– NASAG should just choose a single approach to be uniformly applied across
Australia in the full knowledge that others will consider our choice to help elevate that
approach to “world’s best practice”.

Centralised Modelling of Risk Contours

AusALPA notes from the literature that NATS became the dominant provider of the risk
modelling and contour production for UK runways (and internationally on contract).
Competition and transparency issues aside, the immediate and obvious benefit in the
UK is that the outcomes were and are standardised. Similarly, we became aware that
from 2006 the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) “has been providing all planning
authorities in England, Scotland and Wales with on-line access to the (risk
assessment) software it has developed to generate its land use planning advice, known
as PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations), so that
they can generate the health and safety advice more quickly and efficiently
themselves…”.

It seems to us that public safety would be enhanced and that PSZ decision-making
would be made more efficient and standardised if one agency (preferably DIRD)
became the sponsor and supplier of mutually acceptable iso-risk contours for all
Australian airports. AusALPA notes that, as we have limited aviation infrastructure
compared to the UK, the creation of a centralised source should neither be expensive
nor overly demanding.

Conclusions

AusALPA applauds the introduction of PSZs at all significant airports (not just exCommonwealth airports).
The PSZs should be defined by iso-risk contours generated by appropriate risk
modelling. While the current emphasis is on the assessment of individual risk, existing
inappropriate land use may mandate consideration of societal risk assessments as
well.

AusALPA does not accept 1000m as a valid parameter for truncating the length of
PSZs or as a filter for determining the need for development assessments.
AusALPA is disappointed that the Draft Guideline is not more focused on a single
uniform approach to defining PSZs.

AusALPA is disappointed that Western Sydney Airport has adopted a known deficient
PSZ template that ignores areas of equal risk and, by so doing, has undermined any
potential Commonwealth leadership in implementing PSZs.

AusALPA suggests that NASAG adopt a common risk assessment model such as used
in the UK and, further, that the model is maintained and operated by a single, mutually
accepted agency.

 If this is an example of the calibre of expert consultation submissions provided to the NASAG then one wonders why it is that they did not include an appraisal/review of why the AusALPA type criticisms and recommendations weren't embraced inside of the new 'Guideline I' - https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...-I-PSA.pdfHuh 

Hmmm...I think I smell a RRAT?? 
Dodgy 

For those interested in doing the reading here are some links for the 1) (referenced above) 2000 Netherlands document NLR-CR-2000-147: http://www2.vlieghinder.nl/naslagdocs/CD...ird_pa.pdf ; & 2) National Air Traffic Services Limited, June 1997, R&D REPORT 9636, titled THIRD PARTY RISK
NEAR AIRPORTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ZONE POLICY: https://saeninfo.files.wordpress.com/201...an2989.pdf

Okay so, despite the obvious concerns of independent aviation safety expert organisations/associations (like AusALPA), on a quick review it would appear that the DRAFT version of the NASF Guideline I on Public Safety Areas was pretty much left unchanged or amended - see here: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...-I-PSA.pdf

"..It is not intended that this Guideline will be applied retrospectively to existing development..."

Nor is there apparently any attempt to address the commonsense, principled approach adopted by the UK authorities in terms of retrospective PSA policy for existing inappropriate (public safety risk) development: 

AusALPA: "..The introduction of a PSZ will not have any impact upon existing properties.
While it may be true that existing land use remains unaffected under this proposal, the
principled approach set out in the UK Department of Transport Circular 01/2010
Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones includes:

The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil
airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working
or congregating in Public Safety Zones and that, over time, the number should be
reduced as circumstances allow.


The proposed Guideline appears to be ignoring this issue as well as the fact that any
future planning restrictions will have a material effect on property values, especially
where lucrative redevelopment options will now be prevented. AusALPA suggests that
these economic consequences, while regrettable, are nevertheless necessary for the
greater public good..."

[Image: DvqgWe_UUAAKPdR.jpg]    

Remember the YMEN DFO complex had parking spaces for over 1000 vehicles, so at a minimum there could be potentially up to 1000 members of the public at peak trading periods within the defined UK/US Caltrans public safety zones. I guess it would be possible to slowly restrict the public traffic flow to the restricted public safety zone area but I am not sure the DFO complex employees, their associated unions and the State OHS regulatory authorities would be too impressed if the DFO was suddenly to be redefined at an elevated risk to public safety.  Rolleyes

Hmm...I wonder if our NFI miniscule McDo'Naught has the foggiest idea what it is he and his fellow State Ministers have signed off on?  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Well. - Slap my ass and call me Sally.

Or: a soliloquy on Pony-Pooh? - Ayup, 'tis a ramble.

It seems, much to my chagrin; that the wheel has turned full circle and I must – perforce – do my duty to my BRB brothers in arms (alms – I you like it better). ‘Tis time to talk of the Beechcraft 200 and those as fly it. All in relation to Australia’s narrowly avoided multi person BBQ at the Essendon DFO.

In primus, we must begin with the aircraft. I have, much to my delight and benefit, spent some 2000 happy hours in the peerless King Air. I can, with some ease; and, in a heartbeat, provide somewhere in the region of 100, 000 hours (total) of pilots experienced– on type, to support my words. The aircraft is, without doubt, one of the most outstanding aircraft, in it’s class, ever produced.

What, you may ask has this to do with the murky, mindless, money grubbing behaviour of those who wrote Essendon aerodrome off as a Dodo and the near serious tragedy when a superb aircraft collided with a building which had no right; neither a legal, moral, nor financially supportable to reason to be there. Aunt Pru and the associates: both, have commanded this missive. Thus I proceed.

"So weary with disasters, tugg'd with fortune,
That I would set my life on any chance,
To mend, or be rid on't."

As stated, the aircraft is, of itself, a stand alone ‘super-star’. There is not a Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) pilot in Australia who would gainsay that statement. Scenario: it is two AM when a call is received. A ‘Header’ has tipped over, the driver has been stabilised – but, critical – needs blood and must be moved “now – now”. Life and death in the balance. RFDS responds (now-now). A full blown medical emergency. The locals have used ‘utility’ vehicles to light the landing area; there are some Kerosene soaked toilet rolls to be used as a flare path. It is a pitch black – no ambient lighting – paddock in the middle of somewhere-nowhere – in the middle of the night. Tricky stuff. Black hole approach (no aids) to a paddock – middle of nowhere, middle of the night. What is the aircraft of ‘choice’? Ask the RFDS pilots. Gods alone know how many hours the RFDS have flown in the B200, in similar circumstances. Crap weather or good. They have, almost always - got the job done; safely. No one died that night. Now ask yourself a simple question. Which aircraft (your choice) would you prefer strapped to your sorry ass that night. Shout it out loud. The Be 20. Why? Well I shall explain. The aircraft is ‘agile’, powerful, robust and, totally reliable – it is also quite forgiving. Totally, completely, absolutely - in the right (trained) hands – a pilot’s aircraft. On a dark, cold, lonely night, to a paddock, in the middle of nowhere – the pilot’s choice, the venerable, much loved Beechcraft 200 – bar non.

A quick ‘ring-around’ of experienced Be20 pilots that I personally know (<40,000 hrs on type -collectively) agree. It is an almost automatic action, during pre start up checks to ‘ensure’ that ALL trims ae set neutral. Questioned; many admitted that they had ‘ONCE” and one time only taken off without checking that ‘all’ trims were ‘neutral’ as per the book. Only once though. QED. Did it myself – once – after a very fast turnaround, during which maintenance was conducted. It was the rudder trim- the ‘ginger beer’ had checked something – I, in a rush failed to reset. I felt and noted this at about 40 knots during the take off. Corrected my stupidity by 45 knots, spent a hour lecturing myself on how I should have known better and swore to never, ever do it again. (I was young and immortal at the time).

I ramble on about this because I find it passing strange that a professional pilot, unhurried, with a good weather forecast, a light load, a short hop at a sensible hour of day would fail to make the routine, almost second nature checks. Given the fact that the pilot in question had just undertaken some ‘additional’ training’ and was very, very conscious of the ‘scrutiny’ of fellow pilots and probably the CASA. More likely to err on the side of caution than to throw caution, required checks and the deep seated habits we all acquire, to the wind. Then consider the aircraft check-lists. Walk through the ‘acceptance’, pre start, taxi, pre take off lists. They are comprehensive, logical and take the pilot around the cockpit several times. Bear in mind that SOP is re-set all trims as part of the 'after landing check list (lest we forget). One may ‘miss’ , once, a five degree offset from ‘centre’ of a trim indicator, but full rudder trim? Not even on the balance of probability scale is it. Even if you did, the rudder becomes effective at about 40 knots (ish). That rudder is connected to the pilot’s feet on take off – very, very firmly connected. Has to be for any sort of take off. So, the very inexperienced, shamatuer pilot, the Hi-Viz Hood, who is not a professional pilot’s bootstrap, wants us to believe that a deemed competent, qualified, type experienced fellah, fresh out of re-training simply ignored every warning that all was not well and ploughed into a building? BOLLOCKS.

For a start, with two healthy engines and an old lady flying the aircraft, it would have been, with a simple rudder out of trim condition, easily ‘flyable’ for the short period it would take to correct the error. It would climb like a homesick angel, despite the ‘sideslip’ mumbo-jumbo Hood dragged out of his sorry arse. This incident began on the runway – the take off path clearly defines this; the rest is history. We need to know what, exactly was going on in that cockpit. Something had gone awry – but what and why?

"That but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'ld jump the life to come."

What is immediately apparent is the indecent haste, without a coroners report or detailed forensic airframe and engine examination complete, to blame the dead pilot? The incredible arrogance of an unqualified ‘clerk’ in declaring that there were five separate opportunities to correct the error Hood declares was made is simply breath taking. We need to look deeper.

BRB – big shout (unanimous) “String him up by his balls”.

P7 – (sotto voce) “No, he’d probably like that………………” Instant silence.

ATSB has now gained a world wide reputation of being an ‘arse covering’ glove puppet, a catamite to those who hold sway. Look back to Lockhart River, look back to the Pel-Air debacle, take a close look at MH 370. Then take a very close look at the Hood credentials to run the ATSB. When you’ve done with that, take a very close look at NASAG and the DoIT involvement in the selling off of aerodromes. I say there is more chance of an ‘error’ to be found there, than in Quartermain’s pre take off preparations.

So why this repeat performance of the Pel-Air (blame the pilot) debacle? Blame the pilot, denigrate him, his family memory of him, tarnish his good name – without a shred of evidence. All on the say so of Greg Hood. Bullshit. Why the huge smoke screen? Nothing to do with property developers and slightly dodgy deals done with the big end developers is it? Nah of course not. “That building saved lives” dontcha know……………..Course it did Greg, sure. The DFO is our hero de jour. Bollocks.

That DFO needs to be torn down. The Californian code must be adopted. And the damn fool minister needs to learn the difference between a Runway End Zone and a Safety Zone. For his information – there is a concrete monstrosity parked right in a ‘safety zone’; it’s pretty big, has killed five people and has the potential to kill many more; shoppers, workers and the like. It nearly did, except for the grace of lady luck, kill a damn site more than five.

Aye, they say money talks – which ain’t true. It whispers quietly in the ears of those who prize it above their honour, above their honesty, above the law and in defiance of the gods themselves. Are they ashamed – hell no, they’re off boozing it up on yacht with Mojito’s and dancing girls; probably payed for by the hapless, long suffering dupe - the Australian tax payer.

Toot – too ducking ridiculous - toot.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)