Airports - Buy two, get one free.

Joining the dots & dashes on the DFO cover-up?

Quote:...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 glad that the BRB are taking up the cause on what I believe to the most disgusting ATSB Final Report cover-up to date (that includes the 1st and 2nd iteration of PelAir investigations).

Quote:...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?...

This brings me to another huge aberration with this bollocks report - first a reference from a 'Search 4 IP: 

(10-09-2018, 11:28 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  The HVH YMEN DFO faery tale grows... Huh    


Reference P7 Accidents - Domestic post: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103...ml#pid9398 

Quote:..I note, with some amusement, that the ‘experts’ on the UP are finally catching on. Shan’t bother you all with the posts – but, to further elaborate the abysmal ATSB performance in support of only the gods know what; a quote directly from the Be20 bible.

“The engine driven fuel pump (high pressure) is mounted on the accessory case in conjunction with the fuel control unit (FCU). Failure of this pump results in an immediate flame-out.”
 The primary boost pump (low pressure) is also engine driven and is mounted on the drive pad on the aft accessory section of the engine. This pump operates when the gas generator (N1) is turning and provides sufficient fuel for start, take-off all flight conditions except operation with hot aviation gasoline above 20, 000 feet altitude, and operation with cross-feed.

The minister should be asking his experts to clearly define what actually happened that day, at Essendon. They could, in turn, ask the ATSB what the hell they are playing at. Better yet, he could bring in the IIC and ask him; on oath, (in camera) if he can – hand on heart – provide a little more ‘fact’ than the Hood faery story. I’d expect some folk in the USA would value anything a little better than the current Wild Ass Guess (WAG) which claims, without any convincing supporting data or proof, 100% Pilot error. 

The simple truth minister is the ATSB management have NFI; the ‘tin-kickers’ might; but there is not enough evidence here to support any claim other than supposition. The bloody aircraft hit a building and burned, killing 5; that is fact – after that – well, you pay your money and take your chances...

Not exactly sure why but the last time I looked the mods over on the UP are still mulling over whether to approve Grogmonster's NTSB report attachment... Huh

Quote:Grogmonster:

Some frightening similarities here people. Not Rudder Trim !!!!
Attachments Pending Approval
[img=16x0]https://www.pprune.org/images/attach/pdf.gif[/img]
 
NTSB report on Wichita Crash.pdf


Lead Balloon: 

Pending approval, here’s some of the report:


Quote:The airline transport pilot was departing for a repositioning flight. During the initial climb, the pilot declared an emergency and stated that the airplane "lost the left engine." The airplane climbed to about 120 ft above ground level, and witnesses reported seeing it in a left turn with the landing gear extended. The airplane continued turning left and descended into a building on the airfield. A postimpact fired ensued and consumed a majority of the airplane.

Postaccident examinations of the airplane, engines, and propellers did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Neither propeller was feathered before impact. Both engines exhibited multiple internal damage signatures consistent with engine operation at impact. Engine performance calculations using the preimpact propeller blade angles (derived from witness marks on the preload plates) and sound spectrum analysis revealed that the left engine was likely producing low to moderate power and that the right engine was likely producing moderate to high power when the airplane struck the building. A sudden, uncommanded engine power loss without flameout can result from a fuel control unit failure or a loose compressor discharge pressure (P3) line; thermal damage prevented a full assessment of the fuel control units and P3 lines. Although the left engine was producing some power at the time of the accident, the investigation could not rule out the possibility that a sudden left engine power loss, consistent with the pilot's report, occurred.
A sideslip thrust and rudder study determined that, during the last second of the flight, the airplane had a nose-left sideslip angle of 29°. It is likely that the pilot applied substantial left rudder input at the end of the flight. Because the airplane's rudder boost system was destroyed, the investigation could not determine if the system was on or working properly during the accident flight. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain lateral control of the airplane after he reported a problem with the left engine. The evidence also indicates that the pilot did not follow the emergency procedures for an engine failure during takeoff, which included retracting the landing gear and feathering the propeller.

Anyway for the benefit of those IOS and BRB members interested, here is some links for the quoted NTSB final report into the 30 October 2014 B200 fatal accident at Wichita, Kansas (Report No. - CEN15FA034): 

  1. https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat...4112&key=1
  2. https://aviation-safety.net/database/rec...20141030-0
  3. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/02/be...g-air.html

Quote:NTSB Identification: CEN15FA034
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, October 30, 2014 in Wichita, KS
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/01/2016
Aircraft: RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY B200, registration: N52SZ
Injuries: 4 Fatal, 2 Serious, 4 Minor.

NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The airline transport pilot was departing for a repositioning flight. During the initial climb, the pilot declared an emergency and stated that the airplane "lost the left engine." The airplane climbed to about 120 ft above ground level, and witnesses reported seeing it in a left turn with the landing gear extended. The airplane continued turning left and descended into a building on the airfield. A postimpact fired ensued and consumed a majority of the airplane. 

Postaccident examinations of the airplane, engines, and propellers did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Neither propeller was feathered before impact. Both engines exhibited multiple internal damage signatures consistent with engine operation at impact. Engine performance calculations using the preimpact propeller blade angles (derived from witness marks on the preload plates) and sound spectrum analysis revealed that the left engine was likely producing low to moderate power and that the right engine was likely producing moderate to high power when the airplane struck the building. A sudden, uncommanded engine power loss without flameout can result from a fuel control unit failure or a loose compressor discharge pressure (P3) line; thermal damage prevented a full assessment of the fuel control units and P3 lines. Although the left engine was producing some power at the time of the accident, the investigation could not rule out the possibility that a sudden left engine power loss, consistent with the pilot's report, occurred.

A sideslip thrust and rudder study determined that, during the last second of the flight, the airplane had a nose-left sideslip angle of 29°. It is likely that the pilot applied substantial left rudder input at the end of the flight. Because the airplane's rudder boost system was destroyed, the investigation could not determine if the system was on or working properly during the accident flight. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain lateral control of the airplane after he reported a problem with the left engine. The evidence also indicates that the pilot did not follow the emergency procedures for an engine failure during takeoff, which included retracting the landing gear and feathering the propeller.

Although the pilot had a history of anxiety and depression, which he was treating with medication that he had not reported to the Federal Aviation Administration, analysis of the pilot's autopsy and medical records found no evidence suggesting that either his medical conditions or the drugs he was taking to treat them contributed to his inability to safely control the airplane in an emergency situation.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
  • The pilot's failure to maintain lateral control of the airplane after a reduction in left engine power and his application of inappropriate rudder input. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to follow the emergency procedures for an engine failure during takeoff. Also contributing to the accident was the left engine power reduction for reasons that could not be determined because a postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation and thermal damage precluded a complete examination.

[Image: 20141030-0-C-1.jpg]



 
The first and most obvious question is why was this final report not listed in the ATSB's 'related occurrences' section of the VH-ZCR final report -  Huh 

Probably because it didn't fit the HVH faery tale:


Quote:Related occurrences

A review of the ATSB’s occurrence database and the United States’ National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) online database identified three potentially similar accidents that involved an aircraft taking off with the rudder trim not correctly set.
  
After reviewing the NTSB accident reports, phots and video footage, IMO there is absolutely no debating the remarkable similarities in the two accidents. What makes it worse is that I suspect that the ATSB investigation team have actually referred to the NTSB report as some of the investigatory methodology is remarkably similar.

Example: 

Quote:..The NTSB conducted a sideslip thrust and rudder study based on information from the surveillance videos. This study evaluated the relationships between the airplane's sideslip angle, thrust differential, and rudder deflection. Calculations made using multiple rudder deflection angles showed that full right rudder deflection would have resulted in a sideslip angle near 0°, a neutral rudder would have resulted in an airplane sideslip angle between 14° and 19°, and a full left rudder deflection would have resulted in an airplane sideslip angle between 28° and 35° airplane nose left. Calculation of the airplane's sideslip angle as captured in the image of the airplane during the last second of flight showed that the airplane had a 29° nose-left sideslip, which would have required the application of a substantial left rudder input...


https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-024/

.
..Following witness observations of a significant left yaw, the ATSB attempted to define the aircraft’s sideslip and roll angles at different points along the flight path using video footage from CCTV and a vehicle dashboard camera. Still images were extracted from the CCTV and dashboard camera footage, and the location of the aircraft was determined using ADS-B data at points A through G (Figure 16). ZCR’s track was determined at each point using ADS-B data...

...Analysis of the roof impact marks indicated that:

  • the aircraft had a heading angle of about 86 ⁰ (T)

  • the ground track was about 114 ⁰ (T)

  • the aircraft was at a sideslip angle of about 28⁰ left of track

  • the aircraft was slightly left-wing and nose-low with a shallow angle of descent at the initial roof impact

  • after the initial impact, the aircraft rotated left on its vertical axis until the fuselage was about parallel with the rear parapet wall of the building...

P2 comment - I note in the case of the Wichita accident that on 26 October 2016 Flight Safety International filed a lawsuit against 12 different companies associated with the King Air crash: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/10/be...g-air.html


Quote:FlightSafety files lawsuit over 2014 King Air crash 

WICHITA, Kan. FlightSafety International has filed a lawsuit, naming more than 12 companies (19 defendants total) it says contributed to the October 2014 fatal crash of a Beechcraft King Air near Wichita's Mid Continent Airport, now known as Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport.

On Oct. 30, 2014, a Beechcraft B200 Super King Air crashed into a flight safety training center building near the airport, killing the pilot and three people inside the training center.

Among the defendants in the lawsuit are Textron Aviation, Yingling Aircraft, Beechcraft Corporation, Hartzell Propeller, Inc., Pratt and Whitney Engine Services, Inc. and the plane's previous owner.

Investigators say the pilot failed to maintain control of the King Air after a reduction in power to its left engine.

Source:  http://www.kwch.com 

After once again reading the Wichita accident report - https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_l...034&akey=1 - and in particular under the 'Medical and Pathological' section :

Quote:MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION 

This 53-year-old pilot had been an air traffic controller for more than 20 years at ICT and retired in 2013. Since his first medical certification in 1980, the pilot had reported thyroid disease, hernias, and recurrent symptomatic kidney stones to the FAA. Beginning in 1997, he had episodes of anxiety and depression, which required intermittent treatment with medication. During the first episode, he was unable to work for a certain time. A second episode began in October 2013 and continued through the accident date. He did not report his recurrent anxiety or his use of buspirone and escitalopram to the FAA. However, he visited his primary care physician about 1 month before the accident and was noted to be stable on the medications. In addition, the pilot had a procedure to treat kidney stones in 2013 that he did not report to the FAA. 

On November 3, 2014, the Regional Forensic Science Center, Sedgwick County, Kansas, performed an autopsy on the pilot. The cause of death was determined to be thermal injuries and smoke inhalation and the manner of death was determined to be an accident. According to the autopsy report, a thin plastic medical catheter was identified in the pilot's pelvis, but it was not further described in the report. The Regional Forensic Science Center also conducted toxicology testing of the pilot's heart blood, which identified carboxyhemoglobin at 39 percent, but no other tested for substances were found.

Toxicology testing performed by the Bioaeronautical Research Laboratory at the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute identified buspirone and citalopram and its metabolite n-desmethylcitalopram in the pilot's heart blood and urine. In addition, the carboxyhemoglobin was 35 percent; no ethanol, cyanide, or any other tested for substances were identified. Buspirone, also named BuSpar, is an anxiolytic prescription medication. Buspirone is different from other anxiolytics in that it has little, if any, typical anti-anxiety side effects, such as sedation and physical impairment, but it does carry a warning, "May impair mental and/or physical ability required for the performance of potentially hazardous tasks (e.g., driving, operating heavy machinery)." Citalopram is a prescription antidepressant, also named Celexa, which carries a warning, "May impair mental and/or physical ability required for the performance of potentially hazardous tasks (e.g., driving, operating heavy machinery)."

From the ATSB YMEN DFO accident report:
Quote:Medical and pathological information  The pilot held a Class 1 Aviation Medical Certificate that was valid until 20 May 2017. The pilot was required to wear distance vision correction and have available reading correction while exercising the privileges of his licence. The pilot’s CASA medical records indicated that he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2007. At the time of the accident, the pilot was reportedly on multiple oral medications to manage his diabetes and was considered to have met the CASA requirements for maintaining his medical certificate.

The records also showed that, as part of the pilot’s annual medical requirements, an echocardiogram was performed in 2016, which revealed an abnormal mitral valve. This was repaired in July of that year, with a post-operative follow-up identifying nil issues. CASA subsequently reviewed the pilot’s medical history and he was advised on 4 February 2017 that he could continue exercising the privileges of his licence, but should cease flying if there was a change in his treatment or condition.

The pilot’s post-mortem examination established that the pilot succumbed to injuries sustained during the impact sequence. Mild to moderate coronary artery atherosclerosis22 was noted, along with signs of mitral valve annuloplasty.23 There was no evidence, however, of any significant natural disease which may have caused or contributed to the accident. Further, the toxicology results did not identify any substance that could have impaired the pilot’s performance or that were not noted in the pilot’s CASA medical records. While post-mortem results for the passengers were not provided to the ATSB at the time of writing, given the injuries sustained by the pilot and the results of his post-mortem, the accident was not survivable. The pilot’s family described him as being fit for his age and indicated that he regularly exercised.

Plus the quote on that bizarre, abnormal Mayday call: 

Quote:MAYDAY call

The MAYDAY call broadcast by the pilot of ZCR shortly after take-off was reviewed by the ATSB. No additional information regarding the nature of the emergency was identified. In addition, the ATSB’s assessment of the pilot’s speech characteristics was unable to provide any further information.

Not sure why there is no analysis material/documentation highlighting the methodology used in the ATSB assessment of the pilot's speech characteristics but even as a layman I would have thought there was considerable significance in the pilot giving a non-standard Mayday call -  i.e x7 Mayday's, instead of x3, without any information in regards to the nature of the emergency - at the most critical point of the accident flight (remembering pilots are consistently trained in an emergency situation to prioritise - aviate, navigate, communicate).    

Keeping the Wichita accident report and the non-standard Mayday call in mind, I can't help but think that the YMEN DFO accident pilot Max Quartermain may not have suffered a physical incapacitation but rather a mental incapacitation (like the Wichita pilot obviously did), some sort of cognitive block which did not allow him to react or assess and then act appropriately (ANC) to the abnormal/emergency situation he found himself in - just saying... Huh  


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

A duty of care.

Sydney Morning Herald – Choc Frog awarded.

Seems at least the SMH and the AFAP  are prepared to tackle the serious, 60 y.o. problems facing public safety around Australian airports. Civilized, developed, responsible places, like Europe, UK and the USA have adopted rules and developed safeguards against the possibility of an aircraft colliding with a ‘close in’ buildings.  Well done SMH; will that story be available to the citizens of Melbourne, through the Age we wonder?

The simplest, safest way to resolve this issue is easily done – Boycott the Essendon DFO – shop elsewhere. Watch how quickly things change then. The other option of course is to wait until there is another major incident; that’ll fix it.

What can’t happen is that the ATSB be allowed to continue ‘investigating’. They are a bit short in the credibility department – just a bit: with a very spotty track record.

Toot – toot……
Reply

A duty of care. - Part II


[Image: Dw_bGZtVAAARsic.jpg]

Ref:

(01-16-2019, 05:33 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Sydney Morning Herald – Choc Frog awarded.

Quote:Essendon Airport DFO plans call safety planning into question


[Image: 1113e378aaa73452e3c5ce608df57110d474f64f]
By Patrick Hatch
16 January 2019 — 12:05am


The way buildings around Australia's airports are approved is under fresh scrutiny after it emerged that Essendon Airport’s DFO shopping centre complex was built closer to a runway than recommended under international and Australian safety guidelines.


The nation’s largest professional pilot association has called the situation at Essendon a "significant safety compliance anomaly", and said that it raised questions about whether safety has been compromised.


[Image: e21f4201ffad3f4ec4fc414c80f6ec8ff288e07c]

The planning approval for Essendon's retail precinct has been called into question. CREDIT:MICHAEL DODGE


It comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is close to completing a major investigation into how Essendon's DFO complex was designed and approved. The probe was launched in the wake of a fatal crash in 2017 when a light aircraft ploughed into the rear of the centre.

“The very fact that it was allowed to be built is a safety concern for our system," said Captain Marcus Diamond, a safety and technical officer at the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP).

"It means that inappropriate buildings can be built not just at Essendon, but at other airports.


"There’s more risk, and we need to know how that was justified.”


DFO sits within recommended buffer zone


[Image: 2230123_1547522994967.jpg]
Source: AFAP 




The family of trucking billionaire Lindsay Fox and businessman Max Beck acquired a 99-year lease on Essendon Airport in 2001 for $22 million, and set about developing retail and commercial buildings around the airport.

That included the DFO complex built south of the main runway in 2005.



The wider airport precinct is now reportedly worth more than $1 billion, and is home to a hotel, car yards, offices, a whisky distillery and other commercial property, with other developments in the pipeline.
It had been expected at the time of the purchase that aviation activities would cease at what used to be Melbourne's international airport.



[Image: db4cb65d7aeb02f3297947d8426ec18f940093ac]

The 2017 plane crash into the DFO has promoted regulators to investigate how the shopping centre was approved. CREDIT:SEVEN NEWS

But it is today Australia's largest corporate jet base, and home to Victoria's police and emergency air services and other aviation operations.

Documents released to the AFAP under freedom of information laws show the DFO building was approved by then-federal transport minister John Anderson on the condition that it did not adversely impact on “navigation aids or operational activities” at the airport


But the AFAP has challenged whether that is what occurred, after discovering in planning documents also released under FOI that the DFO sits just 128 metres from the centre of the runway.

That is within the 150 metre flyover area - essentially a buffer zone - either side of the runway's centre line that would form a 300 metre "runway strip width" recommended by the United Nation's aviation safety body, the International Civil Aviation Organization.


[Image: f62a69022a9df9f83b8cbd155583d3fe599e81a2]

Five people were killed in the 2017 plane crash.CREDIT:JUSTIN MCMANUS

Two large water tanks, light poles and fencing also sit within the 300 metre zone, which is intended to safeguard aircraft if they run off the tarmac during take-off or landing.

As a member nation, Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is expected to try to keep its own safety standards in line with ICAO's.

The AFAP said that when the DFO was approved in 2004, CASA's standards allowed the runway to have a strip width of less than 300 metres, but only if a detailed safety case was put forward and all relevant stakeholders were consulted.

The pilots body has been unable to access that safety case, with an FOI request met with the response that there was no such document. CASA and the airport could not say if one was ever produced.


More buildings?

CASA later implemented the 300 metre standard in its own rules, and in 2015 granted an “instrument” that had the effect of retrospectively approving the DFO building, while ordering Essendon to still tell pilots it had a 300 metre strip width.

That width is given to pilots in official operational material and informs operators what aircraft they can use, as well as how they are insured.

So concerned about the objects within the buffer zone, the AFAP has issued a safety bulletin to pilots warning that the strip width was closer to 230 metres.

Essendon Airport now wants to narrow the strip width back to 180 metres, and started consulting late last year with operators at the airport about how that could affect their operations.


[Image: 85ae518d5afd3241f5135121dc94d2d9dda2f3fc]
Essendon Airport is home to Victoria's emergency services air wings. CREDITTongueAUL JEFFERS

Some operators have raised concerns that narrowing the width could lead to more buildings being built close to the runway, or otherwise interfering with operations or safety, according to one operator who declined to be named.

The AFAP's Captain Diamond said that the airport was "trying to narrow the runway strip width even more without proper safety analysis and will allow even more inappropriate buildings to infringe the international standards".

A spokesman for Essendon Fields Airport said it had "always operated within all applicable aviation safety regulations", but declined to comment in more detail on matters that were subject to the ATSB's investigation.

It said that its main runway had operated with the strip width of 180 metres from 1972 to 2015, and that the DFO and other objects were not within the restricted area when they were approved and built.

CASA 'too busy' to check plans

Other documents released to AFAP under FOI show the federal government approved the DFO development on the condition that the airport would consult with CASA about its plans and comply with any of its safety requirements.

But letters from CASA to the airport released under FOI say it did not have time to check the DFO plans.


“Gathering the information required for the authority’s assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive,” one letter says.

[Image: f39c895c7c9b41e8750374c228a1069b524aa455]

Essendon is Australia's biggest private jet base.
CREDIT:JOE ARMAO

A CASA spokesman said the DFO building was marked on charts and equipped with hazard lights.

"The current runway width is not compromising safety," he said.

CASA declined to answer why it ordered the airport to publish a 300 metre strip width or if that needed to be updated.



Safety probe

In February 2017, a Beechcraft King Air light aircraft turned sharply to the left shortly after takeoff and crashed into the southern end of the DFO, killing all five people on board.

The aircraft hit the southern end of the building - well outside the disputed runway buffer zone.



Quote:CASA letter to Essendon Airport

It appears to CASA that gathering the information required for the Authority's assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive, and inconsistent with the purpose of the Master Plan in any case. Any such assessment itself would be extremely time-consuming and as Draft Master Plans can change and have very long lifetimes, much of the work may ultimately be unnecessary...

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that pilot error was to blame, but while looking into the crash, decided to launch a separate investigation into how the DFO complex was approved "from an aviation safety perspective".


That probe is nearing completion, with its final report currently out for review by the parties involved ahead of its public release.

The AFAP's probing of Essendon Airport has prompted AusALPA - a body it is part of which represents more than 7000 professional Australian pilots on safety matters - to look carefully at what it considers inappropriate developments at a number of other airports.

Captain Diamond said the Essendon Airport example showed the approval processes for buildings around airports needed tightening, at a time when many airports were building around their airstrips.

“There needs to be a review and we need to have robust assessment processes that at the moment are being abridged or avoided in the planning stages," he said.

"We need to tidy that up and have the regulations much more firm in protecting both the airspace around airports and the physical characteristics of airports."


Airports including Brisbane, Canberra and Cairns have and continue to build new hotels, office blocks and other buildings around their airports.

“These sorts of developments are pretty standard around airports around the world,” said Canberra Airport's managing director Steven Byron.

“There is a very rigorous process,” including consultation with airlines, regulators and the public, he said.

Brisbane Airport said the planning processes in place ensured that aviation operation safety and efficiency were not compromised by developments.

The federal department of infrastructure, which also had to approve the DFO building, directed questions to CASA.

Seems at least the SMH and the AFAP  are prepared to tackle the serious, 60 y.o. problems facing public safety around Australian airports. Civilized, developed, responsible places, like Europe, UK and the USA have adopted rules and developed safeguards against the possibility of an aircraft colliding with a ‘close in’ buildings.  Well done SMH; will that story be available to the citizens of Melbourne, through the Age we wonder?

The simplest, safest way to resolve this issue is easily done – Boycott the Essendon DFO – shop elsewhere. Watch how quickly things change then. The other option of course is to wait until there is another major incident; that’ll fix it.

What can’t happen is that the ATSB be allowed to continue ‘investigating’. They are a bit short in the credibility department – just a bit: with a very spotty track record.

Toot – toot……

Hmm...sorry to burst your bubble "K" but why is the AFAP coming out swinging on it's own and not united with AIPA under the AusALPA banner? 

Also, why is there no mention about, the recently signed by our dopey NFI miniscule, NASAG NASF Guideline... 
 
Quote:Ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...41#pid9741

..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... 

...which the AFAP helped contribute to under the AusALPA banner in their letter to Dear Old Lachie from October 2017: ref - https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1136/17-10...-zones.pdf

Quote:AusALPA quotes:

 ...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..

...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...

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


Quote: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...

When you read the very legitimate concerns of AusALPA back then (25 October 2017), then consider that the (now signed) NASF Guideline I (PSAs around airports) would appear not to have altered in any shape or form, by the secretive (behind closed doors) NASAG committee, Shirley one has to be suspicious that the AFAP has not mentioned one word about the 60+ year deficient public safety zone policy around airports? Just saying! - In the interests of Duty of Care of course... Rolleyes 
 

MTF..P2  Cool
Reply

CAsA- The biggest joke in aviation

From the article;

“Planning documents also released under FOI that the DFO sits just 128 metres from the centre of the runway”.

Unbelievable that this could even occur. It is abhorrent that this building received any form of approval or sign off in the first place. And it is a safety issue that any person flying in and out of Essendon should consider. The current building location poses minimal risk when all goes perfectly in the air. But when the shit hits the fan, which it did, these people may not have died had the building not been where it shouldn’t have been. 128m from the centre line? Seriously? How big are the aircraft using that runway? How strong are Melbourne’s winter crosswinds? How easy is it for an aircraft to become unstable and drift a few hundred metres left or right of the centre line during bad weather, an engine out, or a stall???? Talk about a reduced safety margin.

And this;

“The AFAP said that when the DFO was approved in 2004, CASA's standards allowed the runway to have a strip width of less than 300 metres, but only if a detailed safety case was put forward and all relevant stakeholders were consulted.
The pilots body has been unable to access that safety case, with an FOI request met with the response that there was no such document. CASA and the airport could not say if one was ever produced”.


That’s right. That’s because no safety case was submitted, no robust risk assessment undertaken, a simple and quick sign off was granted. It would be interesting to know if there are any connections between Local, State and Federal Government employees, the land owner, the DFO developer and any other party. This development gained approval too quickly. Was there some pork barrelling going on? Perhaps Council or State elections? Paper bags for anybody perhaps?

And this;

Letters from CASA to the airport released under FOI say it did not have time to check the DFO plans. “Gathering the information required for the authority’s assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive,” one letter says.

Well there you go! The Big R Regulator has all the time in the world to bully industry, pick at nonchalant pithy little items in an Ops Manual, but holy shit when it comes to putting a big concrete public shopping complex within 128 metres of the runway centre line of a large size airport the CAsA don’t have time to assess it!!!! Pure gold. But disgusting. What the effing hell are we taxpayers paying these muppets to actually do???

Carmody, you’re the CEO mate. You are sitting in the chair. You own this. You need to go!!

TICK TOCK
Reply

AFAP, CASA and NASAG.

Hand in glove? It is no secret who ‘owns’ the AFAP nowadays – not at all. AusALPA provided a balanced, sensible submission related to ‘building’ tall stuff within internationally recognised boundaries – designed to keep the unsuspecting public safe, shopping at the airport DFO while the kids play about in the designated play area. I’m not sure how many AFAP casasexuals, CASA delinquents, Departmental Yes-men; or, even high rolling ‘developers have pulled the bodies of  burned alive, dead children out of the wreckage of an aircraft smash – but perhaps the experience would sober them – just a bit - perhaps.

“Essendon Airport now wants to narrow the strip width back to 180 metres, and started consulting late last year with operators at the airport about how that could affect their operations.”

FFS - Maths; for idiots 101.

120 knots = 222 Kph.
140 knots= 259 Kph
160 knots= 296 Kph

An aircraft with a landing speed of 130 knots is doing 240 Kph on touchdown (ish); should a tyre blow out even at 100 knots (185 Kph) and directional control is lost – that aircraft will cover 180 meters in just under four seconds. How long - remind an old man - was the entire King Air flight - in seconds - before it rudely collided with a building?

180 K per hour = 3 Kph a minute – 3000 meters/ 60 = 50 meters per second – 3.6 seconds – BOOM.

Let’s look at a take off; rotate at a gentle 120 knots = 222 Kph – 3.7 K per minute. 61.6 meters PER SECOND. The aircraft is 2/3 the way down the runway at the point of engine failure. This equates to a whisker under three seconds to transit the 180 wide zone – FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. Half that when there is 90 meters either side. The King Air which hit the DFO normally is doing somewhere between 100 and 130 knots (240 K –ish) at about the same height as the DFO. How much time has a pilot got to regain control, sort out and shut down a failed engine – not bloody much is the right answer. The ‘codes’ and ‘standards’ adopted by the real world acknowledge the ‘abnormal’ event and have taken steps to mitigate the risk of carnage on a grand scale. But, Australia does seem to so enjoy a good, big BBQ -    

“These sorts of developments are pretty standard around airports around the world,” said Canberra Airport's managing director Steven Byron. BOLLOCKS & PONY-POOH.

“That is within the 150 metre meter fly-over area - essentially a buffer zone - either side of the runway's centre line that would form a 300 metre "runway strip width" recommended by the United Nation's aviation safety body, the International Civil Aviation Organization.”


“Two large water tanks, light poles and fencing also sit within the 300 metre zone, which is intended to safeguard aircraft if they run off the tarmac during take-off or landing.”

“CASA later implemented the 300 metre standard in its own rules, and in 2015 granted an “instrument” that had the effect of retrospectively approving the DFO building, while ordering Essendon to still tell pilots it had a 300 metre strip width.”


“The AFAP said that when the DFO was approved in 2004, CASA's standards allowed the runway to have a strip width of less than 300 metres, but only if a detailed safety case was put forward and all relevant stakeholders were consulted.

Letters from CASA to the airport released under FOI say it did not have time to check the DFO plans. “Gathering the information required for the authority’s assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive,” one letter says.

P2 – “Hmm...sorry to burst your bubble "K" but why is the AFAP coming out swinging on it's own and not united with AIPA under the AusALPA banner?”  Also, why is there no mention about, the recently signed by our dopey NFI miniscule, NASAG NASF Guideline...

Good questions P2 – good luck getting them answered. You’ll need it. Although it will be great fun to watch the ‘responsibility ball’ game of musical chairs again – that could be a hoot.

“Yes please” (No need to order for the BRB, the staff understand our needs very well). A simple smile, nod and payment usually satisfies. Priceless antique system – Service I believe they called it.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

I’m forever blowing bubbles -

P2 - Nah Mate: me bubbles is all in good wurkin’ order, no problems there; the ‘bump of curiosity’ however is working overtime. Shirley is right to be suspicious; this from the SMH rang a few bells and whistles:-

SMH – “It comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is close to completing a major investigation into how Essendon's DFO complex was designed and approved. The probe was launched in the wake of a fatal crash in 2017 when a light aircraft ploughed into the rear of the Centre.”

P7 - "Letters from CASA to the airport released under FOI say it did not have time to check the DFO plans. “Gathering the information required for the authority’s assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive,” one letter says.

Given the ATSB’s piss poor analysis of the accident, the way the Witchita accident was ignored, the rapid, unsupported claim ‘the pilot dun-it’ and the lack-lustre performance of the ATSB management; it leads one to wonder why was the ATSB selected to ‘investigate’. What ‘expertise’ can they offer in the black art of air space design?

You can see why my ‘bubble’ is still floating – the SMH article was good work – corroboration from the AFAP seems, at face value, to be reasonable and it gets the story published; so far so good. The AFAP actually did the ‘right thing’ and Diamond is a ‘white hat’. But bringing the AFAP any deeper into this sorry saga will raise deep seated, long held suspicions. CASA are up their collective Hocks in the approval of this building as are the DoIT. Many rice bowls to protect and ‘alliances’ to maintain; not to mention the big money interests. Not one of these outfits can afford the slightest whisper of culpability in allowing this DFO to be built where it is. Hell I can just about hear the insurance legal Eagles sharpening their talons and beaks from here – as a counterpoint to the tramping of politicians feet as they head for the exits, dragging their safety nets and golden parachutes with ‘em.

Yet responsibility for the investigation rests on the shoulders of the Hood ATSB. Am I worried? – Oh, you bet I am. I doubt I’d trust Hood as far as I could kick him, given the chance. This is a matter of great importance – Australia trails the world best practice by 60 years; the development around airports since privatisation has been uncontrolled. The Essendon DFO accident was a wake-up call; the investigation needs to be independent, unimpeachable, free from any hint government agency involvement. A Royal Commission working with the USA ‘code’ as a guide would reveal the unprecedented ‘risk’ Australians live with in the vicinity of aerodrome ‘high risk’ areas.

We were very, very lucky at Essendon – got off very lightly. The worst case scenario at Essendon would have seen Australia’s very worst ever aviation disaster. Is Hood the right man to entrust with this task?

Aye well; that’s up to you to decide. You’d need four good men, a strong horse and I’d have to be legless before you could get me (or mine) into that airport DFO.

Toot – toot….

[GD - your follow up post moved to the SBG page - HERE ]
Reply

Aeroplanes can ruin your stock....

Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock. More here;

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...50t3z.html

Quote:Spotlight chases crashed DFO plane owner for millions in ruined stock
Tom Cowie


By Tom Cowie
23 January 2019 — 7:40pm


Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock.

A volley of writs filed in the Supreme Court in the past week continues the legal fallout from the crash, after the families of the four American tourists killed in the disaster said they planned to sue the dead pilot's estate for millions of dollars over the February 2017 tragedy.


[Image: 9f5cfc36b0c16bebda085b979ae08bbe3f6c62ed]
Damage to the Spotlight store at DFO after a plane crash that killed all five on board.CREDIT:AAP

Spotlight has joined brands Herringbone, Victoria Station and Oz Design Furniture in suing the Bendigo-based company that owned the plane.

The crash left a gaping hole in the side of the shopping centre and the toll of the damage has now been revealed in court documents.

In its statement of claim, Spotlight said the explosion ignited a fire that activated the sprinkler system, damaging or destroying stock.


[Image: cf229fc3d05e90dadfc849b73bf052080c260446]
The B200 erupts into a huge fireball after crashing into the roof of Essendon Airport DFO.CREDIT:NINE NEWS

The sewing and crafts chain is seeking a further $850,000 for damage to the premises, business interruption and marketing costs to advertise the store's reopening after it was closed for eight months.

The other three companies are suing for loss of profits totalling about $45,000 while their DFO outlets were closed in the immediate aftermath of the crash.

The doomed B200 Super King Air was connected to an opaque web of companies before it crashed, raising concerns about the flight's insurance coverage and who would be held responsible legally.

Separate entities owned the plane, operated it, flew it, maintained it and chartered it.

[Image: 0253aea94bfea722f0023628120f81985cc0a6ce]
Analysis of the plane's wreckage from a report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.CREDIT:

The plane was registered to Bendigo-located company BB1544 Pty Ltd, which is owned by businessmen Dr Chris Richards and Andrew Hoare.

Dr Richards told The Age he was unaware of the latest legal action and that it was a matter for his insurance company. Previous action brought by the victims' families against the company is understood to have been settled.

The companies based at DFO claim in court documents that a lawyer representing BB1544 Pty Ltd had already admitted liability for loss, damage and destruction caused by the accident.

Under Commonwealth legislation, the owner of the aircraft can be found liable for a crash even if it is not the operator of the flight.

[Image: f4525fd58408b02e333ee0450f013b0a8cb91a40]
Four victims of the plane crash: Pilot Max Quartermain, and golfers Russell Munsch, Glenn Garland and Greg De Haven.

At the time of the disaster, the flight was operated by Corporate & Leisure Aviation, a separate company in the name of pilot Max Quartermain.

An investigation released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in September last year established that pilot error was to blame for the crash, after the plane's directional control system was mistakenly set to veer left before take-off.

A pre-flight checklist by Mr Quartermain should have discovered that the aircraft's rudder trim was in "full nose left position", the bureau found, which resulted in the aircraft plunging into the roof of DFO almost immediately after take-off.

The check should have also identified that the plane's voice recorder wasn't working before the flight.

[Image: 6f9594ed1504042ba27b00e03bcd41fa2f447bed]

John Washburn, from Texas, was the fifth victim of the Essendon Airport disaster.CREDIT:FACEBOOK

Mr Quartermain was killed in the crash, along with American tourists Greg De Haven, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and John Washburn, who were flying to King Island to play golf.

The widows of the four men said they planned to seek compensation when it was revealed that pilot error was the cause of the crash, with the potential payout running into the millions of dollars.

The law firm representing the four companies from DFO declined to comment while the matter was before the courts.

‘Safe stocktake sales for all’

P2 -WTF? Absolutely despicable, now it becomes plainly obvious why it was the Hooded Canary so blatantly and IMO fraudulently slated all blame for this tragic accident on the pilot... Angry     
Reply

Productivity Commission releases wet lettuce DRAFT report into Airports.

Ref: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/...2019#draft  

Here is the A4ANZ damning take on that weasel worded confection:

Quote:[Image: Dyq_GheUcAAXVib.jpg]


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

(01-16-2019, 07:07 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  AFAP, CASA and NASAG.

Hand in glove? It is no secret who ‘owns’ the AFAP nowadays – not at all. AusALPA provided a balanced, sensible submission related to ‘building’ tall stuff within internationally recognised boundaries – designed to keep the unsuspecting public safe, shopping at the airport DFO while the kids play about in the designated play area. I’m not sure how many AFAP casasexuals, CASA delinquents, Departmental Yes-men; or, even high rolling ‘developers have pulled the bodies of  burned alive, dead children out of the wreckage of an aircraft smash – but perhaps the experience would sober them – just a bit - perhaps.

“Essendon Airport now wants to narrow the strip width back to 180 metres, and started consulting late last year with operators at the airport about how that could affect their operations.”

FFS - Maths; for idiots 101.

120 knots = 222 Kph.
140 knots= 259 Kph
160 knots= 296 Kph

An aircraft with a landing speed of 130 knots is doing 240 Kph on touchdown (ish); should a tyre blow out even at 100 knots (185 Kph) and directional control is lost – that aircraft will cover 180 meters in just under four seconds. How long - remind an old man - was the entire King Air flight - in seconds - before it rudely collided with a building?

180 K per hour = 3 Kph a minute – 3000 meters/ 60 = 50 meters per second – 3.6 seconds – BOOM.

Let’s look at a take off; rotate at a gentle 120 knots = 222 Kph – 3.7 K per minute. 61.6 meters PER SECOND. The aircraft is 2/3 the way down the runway at the point of engine failure. This equates to a whisker under three seconds to transit the 180 wide zone – FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. Half that when there is 90 meters either side. The King Air which hit the DFO normally is doing somewhere between 100 and 130 knots (240 K –ish) at about the same height as the DFO. How much time has a pilot got to regain control, sort out and shut down a failed engine – not bloody much is the right answer. The ‘codes’ and ‘standards’ adopted by the real world acknowledge the ‘abnormal’ event and have taken steps to mitigate the risk of carnage on a grand scale. But, Australia does seem to so enjoy a good, big BBQ -    

“These sorts of developments are pretty standard around airports around the world,” said Canberra Airport's managing director Steven Byron. BOLLOCKS & PONY-POOH.

“That is within the 150 metre meter fly-over area - essentially a buffer zone - either side of the runway's centre line that would form a 300 metre "runway strip width" recommended by the United Nation's aviation safety body, the International Civil Aviation Organization.”


“Two large water tanks, light poles and fencing also sit within the 300 metre zone, which is intended to safeguard aircraft if they run off the tarmac during take-off or landing.”

“CASA later implemented the 300 metre standard in its own rules, and in 2015 granted an “instrument” that had the effect of retrospectively approving the DFO building, while ordering Essendon to still tell pilots it had a 300 metre strip width.”


“The AFAP said that when the DFO was approved in 2004, CASA's standards allowed the runway to have a strip width of less than 300 metres, but only if a detailed safety case was put forward and all relevant stakeholders were consulted.

Letters from CASA to the airport released under FOI say it did not have time to check the DFO plans. “Gathering the information required for the authority’s assessment of whether every item in a Draft Master Plan will be compliant with civil aviation safety requirements would be time-consuming and expensive,” one letter says.

P2 – “Hmm...sorry to burst your bubble "K" but why is the AFAP coming out swinging on it's own and not united with AIPA under the AusALPA banner?”  Also, why is there no mention about, the recently signed by our dopey NFI miniscule, NASAG NASF Guideline...

Good questions P2 – good luck getting them answered. You’ll need it. Although it will be great fun to watch the ‘responsibility ball’ game of musical chairs again – that could be a hoot.

“Yes please” (No need to order for the BRB, the staff understand our needs very well). A simple smile, nod and payment usually satisfies. Priceless antique system – Service I believe they called it.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]

Hmm...I believe this fits for this week's contribution from Byron Bailey in the Oz

Via the Oz: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...53c797e240

Quote:Lack of Essendon runway space risks unthinkable disaster

Melbourne’s Essendon Airport is the major centre for corporate jet operations in Australia.

Approval was recently granted for the maximum takeoff weight limit to be raised to 50 tonnes to accommodate the new ultra long range Global 7500 corporate jets.

I have flown many times into Essendon. Runway 26, at 1921m long and grooved, is the preferred runway for landing as it has an ILS (instrument landing system).

For takeoff, runway 17 to the south, at 1505m long, is the preferred runway.

This is because takeoff on runway 26 to the west conflicts with Melbourne/Tullamarine international airport located five nautical miles to the northwest. For takeoff on runway 17 in the large corporate jet I fly, I have to reduce the maximum takeoff weight by three tonnes due to the shorter runway length.

All long-range aircraft from the Airbus A380 down carry about 40 per cent of their maximum takeoff weight as fuel, which means the new Globals would be carrying about 20 tonnes of fuel when at maximum takeoff weight.

The ICAO standard for airfields is an overrun runway safety area (RSA) of 300m. Runway 26 has only about 100m from the end of the runway until reaching fencing and roads.

Runway 17 is worse, with only about 50m separating the departure end of the runway with the major east-west highway.

Some years ago in the US a corporate jet suffered a tyre blowout at high speed before V1. The captain aborted the takeoff with maximum braking and thrust reversers. (V1 used to be known as decision speed but is now specified as “the speed at which the takeoff must be continued”.)

What made conditions worse was that the flailing tyre damaged the squat switch (air/ground sensor) on the undercarriage leg. The aircraft systems reacted as if the aircraft was airborne and cancelled the reverse thrust. The aircraft departed the runway end at considerable speed and was destroyed, killing both pilots and two of the four passengers.

Racing car circuits have at their high-speed corners areas filled with gravel to cause a large deceleration before coming into contact with the safety fencing.

In the US, airfields have similar available Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for aircraft overruns in the runway safety area (RSA). Military airfields have pop-up barrier systems to stop any fighter from a high-speed abort.

The thought of an overrun off the runway 17 to 50m into the major highway — with an explosion of tonnes of jet fuel — does not bear thinking about. - What about off runway 17 (Takeoff) or 26 (Landing) into a midday Saturday packed DFO complex??  

Byron Bailey is a former RAAF fighter pilot and flew B777s as an airline captain.

Hmm...that reminds me of something???

[Image: Picture016-1.jpg]

[Image: Picture017-1.jpg]

[Image: Picture001.jpg]



TICK...TOCK miniscule McDo"naught...TICK..TOCK INDEED!  Dodgy

[Image: Acting-Prime-Minister-Michael-McCormack-...s-21-L.jpg]

[Image: Dz5ds8tVsAAcnuP.png]


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Back to ToRs on public safety zones around airports??

Reference:

(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]

Doc Gates has plotted out a hypothetical PSA at the end of runway 17 at Essendon based on the slightly less stringent QLD public safety zone/area model... Wink



[Image: D0DNXtYVYAAhHFC.jpg]

[Image: D0DN00IVsAAZlEX.jpg]



Doesn't paint a very good picture for the Govt and it's agencies when you couple that with the SMH picture of the ICAO Annex 14 runway width non-compliances...

[Image: 2230123_1547522994967.jpg]

...and the Bailey/Ol'Tom disturbing observations -  Confused


TICK...TOCK miniscule, TICK..TOCK indeed!!??  Angry


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

BUREAUCRACY GONE MAD

I dug up an article from 2014 entitled;
‘Rules eat up $250 billion a year in profit and productivity’.


It’s nauseating, and it shows what we are dealing with Australia wide, which includes aviation. Here is a snippet;

“The total cost of $250 billion a year means that Australians – both workers and businesses – have to work for eight weeks every year just to pay for the administration and compliance costs of the rules we set ourselves”.

And that was 5 years ago. Things have only gotten worse. Full article here;

https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/me...71014.html#

Bureaucracy is, correction - has, killed this country and most other western nations. The excessive rule and law making, while not repealing old laws, has reached what I feel is our very own ‘event horizon’, where basically our way of life including the ability to earn a living, contribute to the economy, operate freely without intrusive restrictions, is no longer possible. The bureaucratic governmental system has drowned itself and us poor bastards as well. It simply no longer works, we are choked like the western Sydney freeway in peak hour. The system is collapsing in on itself and grinding everything to a halt.

When one giant eared muppet like Carmody can submit a signed piece of paper (re: Angel Flight) for no greater reason than ‘because he can’ and effectively destroy a large part of an industry, only a fool would think the system is fine and this is a democracy that is working well. The world has gone mad at the hands of overpaid Government workers who live in their own bubbles.

Not long to go now - grab the yellow vests, the shotgun, the grain and run to the hidden bunker because our society is imploding......

Tick Tick most definitely
Reply

AIRLINE THIEVERY

“If he flew today, the cheapest flight from Mr Griffin's hometown of Cloncurry in Queensland to Darwin was $979 one-way on Virgin, with two stopovers and a total journey time of 25 hours”

The airlines have been bleeding passengers for decades. If you add up Cloncurry’s passenger head taxes, security charges and aircraft landing tonnage fees you will quickly see that the bullshit rhetoric that Joyce and Borghetti have been spinning that airport fees are to blame for high airfares is a crock of shit. The airlines love gouging the Bush, particularly if only one of the two majors operate on that specific route.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-1...s/10902166
Reply

(03-15-2019, 12:22 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  AIRLINE THIEVERY

“If he flew today, the cheapest flight from Mr Griffin's hometown of Cloncurry in Queensland to Darwin was $979 one-way on Virgin, with two stopovers and a total journey time of 25 hours”

The airlines have been bleeding passengers for decades. If you add up Cloncurry’s passenger head taxes, security charges and aircraft landing tonnage fees you will quickly see that the bullshit rhetoric that Joyce and Borghetti  have been spinning that airport fees are to blame for high airfares is a crock of shit. The airlines love gouging the Bush, particularly if only one of the two majors operate on that specific route.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-1...s/10902166

Update - Air Routes Inquiry: Public hearing Darwin 15/03/19. 


Via the DPS & the Hansard team today: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Senator Patrick on the OTT proposed OTS security measures for some regional airports... Dodgy

Quote:Senator PATRICK: In making this decision, if I recall correctly, the government called for submissions and the Office of Transport Security conducted a review. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to penetrate this, and that particular office can't be FOI'd. I can't even see any submissions into that. Did Qantas make a submission into that review?

Mr Mumford : I don't know. I can't recall—

Senator PATRICK: I would have thought that, with that sort of review that ends up with this sort of effect, it would have been in the interest of every airline to have said to the Office of Transport Security—

Mr David : I'll come back to my point before. What we do is engage with government to assess the risk factor, and they have got intelligence around the world and we have intelligence around the world. We're connected with other airlines. We'll work with them to assess whether the risk is real and we need to take action and then whether the action we're taking is the appropriate action to mitigate that risk.

Mr Gissing : When it comes to deciding whether it's the 20-tonne rule that impacts the Q400 now, whether it's 50 seats, which is a risk assessment based on people on board an aircraft or the seat count of aircraft, around the world there are very different approaches. We're not in a position and we do not have the expertise to make a determination about what the risk is and how that can be determined.

Senator PATRICK: And what the risk difference is between the 50-seater and the 39- or 34-seater.

Mr Gissing : It's related to mass. The 20-tonne rule is related to mass and what that mass could do versus seat counts. It's not our area of expertise.

Senator PATRICK: Last Friday I few to Moomba on an Alliance Airlines aircraft. It's a charter. For the record, I'm making sure that I pay for it. Santos took me up there. On the way up I went through airport security in Adelaide. I flew up to Moomba. I then toured around wells with all sorts of bad chemicals, explosive bits and pieces, tools and all sorts of stuff. I then came back, went to the terminal at Moomba and just walked straight onto the aircraft, after being checked to make sure I had a boarding pass, and flew back to Adelaide. I think it was a Fokker 70 which, I'd hazard a guess, has 120 people on it.

Mr Gissing : It's a significantly greater mass than our Q400, yes.

Senator PATRICK: Has anyone from the department, in the close engagement that you've had, ever explained how the risk associated with a flight like that is different to the risk from a Q400? Have they talked to you about that?

Mr Gissing : Not to my knowledge.

Mr David : No. I don't have knowledge that they'd done that. Trent, do you have anything?

Mr Mumford : No. We have raised our concerns in relation to the 40-seat rule directly with the department. Particularly in relation to the ongoing operational cost that will come with it. As you rightly said, the capital equipment is being funded by the Commonwealth, but it's the ongoing operating expense that we've got the real concern about. If you go back to slide 3, where we talk about the impact of airport security charges on regional flights, the security costs in some markets, like your Port Lincolns, your Whyallas or your Charlevilles, is going to be significantly greater—
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Because they can't amortise it across the passengers.
Mr Mumford : That's right.
Senator PATRICK: So it's when you've got a low passenger number.
Mr Mumford : When you've got a low passenger number you'll have a higher cost per passenger when it comes to condition of security.

Senator PATRICK: It's been put to me that in those sorts of places you'll have one flight a today but you've got to employ someone who twiddles their thumbs for the rest of the day. Alternatively, you have a morning flight and an afternoon flight and you're cutting across a normal eight-hour shift boundary, so you end up having to have perhaps two sets of operators. I don't know how you do it with ground staff. Is there some arrangement you have with ground staff where that cost is managed?

Mr David : What you're pointing out is where you've got low frequency. The problem you have is that you've got someone in there in the morning who's got to come back in the evening. When you've got high frequency, that cost is amortised across all of those flights, so in low-frequency markets, yes, it's a problem.

Senator PATRICK: Once again, for me, I need evidence that I can use and that I can lay out on the table in the Senate in the next parliament to show other senators what the cost of this is. The burden will then switch back to the department to try and reveal to senators exactly how it is that a 34-seater aircraft is much safer than a 50-seater aircraft and how a 100-seater jet aircraft coming from Moomba is somehow safer than a Q400 coming from Kangaroo Island.

Mr David : We can come back to you on all three things. We'll come back to you on our views over the size of the aircraft and associated security risk. We'll come back to you on impact on routes. We'll have to determine and work with you about what we can share, picking up on Senator O'Sullivan's point, but we'll come back to you on those. We will also come back to you with a view on your question around a TSA-style model. We'll come back to you on that.

Senator PATRICK: I understand there may also be difficulties with this, but at least give us some information about the consultation process you've been through with the department and the broad nature of those conversations—what has been traversed and what hasn't been traversed. You guys are the experts, and it would cue us to be able to say, 'Here are some things Qantas wanted to talk about.' We're not aviation specialists. We have a crack at these things, but you might be able to guide us better on what sorts of questions we might ask the department.

Mr David : We'll come back to you on all four points.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you.



&..

14
[Image: pdf.png] Operational information of Qantas Group, tabled by Qantas Group at a public hearing in Darwin, NT on 15 March 2019.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

FOR YOU DEAR SENATOR....

The good Senator is on to a scent. I would suggest that rather than seek answers from the Department (AMS formerly OTS) as they are not subject to FOI and would only spin him a load of cobblers, he should speak directly to the fine gents and ladies managing regional airports who are at the pointy end of the security farce. They will tell you the realities of the situation. But the Senators best observation was this;

“Senator PATRICK: And what the risk difference is between the 50-seater and the 39- or 34-seater.

Mr Gissing : It's related to mass. The 20-tonne rule is related to mass and what that mass could do versus seat counts. It's not our area of expertise”.


Great observation. Exactly what does prevent a F70 or F100 becoming a weapon in the hands of the bad guy only if it is an RPT flight instead of a closed charter?? And what about the 50 tonne 737 freighters carrying tonne upon tonne of unscanned and non X-rayed Australian cargo around the skies and major cities?? What, is it by some miracle that there is no security risk with these aircraft?

And perhaps the Senator can ask the AMS this question; how in God’s name are security staff, often half brain dead numptys on $20 per hour, meant to identify complex IED’s and other test pieces that AMS constantly sneak through the airports to catch staff out? Even AMS Inspectors, some who have worked in the military and armed services in this field of expertise, can’t identify IED test pieces!!! All these costs must be recouped from the traveller, something that the airports and the likes of Gissing have to do by way of fees and charges.

This industry has become an overly regulated joke, run by office clowns who work in bureaucracies and who live in a bubble called Can’tberra. A bunch of Cinderealla’s living in some fantasy land where reality doesn’t exist and they still believe in Santa and flying reindeer.

Tick tock Australia
Reply

Weekend   Australian

GREG BROWN  JOURNALIST
   
    12:00AM MARCH 30, 2019
   
A $100 million cash injection for regional airports will be included in Tuesday’s budget, aimed at
upgrading runways and attracting commercial flights into country areas.

For the life of me I cant see how upgrading runways will attract commercial flights to regional
Airports.  People can barely afford the airfares that have to be charged to those regional airports
lucky enough to have an air service now.  
Would it not be simpler and a lot cheaper to reform aviation governance by adopting US
regulations as New Zealand did. That would massively reduce overheads and encourage
investment.  By growing the industry the airports might just get utilized as they were before
over regulation strangled the industry, drowning it in red tape.


In a pitch to rural voters, the funding will allow regional airport operators to apply for grants to
improve runways, taxiways and provide better fencing.

The infrastructure upgrades would make it safer for big passenger planes to land on runways in
cities such as Cairns, Newcastle, Launceston, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour and Mildura.

Strange? The above airports mostly privately owned monopolies, many making very healthy
profits gouging their customers.
Why would the guv’mint be giving handouts to essentially, development sharks whose focus is
more on the value of the airport land for commercial development rather than as a public utility.


Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said the infrastructure upgrades, to be provided
over four years, would allow more flights in and out of rural cities. “We want more people,
especially families and small businesses, moving to and staying in the regions, and better
connectivity through airports is a vital part of that plan,” Mr McCormack said.

Deputy Do’Nutting could pave the runways with gold but doesn’t seem to grasp, that no matter
how much money he throws at airports, there needs to be aircraft to land at them and
customers to use those aircraft.  The current regulatory regime imposes unsustainable costs on
aircraft operators, which lead to unaffordable fares. Chicken and the egg?


“The Liberals and Nationals understand communities rely on safe and efficient air services for
emergency and other essential service flights. This will help ensure regional airports meet the
needs of communities and local industry now and into the future.
“We will work with regional communities to determine what airport works will provide most
benefit.”

“safe and efficient air services for emergency and other essential service flights.”

How safe is safe? Efficient they can never be without effective affordable regulation.
Emergency and essential service flights are already heavily subsidized by government  

The funding builds on a $50m security upgrade to airports announced in last year’s budget.

Australian so called security is just a feel good rort that adds another layer of cost on the ticket
price.


Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said many regional airports
operated at a loss, leaving owners unable to spend money on infrastructure upgrades.
“This funding will start to address this funding shortfall and assist this essential infrastructure to
continue servicing communities into the future,” she said.

Where does it say in any legislation or council bylaws that essential public infrastructure must
run at a profit? What next, parking meters at boat ramps? toll booths leading into towns?
Privatizing National Parks? Some councils spend more money on overseas jaunts than they do
on their airports.


The announcement comes as Scott Morrison has moved to placate disgruntled Nationals MPs by
vowing to assess supporting a new coal-fired power station in central Queensland.
The budget will include more than $2 billion for improving the nation’s roads.
Reply

Federal Govt continues to obfuscate decades old airport safety issue? - Part II 

Previously from the city of Iron Rings, Hoodwinked pollywaffles and wingnutted obfuscating, self-serving bureaucrats i.e Can'tberra aka 'the land of Nod'.. Confused  


(11-21-2018, 09:28 PM)Peetwo Wrote:   
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...
  
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: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??

More crumbs have come to my attention on the road to Federal government purgatory and ticking, runway encroaching, DFO fireball bombs... Undecided

While digging through the AP shelf-ware archive I came across this seemingly innocuous gem: T Robertson SC - Constitutional Advice

Consequently I read through this long, mostly boring, constitutional law opinion piece by T Robertson SC and a nagging curiosity bump began to develop... Huh    

Not being much into either constitutional law or the full blown history of the privatisation of Federally owned airports, I sent this onto Dr RG with the note...

FYI - see attached - was this the real reason why the Sydney Airport DFO was knocked on the head? P2  

Dr RG came back with:

 ...Gentlemen


I had not seen this paper before but am familiar with some of the supporting case law.

I would not be surprised if this was the reason the development was knocked on the head...

..It seems to me that this also has relevance to all ALOP aerodromes covered by a Deed between the commonwealth and local governments, of which there are many...(sic)...In hindsight this opinion also explains why, when I raised the Deed following its 'loosening' by John Anderson dept., a number of solicitors hired by the commonwealth sat in on the  conversation.  I think they were already aware of this complex and vexing issue and wondered if I was planning to take the argument to this area of the law.  Sadly I did not have substantial knowledge of this area of law at the time but a specialist in admin law as it relates to Fed-State matters subsequently told me I would win a case in the Fed jurisdiction if I were to challenge state/local govt planning decisions...

...When I think about it Anderson's department was probably trying to get around this problem without going to Parliament.  I have a number of reasons to entertain this view which I won't elaborate here, but will start to put words on paper.  By the way Anderson instructed his dept. to consult with other bodies such as AOPA, but the dept failed to do so yet Anderson signed off of on the loosening of policy with regard to the Deeds over all ALOP aerodromes.  Did he check?!..

Did he check indeed?? That aside my question on this is if this constitutional legal opinion from T Robertson SC was on solid ground and was pivotal in the decision by former miniscule Mark Vaille to knock the proposed DFO plan(s) for YSSY airport on the head, then why didn't that set precedent on 'other' MDP plans to build shopping centres alongside and/or in the vicinity of busy active runways?

This then got me thinking maybe this MOA does get a mention elsewhere? 

So while trolling Google I first refered back to this excellent legal/academic Conversation article: Airport privatisations have put profit before public safety and good planning
 
Quote:...Planning academics Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker have argued:

Quote: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...

&..

Quote:..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...

So no direct mention there of T Robertson SC memo but you do get a real sense of why the MOA may have been intentionally buried ever since the February 2007 Mark Vaille decision to reject the SACL MDP DFO proposals?

This then led me to this 186 page Carter Newell document: https://www.carternewell.com/icms_docs/1...de_PDF.pdf

Some of the case law in that document is extremely fascinating but still there is no reference to T Robertson SC MOA. Or indeed the 2007 Vaille rejection of the SACL MDP DFO proposals, partly on the grounds of aviation safety:
 
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?
     
However there is a brief mention of 'public safety' areas at airports (ref: page 35 & appendix 6) - and from page 86, an informative section under the subheading 'Aerodrome Emergency Plan'.

Still digging, with much MTF...P2  Tongue\

"K" - Grist - for the mill  (and, put the bloody lids back on the rubbish bins).... Big Grin
Reply

AFAP come out firing on YMEN runway 08/26 width reduction -  Rolleyes

Ref:

(02-23-2019, 10:42 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Back to ToRs on public safety zones around airports??

Reference:

(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]

Doc Gates has plotted out a hypothetical PSA at the end of runway 17 at Essendon based on the slightly less stringent QLD public safety zone/area model... Wink



[Image: D0DNXtYVYAAhHFC.jpg]

[Image: D0DN00IVsAAZlEX.jpg]



Doesn't paint a very good picture for the Govt and it's agencies when you couple that with the SMH picture of the ICAO Annex 14 runway width non-compliances...

[Image: 2230123_1547522994967.jpg]

...and the Bailey/Ol'Tom disturbing observations -  Confused


TICK...TOCK miniscule, TICK..TOCK indeed!!??  Angry

Via the Oz today:

Quote:APRIL 12, 2019

AVIATION

Pilots push airport black-star rating

[Image: 081e573df50c8543586b7295ae966b14]


By ROBYN IRONSIDE


Pilots will seek to have Essendon Fields Airport in Melbourne “black-starred” after a reduction in the width of the airway strip from 300m to 180m.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is concerned the change amounts to a critical deficiency at the airport, which recently won approval to carry aircraft up to 50 tonnes.

Effective since April 2, the decrease in width was signed off by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority despite an active investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the proximity of development to Essendon Fields.

The investigation was triggered by the 2017 crash of a charter plane carrying four American tourists, who died when the B200 King Air slammed into the DFO building after getting into strife on takeoff.

AFAP safety and technical manager Marcus Diamond said the federation’s concerns were exacerbated after learning the DFO building was only 128m from the centre of the runway.

“We don’t have any other airports at 180m that take 50-tonne aircraft in this country and nor should we because it’s going to be downright dangerous,” Mr Diamond said. “These aircraft need 300m runway width strip under all the international conventions. It’s a land grab whether or not they say it. They’ll be able to build more buildings and pretty much choke the airport out completely.”

He said they would seek to have Essendon Fields given a black-star rating at the next meeting of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Assoc­iations in Berlin later this month.

IFAPA compiled a list of “black-star designated” airports or air corridors around the world to alert pilots to potential hazards.

Other airports on the list include Siem Reap in Cambodia, Cebu and Manila in The Philippines and Jakarta in Indonesia.

Essendon Fields Airport director Andrew Nicholls insisted there was no safety issue at the airport. In a letter to airfield users, Mr Nicholls said the change returned the runway to the same width it was from 1972 to 2015.

“This will not reduce safety at Essendon Fields Airport,” Mr Nicholls wrote.

“There will be no impact on the landing minimums.”

A CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

A CASA spokesman confirmed that the 180m runway flight strip met the (CAsA World leading?) or maybe (worlds safest?) regulations for aircraft using the runway as limited by Essendon Fields.

Passing strange? On the surface "Safest" or "Safety" is just something that CAsA ignores when convenient.
Reply

Dessert and Destruction.

There I sat, on my best behaviour at a social dinner engagement; nothing too flash – just ten folk – civilised and ‘yummy’ tucker; relaxed, urbane and sanguine as hell. I was looking at my watch, wondering when I could decently evacuate without inciting DT -( I’m sure you all know the type of thing) –

Anyway – a fellah sat opposite (stranger) asked me about the 737 Max kerfuffle; (curses trapped again I thought. “Not much” says I – “don’t know enough about it; never flown it, the technology is way above my rudimentary knowledge; and, the final report is still in the wind, so, like the rest of us, I’ll have to wait and see (smile – shut up). Well, seems this bloke had been seriously studying the media reports and proceeded to elaborate on the media coverage. It was – in his opinion – the most dangerous thing imaginable and; didn’t I agree. Long story short, I stuck to my ‘not enough information guns and wriggled off the hook. Home soon afterwards – dogs last walk and the question of what was IMO the most dangerous aviation thing in today’s world, reared it's ugly head.

There is a list of potential killers which, thanks to engineering, training and modern manufacturing can be ‘safely’ managed from the flight deck – from the tyres to the tail section; even a combination of horrors can be dealt with; this is a demonstrable fact of aviation life. I decided that it was things beyond my immediate control which created the most hazardous scenario. Of these I decided that buildings made number one on my ten point list.

Had I been in the mood or had enough patience to explain this to that fellah; this twiddle would never have been writ. Having made my selection; the next thought was how could I best explain it to a layman? Which was immediately followed by the notion that the vast majority would not understand the 'technical'– hence the following ramble; in lay terms – with apologies to the purists.

Imagine you are travelling at speed on a flat highway, with nothing either side except flat, wide open space. BANG – the front tyre blows out and the brakes quit. Your heart rate may increase but, with a cool head and some skill, you will pull up eventually, ruffled but very much alive.

Now, build a shopping complex (a big one) in your mind map, alongside your road 180 meters off to one side. At 100 KpH you now have less than three seconds to avoid hitting the thing. Do the math – you and many others are now about to get hurt at best. Then imagine this happening to a loaded petrol tanker; what do you imagine you outcome will be? Carnage springs to mind.  

[Image: imagev1a67321b7de1fc947b995e16e772a4d14-...77x380.jpg]

Yet at places like Essendon, this situation exists – swap the petrol tanker for an aircraft fuel load; swap the brakes and tyres for an engine failure and then put a caption on P2 ‘s picture. Perhaps the blind, who lead the blind around by the foreskin may have a brain wave and decide that this is not, despite the potential profits, a smart place to put a large building. QED.

Tempus fugit – MTF

Toot - toot.
Reply

Dear Politicians

This is what happens and how  - imagine this accident @ Essendon - tomorrow.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)