[Peetwo]

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.

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

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???









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






MTF...P2