[Peetwo]

Additional Estimates - CASA missing AQON? -

Relevant reference:

The semantics of aircraft in the lounge room.

It depends which team you support how you regard last nights Estimates session with CASA. When we have the Hansard and video it will be a lot easier to pick out the bones, but one major topic for the BRB will be the way in which ‘responsibility’ for the dreadful safety state of our airports has been passed about like a parcel.  Old ‘Shifty’ Tique & Co. played a merry tune to go with the parcel passing.  Carmody was so quick to unload it he almost shoved Halfwit under the Senate bus (MTF).

For the lay person, the easiest thing to understand will be ‘buffer zones’ and the lack thereof. Essentially ‘tis but a ‘fenced off’ no building area, either side of the runway, precisely designed to prevent exactly the kind of accident we witnessed last week in Melbourne. The UK, USA and most ‘grown up’ aviation nations have these areas; for what must now be, to all, blindingly obvious reasons – Australia does not.

Where CASA took their lame defence was to what are known as Pans-Ops (PO). ICAO produce these and Australia does comply. What PO provide is an obstacle free area from the runway end out to a specified distance. The area is known as ‘the splay’. The splay widens progressively at a predetermined angle to that distance; like a fan if you will, laid out on the ground. There are maximum heights for man made structures within the fan, so to maintain a minimum clearance in the vertical (obstacle clear gradient).  Simply put, you may place a two story building at mile from the end of the runway, or; a ten story building at five miles within the ‘splay’ area. So ‘obstacle clear’ flight paths and buildings may coexist; and, provided the aircraft can maintain the gradient prescribed, in theory, all is well. This is where CASA deem their ‘safety’ responsibility to end.

Consider the Melbourne crash; the aircraft’s problems did not manifest within the ‘splay’ but within the aerodrome confines, without the protection of a ‘buffer’ zone, inevitably the aircraft crashed into whatever was ahead of it. Be it the DFO, the Freeway or a residential area, there is no protection afforded for either aircraft or the public from behind or outside of the minimum prescribed splay area; starting at the runway end.

The runway used by the crash aircraft is some 1500 meters long; the aircraft would be safely airborne and accelerating toward the splay within 1000 to 1100 meters, normally the remaining runway distance is travelled in a matter of seconds and the aircraft enters the ‘safe’ obstacle clear splay; even with an inoperative engine, given clear space the aircraft should obtain a safe height using the obstacle clear distances within that area (pilot responsibility). But the crashed aircraft did not enter the ‘splay’; whatever went wrong happened behind the ‘splay’ and the flight path was, quite legally, obstructed. Whether or not 500 meters of obstacle clear (buffer) area, to the side of the runway would have produced and different result is, as yet, hard to determine; but, given that time and distance the aircraft may well have accelerated to a speed which allowed a climb. This is why ‘buffer’ zones are mandated in other countries. If you are keen, take a look at the aerial view of Archerfield, then imagine you are in a single engine aircraft. Normally, the aircraft is airborne and climbing away within about 60% of the available runway; then engine failure. The right procedure is to land ‘straight ahead’ or as close as possible to straight.  Measure off two thirds of any Archerfield runway, then work out (roughly) the glide distance needed to land ahead, from about 60 feet and see where you finish up – mostly in Mrs. Smith’s front parlour; that’s where. Just in time for tea.

That is as close to describing the ‘problem’ for non aviation folk as I can get; and I’ve probably offended the ‘purists’, using a thumb nail dipped in tar to outline the situation, but that’s Ok. When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.

Toot – MTF – toot.

I note that on the 26 April the Additional Estimates AQON fell due. As is apparently now normal SOP for the Murky Mandarin & his minions, all the AQON were handed in on mass on the due date...

Then I guess some poor bugger from the Senate RRAT committee Secretariat is tasked to collate, then PDF & finally link to the relevant RRAT Estimates webpage. Fortunately the Secretariat minions are an efficient lot and managed to do all the AQON admin by 0830 am yesterday  - see HERE

Unfortunately in the process the PDF links are broken and when you click on them a '404 Page not found' message comes up...

Oh well I guess the links will be fixed in due course..

However in the meantime I noticed a point of interest with the listed CASA AQON link. Note the message in brackets: 

113-119 Civil Aviation Safety Authority PDF 43KB 26/04/2017 (excludes questions: 113 & 114)

When you refer to the QON index both QON 113 & 114 are in reference to the tragic Essendon B200 crash:

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

---

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.

Not sure what the problem is that would cause such a delay in answering those two QON but I am guessing the excuse will run along the lines of..



"CASA is not able to answer the questions at this point in time as those QON refer to matters that are currently part of an active parallel investigation by both the ATSB and CASA.."

Simply put (once again) "..up yours Senators L&Ks Shane"...   


MTF...P2