[Peetwo]

The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops...

Reference:

Murky & Comardy thumb noses at RRAT airport QON  




"..Dear Senator Burston...nothing to see here, move along...L&Ks M&M.."

Especially in light of the committee's interim report from their inquiry into the Airport Amendment Bill 2016:

..1.13 These tragic events brought into stark relief the importance of appropriate airport planning regulation and processes. 

1.14 Evidence received by the committee at Additional Estimates on 27 February detailed the accident investigations currently underway by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In addition, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) noted that it was examining 'development approval processes involved in the land‑use planning at the airport'.[11] Departmental Secretary, Mr Mike Mrdak informed the committee that the Department had provided advice to the Minister on the accident investigation process as well as the development approval process for buildings allocated at the DFO site.[12]

1.15 The committee was also advised that the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) was considering the adoption of draft national guidelines, regarding runway public safety zones around airports, and runway end safety zones. Queensland is currently the only Australian jurisdiction to have public safety zone legislation.[13]...

After reading the RRAT committee's interim report and recommendation to defer their final report till at least March 2018, it would appear that Barry O and the Senate RRAT committee have folded to bureaucratic pressure, subsequently allowing M&M and his minions (at least a year) to align and obfuscate all possible lines of liability or department/agency responsibility connection to the B200 DFO fatal accident...

Relevant P7 post who joins the dots on fatal accidents & the DFO prang (note the part in bold ): 

Two bob’s worth of disgust please.

Why is it; that every single fatal accident involving public transport ends up this way? The expensive official inquiry, for no return on investment. The demands for change translated into onerous rules which serve only the ‘regulators’ purpose. The obfuscation of fact. The disavowal of any or all official responsibility. Lockhart has never been honestly examined. The ATSB were muzzled, the coroner if not misled was certainly confounded, the inquiry bamboozled; all to cover the simple fact that CASA could and should have been sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop to the point of impact. This is a common thread running through each and every one of the ‘fatal’ accidents from Advance to Monarch, from Seaview to Pel-Air. It is, IMO, time it was stopped. Regulation by the cartload is simply there to provide safe prosecution of the predetermined outcome; strict liability supporting.

It is a disgraceful situation. Perhaps the Essendon event and the Senators conscience will provide a different, more enlightened result. Time will tell, but first we need a ‘proper’ report from the ATSB – before the turn of the century. But lets be clear about this, very clear. Within 9 seconds at 150 meters from a runway centre line an aircraft hit, at 150 feet, a building (for whatever reason). That building should never have been allowed to be there; someone has manipulated the rules, someone has nodded at the safety aspects and someone has authorised the many shifts in the operationally available dimensions of that runway to suit a purpose. Those people are, in part, responsible for the building being there. Either way, someone needs to be treated the way a ‘civilian’ would be who had played fast and loose with the interpretation of the ‘regulations’, to cynically suit a commercial purpose and place the lives of those shopping there in clear and present danger, advertising to encourage people to come there. (Ugh). All very slick and clever, except there are now five men to add to the list of those  who will not be celebrating their next birthday with their families at home. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow Martha - wudja look at all them tall buildings.



[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg[/img]

After following and monitoring the firmly non-partisan RRAT committee in Estimates and aviation safety related inquiry for nearly a decade, IMO the real 'tell' that the committee has not yet succumb to bureaucratic 'nothing to see here Senators' pressure comes in the form of Senator Fawcett stepping in to question the Murky Mandarin & his 'Aviation & Airports division' minions.

Excerpt from Senate RRAT committee 'Additional Estimates' Hansard 27/02/17:

CHAIR: I call the Aviation and Airports Division.

 Senator RICE: I want to start with the Essendon Airport crash. In general, what has the department's response been so far following the tragedy last week?

Mr Mrdak : We, like all Australians, have been terribly shocked by the tragedy of the crash last Tuesday morning. Clearly, the first priority has been the response of the emergency services agencies, which has taken place, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is well advanced now in its investigation. From the department's perspective, we have had a look at the development approval processes involved in the land-use planning at the airport and we have compiled that information. We have provided advice to the minister in relation to both the details of the accident investigation process, along with the ATSB, and details of the development approval process for the buildings located at the DFO site. We now stand prepared to work with the ATSB in their investigation of these matters, as well as progressing the discussion we had earlier in relation to the further work that is taking place in relation to the NASAG agenda on airport safeguarding.

 Senator RICE: Have you reached a position on the development approvals process?

Mr Mrdak : We have simply outlined to the minister in our advice the process that was gone through in terms of that process for the approval of that development. We await the advice from the ATSB in relation to the accident investigation.

 Senator RICE: In that assessment, did you look at the lack of state planning controls over development on that federal site, and is that a factor?

Mr Mrdak : No, we have not. We have simply outlined to the minister the process that was undertaken in relation to the approval of that site. The site is a Commonwealth site and the legislation does not provide for state planning powers inside the airport boundary.

 Senator RICE: Has it opened up the conversation about the consequences of that?

Mr Mrdak : Given the number of state planning regimes, the Commonwealth operates a much more comprehensive airport planning regime than is undertaken in most state jurisdictions.

 Senator RICE: So in terms of assessing the appropriateness of that development on that federally owned site—

Mr Mrdak : Well, we await—

 Senator RICE: different criteria are used. Certainly from the perspective of residents, and having spoken to them, there is a strong view that if the equivalent planning processes for this privatised, federally owned site had been gone through under state planning laws, those developments would not have been approved. In fact, I know that the Moonee Valley council at the time of the DFO approval recommended that it not be approved, but their voice was not heard. Are you looking at whether approval would have been appropriate if it had been considered under different planning controls?

Mr Mrdak : At this stage, we have been focused on outlining the processes undertaken and the approvals that were given. That may be work we would undertake further. As I said, it is early days as yet. We await the advice from the ATSB into the accident causes and consequences.

 Senator RICE: Has there been an assessment of whether budgetary or financial pressures were driving the land use and what many people feel now is inappropriate land use on the site? Is it something that the department is putting its mind to?

Mr Mrdak : We do look quite closely at the financial viability of the leased federal airports in terms of our oversight and monitoring regime. I do not think you can make a suggestion that the development approval process is in any way influenced by those considerations. There are quite clear planning requirements which are set out in the legislation for approving such structures. They have to be complied with. That is not influenced by the financial viability of the concern.

 Senator RICE: How would the department respond to the sense in the community that it is the financial return from development on the site that has driven that development and that if the airport had not been privatised that development would not have gone ahead; that the underlying conditions are being driven by the financial concerns and the profits being returned to that privatised airport?

Mr Mrdak : The process of non-aeronautical commercial development on airports commenced a long time before the leasing of the airports. But I think there are two separate processes. One is the oversight of the airport more generally and its viability. The second is the planning development process, which are set out under legislation. And we are providing advice to the minister who has come in to the portfolio since that development process took place. That is where our focus is at the moment—to understand what took place in the development approval process.

 Senator RICE: Under the planning approval process, how is community safety taken into account when airport land use is assessed and approved?

Mr Mrdak : I will ask Ms Horrocks to give you an overview of our process.

Ms Horrocks : The act prescribes a range of processes with regard to major development plans. It also sets out a range of triggers and at what point, if one of those triggers is enacted, the airport is required to do a major development plan. There are quite a few of those. If there is a trigger then the process is that airports can choose to provide an exposure draft major development plan to the department, and the department will provide comments to that. We refer that to a range of Commonwealth agencies for comment. We provide all those comments back to the airport. The airport then prepares a preliminary draft masterplan, which it distributes to the community and makes public for 60 business days. Submissions are received back to the airport from interested stakeholders. The airport is required under the legislation to give due comment and due regard to all comments received. That information is provided back when the draft MDP—major development plan—is submitted to the minister. Following that submission, the information that is provided is analysed and advice is provided to the minister, and the minister makes a decision from there.

 Senator RICE: Can you now talk me through how and when that process applied for Essendon?

Ms Horrocks : On 12 December 2003, the exposure draft MDP was provided to the department. On 16 January 2004 the department provided comments back to the airport on that. On 28 January 2004 the airport provided an advertisement in the local paper, the Melbourne Age, to advise that the draft MDP was available for people to have a look at, for public display. On 28 April 2004, in accordance with the act, the public submissions were closed. On 19 August 2004 the draft MDP was submitted to the minister for assessment. On 16 December the MDP was conditionally approved from there.

 Senator RICE: Will the department be looking at the submissions that were made to that MDP? As I was just saying, I know many submissions were made at the time to say that the development proposed in that MDP was not appropriate. Will the department be looking at that in terms of its assessment of the crash?

Mr Mrdak : We will certainly look at the issues raised, particularly as they pertain to any findings from the ATSB in relation to it. I think it is fair to say that most of the comments were around impacts on their local community in terms of traffic and such issues.

 Senator RICE: No, there were lots of safety issues as well. Certainly there was a very active residents group that thought that the conditions as they were, because of the surrounding land use, with houses being within 100 metres of a runway, were bad enough, and then adding on further development on the airport side itself was even beyond what they thought was sensible at all. They made those submissions at the time. They sadly feel vindicated now.

Mr Mrdak : We will go back and look at some of those issues in the light of this. Obviously officers at the table were not involved in that process at the time. We will look at some of those issues as the ATSB works its way through the investigation.

 Senator RICE: After the investigation, is there potential for reviewing the plan now? What would be the process? Given that there is an MDP and you have the ATSB doing an investigation, what would the process be if it was seen that the development plan was seen to be no longer appropriate? How would that be reviewed or revised?

Mr Mrdak : Essentially the building is in place and is operating commercially. Subject to any safety findings in relation to the location of that building, unless there were significant findings of safety risk in relation to that building, that building is in place.

Senator RICE: So there is not a process of reviewing MDPs? Once they are in place, they are in place?

Mr Mrdak : Their construction has been completed and they are operating.

Senator RICE: So even if they have gone through a process, people have made submissions to say, 'This doesn't look very good,' they have been approved, and we have an accident down the track, there is not a process for reviewing them?

Mr Mrdak : If the advice from the investigation and subsequently from the safety regulators is that there is an unacceptable risk in the location of that building and the functions it serving, obviously the government would have to review its position, but at this stage that is not the case.

 Senator FAWCETT: Thank you for your comments. Obviously it is very early days yet in terms of the investigation of this particular incident. I just want to take you back if I can to the broader principles. You would be aware that we have discussed on a number of occasions since 2011 and 2012 I think issues around airport planning, particularly the NASAG process. I believe you discussed that or mentioned that earlier. The NASAG process, as we have discussed multiple times before, deals with noise; it deals with protection of airspace, particularly the PANS-OPS airspace, and obstacles that may protrude into that. But what I am seeking from you is an indication as to whether or not now you will go back and revisit what we have discussed on a number of occasions, which is the unique Queensland public safety area legislation, where they look at the zones on runway ends to make sure that there is no construction that would prevent a place for a pilot who needed to make a forced landing to have the ability to do that.

In the past you have said that is outside the scope of NASAG, and we have raised multiple times the fact that Queensland does do that with some airports—not all. And we have seen both state government planning, whether it be Jandakot or Archerfield or other smaller council-operated airports around Australia, where construction of residential and commercial properties has been allowed quite close and in the zones where traditionally air crew perhaps would have considered that that was their option if they had a problem that required them to make an emergency landing. So, I am really just looking for an assurance that you will now go back to those discussions that we have had over the last six years or so to look not just at the PANS-OPS and the noise but also at the areas the pilots may need for forced landing areas.

Mr Mrdak : Certainly, Senator, and before you arrived I outlined to the committee—and I will ask my officers Mrs Macaulay and Ms Spence to outline this—that we had been working with Queensland on a draft guideline and guidance for jurisdictions in relation to runway end safety zones and to runway public safety zones generally around airports. That work has now progressed. This tragedy obviously has taken place, but the next NASAG meeting was due to consider the issue. There was a meeting in November which considered it. There has still been some reluctance by some state planning authorities in relation to these issues, but quite clearly the Commonwealth has sought to progress this for many years as part of a suite of NASAG guidelines and guidance material, which you and I have discussed at length over the last few years. I will ask Mrs Macaulay to give you an update in relation to the public safety zones.

Mrs Macaulay : As the secretary mentioned, this work has been ongoing since 2012. Admittedly it has been slow, but as the secretary said there are quite a few sensitivities around it. The proposal on the table at the moment is very much modelled on the Queensland model, which was in turn modelled on a UK model. It sounds like you are well aware of those models. And as the secretary said, there were some good discussions in our last meeting in December. The sensitivities are around trying to get the right messaging out in bringing this forward across the board to be an additional guideline in the framework. So we have been working with the states on that piece of work over the last number of months, and we will be bringing forward an updated draft to this next meeting. We are hoping that the states will be satisfied with how we have moved ahead with it and would be prepared to progress it in the first stage to a targeted consultation followed, hopefully, by public consultation after that.

It is important to note that with public safety zones, depending on the geography of the airport, part of the public safety zone might be on the airport property itself, and a part of it may be off the airport property. Now, in federally leased airports, in terms of the Commonwealth's role, we would have a direct role in what happens on the airport, but it would be a matter for state and local governments off airport. The framework itself obviously is geared towards having a consistent approach throughout all states and territories. In those cases, where it is not a federally leased airport, it will be the state, territory and local government planning authorities that we are hoping will embrace these guidelines and take them into account when they are planning.

There are two different issues. If it is a greenfields arrangement where you are building a new airport then it is a much easier thing to deal with. But obviously we are going to be dealing with airports that already exist, that already have developments around them. And some of those are housing developments. That is where some of the sensitivities are in terms of getting the messaging out that this is an important thing to have, and future developments would take these things into consideration to reduce the number of people who are living in or are concentrated in those zones so that we can protect them into the future.

 Senator FAWCETT: Secretary, I would just make the comment that messaging is important but at the end of the day what the Australian people expect is that governments who are responsible for aviation regulation will find a way to work with state and local governments so that the outcome is not just messaging but is consistent—safety. And I raised Jandakot before as a case where we see those concerns around the encroachment for the airport. But I just wanted to get an assurance that you have taken on board—I know the department's position is that CASA provides a safety input into master plans. We discussed probably 18 months ago at estimates Archerfield and the role that CASA played there in signing off on the shortened runways but did not take into account their own requirements and operators in terms of factoring for grass strips, wet strips, climb-out gradients with engine failures et cetera at the gross weight that the operators are currently able to operate at. So, they correctly said that it can be safe but that would require the operators to operate it with lower payloads and hence it would not be as commercially viable.

The discussion we had at the time was that that safety consideration by CASA needed to consider the operations as they are in terms of the capacity of the airport and the current aircraft operating there and make sure there is no detriment to that, as opposed to just saying that yes, it can be safe if you reduce the scope of your operations. That is not in the intent of either the lease or the original legislation surrounding the use of Commonwealth airports.

Mr Mrdak : I agree.

 Senator FAWCETT: So, is that an assurance that yes, you are revising how CASA take their role?

Mr Mrdak : We have certainly for some time been looking closely, and I think CASA's engagement in the process is much improved over the last couple of years over what it has been in the past.

 Senator FAWCETT: And my final question is: could you perhaps look at providing the committee with a briefing on where you are up to with the NASAG process and what you are looking to take to the next meeting so that we get some visibility into that before it just becomes a fait accompli that is delivered?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly. We would be very happy to arrange that through the committee secretary.

Note: Here in pictures DF's body language speaks louder than words, he refers directly to M&M and gets him to 'agree' that CASA may have contravened the original spirit and intent of the Airports Act by providing deficient safety advice on proposed (DRAFT) Airport MAPs...   

Division 5 of the Airport Act states:

Division 5—Obligation to use airport site as an airport

31  Obligation to use airport site as an airport..etc            

 
My interpretation of the above Fawcett v Mrdak exchange is that it is 'agreed' that the airport operational environment, before the lease agreement was drawn up, represents the 'spirit & intent' and therefore the benchmark for the lessee 'obligation to use the airport site as an airport'.

In the Essendon case this places M&M and his CASA minions in the awkward situation of having to explain why it is approval was given/not given/ignored for the airport operator to have several iterations/changes (see Ventus post #219) to the operational length (TODA/TORA/ASDA/STODA etc), runway width/splay dimensions etc.; of RW17/35 since the original lease agreement was signed in 2001...

MTF...P2

Ps It would also be interesting to see if there is currently any YMEN HCRPT operators that have CASA approved RTOW restrictions and non-standard procedures for operating off RW17/35...