[Peetwo]

Under the cover of COVID - Example 1   

Calling Mr Peabody?? 

I am glad you caught the links that I put up on social media "K" because the rest of the world seems to have been totally captured by COVID-19 to the point of distraction. And I believe that Governments, their Departments and Agencies are using the cover of COVID to obfuscate active and potentially embarrassing public interest/Govt oversight matters and indeed the O&O'd ATSB AI-2018-010 investigation is just one of them.

Via the ATSB:

Update published 10 September 2020
This investigation (AI-2018-010) examines the Bulla Road Precinct retail centre development at Essendon Fields Airport and how risks associated with the location and height of those buildings were addressed under civil aviation safety legislation and the Airports Act 1996. It also addresses the safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport. These matters arise due to the historical uncertainty in identifying the runway strip width and Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) for runway 08/26.

What happened
Development approval
The Major Development Plan (MDP) for the Bulla Road Precinct retail centre development was approved by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development in 2004. Building of the precinct was completed in 2005. The MDP located the lower boundary of the transitional surface 90 m from the centreline of runway 08/26 (see Figure 1). That distance was founded on two criteria:

• a runway strip width of 180 m (90 m either side of the runway centreline)
  
  
• the location of the lower boundary of the transitional surface immediately adjacent to the runway being determined by the runway strip dimensions.
  

Using these criteria, the MDP placed the buildings immediately adjacent to and just below the transitional surface associated with runway 08/26. Had they intruded into the transitional surface, an approval would have been required under Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would have considered the development as being obstacles requiring determination under the relevant safety regulations.

Figure 1: Representation of the relationship between the proposed construction and the runway strip and transitional surface


A depiction of the proposed development superimposed onto a Google Earth image of Essendon Airport in 2003. The transitional surface grounded boundary is 90 m from the runway centreline.
Source: Google Earth, modified by ATSB

Runway strip expansion
In November 2015, CASA promulgated CASA instrument 153/15, which was issued to the airport operator. This instrument required the operator to publish the overall strip width for runway 08/26 as 300 m. The basis of this requirement was that there was no record on how the 180 m runway 08/26 strip width had originated, nor were there records as to the previous standard under which that measurement was authorised. The 180 m runway strip width was not authorised under the 2015 version of the standards, which required a 300 m strip width (150 m either side of the runway centreline).

The effect of this mandated 300 m runway strip requirement was to move the associated lower boundary for the transitional surface out to a distance of 150 m from the runway centreline. The change in the strip width also caused a significant portion of the northern most sections of the retail centre buildings to impinge onto the runway 08/26 strip and penetrate that runway’s transitional surface (see Figure 2). In doing so, these portions of the buildings became obstacles on the movement area, and in being obstacles, the buildings were identified as a potential risk to aircraft operations on that runway.

Figure 2: Representation of the relationship between the CASA instrument 153/15 runway strip width and transitional surface


A depiction of the required 300 m runway strip width and the relocated transitional surface, superimposed onto a Google Earth image of Essendon Airport in 2019. The transitional surface grounded boundary is 150 m from the runway centreline.
Source: Google Earth, modified by ATSB

Aerodrome standards
The aerodrome standards provided a means by which CASA could approve obstacles on the movement area. Further, as these obstacles breached the OLS they were required to be illuminated and notified as obstacles through publication in the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP). Instrument 153/15 provided the required authorisation for the presence of the buildings in the movement area and directed the lighting and notification requirements.

In March 2019, the airport operator notified all operators and tenants of Essendon Fields Airport of the intent to return the runway 08/26 runway strip width to the original published 180 m, as it had been from 1972 to 2015. This was done by ‘grandfathering’ the 180 m runway strip width dimension against the requirements of an earlier standard. The notice also stated that the buildings previously approved as obstacles as a result of the application of the CASA instrument would no longer be classified as obstacles with the return of the strip width to 180 m.

CASA accepted that the grandfathering of the runway strip width by Essendon Airport met the requirements of the standards. In May 2019, CASA repealed instrument 153/15. The November 2019 edition of the AIP stated the runway 08/26 strip width as 180 m, and reference to the previously reported obstacles was removed. The effect of the change in the runway strip width was to return the transitional surface to the position as depicted in Figure 1.

Further investigation
In Quarter 4 of 2019, a draft report on the ATSB’s investigation into the Bulla Road Precinct approval was distributed to directly involved parties for comment.

During the review process, the ATSB determined that further evidence was required to consider the effect of the revocation of instrument 153/15. This has necessitated re-engagement with the airport operator, CASA, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Should safety issue/s be identified during the course of this ongoing investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

An amended draft report is expected to be distributed to directly involved parties in Quarter 4 of 2020.

To begin note that yet again the update was released without zip fanfare over 6 weeks ago and that the 'anticipated completion'  has once more been vaguely deferred to sometime before the end of the year...  

Next can anyone else see the absurdity of this statement? 

 "..The notice also stated that the buildings previously approved as obstacles as a result of the application of the CASA instrument would no longer be classified as obstacles with the return of the strip width to 180 m...

...CASA accepted that the grandfathering of the runway strip width by Essendon Airport met the requirements of the standards. In May 2019, CASA repealed instrument 153/15. The November 2019 edition of the AIP stated the runway 08/26 strip width as 180 m, and reference to the previously reported obstacles was removed. The effect of the change in the runway strip width was to return the transitional surface to the position as depicted in Figure 1..." 



Hmm...so the obstacle (ie the DFO), by the decree of St Commode, is no longer an obstacle...

Calling on Mr Peabody - PLEASE EXPLAIN!

UTCOC - Example 2

Not that I want to give much oxygen to Labor QLD Senator 'WOFTAM' Watt but it is airport and CASA related so bear with me with the following extract from Senate Estimates Hansard:

Senator WATT: The particular issue I want to focus on with CASA is the air safety implications of the realignment of the Northern Road and the impact that has on the public safety area. I appreciate that you haven't read the Auditor-General's report in full. Before I go into it, are you aware that one of the contentious issues in this whole scandal is the realignment of the Northern Road to make it closer to the Western Sydney airport boundary?

Mr Carmody : I'm generally aware, yes, but not in detail.

Senator WATT: In the Auditor-General's report, paragraph 2.27, it states:

The proposed road alignment runs through the HIAL system for Runway 05R. L&B—

Landrum & Brown, which is the department's aviation consultants—

… has advised that this has the potential to cause serious disruptions to operation on Runway 05R.

The proposed road alignment runs through the PSZ for Runway 05R. L&B recommends a detailed risk assessment.

Did CASA undertake any detailed risk assessment involving the Western Sydney airport and the change to risk that resulted from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take that on notice; I'm not aware. We are involved in a Western Sydney technical working group. We participate in an executive-level steering group about the airport, but that's it. So I wouldn't know, and I'll have to take the question on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Senator, could I table something to assist. This was in 2015. The Landrum & Brown advice, the final advice, was quite different to the advice that was in the body of the report, but it is contained in the appendix to the report.

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

Mr Atkinson : As I understand, CASA was quite involved and consulted on it, and it was found to be fine.

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

Mr Atkinson : In the discussions around the Northern Road in 2015.

Senator WATT: Okay. Is it the case that CASA is the agency that regulates and advises the department on the safety risks of airport developments and roads and other infrastructure that adjoins it?

Mr Carmody : For federally leased airports, that's correct; we provide advice to the department, and I'm sure that we are one of the many sources of advice that the department receives.

Senator WATT: So you're not aware of whether CASA undertook any detailed risk assessment that flowed from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : No, I'm not.

Senator WATT: Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

Mr Carmody : No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice.

Senator WATT: Do you know who was responsible to make an informed acceptance of the risks that arose within the public safety zone from this realignment? Is it only CASA?

Mr Carmody : We would make a safety recommendation to the department, in this case. There may well be others. I don't know of any, but there may well be others. As far as I know it would be, principally, our safety recommendation.

Senator WATT: Mr Atkinson, do you know whether there's any other agency that would have a role in assessing any risk, public or otherwise, that arose from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Atkinson : Yes. Airservices is also involved. Their expert advice, the final expert advice, was part of the consideration of the approval of the road. You're talking about a road right at the end of the two-kilometre safety zone. There are a lot of roads that run through, and airports can't really—looking at the final report that wasn't in the audit report is probably important as well. But Mr Carmody's taken it on notice, and I'm sure CASA's participation in this is part of the public record.

Senator WATT: Thanks. Also in the Auditor-General's report, at paragraph 2.27, he stated that in response to serious concerns that were raised by the New South Wales government's Roads and Maritime Services, the department of infrastructure advised RMS:

The proposed alignment is clear of the OLS [Obstacle Limitation Surface]. However, DIRD has advised that the road may interfere with “One Engineer Inoperative (OEI) procedures defined for Runway 23L. L&B—

Landrum and Brown—

has suggested further assessment by aviation safety authority.

Do you know whether any such assessment was conducted by CASA?

Mr Carmody : I don't know. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with that. I'm happy to take it on notice.

Senator WATT: Okay. Are there any broader obstacle limitation service concerns as a result of a major road now being so close to the runway or intended to be so close to the runway—for example, large freight vehicles as transient obstacles?

Mr Carmody : Not as far as I know, but I can take that question on notice, if you wish.

Senator WATT: Okay. Do you know whether any analysis has been undertaken by CASA to determine that?

Mr Carmody : No.

Senator WATT: Please take that on notice and table any such analysis, if one has been conducted. Is it normal for a four-lane dual-carriageway major arterial road, that's expected to handle 47,000 passengers and employee trips and 42,000 freight trips per day, to be located within the public safety zone of a major international airport?

Mr Carmody : I'll take that on notice.

Senator WATT: Can you think of any other examples where that is the case?

Mr Carmody : I haven't got the plans of the airport and the public safety zones in my mind or with me, but there are a lot of airports around the world with a lot of large infrastructure development and roadworks around them.

Senator WATT: Within the public safety zone, though?

Mr Carmody : As I said, I haven't got the—it depends on how you define the public safety zone and which way it is defined by those nations, so I'd have to take it on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Mr Carmody is referring to a road right at the edge of two kilometres from the end of the runway.

Mr Carmody : It's a long way.

Mr Atkinson : It is a long way.

Senator WATT: But surely we have a public safety zone for a reason?

Mr Atkinson : Mr Carmody's taken it on notice, what the advice on it is. There are many airports in Australia, if you've come into Canberra lately, for example, that have a road at the end of the runway that are much closer than that.

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

Senator WATT: Okay. In its current airport design, would CASA certify the Western Sydney airport with a four-lane-carriageway major arterial road that runs along or through the public safety zone?

Mr Carmody : I assume that matter is still being discussed. I don't have the details with me. Prospectively, would we certify? I don't know. I can take it on notice and let you know. I think there is a long way to go on Western Sydney Airport as yet; I know that we are intimately involved in the technical working groups and the executive steering groups. I would assume that, if it was safe, CASA would make a recommendation on that basis.

Senator WATT: In CASA's view, is there a risk, as a result of this decision to realign the road, that the future second runway could be constrained and/or that a future government might need to relocate the arterial road to allow for the runway to be constructed as originally envisaged?

Mr Carmody : I don't believe so. If it's as far away from the end of the runway as Mr Atkinson is making out, then I don't believe so. But, again, in constructing the answer, I'm quite happy to look at that matter.

Senator WATT: If you could. In the process, could you advise whether that's something CASA has turned its mind to?

Mr Carmody : Certainly.

First I call bullshit on this statement...

...Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

...No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice...

 Throughout Senate Estimates there were many examples of where a Dept or agency would throw to video conference facilities for witness testimony back at the Dept/agency HQ. So IMO there is no excuse for the required airport specialists not to be available at short notice - 

---

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

---

Hmm...so the Secretary is quite obviously aware of the fact that QLD is the only State or Territory that has established a model in law for public safety zones around airports. It goes without saying that the Secretary should also be cognisant of his own department's NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK and it's guidelines for the establishment of public safety zones around airports:

Purpose of Guideline 

1. To provide guidance to Australian Government, state, territory and local government decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

2. To inform a more consistent approach to the application of Public Safety Areas (PSAs) at and near Australian airports.

MTF? - Definitely!...P2