[Peetwo]

YMEN original test case for Australian obfuscation of international airport safety standards??

On the subject of IFALPA black starring airports throughout the world, I wonder how many of our other Federally leased airports, under proper expert review, run the risk of being 'critically unsatisfactory' in meeting international safety standards?? 

This extract from the 2019 Oz article absolutely blows my mind in terms of effective modern day airport safety risk mitigation...  :

"..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..."

The ignorance or arrogance of the EAPL Airport Director beggars belief. Effectively he is saying that after the inbuilt protections of the RW26 ILS at the minima are passed (or after wheels up on runway 17), OLS safety margins are no longer assured and pilots and their aircraft are on their own.

Safety may not have been reduced but I would argue that the internationally agreed to safety standards certainly have. Remember that the DFO building parapet wall was cynically built to within millimetres of the OLS (ICAO Annex 14/PANOPS defined) transitional slopes for both runway 26/08 and 17/35. Plus it should also be remembered that after EAPL took up CASA's suggestion of Grandfathering RW26 to the 1972 180m runway strip width, that when CASA revoked the legislative exemption 153/15, that EAPL took down the DFO obstruction warning lights...  

Moving onto the question of whether Essendon airport was the test case for how much urban developers could push the dizzy limit for encroaching on (internationally recognised) airport runway and public safety buffers? 

In terms of runway safety buffers, let us first refer to the following exchange between Senator Fawcett and Beaker at Budget Estimates 23 May 2012:

 

 

Now fast forward to a week after the DFO accident where the Herald Sun published this article: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sout...bde934#_=_

AVIATION experts have warned of the dangers of cramming commercial buildings onto airport land in the wake of the deadly Essendon crash.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia executive director Benjamin Morgan said the privatisation of airport land was one of the biggest issues faced by the aviation industry in the last 30 years and he held grave concerns for airports in fast-growing suburbs like Moorabbin.

“Moorabbin is one of those airports where we are seeing serious non-aviation developments,” Mr Morgan said.

He said using up airport land for retail and other businesses left no vacant land for use in an emergency and called for the government to remove some of these developments at airports nationwide.


Investigators scour the wreckage of a light plane crash in Chelsea in 2014. Picture: Eugene Hyland

“Building a DFO on an airport degrades aviation safety — that fact in itself proves these buildings should not be on airports.”

Aviation law expert Joe Wheeler said there was pressure to develop around airports for financial gain but the existence of these buildings in areas that should be ideally kept clear for emergencies was not the ideal thing for aviation safety.

Much of the land at Moorabbin Airport has already been developed into retail outlets like the large DFO and Costco stores.

Moorabbin Airport chief executive Paul Ferguson said planning and approval for on-airport developments at former federal airport sites including Moorabbin was covered by Commonwealth legislation and said approvals “take into account aeronautical operations and safety requirements.”

“Aviation is a safety based industry and welcomes every measure to make our industry safer,” Mr Ferguson said.


A light plane crashed into a house in Lower Dandenong Rd, Moorabbin, in 2010.

A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development said it considered advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia when deciding on on-airport development.

Those bodies assess the safety and operational impact of developments, “including their proximity to airside infrastructure such as runways,” he said.

“All certified airports in Australia, including Moorabbin, are licenced to operate by CASA and must meet their safety requirements.”

The 123 ha Moorabbin Airport precinct is an integrated mixed use business park with commercial, industrial, large format retail, leisure, entertainment and retail uses.

Plans are underway for another “Chifley South” precinct at the southern end of the airport with smaller retail and business outlets.

Just days before the Essendon crash on March 21, Coroner Audrey Jamieson raised concerns about Moorabbin Airport following a hearing into the death of pilot John Stephenson in a fiery crash into a house in Chelsea in 2014.

Coroner Audrey Jamieson said there were “huge public health and safety issues around Moorabbin Airport” and said she planned to visit the airport next month.

During the court hearing, assisting counsel Rebecca Cohen said statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau revealed there were 26 accidents, 111 incidents and 46 serious incidents within 25 kilometres of the airport between 2006 and 2015.

Ms Cohen said a ATSB 2013 study found the fatal and serious injury accident rate was more than five times higher in amateur built aircraft.

“This may have serious implications for the increasingly urbanised, residential vicinity around Moorabbin Airport,” she said.

Then in the same year, back to Budget Estimates for another Senator Fawcett probing on the lack of oversight and ignorance of the increased safety risk posed by encroachment of non-aviation development at airports:

And airport public safety zones:

Ref: Not only captive, culpable – but Catamite (and loving it).

Next the GAAAI on FB quoting from this ProAviation article: Albanese airport decision under AAT microscope

GAAAI - General Aviation & Airports Association
8 July at 23:17
  ·
“Instead of the Government applying its laws the onus is transferred to the general community to do so. The so called “Light Hands Policy” in relation to airports, a policy designed as a cover for bureaucratic executive action, has no legal backing at all and has never been raised in the Parliament.

“The Department has been acting as an un-informed regulator and uniformed protector of the public interest. It has been acting only as a post office rather than doing its job to protect the airports and the users. The consequences are that general aviation industries are being destroyed and airports infrastructure including runways being downgraded or lost.

“There is no or inadequate compensation to aviation businesses losing their assets through a system of refusals to renew aviation related leases of Commonwealth owned airport land upon which tenants paid for the buildings and improvements. Aviation land through the airport’s master plan will be converted to commercial and industrial sites without any control or supervision by State planning authorities.

“The full resources of Governments of all political persuasions have been deployed to ensure the commercial profits of the airport lease holders are ensured, without regard as to the loss of vital national infrastructure or the interests of the community at large, and the viability of general aviation businesses that try to provide services in a competitive market environment.

“The Act provides that airport lease holders must not alienate land that is required for present and future aviation needs. The Chamber’s application is to preserve our precious aviation infrastructure, stop new commercial and industrial development on land that is currently being used for runways and aviation businesses and to send a clear message to all federal airport leasing companies that only aviation related developments on taxpayer land in Australia will be permitted.”

Similar disputation has marred airport/operator relationships at some but not all other secondary airports. Bankstown based operators complain of ongoing intrusion of non-aviation development that has wiped out the only north-south runway available to general aviation in the Sydney basin and also taxiways, aircraft parking space and land they say should be held available for the growth of further aviation businesses.

Head lease holder Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) is also widely criticised by its tenants for degrading airport functionality through the length reduction of runway 04/22, and the loss of space available for helicopter emergency procedures training due to the encroachment of non-aviation commercial buildings, and “astronomical” lease rental increases.

---

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...cument.pdf

---

Finally and going full circle back to the YMEN DFO cover-up report, let me refer you to a "K" post from some five years ago...



Hmm...kind of nailed it didn't he?? - Choccy frog backdated "K"!   

MTF...P2