Tiede in the knots of definition.
Old Shifty Tiede (assisted by Carmody) keeps being allowed to divert the issue back to the ICAO PANS_OPS specification; which, as I’ve patiently explained is to do with arrival and departure track obstacle clearance and Australia does comply. This has SFA to do with ‘public safety zones’. The DFO places the public at risk, legal and Tiede.
CASA obliged and assisted by approving (or not preventing by objecting) to a manipulation of runway ‘Effective Operational Length’ (EOL) and various other tricky, clever definitions which have been stretched to the extreme limits. However, Mrdak and Dolan were the two bright sparks who tinkered with definitions when they were flogging off the airports and ‘accommodating’ development.
This is now a clearly defined case of legally sanctioned abrogation of duty of care and moral responsibility; the ‘rules’ could stand some careful scrutiny while we are at it. We see a lot of this in aviation, where the extremes of ‘law’ are played as normal precedent.
The Essendon building may well be ‘legal’ but I would not let anyone I know go shopping there; neither should the minister. Happily it is not my legal responsibility – the minister may yet have a problem. Can’t see the Americans letting this one pass by as simply ‘unfortunate’.
Nothing is settled till it is settled right.
Old Shifty Tiede (assisted by Carmody) keeps being allowed to divert the issue back to the ICAO PANS_OPS specification; which, as I’ve patiently explained is to do with arrival and departure track obstacle clearance and Australia does comply. This has SFA to do with ‘public safety zones’. The DFO places the public at risk, legal and Tiede.
CASA obliged and assisted by approving (or not preventing by objecting) to a manipulation of runway ‘Effective Operational Length’ (EOL) and various other tricky, clever definitions which have been stretched to the extreme limits. However, Mrdak and Dolan were the two bright sparks who tinkered with definitions when they were flogging off the airports and ‘accommodating’ development.
This is now a clearly defined case of legally sanctioned abrogation of duty of care and moral responsibility; the ‘rules’ could stand some careful scrutiny while we are at it. We see a lot of this in aviation, where the extremes of ‘law’ are played as normal precedent.
The Essendon building may well be ‘legal’ but I would not let anyone I know go shopping there; neither should the minister. Happily it is not my legal responsibility – the minister may yet have a problem. Can’t see the Americans letting this one pass by as simply ‘unfortunate’.
Nothing is settled till it is settled right.