Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Airports - Buy two, get one free.
Well done Mr P, a picture paints a thousand words. Chocolate frog on short finals.

Tom;

"Hey! Why don’t we just put the cone and gable markers back where they belong – that’d duck ‘em. What say you, who’s got a ute".

Don't be so silly. Don't need a ute mate, just kick them about a foot and they will be in the original spot! Oh, I forgot, there are fences and buildings now there.

So, Shane, please do tell us who is responsible for the CAsA sign off? Who assessed the changes to the aerodrome? Who did the risk assessment? Who hasn't picked up the issue in subsequent CAsA annual audits? Who hasn't picked up the issue in annual third party technical inspections?
I'm sure Sen X, Fawcett and O'braces would love to hear your robust response...Muppet.

Unsafe skies for all
Reply
Hypothetical roundelay.

It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.

“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.

But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

Give in; here’s a clue:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.

Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to rid of.
Reply
(05-30-2017, 06:52 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Hypothetical roundelay.

It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.

“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft be lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.

But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

Give in; here’s a clue:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.

Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to be rid of it.

Excellent catch Ol'Tom... Wink

Perhaps the Murky Mandarin would do well to take note of the 'closing the safety loop', slices of thin Swiss cheese that Senator Fawcett continues to harp on about when considering the disconnect between land developers, the original intent of the Airports Act and airport aviation safety:

Quote:Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as you are aware, we have spoken before about manual of standards part 139, which goes to airport design. Over the years we have seen what have essentially been open spaces for airports, with standards put in place. But as commercial pressures have built up that real estate and that airspace have been encroached upon right up to, and in some cases, I would argue, intruding into, the limits that MOS 139 is supposed to put in place.

What Senator Xenophon was pointing to, I think, is the fact that if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, 'Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,' and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore, options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system.

I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody : I will certainly look at that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.

Mr Carmody : I understand the logic of the statement you have made. I would like to go back and review how it is actually done, but I understand the point you are making.

Senator FAWCETT: I have raised on multiple occasions the example in Archerfield and the realignment and shortening of runways and the fact that CASA has ticked off on that. Yet, as pointed out by the operators there, for them to comply with CASA's requirements, in terms of planning for wet runways, climb gradients, factoring that they have to put in, they cannot comply. Therefore, yes, it can be made safe by having reduced payloads, but that then affects the commercial viability of the operation and flies in the face of the terms of the lease for the airport.

Mr Carmody : Understood.

Quote:




&.. a reminder from the Additional Estimates in February:

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.

Quote:

   

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
From Thorn bird:-


Quote:Found another interesting tit bit, also from the Torch newspaper.

"A PROPOSAL to build Bankstown's tallest buildings will require Federal Government approval as they would contravene safety height restriction imposed for aircraft.

The four high-rise buildings, ranging in height from 19 to 24 storeys, will replace Bankstown's Compass Centre and the former Bankstown library on North Terrace and The Mall, and include a residential and retail component. Developer, FS Property Group is seeking to increase the maximum building height limit from 53m to 83m.

A Canterbury Bankstown Council spokesperson said an aeronautical impact study was completed by the applicant, and concludes it would not adversely affect safety or regularity of aircraft using nearby Bankstown Airport.

FS Property Group has offered to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with the council, which would enable the redevelopment of the old Bankstown library site. The planning agreement would allow the developer to construct a new administration building and car park for the council, which could accommodate staff, and enable the leasing out of office space in the Civic Tower, which is owned by the council.

"This will generate more funds which can be channelled into frontline services," the spokesperson said. The proposal is on public exhibition until May 12."

"A Canterbury Bankstown Council spokesperson said an aeronautical impact study was completed by the applicant, and concludes it would not adversely affect safety or regularity of aircraft using nearby Bankstown Airport."

THE APPLICANT completed an aeronautical impact study?

OH my GAWD, here comes another Essendon, or a mini World Trade Centre.
Reply
Mate of mine sent me this snippet today from an article in a Perth newspaper from a few days ago. It seems to be the week for airport buggery!

CITY of Canning suburbs could be “noise bombed” by aircraft if Perth Airport’s cross-runway is removed, according to Councillor Jesse Jacobs.

http://www.communitynews.com.au/canning-...h-airport/

The story is that the Perth airport CEO is the ex-Cairns airport CEO. While in Cairns he shut down both the Cairns and Mackay airport cross runways so he could drive out General Aviation as well as reduce maintenance costs on those pesky smaller runways that only minor revenue earning aircraft use. Now this fool is in Perth and up to his old tricks and gunning to shut down Perth's cross runway. Nice one asshole. He had a shit reputation in FNQ and has apparently missed off a number of players in Perth, including the Rat. Seriously, how do these shitbag CEO's continue to get away with this stuff? Perhaps the EPA should classify airports as an endangered species and list them on its website?

The story continues;
My mate also reckons the owner of Cairns and Mackay airports, an entity that goes under the name of NQA and is owned by Auckland airport, JP Morgan and Hastings, is setting up the two airports for re-sale after only 6 years ownership. So I did a bit of research and found this article;

More workers made redundant in Cairns Airport staffing shake-up

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/mo...af69c1f1db

What is interesting is that 14 managers have been sacked or took VR's in 3 or so months since the new CEO started. So I did a little more research and found a stack of controversy about the airport, to much to list here. But it would seem that the Cairns and Mackay airports were sold off by the state Government to the sharks, have been gutted and milked for all they are worth, and will soon have a 'For Sale' sign placed out the front and sold for a tidy profit that will be sent offshore! So yep, the airports once again get used and abused like a $10 street walker and the pimps are the governments and then hedge funds who f#ck every last breath out of the airport. TICK TOCK

'Endangered airport species for all'
Reply
The lighter side of airports & aviation security - Big Grin

Airport Security screening at Uganda Airport - Rolleyes

Quote:[Image: Uganda-1.jpg]
[Image: Uganda-2.jpg]
[Image: Uganda-3.jpg]
[Image: Uganda-4.jpg]



.pdf   SECURITY AT UGANDA AIRPORT.pdf (Size: 835.28 KB / Downloads: 1)

Ps Excellent catch thorny... Wink

Next on the FAA exporting their Part 139 - Shy

Via the JDA Journal: 

Quote:Maybe FAA should export Part 139 to these airports?

[Image: faa-part-139-airports.jpg?resize=775%2C435]
Posted By: Cynthia Schultz May 30, 2017

Would these airports pass FAA’s safety standards?

1. Gisborne Airport, New Zealand
[Image: gisborne-airport-new-zealand.jpg?resize=657%2C308]
This North Island airport is one of the few in the world that has a railway line running through its runway. Both the railway and the airport are active, so let’s hope they are precise about their scheduling.

2. Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport, Saba Island
[Image: juancho-e-yrausquin-airport-saba-island....=452%2C308]
Blink and you might miss it. With only 400m in length, this Caribbean island has the shortest commercial air strip on the planet. Obviously, this tiny runway is only suitable for small aircraft.

3. Courchevel Altiport, France
[Image: Courchevel-altiport-france.jpg?resize=408%2C308]
This airfield high in the French Alps is a convenient yet treacherous drop-off point for wealthy skiers at the chi-chi courchevel slopes. In fact, there are ski runs no far from the 1,762 ft (537 m) mountaintop runway. Frequent fog, snow, ice and low clouds make it even more extreme. You’ll want to make sure your small plane or helicopter pilot is well trained.

4. Don Mueang Airport, Thailand
[Image: don-mueang-airport-thailand.jpg?resize=480%2C308]
There aren’t many airports in the world that have an 18 hole golf course right amongst the runways. Fore!

5. Tenzing-Hillary Airport, Nepal
[Image: tenzing-hillary-airport-nepal.jpg?resize=408%2C308]
If you’re planning on trekking to Mount Everest, chances are you’ll arrive via this small Nepalese airport in Lukla. It has a short runway with a 9,334 feet (2900 meter) drop off the edge. Not for the faint of heart.

6. Agatti Aerodrome, Lakshadweep, India
[Image: agatti-aerodrome-lakshadweep-india.jpg?resize=541%2C308]
This 4000 feet long island runway doesn’t leave much Margin for error. A few more inches, and passengers are going to be Swimming sooner than they bargained for.

7. Barra International Airport, Scotland
[Image: barra-airport-scotland.jpg?resize=408%2C308]
Barra International Airport, on a remote northern island in Scotland, has the only beach runway for scheduled flights in the world. At high tide, some of the runways are underwater.

8. Gibraltar International Airport
[Image: gibraltar-airport.jpg?resize=408%2C308]
Winston Churchill Avenue, a major thoroughfare, intersects the airport runway in Gibraltar. This is one red light you don’t want to run.

9. Gustaf III Airport, Saint-Barthélemy
[Image: gustaf-airport-saint-barthelemy.jpg?resize=457%2C308]
This runway is so tiny, only planes with a maximum of 20 people can land here. That helps keep St. Barts an exclusive upscale Caribbean haven for the rich and famous.

10. Kansai International Airport, Japan
[Image: kansai-airport-japan.jpg?resize=408%2C308]
With land at a premium in Japan, they decided to Build this major airport on an artificial island offshore in Osaka Bay. If its ocean setting doesn’t give you chills, it’s also regularly subjected to Earthquakes, typhoons and storm surges. Oh, and the island is also Sinking. This airport’s construction and constant reinforcement makes it the most expensive civil works project in modern history.

11. Madeira Airport, Portugal
[Image: madeira-airport-portugal.jpg?resize=457%2C308]
The previous airport on this Portuguese archipelago was notoriously challenging due to its short runway surrounded by high mountains and the ocean. So, they extended it with an impressive – yet frightening – platform supported by 180 columns off the edge of the land.

12. Narsarsuaq Airport, Greenland
[Image: Narsarsuaq-airport-greenland.jpg?resize=427%2C308]
This runway is short and sweet whether you’re coming or going. It is considered one of the world’s most challenging approaches. Pilots have to fly up a fjord known for its turbulence and wind gusts.

13. Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport
[Image: savanna-hilton-head-airport.jpg?resize=541%2C308]
A pair of grave markers are embedded into Runway 10 at this airport, in remembrance to the Dotson Family who used to own the land. One of the
Graves dates back to 1857. The law states that next of kin need to authorize the moving of family graves, and when they couldn’t be located, the airport engineers let them be.
MAYBE THIS ONE DID? Ice in Georgia’s sea coast!!!

14. Wellington Airport, New Zealand
[Image: wellington-airport-new-zealand.jpg?resize=541%2C308]
This airport in New Zealand’s capital city has a short runway, so only smaller aircraft can land there. It’s known for turbulent landings due to the channeling effect of the Cook Strait creating gusty winds.

15. Princess Juliana International Airport, Sint Maarten
[Image: princess-juliana-airport-sint-maarten.jp...=408%2C308]
This beachside airport on the Dutch side of Saint Martin is right across the street from Maho Beach. It is known for its extremely low-altitude flyover landing approach, and tourists flock here to experience the rush of the planes overhead. Definitely one of the craziest airport runways you got to see to believe.

16. Ice Camp Barneo, North Pole
[Image: ice-camp-barneo-north-pole.jpg?resize=452%2C308]
This snowy strip not far from the North Pole is open for just 4 weeks per year. Built on a drifting ice base, it’s a fully functional runway suitable for cargo planes like the Antonov AN-74. Perhaps Santa Claus uses it too.
Fascinating array of international airports... Smile

MTF...P2  Tongue  

Ps Out of interest here is a PDF link for FAR Part 139 - see HERE.
Reply
"Fits Within the Template".......Pigs Arse!! Part 3

We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West.

Perhaps it is too far back and the facts too hard to dig up. Maybe a visit to the northern end of Essendon airport can refresh some memories.  

In April 2006 the airstrip is mostly compliant with the exception of some shrubs and a small building. Note the position of the perimeter fence.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=338]

In November 2006 a new fence appears along the perimeter road. That's odd; why would you build a fence some 45m inside the airstrip? 45m is just a few metres shy of the wing span of a 767 by the way.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=339]

Ah there's the answer; we needed some extra buildings and a covered parking area for all the new cars that don't fit in the Car Yards at the Wirraway Road Precinct.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=340]

In 2015 another bloody fence appears, along with some earth works to boot. Can't be anything much you say?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=341]

Ah just as one would have anticipated; a public access road to the new Fox Hangar and to the next stage, Hart Precinct. Who would have thought that you could save so much land by putting the road on the air strip....brilliant, gives heaps more room for development!!! Installing a decorative concrete wall along the road is a great touch.... also gives a great place to pile up excavated material.....cheaper than trucking the stuff out!!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=342]

I must say I am looking forward to CASA's explanation on all of this.......someone must have approved it.......the Senators responses will be an added treat!  Big Grin

PB -Super Star. Brilliant - Gold key to the Tim Tam cupboard and thanks. "K".


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                   
Reply
(06-13-2017, 05:06 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: "Fits Within the Template".......Pigs Arse!! Part 3

We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West.

Perhaps it is too far back and the facts too hard to dig up. Maybe a visit to the northern end of Essendon airport can refresh some memories.  

In April 2006 the airstrip is mostly compliant with the exception of some shrubs and a small building. Note the position of the perimeter fence.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=338]

In November 2006 a new fence appears along the perimeter road. That's odd; why would you build a fence some 45m inside the airstrip? 45m is just a few metres shy of the wing span of a 767 by the way.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=339]

Ah there's the answer; we needed some extra buildings and a covered parking area for all the new cars that don't fit in the Car Yards at the Wirraway Road Precinct.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=340]

In 2015 another bloody fence appears, along with some earth works to boot. Can't be anything much you say?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=341]

Ah just as one would have anticipated; a public access road to the new Fox Hangar and to the next stage, Hart Precinct. Who would have thought that you could save so much land by putting the road on the air strip....brilliant, gives heaps more room for development!!! Installing a decorative concrete wall along the road is a great touch.... also gives a great place to pile up excavated material.....cheaper than trucking the stuff out!!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=342]

I must say I am looking forward to CASA's explanation on all of this.......someone must have approved it.......the Senators responses will be an added treat!  :D

PB


As usual a very well researched but troubling post indeed Mr PB ;)  

Just on this comment: "..We are now well into June and there is still no answer on the approval of the Essendon Airport DFO Precinct from CASA. As you recall this involved narrowing of the air strip widths North/South and East/West..."

Is this the QON to which you are referring?
   
Quote:Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

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.

If so then the answers to QON 113 & 114 were belatedly added to the Additional Estimates AQON on the 19th May: PDF 59KB

Here was the brief half-arsed, weasel worded AQON: 

Quote:Answer:

Under the Airports Act 1996, the Minister must, in deciding whether to approve a Major Development Plan (MDP), have regard to the views of CASA in so far as they relate to safety aspects of the plan. CASA’s advice is limited to matters concerning the safety of aircraft operations.

Consistent with those requirements, the Department consulted CASA on the MDP for Essendon Airport in mid 2004. CASA noted that the Airport is required to comply with the relevant civil aviation regulations.

In relation to Public Safety Zones, please refer to 114.

I think that means CASA have thrown the department and the minister at the time under the bus??

However from the May Budget Estimates I get the feeling that the Senators (with the possible exception of Senator Fawcett) were either not aware; or had not had a chance to disseminate AQONs 113 & 114.

Excerpts from Hansard:
Quote:Mr Tiede : In the Essendon sense, there was no Victorian definition of a public safety zone. I applied the Queensland parameters, as a hypothetical, to the Essendon runway and concluded, as I expressed to the Senate last time.

Senator XENOPHON: The question that he asked you—what empirical material you drew on to reach that conclusion that having a public safety zone protected area would not have played a part in the role of the accident at Essendon on February 21—I do not think you have answered that, or have I missed something?

Mr Tiede : Just to be clear, the Queensland legislation specifies a set of parameters for the dimensions of a public safety zone. Those dimensions were applied at the end of the Essendon runway—

Senator XENOPHON: I am sorry, we are at cross purposes. I understand, but I am asking: what is CASA's view? I am not so interested in the Queensland legislation. I want to know what CASA, as the peak air safety regulator in this country, says about public safety zones. Should there be a public safety zone? What distance from the end or an approach to a runway between buildings, and what size of buildings, should there be in the context of ensuring maximum public safety?

Mr Carmody : We were at cross purposes. I think Mr Tiede was responding to the questions in the letter. My colleagues from the department might have a view on public safety zones, but—

Senator XENOPHON: I am asking you as the peak regulatory body...


&..

..Senator XENOPHON: I will ask this of you, Mr Carmody. I do not understand this. Has CASA actually got a view as to what buildings, and what height of buildings or structures, should be near an airport?

Mr Carmody : We certainly do. If I may, we are at cross-purposes here in terms of public safety zones at the end of runways versus buildings on and around airports. We have a very specific view on buildings and on penetrations through the obstacle limitation surface of buildings around airports. We have a very clear view and we are involved in that process. But with the debate on the public safety zone, which is routinely at the end of the runway, I think we are actually talking at cross-purposes in terms of the debate at the moment. We are actively involved if you use Essendon as an example, and the buildings that are onsite at Essendon—or any other airport; Canberra airport, for that matter.

Senator XENOPHON: So you do not have a view?

Mr Carmody : We always have a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody : On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.

Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede : CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

Senator XENOPHON: Do those obstacle limitation surfaces need to be reviewed in light of the DFO accident?

Mr Tiede : The obstacle limitation surfaces are drawn from some quite detailed ICAO specifications—International Civil Aviation Organization specifications—that are very detailed and very longstanding. We model our regulations on that information. ICAO is in a process of reviewing the OLS. The issue with that, of course, is that any outcomes are some time downstream. CASA participates in that work of ICAO as a member of the working group that is looking at this.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede : These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Mr Carmody : We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...
 
Tied-in-knots -"..So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—..."

But does it Mr Tied-in-knots, does it really?? 

Back to you Mr PB.
Reply
P2;

Tied-in-knots -"..So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—..."

Brilliant P2! There can be no way that the DFO did not penetrate the OLS! I believe that is becoming all too clear. What is also becoming clear, as succinctly shown by Mr Peabody's studious work, is that the encroachment upon the airports boundary took place over an extended period of time, with changes made on numerous occasions. Each 'change' supposedly would/should have been assessed against the regulations, particularly MOS 139, and submissions made to CAsA via the external stakeholder through the aerodrome Inspector(s) assigned to provide oversight of that aerodrome.

CAsA has a lot of questions to answer for over this crash. Then again they also had much to answer for over Lockhart and Pel Air but they came out of that smelling like roses. C'mon Senator Fawcett, you are far more intelligent than these CAsA spin doctors. Keep digging, keep pushing, keep squeezing and keep one step ahead of the game. I believe the Essondon crash, if used correctly, has the ability to be the catalyst that finally brings about change in CAsA that includes smashing the Iron Ring. We all know that the dopey NFI 6D can't see the potential writing on the wall, but maybe the Minister for todger photography and Malcolm 'Goldman Sachs' Turdball can see it??

TOCK TOCK
Reply
"Fits Within the Template"......Pigs Arse!! Part 4

Thanks P2; and yes QON 113 was what I was referring to.....disgraceful!!!

Here are some selected lines from the 139 MOS:

7.1.1.2 An obstacle is defined as:

(a) any object that stands on, or stands above, the specified surface of an obstacle restriction area which comprises the runway strips, runway end safety areas, clearways and taxiway strips; and

(b) any object that penetrates the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), a series of surfaces that set the height limits of objects, around an aerodrome.

7.1.2.1 Objects, except for approved visual and navigational aids, must not be located within the obstacle restriction area of the aerodrome without the specific approval of CASA.

7.1.6 Objects That Could Become Obstacles

7.1.6.1 If a proposed object or structure is determined to be an obstacle, details of the proposal must be referred to CASA the Authority to determine whether it will be a hazard to aircraft operations.

7.1.6.5 Fences or levee banks. A fence or levee bank that penetrates the OLS must be treated as an obstacle.

So keeping in mind these choice extracts from the MOS, we have the following exchange.

Senator XENOPHON: So do you think that building, the DFO at Essendon, with its proximity to the end of the runway, would meet your criteria for fulfilling CASA's views as to the safety criteria for a building of that size, of that height, in that proximity to the runway?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=330]

Mr Carmody: Currently, my understanding is that it would. There was a building there prior to the DFO building. Prior to the DFO building process in, I think, 2004 or thereabouts there were buildings that preceded that on the same location.

No Mr Carmody, there was a fence.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=327]

Senator XENOPHON: You are quite comfortable, if there were going to be another airport plan, that you would not have an issue with a building with that proximity to the runway?

Mr Carmody: On that runway, in that location, I understand it fits within the template. Mr Tiede would be able to correct me if I am incorrect.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=332]

Senator XENOPHON: And you set the template? Is that your template?

Mr Tiede: CASA's interest is in the safety-of-air-navigation piece of this. There are obstacle limitation surfaces, in very broad description, around an airport, starting from the runway out to 15 kilometres, like an upside-down wedding cake. The take-off climb surface extends off the runway in a straight ahead thing for 15 kilometres, climbing at a slope that is dependent on the specification of the runway. So this, in significant part, overlies the public safety zone, third-party protection apparatus that is talked about. The DFO complex fits under the obstacle limitation surfaces, and so it meets the regulatory—

No Mr Tiede, the DFO sits  within the obstacle restriction area and breaches through the obstacle limitation surfaces.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=289]

Senator XENOPHON: But you are not bound by ICAO? Or are you saying you are bound by ICAO in terms of recommendations for buildings in proximity to airports?

Mr Tiede: These are standards of ICAO that, yes, we have incorporated into our laws. We follow the ICAO specifications in their Annex 14, their aerodromes annex. We transfer.

Really??

[Image: attachment.php?aid=342]

Mr Carmody: We routinely follow their standards and recommended practices, unless we notify a difference. In this particular case, too, with Essendon, I might add that part of this discussion would depend upon the results of the investigation, at the end of the day...

This guy couldn't lie straight in bed!

PB
Reply
More good work by Mr Peabody!! Bravo. In just your last 2 posts alone you have made CAsA oversight of Essendon in the past 10 years and the giant eared Carmody look like the prize twats that they really are!

Steam on Mr P, you're on a roll now son.....keep it coming!
Reply
[Image: attachment.php?aid=348]



Bloody good work, Mr. Hector James Peabody !  
What Gobbles said.
Full Steam Ahead !




Biography (edited from:  http://mr-peabody-sherman.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Peabody)

Mr. Peabody built the WABAC (before google earth) machine, as a birthday gift for Sherman (Senators).

Mr. Peabody and Sherman then go back in time to see a Roman (Carmody) speaking in Latin (Applebyism).

Mr. Peabody then adds a translator circuit to the machine, so that everyone seems to speak English, and so they go to see the Roman again, this time finding out, that he is, in actuality, only a used chariot salesman.

Their next trip is to see Ben Franklin flying his kite, but Mr Peabody and Sherman find out that they cannot interact with the past, so Mr. Peabody makes some more adjustments, thus turning the WABAC from a "time machine", into a "should have been machine".


[Image: attachment.php?aid=349]


This results in the past they visit, being totally cockeyed, and now they must save the timeline, and rewrite history.


       
Reply
Ventus;

"time machines, Ben Franklins kite etc".

Lucky CAsA wasn't around back then mate, with all the approvals required along with the AOC and COA applications plus the normal embuggerance activities and some bully FOI trying to prove his manhood (or lack of), Mr Peabs would never have been famous! As for adding that translator circuit to the time machine, well that will end up in prosecutions as it is classified as 'maintenance' and that will result in a giant pineapple from Dr Voodoo and Flyingfiend, much to their sociopathic delight! Dr Emmet Brown of 'Back To The Future' fame invented a flying Delorean and ended up receiving the dreaded Friday 16:59 pm fax! That put an end to his career.......just sayin.
Reply
Whimsy - The Obfuscation Cup.

Approaching the first fence now, it’s an uphill run to a high, wide, wooden fence filled with brush, a water hazard on the other side, a neck or nothing challenge. The fence, sponsored by Green Fields developments is a not a recent addition to the course, but there are safety concerns being raised. In the beginning, it was a standard sponsors jump, deemed to be within the rules, as the sponsors demanded more ‘excitement’ to promote their product,  the fence has been modified over a period of time and now serious doubts over the legality and safety are being raised. The stewards are beset by legal problems and are having serious difficulty controlling the additional hazards; however the sponsors demand that the  bought and paid for race must be run, despite the risks.

[Image: 220px-Steeplechase_%281257926029%29.jpg]

Wingnut, (Gelding, 17 hands, by Court Jester out of Dire Necessity) the CASA entry ridden today by Shamus Comedy has been loitering at the back of the pack, taking it easy. Those with a pecuniary interest must be, about now, wondering at the tactics. The fence is a tough one and clear air is needed to let the horse sight the jump and set up for it; mistakes have proved fatal to both horse and rider, particularly when there is interference, always to expected in this class of field.  

Aye, whimsy indeed, nicer than hard, cold fact dragged out in full glare of serious questions to be answered. Carmody needs to meet the challenge of both public and operational safety at airports. Despite the duck shoving, they are inseparable and CASA is responsible for all aeronautical safety matters – and nothing else (so they tell us). There are deeply hidden, vested interests which will not allow any meaningful challenge to the past, present and future developments.

The minister and Carmody have a massive problem coming at pace in front of them, tackle it they must. Whether that will be a honest effort or an obfuscated, drawn out, confused pantomime of allaying blame and diffusing responsibility is yet to be seen. The auguries ain’t good, past form is dismal and the opposition ferocious. The legal toll in time and money will make the MH370 search seem like a mere bagatelle. The lies, treachery and deceit will rival Nuremberg.

Carmody’s first major hurdle – lets watch and see how he tackles it.

Toot toot.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)