Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Airports - Buy two, get one free.
(07-03-2017, 08:52 PM)Peetwo Wrote:FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout - Dodgy

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - Rolleyes ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

Quote:10:50 am
 

[Image: 10749.jpg]Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Also covered by Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: Husic.jpg]Ed Husic rises in parliament to support AOPA's position for a seat on FOWSA. (Still from video footage)

Labor goes into Bat for AOPA over Badgerys Creek
28 June 2017

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...EXd3I5U.99

Airport QON & the (FOWSA v AOPA) YSBK political football.

Very much related to the above, from the just released Budget Estimates QON index (PDF 661KB), I note that Sterlo (& the Labor party) is a quick study on the possible implications of Senator Fawcett CASA QON 122 (in particular the part in bold):

Quote:122
000261
CASA
FAWCETT
SAFETY SYSTEM

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 Sterle wrote the following QON addressed to the Department's Western Sydney (Airport) Unit Wink :
Quote:158
000324
WSU
STERLE
FLIGHT PATH DESIGN FOR WSA


Part B, Chapter 7 of the Western Sydney Airport EIS states the following:

"The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be responsible for delivering the flight path design for the proposed Western Sydney Airport, working in close collaboration with Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The proposed airspace design arrangements will be formally referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). CASA would ultimately approve the proposed airspace management arrangements, including the authorisation of final flight paths, before the commencement of operations.”

Question: What steps has the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development taken to develop:

a. Air Routes
b. Arrival and Departure Procedures
c. Instrument and Visual Approach Procedures for Western Sydney Airport?
d. What involvement has Air Service Australia had in this work?

How does the government intend that these will be developed? What is and will be the involvement of private sector organisations in this and related airspace design?

If this work is being undertaken by private sector organisations, what process has the Department followed for the issue of tenders and selection of contractors and consultants in this respect?

159
000325
WSU
STERLE
VIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES FOR BANKSTOWN AIRPORT


1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

160
000326
WSU
STERLE
WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES AT BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.
Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."


Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

Hmm...this could get very interesting -  Rolleyes

Next some more potentially embarrassing Essendon DFO related QON Confused :
Quote:96
000253
AAA
XENOPHON
PLANNING LAWS


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?


Senator XENOPHON: So if the ATSB says, 'We need to review public safety zones—

Mr Carmody: I would be very interested if they came out with something like that. At the moment, the investigation is afoot, I understand. I do not know what the cause of the accident was. I know what the consequences were. But I think that that is part of the picture.

Senator XENOPHON: There is always the cause, but would the outcome have been different if that building were not in the way?

Mr Carmody: And that is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: And it also is those on the ground, in that building. Just to finalise that, Mr Mrdak, could you please, on notice, provide me with details of what the department says are the legal and constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth overriding state planning laws in relation to these issues.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.

Senator XENOPHON: I am surprised that not even the corporations power, or various powers, could be used in respect—

Mr Mrdak: We will provide you an update on where the work on public safety zones is up to and the legal position.

97
000254
AAA
XENOPHON
PUBLICATION OF NASAG MINUTES


Ms Spence: We have been progressing this through the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group. It is a matter where we have had to get agreement from all the states and territories. As Mr Mrdak mentioned, on 14 March members reconfirmed their commitment to developing and implementing the public safety zone guidance for airports. The next meeting of NASAG is on 2 August, and before that NASAG members are going to brief their respective ministers on the draft public safety zone guidelines that have been developed by the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments in consultation with NASAG members. Subject to the minister's agreement, NASAG will conduct targeted stakeholder consultation with selected airports in the second half of 2017, and then the draft guidelines will be released for wider consultation.

Senator XENOPHON: Are these minutes made public?

Ms Spence: I do not think the minutes of NASAG are made public.

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator XENOPHON: Is there any reason why they cannot be made public?

Mr Mrdak: I am happy to take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe it is a question for the committee as to whether or not they are made public as well. But can you take it on notice, and if you do not wish to make them public then it could be a question of an order for the production of documents. I will put some questions on notice.

124
000304
CASA
XENOPHON
PUBLIC SAFETY ZONE AROUND BADGERY’S CREEK


1. Has CASA had discussions with relevant authorities planning Badgerys’s Creek on the requirements for a public safety zone around the new airport’s site?
2. Will CASA be the approving authority for that airport in respect of public safety zone?

126
000306
CASA
XENOPHON
NASAG OVERRIDE OF CASA ON AIR SAFETY


Can National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) override CASA on a matter of air safety? If so, under what circumstances?


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
The Obfuscation Stakes.

For the true aficionado of the sport, The Obfuscation Stakes Airport Section (TOSAS) is the premier, gala event of the season. Every stable in the land has at least one team entered, some of the more affluent stables can afford to enter more. The rules are simple enough, picking a winner is an extremely dangerous wager to make. The reason for this is the ruck on the finish line, that the judges struggle to find a clear, outright winner. The fault of course lays hidden within the rules; the purpose is to finish but not be first over line – hence the ruck; everyone trying to push another entry into the lime light; the art is to be there, but not be the one named. To cross the line first means the end of a racing career. Pushing and shoving other runners over the finish line just ahead of you is the reason for many, gruelling practice sessions.

There are four major events; the first, traditionally being the Airport Cup, which attracts the widest field. From the owners, operators, airlines, retail outlets, passengers, staff, fuel companies, security outfits etc. Then there are the government sponsored entries; always a threat in a wide field. The experienced punter will always pay careful attention to the ‘official’ entries, they have, statistically, won every event since the race was first run. Which entry will be shoved over the line first is a difficult call; but to work out who shoved whom is the challenge – and, by the by – where the big odds are to be had.

For the form conscious among you; the tote board is showing the top six ‘official’ entries for your ante post consideration. All past masters of showing for a place, just behind the winner.

Top weight – Just DoIT – Horse (17h) by Deceptions Delight out of Pink Bat; a very clever animal, considered by many to be the master of the ‘herding technique which keeps the intended victim against the rails, offering a protected pathway to the finish; then just slipping in behand to deliver the final nudge. Many have fallen for this ruse, to their cost. The ministers entry the traditional target.

Second favourite – Pig in Clover – Gelding (15h) by Donuttin out of Image Maker; started out as a show pony winning many a gymkhana and pony club event. The owner had ambitions to enter the big stake races and some small success, early and clever selection of events took the animal out of it’s class. Many believe its outclassed by the top TOS entries and a likely target for Just DoIT.

Equal favourite – Wingnut – Gelding (16h) by Just DoIT out of Loaded Dice; this is a team player, likely to ‘assist’ in any behind the referee ‘shepherding’ move initiated by Just DoIT. The strategy developed during training sessions against the Senate team is subtle, smooth and deceptive to any runner without one eye over the shoulder; a master of the rear end shunt.

At a good return – Village Idiot – Gelding (15h) by Under the Bus out of Easy Led. A top pick for first across the line punters. Erratic running and confused tactics often make this entry the target of choice for the wily. Easy to spot in a melee, the prancing, running on the spot delaying tactic more often than not ends in a rear end collision.

At even money – Chameleon – Filly (15h) by Voodoo Magic out of Travesty. Safety first for the Filly, the connections very well aware of the fragile nature of past campaign runs and the dangers of running a light weight in a heavy horse race. Stealth and deception have so far kept this entry out of the front line action; that and the use of various performance modifiers to enhance courage and a willingness to join in a scrum. A third or even fourth place will keep the filly ‘in the game’ but out of the spotlight.

For the more daring, we offer good, but short odds on the heavyweight favourite for outright winner – Statesman – Horse (17.5h) by Common Sense out of Decency. Well trained by experts with an amazing ability to read a race, counter the dastardly plots and machinations of the entries which cannot, dare not, be first across the line.

The ducking, weaving, pushing, shoving, cheating and deceiving is always interesting and entertaining; all part of the great game. But sooner or later, one of the entries must be forced across the line and wear the ignominy of owning the Airports Obfuscation Cup.

So Step up here boys and girls – take your pick; pay your money and take your chances.

Toot-toot.
Reply
Backing the Win.

I’ll take a flutter on Statesman – to win, please. Glossy coats, manicured hoofs and fancy accoutrements may impress the mugs down in the ledger; but class, pedigree, blood and staying power is needed to win this round. Statesman is nothing if not a working horse; no pumped up ‘work out’ muscle there; just the steel and stamina of a stayer, used to doing the hard yards which produce the flat, strong muscles of a true winner. It is a distance race needing real power, not some contrived, artificially produced pretence of real power. Trained by Xenophon, ridden by Fawcett, owned by O’Sullivan and Sterle – what else could you think of backing; when push come to shove. – Go with strength – horsepower – of the real law making kind.

Two choc frogs and a Tim Tam – Statesman.
Reply
M&M lesson on how to obfuscate the QON -  Dodgy

Previous reference:

(07-05-2017, 08:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(07-03-2017, 08:52 PM)Peetwo Wrote:FOWSA & the AOPA Australia lockout - Dodgy

Don't really have an opinion on this (yet - Rolleyes ) but it does appear to be strange political optics when the Coalition government appears to be totally ignoring the concerns & protestations of a normally conservatively affiliated General Aviation advocacy group.

Here is a recent parliamentary speech from Labor Member for Chifley Ed Husic: 

Senator Sterle wrote the following QON addressed to the Department's Western Sydney (Airport) Unit Wink :
Quote:158
000324
WSU
STERLE
FLIGHT PATH DESIGN FOR WSA


Part B, Chapter 7 of the Western Sydney Airport EIS states the following:

"The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be responsible for delivering the flight path design for the proposed Western Sydney Airport, working in close collaboration with Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The proposed airspace design arrangements will be formally referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). CASA would ultimately approve the proposed airspace management arrangements, including the authorisation of final flight paths, before the commencement of operations.”

Question: What steps has the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development taken to develop:

a. Air Routes
b. Arrival and Departure Procedures
c. Instrument and Visual Approach Procedures for Western Sydney Airport?
d. What involvement has Air Service Australia had in this work?

How does the government intend that these will be developed? What is and will be the involvement of private sector organisations in this and related airspace design?

If this work is being undertaken by private sector organisations, what process has the Department followed for the issue of tenders and selection of contractors and consultants in this respect?

159
000325
WSU
STERLE
VIABLE INSTRUMENTS AND VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES FOR BANKSTOWN AIRPORT


1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

160
000326
WSU
STERLE
WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES AT BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.
Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."


Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

AQON from WSU:
.pdf   QON_Western_Sydney_Unit.pdf (Size: 43.89 KB / Downloads: 0)

Quote:Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

1. There is considerable concern amongst operators of general aviation aircraft at Bankstown Airport as to the future of that airport if instrument approach and departure procedures are withdrawn, as doing so would affect the viability of scores of businesses, employing hundreds of people. What action is the Department taking to effect the following statement at section 7.4.1 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS?

“...an airspace design could be implemented for single runway operations at the proposed airport without changing the current design and flight path structure for Sydney Airport or Bankstown Airport”

If the Department is not taking any action to secure viable instrument and visual flight procedures for Bankstown Airport, when and how will it communicate with stakeholders who have made investments at that location? If the Department is taking action in this respect, how is the stakeholder consultation and technical concept and detailed design work being undertaken?

2. Has the Department reached any understanding with Sydney Metro Airports (BAC Holdco) for continuation of instrument and visual flight operations at Bankstown Airport, given that the lease held by latter has more than 35 years to run? If so, what is that understanding? If not, when does the Department propose to consult with Sydney Metro Airports and its sub-lessees in relation to the continuing viability of their investments?

Answer:

1 – 2. The Commonwealth is solely responsible for determining the flight paths for Western Sydney Airport.

The airspace design process will comply with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan. The final airspace design process (including flight paths and operating procedures) will be determined through the process presented in the Airport Plan.

The Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA) has been established to enable the views of the community, industry, local government and other stakeholders to be heard and taken into account in the planning and development of Western Sydney Airport. Bankstown Airport Ltd, operating as Sydney Metro Airports, is represented on FOWSA by its Chief Executive Officer. FOWSA will be consulted on the airspace and flight path design process for the airport among other matters. As part of the airspace design process, the Department will also consult directly with aerodrome operators and airspace users about their current and future airspace needs and the airspace requirements for Western Sydney Airport.


Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Section 7.3 (Part B, Chapter 7) of the EIS indicates three models with differing levels of ongoing operations at Bankstown Airport once Western Sydney Airport commences operations. Model 1 appears to imply no change to the viability of instrument flight at Bankstown Airport, whilst Models 2 and 3 are predicated on the withdrawal of those types of operations. The source document for this analysis, “Western Sydney Airport
Preliminary Airspace Management Analysis Final Report 10 April 2015” heavily qualified the viability of Model 1 at page 28, section 7, as follows:

"IFR operations at BK will reduce the capacity at WSA on runway 23. The influence of BK IFR operations at WSA does not present as a consistent hourly impact. For example, existing BK arrival traffic typically peak in the evening.

Analysis indicates that if BK was confined to VFR operations only, WSA could realise full capacity of 50 movements per hour for both runway 05 and 23."

Question: when and how will the Department publicly communicate the true effect of its decisions in relation to Western Sydney Airport airspace and flight procedures on Bankstown Airport?

Is the Department undertaking further study or analysis by portfolio agencies or through external consultants?

What instructions or requests has the Department made to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation, external private sector consultants or service providers, and/or Airservices Australia, in relation to further airspace and flight procedure design for Bankstown Airport to accommodate the requirements of Western Sydney Airport?

If it has not done so, why?

If it has, which agencies or external consultants have been instructed or engaged, and on what terms?

Answer:

The airspace design process will be conducted in accordance with Condition 16 of the Airport Plan, which among other things requires the Commonwealth to consult with stakeholders including the aviation industry and other airspace users. The final airspace design process (including flight paths, height of aircraft operations and
potential noise exposure levels) will be determined through the processes set out in the Airport Plan.

Not sure where that leaves AOPA Oz but I can certainly recognise the word weasel deflection - God help the GA industry because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that our WOFTAM NFI miniscule never will... Angry


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
More airport development; & YMEN DFO related AQON - Rolleyes  

First from the CASA AQON (so far - Dodgy ) - I'm confused  Huh : PDF 51KB*

NX QON to CASA on airports:
Quote:Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

1. Has CASA had discussions with relevant authorities planning Badgerys’s Creek on the requirements for a public safety zone around the new airport’s site?
2. Will CASA be the approving authority for that airport in respect of a public safety zone?

Answer:
1. No, this is a matter for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
2. No, which is consistent with other federally-leased airports.

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Can National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) override CASA on a matter of air safety? If so, under what circumstances?

Answer:
No. CASA has legislative aviation safety obligations and powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Airspace Act 2007, and administers aviation regulations. NASAG is an advisory group, not a decision making body.

Huh And to add to the confusion from M&M's Aviation & Airports division (so far)  Dodgy : PDF 61KB*  
Quote:Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

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?

Senator XENOPHON: So if the ATSB says, 'We need to review public safety zones—

Mr Carmody: I would be very interested if they came out with something like that. At the moment, the investigation is afoot, I understand. I do not know what the cause of the accident was. I know what the consequences were. But I think that that is part of the picture.

Senator XENOPHON: There is always the cause, but would the outcome have been different if that building were not in the way?

Mr Carmody: And that is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: And it also is those on the ground, in that building. Just to finalise that, Mr Mrdak, could you please, on notice, provide me with details of what the department says are the legal and constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth overriding state planning laws in relation to these issues.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.

Senator XENOPHON: I am surprised that not even the corporations power, or various powers, could be used in respect—

Mr Mrdak: We will provide you an update on where the work on public safety zones is up to and the legal position.

Answer:
Public Safety Zones (PSZs) are a land-use planning tool that reduce the risk of an air transport accident affecting people who live, work or travel in close proximity to airports. They enable suitable development to be properly located, noting that the risk of an air transport accident is already very low. The Commonwealth’s approach to
the establishment of PSZs in the vicinity of Australian airports is to work cooperatively with the States and Territories through the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG). If agreement on PSZs cannot be reached at NASAG, the commonwealth may consider what options are available for legislating to regulate off-airport land use in PSZs for the purpose of protecting the safety of people on and near airports from any risks arising from aviation operations, noting that, as far as the department is aware, the relevant legislative powers have not been relied upon for this purpose previously.

Prior to the next NASAG meeting on 2 August 2017, members have agreed to brief their respective Ministers on a draft PSZ Guideline developed by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments in consultation with other NASAG members. If State and Territory Ministers agree, the Guideline will proceed to targeted stakeholder consultation in the second half of 2017.

QON 97:

...Senator XENOPHON: Are these minutes made public?

Ms Spence: I do not think the minutes of NASAG are made public.

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator XENOPHON: Is there any reason why they cannot be made public?

Mr Mrdak: I am happy to take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Maybe it is a question for the committee as to whether or not they are made public as well. But can you take it on notice, and if you do not wish to make them public then it could be a question of an order for the production of documents. I will put some questions on notice.

Answer:
Consistent with other Commonwealth-State officials groups, the minutes of the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) are not made public noting that NASAG is not a decision-making body.
Err what's the big secret.. Huh

Which still leaves the Senator Fawcett (pregnant pause) QON yet to be answered (or obfuscated):

Quote:QON 122:

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.



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]
Reply
Aw, Mr PB – that’s not fair. It is after all, a ‘team’ effort which achieves the most.

[Image: CpWoYn-XEAAokka.jpg]
Reply
(07-21-2017, 02:54 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.

[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]

Carmody's look at that??

Somewhat gobsmacked I noted that Senator Fawcett's probing QON was answered today by CC... Rolleyes

Quote:QON 122 at 02:28 here:




Answer:

Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 prohibits the intrusion of controlled activities (e.g. buildings, cranes and other structures, etc) into the prescribed airspace of leased federal airports (i.e. those airports that operate under a lease with the Commonwealth) without an approval granted under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations (APARs). The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development administers the APARs. CASA will provide advice on aviation safety matters related to a proposed controlled activity to the Department, in accordance with the APARs.

As part of its comprehensive assessment of the proposed controlled activity, CASA will consider:

- the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 139-Aerodromes and its Manual of Standards, in particular the regulatory arrangements associated with the establishment of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces;
- the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14-Aerodromes;
- the ICAO Document 8168 Procedures for Air Navigation-Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), in particular the instrument procedure design surfaces (PANS-OPS surfaces) associated with the leased Federal airport in question; and
- the National Airports Safeguarding Framework and associated guidelines;

CASA’s advice will take one of the following forms:
 - the proposal is acceptable without risk mitigation;
 - the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions imposing risk mitigation measures; or
 - the proposal is unacceptable.

The APARs specify a proposed controlled activity must not be approved by the Secretary if CASA advises that carrying out the controlled activity would have an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing or future air transport operations into or out of the airport concerned. In other circumstances, CASA’s advice on risk mitigation measures will be considered by the Department in making its decision.

Besides creating more questions than answers, it would appear that the CC answer is very gently attempting to throw M&M under the bus... Huh

For those interested here are the APARS to which CC refers:
Quote:TABLE OF PROVISIONS
 1. Name of regulations  
2. Object of Regulations
3. Meaning of terms  
4. Ascertainment of OLS and PANS-OPS surfaces  
5. Declaration as to preservation of airspace  
6. Prescribed airspace  
6A. Level of air turbulence  
7. Application for approval to carry out controlled activity  
8. Local government body etc to give notice  
9. Intrusion into PANS-OPS airspace  
10. Submissions about intrusion into prescribed airspace  
11. Giving application to Secretary  
12. Request for more information  
13. Consideration of application  
14. Secretary to approve, or refuse to approve, proposal  
15. Notification of Secretary's decision  
15A. Notification of decisions of Secretary's delegate  
16. Variation of conditions, etc, of approval  
17. Review of Secretary's decisions  
18. Delegation
And in case you were wondering what exactly a 'controlled activity' is defined as, here is the blurb direct from the M&M PH (Pumpkin Head) website Rolleyes :
Quote:What is a Controlled Activity?

Any activity that infringes an airport's protected airspace is called a controlled activity, and requires approval before it can be carried out. Controlled activities include the following:
  • permanent structures, such as buildings, intruding into the protected airspace
  • temporary structures such as cranes intruding into the protected airspace
  • any activities causing intrusions into the protected airspace through glare from artificial light or reflected sunlight, air turbulence from stacks or vents, smoke, dust, steam or other gases or particulate matter.
The Regulations differentiate between short-term (less than 3 months) and long-term controlled activities. The Regulations provide for the airport operator to approve short-term controlled activities, excluding PANS-OPS infringements, and for the Department to approve long-term controlled activities, or short-term controlled activities referred to it by the airport operator, including short-term infringements of the PANS-OPS surface. However, long term intrusions of the PANS-OPS surface are prohibited.
   
What say you Mr Peabody - happy with that AQON? Shy


 MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Huh As usual Mr Carmody does not answer the question!

But maybe he would like to answer how CASA addressed item 2 in the press release outlining the conditions imposed on the DFO development. Angry

[Image: attachment.php?aid=359]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
(07-25-2017, 04:03 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Huh As usual Mr Carmody does not answer the question!

But maybe he would like to answer how CASA addressed item 2 in the press release outlining the conditions imposed on the DFO development. Angry

[Image: attachment.php?aid=359]

Interesting catch there Mr P - Confused  Q/ What was the date of that presser?

The reason I ask is that the matter of the Murky world of departmental Secretary approval for urban development projects, in and around airports, caught the attention and concern by the FAA USOAP audit team in 2008:

[Image: AGA-05.jpg]

ICAO audit finding AGA/05 would appear to have been the trigger for the establishment of the NASAG and that the matter of encroaching on, or indeed establishing, PSZs (public safety zones) around airports has been an outstanding and yet to be mitigated safety risk identified (at least) for the better part of a decade - why am I not surprised... Dodgy

While on the ICAO audit report the AGA/03 finding is I believe relevant to the Airport development safety issues and the YMEN DFO accident on the subject of RESA (runway end safety area)      

[Image: AGA-01.jpg]


Reviewing the latest iteration of the 39 page notified differences to ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1, it would appear that the NDs to para 3.5.3 & 3.5.4 still remain to this day:

Quote:3.5.3

MOS Part 139 Chapter 6, Section 6.2.26

Less protective or partially

implemented not

implemented

Australia requires the RESA to be provided at

the end of the runway strip and is to extend

for the distance of 90m for a code number 3 or

4 runway used by air transport aeroplanes. In

all other cases, the minimum length of the

RESA is to be 60m for Code 1 or 2 runways.
&..
Quote:3.5.4

MOS Part 139 Chapter 6, Section

6.2.26


Less protective or partially
implemented not
implemented

Australia requires the RESA to be provided at
the end of the runway strip and is to extend
for the distance of 90m for a code number 3 or
4 runway used by air transport aeroplanes. In
all other cases, the minimum length of the
RESA is to be 60m.

(Note: It should be noted that YMEN is used by numerous 'air transport' aeroplanes, including HCRPT)

For those interested here is a copy of the ICAO Annex 14 CH 1 and the following is the quoted sections referred to in the notified differences to RESA requirements:
Quote:Dimensions of runway end safety areas

3.5.2 A runway end safety area shall extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 m.

3.5.3 Recommendation.— A runway end safety area should, as far as practicable, extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least:

— 240 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and
— 120 m where the code number is 1 or 2.

3.5.4 The width of a runway end safety area shall be at least twice that of the associated runway.

3.5.5 Recommendation.— The width of a runway end safety area should, wherever practicable, be equal to that of the graded portion of the associated runway strip.

(P2 comment: Also from the Annex it is worth reading - ATTACHMENT A. GUIDANCE MATERIAL SUPPLEMENTARY TO ANNEX 14, VOLUME I - for ICAO dimensions, definitions and requirements meeting the ICAO/PANS-OPS standards.)


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
P2,

The Essendon DFO Media Release is dated 22 December 2004 (L75 2004).

PB
Reply
An Airports tail....or how many ways can you screw an Industry.

Lets have a look at this entirely fictitious story.......or is it?

A certain prime minister decided one day that instead of borrowing money on the "books" if he flogged off the airports he was in effect creating an artificial debt, on someone else's books and the aviation Industry would pay the interest.

A Murky Mandarin and his Mandarin mate Beaker were charged with setting up this fraud on the Australian People and they solicited a Murky Bank to set things up.

Bankstown Airports as an airport was not worth much, but it was owned by the Australian public and paid a modest return to the taxpayers. As realestate however it was worth billions. It was an inconvenience that a small industry relied on that airport for its existence, but no matter, the same Murky Mandarin controlled the entity that controlled the industry so regulating it out of existence was not too hard, just time consuming.

A deal was struck and the Murky bank picked up realestate potentially worth Billions for a couple of hundred Million.

So Far so good, they very neatly avoided paying the NSW Guvmint any stamp duty on any of the transactions, allegedly about thirty Million or so, and interestingly all the state Documents connected to the airport disappeared from the State archives.

Not long after a premier resigned to take up a post as a director on the Murky Banks board, allegedly where turning up for board meetings was optional, then somehow ended up with a farm in New Zealand at the end of it all. Nice work if you can get it.

Another inconvenience was the Airport Act which required Secondary Airports to be reserved for Aviation Use. The head lease for the airports in fact required ALL airport infrastructure, i.e. runways and taxiways be maintained in their original condition at the time of lease signing.

Literally overnight rents and charges at the airport went up by thousands of a percent, driving most of the industry off what had been their airport.

Over time as the Industry that had once thrived at the airport diminished to a shadow of its former self as insidious over regulation drove up costs and massive increases in charges made operating there untenable.

The airport head lease holder, with the blessing of the Murky Mandarin, set about quietly subverting the intention of the Airport Act and the terms of their lease, shutting taxi ways and a whole runway, then dumping thousands of ton's of contaminated fill on already contaminated flood plain on the Southern side to facilitate the development of DFO factories by an equally Murky development shark, even writing their own EPA approval on Commonwealth letter head to head off any green objections.

Good things come to them that wait.
The end game is rapidly approaching.
Badgery's Creek is now in development. The existing runways at Bankstown will be unable to accomodate IFR traffic as Badgery Creek traffic management plans would preclude an IFR approach to Bankstown from the West, same to the East with Mascot in the way. The only chance for IFR operations at Bankstown would have been on the North South runway, now buried under thousands of ton's of contaminated waste busily leaching into the Georges river. A runway closed contrary to the Airport Act and contrary to the lease signed.

I doubt K would give odds on Bankstown surviving as an Airport for another ten years.

One has to wonder what Murky's reward will be, a few years on directors fees and a free farm somehow doesn't seem enough for handing such a prize to a Murky Bank.
Reply
Replay.

"An exceptional talent – indeed. There can be little doubt, Mrdak is bloody good at what he does. Which does not mean to say that what he done has been good for those who have been on the other end of that talent. From Pink Bats to Airports; from Pel-Air to the Mildura debacle, from McConvict to Beaker; every potential avenue to a platform from which Australian’s could come to grips with the waste, excesses and incompetence of aviation safety management has been blocked."

Perhaps we may ask a question of Senator Sterle;

IOS – "Senator Sterle, when a fully loaded semi trailer begins to ‘Jack knife’ what is the proper procedure used regain control and prevent the trailer cleaning up traffic, pedestrians, buildings?"

Relevance, you ask. Well if you think of the current situation with regard to airport developments, you can easily see an out of control juggernaut heading toward the shopping centre; it needs to be controlled and stopped before there is carnage, fire and mayhem. Between Mrdak, Dolan and the cleverly manipulated ‘rules’ there is little to prevent a serious aircraft v building accident and the brakes need to be put on; this needs to be stopped, indeed, it must be stopped.      

The rules have been tinkered with; the lines of responsibility have been artfully massaged and blurred to ensure, absolutely, that  there is little to prevent buildings encroaching on airfield boundaries; all legal, neat and tidy with no one to blame. Airport developments, such as Essendon do not enhance the aviation businesses which must operate from there; the developments do not enhance public safety. The only ‘profit’ or return to the nation is a restricted aviation industry, being pushed out of the only place they can actually do business.

Cynical, mendacious, venal and not in the best interests of Australia. Thank you DoIT, CASA and ATSB. Great job.

Toot – toot.
Reply
Chester tries to duck PFAS soil contamination issue - Dodgy

Answer to QIW No. 731, via HoR Hansard 08 Aug '15:

Quote:Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances
(Question No. 731)
[Image: DZW.jpg] Mrs Elliot asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 22 May 2017:

In respect of the confirmation of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic Acid contamination at the Gold Coast Airport, will he (a) commit to fully restoring all contaminated soils and ground waters around the Gold Coast Airport, (b) ensure that the process in part (a) is open and accountable, and © take all possible steps to prevent such contamination of local wetlands and waterways.

[Image: IPZ.jpg] Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

A preliminary site investigation for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was conducted at Gold Coast Airport by an independent environmental consultant, GHD Pty Ltd, in July 2016. The study was commissioned by Airservices Australia (Airservices) who publicly released the final report in November 2016. The results showed low levels of PFAS, below guidelines for the protection of human health, at the airport boundary. No PFAS was detected in surface water samples in the Cobaki Broadwater.

Airservices subsequently commissioned a further independent seafood sampling program to better understand potential PFAS exposure pathways on human consumption of fish caught in the Cobaki Broadwater. The biota sampling was conducted in accordance with sampling protocols established by the NSW Department of Primary Industries. Airservices released the results of the seafood sampling in March 2017 which showed PFAS concentrations below the limit of detection in surface water, sediment and biota samples for the Cobaki Broadwater.

The report concluded the risk to humans from consumption of fish, crustaceans and molluscs collected from Cobaki Broadwater is negligible.

These results confirm there is no risk of PFAS migrating off Gold Coast Airport.

Commensurate with the risk, it would be unreasonable to require all potentially contaminated soils and ground waters around Gold Coast Airport to be fully restored.

Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd and Airservices conduct regular groundwater and surface water monitoring of PFAS to monitor any potential movements of PFAS across the Airport.

Airservices has also commissioned a further sampling program on the north-eastern side of the Airport in Queensland to test local spear bores off-airport and to test for PFAS along the Coolangatta Creek. Sampling will commence shortly once the scope of the investigation has been approved by the relevant Queensland authorities.

It is worth noting a report by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in 2009 points out only 3% of globally manufactured perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a major PFAS chemical, by the US company 3M Lightwater was used in making firefighting foam. Almost half (48%) of total PFOS production was used in surface treatment applications (e.g. soil, oil and water resistance on apparel and leather, fabric/upholstery and carpets); 33% in paper protection (food and non food applications); and 15% in performance chemicals (e.g. mist suppressants for metal plating, floor polishes, photographic film, denture cleaners, shampoos, carpet spot cleaners). This report emphasises the fact that firefighting foam constitutes only a small fraction of the total source of PFAS in the environment, i.e. other diffuse sources of PFAS contribute more than 90% of PFAS in the environment. Off-airport sources of PFAS may include sewage treatment plants, landfills, domestic fire extinguishers, mining operations, fuel refineries and storage facilities, urban and country fire-fighting facilities and fire suppression systems in high cost infrastructure, such as tunnels and rail maintenance facilities.

While low levels of PFAS are widespread in the environment, there is currently no consistent evidence that these chemicals are harmful to human health. However, as a precaution, the Australian Government recommends exposure be reduced wherever possible, while research into potential PFAS health effects continues.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Latest on security screening & inappropriate urban development near Airports - Confused

By Annabel Hepworth; via the Oz... Wink
Quote:Airports plead for protection

[Image: 72db55e4fee900596d63d791e0fe3827?width=650]Melbourne Airport chief executive Lyell Strambi. Picture: David Geraghty.
  • Annabel Hepworth
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 18, 2017
Governments have been urged to protect airports from constraints including “insensitive” residential projects under flight paths to avoid costing the economy in lost trade.

Warning that once airspace surrounding an airport is lost “it is gone forever”, the Australian Airports Association has warned a landmark government inquiry against housing developments that could spark complaints about aircraft noise and agriculture activities that could pose an aviation hazard by attracting birds.

In its submission to the inquiry into the national freight and supply chain networks, the group has also called on governments to support road and rail links to airports and access to facilities like freight centres.

The call was backed by Melbourne Airport boss Lyell Strambi, who cautioned that impediments on efficient airports were a drain that “just leads to economic constraint and higher cost”.

“There is a looming challenge,” Mr Strambi told The Australian.

People think about airfreight as “these great 747s with the gaping nose wide open and full of freight”, but most freight is carried in the belly of passenger aircraft.

“If we start to run into capacity constraints of any nature then it will effect both passengers and cargo,” he said.

Constraints on airports also undermined wider economic activity. “And also if the airport is constrained, airfares go up,” he said. “The same applies to cargo. If you can’t get it through to the places you need to get it to, people go elsewhere and ... prices go up.”

Mr Strambi is a former senior Qantas executive who became the chief executive of Australian ­Pacific Airports Corporation, which owns and operates Melbourne and Launceston airports.

He said Melbourne Airport was “a poster child” for what happened when the land use planning around airports was right and that “if you get it right your city has competitive advantage”.

The airport is planning a third runway and wants a rail link to Tullamarine.

The government’s infrastructure tsar, Infrastructure Australia, has lauded the planning for Melbourne Airport as spanning beyond 2050 and allowing for ground transport and protection of flight paths.

The Turnbull government has declared it wants to ease the cost of moving cargo.

The government’s “smart cities plan” states that urban developments around airports needed to be “carefully managed”, while IA has called for urgent action in the next five years to protect vital corridors including the Western Sydney Airport rail line.

The Australian Airports Association has warned the government that while deficiencies in ground infrastructure can be fixed, “once airspace surrounding an airport is lost it is gone forever and limits future airport growth”.

The group wants all states to adopt the national airports safeguarding framework in their state planning schemes and for the Turnbull government’s freight strategy to formally recognise the arrangements.

Under the framework, state and local governments are pushed to minimise noise-sensitive developments near airports.

“Insensitive residential developments under flight paths may lead to complaints about aircraft noise and eventually lead to the introduction of operational restrictions, curfews or even the closure of an airport,” the association says in its submission.

&..

Quote:Security expert’s call for more screening of freight at Australian airports

[Image: 024a127174c6cf2e4684185427c30d2f?width=650]Joseph Wheeler, principal of aerospace law firm IALPG
  • Annabel Hepworth
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 18, 2017
Australia faces growing pressure to buttress screening for air cargo in the wake of the alleged terrorist plot to bring down a plane.

Adding to calls for a more stringent approach, Mike Carmody — the former chief of sec­urity at Federal Airports Corporation — said not everything that came into Australia was screened because of the sheer volume of air cargo crossing the border. He said there needed to be a “scalable mechanism” to increase the proportion of air cargo that was subject to screening, but he questioned whether this was based on the national terrorism threat level, saying the level “bears little relationship to aviation security”.

“Aviation security was a ­national crisis two weeks ago. What has happened?” Mr Carmody said.

He said that effective deterrence was based on the ongoing development of technologies for aviation security screening, but no matter how advanced the technology, the limitation was the screening operator.

Joseph Wheeler, principal of aerospace law firm IALPG, said more sophisticated screening technologies should be used “where it is practical to do so because it will enhance the safety outcome, no matter the cost”.

“More needs to be done to strengthen security procedures to prevent the use of cargo or freight in air transport for criminal ­activity and associated unlawful interference,” Mr Wheeler said.

Australia bans air cargo that has originated from or transited through a list of certain countries.

Mr Wheeler said “it is clearly time to reassess the list and potentially impose more broad-ranging screening of inbound cargo than presently applies given the unpredictability of where and when items being used for or intended for malicious purposes in Aus­tralia will arrive”

He also said the recent alleged plots in Australia should inspire international bodies to accelerate their sharing of sensitive intelligence information, noting that this was what happened after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over the eastern Ukraine three years ago.

Last night, a spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection pointed to comments on Wednesday by Malcolm Turnbull that Immigration and Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton was doing further work “on cargo, passenger security and screening at airports”.

Debate about aviation security has raged after the Australian Federal Police revealed military-grade explosives had allegedly been sent from Syria to operatives in Sydney via Turkey. A detailed proposal to clamp own on security at airports is reportedly due to go to cabinet

More troubles for our greatest walking, talking aviation disaster & minister Chester... Dodgy

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)