[Peetwo]

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.

Interesting catch there Mr P -   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:

---

---

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...

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)      

---

---

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:

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.

&..

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:

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