Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Airports - Buy two, get one free.
“Too late” she cried, sobbing, "far too bloody late".

Gates - ‘When we requested information supporting the CASA claim, they repeatedly fobbed us off until just recently. While the information they provided did not show the full extent of the hypothetical Public Safety Zone at Essendon, completed drawings showed many houses and part of a Primary School within the zone. Little wonder they weren’t keen to share the information! It confirmed our long held concern that residential and other buildings were far too close to the runway and flight paths of aircraft, a concern expressed by residents around Essendon.’

Second the Choc frog motion for Doc Gates. The quote above is pertinent and reflects the way in which each department interviewed at Estimates ‘ducked’ the responsibilities. Watching the Hansard video provides clear proof of this. The way the ‘responsibility’ parcel is passed about is self evident.

There is an embryonic, saccharine sweet story line which has been creeping into the media; it presents the notion that local council are the ultimate decision makers on development approval; and even intimates that it is they, despite advice to the contrary, are allowing the developments to continue. The councils are at the end of a very long, very weak chain of ‘responsibility’.

It’s all quite disgusting really; people put in harms way and an industry being crippled just for the sake of a few houses and a shopping mall. There is the whole wide land of Australia to build on but these clowns build at the end of active runways – WTD.

Anyone want to bet on Australia’s greatest aviation disaster weighing in and sorting this mess out? No – didn’t think so.

Toot - toot.
The whole sorry saga, since the privatisation needs to be seriously investigated – Royal Commission stuff. Not that it will ever happen; far too many, making far too much easy money for that to happen. Why is it that Australia always seems to act ‘after the fact’ rather than preventing the fact from becoming a living, breathing nightmare.
DIRD proposing to extend the curfew at Essendon to cover *all* aircraft..
Oversight or lack there of - Part IV

Let's have a bit of a look at the Airports Act requirements; specifically Section 92(2):

(2)  If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the draft version in accordance with the notice, the draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

(a)  copies of those comments; and

(b)  a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

(i)  listing the names of those members of the public; and

(ii)  summarising those comments; and

(iii)  demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft plan; and

(iv)  setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

The bollocks below is part of what was provided as the certificate. I can see no names of the public, just a list of agencies, authorities and committees, the only names mentioned are Judy Maddigan and Kelvin Thomson. In the Summary of the views expressed by persons consulted, half of them say "EAPL provided a general briefing on the proposed Bulla precinct development". That's not a view!

[Image: YMEN-MDP-8.jpg]

Who from CASA confirmed the runway transitional surface measurements?

If there were comments provided, then where are the copies, refer 92(2)(a)?

This image and extract from the MDP is clearly at odds with the Part 139 MOS. Dodgy

[Image: YMEN-MDP-4.jpg]

[Image: YMEN-MDP-5.jpg]

The requirements of the MOS have not been taken into account; where in the MDP is it mentioned that they will depart from the requirements below.

[Image: RW-strip-2.jpg]

[Image: RW-strip-1.jpg]

Note in this image the lines indicating 90m and 75m from runway centre line, this is where the gable markers are and from where the dodgy transitional surface commences. Note also the relocation of the perimeter fence and road.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=375]

Clearly the Essendon DFO is dodgy and I'll bet Carmody knows it.

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

And from Section 103 of the Airports Act:

(1)  If:

(a)  a building activity is carried out on an airport site; and

(b)  subsection (4) does not apply to the activity; and

©  either:

(i)  the activity was not authorised by an approval granted under the regulations; or

(ii)  if such an approval was granted in relation to the activity—a condition of the approval was contravened;

an authorised person may give another person a written direction requiring the other person:

(d)  to stop work on; or

(e)  to carry out remedial work on; or

(f)  to demolish, dismantle or remove;

the building, structure, earthworks, engineering works, electrical works or hydraulic works concerned.

P7 (butting in) - If that ain’t a Gold star, Tim-Tam post I don’t know what is. Bravo Mr. PB, round of applause to boot.

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
C'est la poêle qui se moque du chaudron.

I’m not going to write a whole heap of comment here – I’m not; including the speed of taxi. One pilot at least can be only be grateful that the developers had not built a DFO close in. We may however ask one simple question, who the hell taught this guy to fly multi engine aircraft?

You do see why Mr. PB’s post (above) is so very important; don’t you?

Toot – Shriek- toot
From the ABC four corners program

Contamination: The unfolding scandal of toxic water in Australian communities.

“You've been giving your children water that's contaminated with chemicals…. so you're just trying to get your head around what does that mean?”  Katherine resident

It’s one of the biggest environmental scandals in Australian history. Harmful chemicals, leaching into the ground and waterways, contaminating the water relied upon for drinking.

“They became more and more certain…It was also in the food chain, and it was also a risk to human health. Their own report by their own expert made that clear, that there was a risk to human health.” Investigator

These chemicals are the toxic legacy of fire-fighting foam, used for decades on Defence Force bases and other sites around Australia.

“They told us…this is the new asbestos. Those words exactly.  That was them, giving a determination on how bad these foams were and that we had to pay attention to what they were telling us.” Oakey resident

Communities, living in the shadow of three key defence bases, have been trapped in a kind of no-man’s land for the past three years after it was revealed these chemicals, known as PFAS, had seeped out of the bases and contaminated the surroundin
g areas.

“The Department of Defence was careless in their use of this product on the base.   They recklessly used it and they should've been taking more care.” Lawyer

On Monday, Four Corners investigates the gross failures by the Defence Department that led to this chemical contamination.

“I was horrified that this chemical was in such widespread use across Defence, and that we didn't have in place the appropriate measures to manage the potential risks, both to our people and to the environment.” Former Defence Manager

Reporter Linton Besser uncovers the troubling history of the use of these chemicals and reveals just how long the public was kept in the dark.

“They wanted to keep the matter under wraps, so to speak. They didn't want to go public on the issue.”  Investigator

The impact on those affected is profound. Some rely on water supplies trucked in by Defence contractors.   Others are trapped financially, unable to sell, with their homes officially designated as a contamination zone.   All worry about the implications of exposure to these chemicals.

“It's petrifying as a parent. I don't think any parent in Australia would want to be told that, their youngest daughter, who's only four, has got those levels in their blood.”  Oakey resident

Four Corners has discovered that the scale of the problem is continuing to grow as more and more sites around the nation are being tested for contamination.

“It's going to take a very long time to work through all of the issues that are associated with that. It could cost billions of dollars to try and solve this problem.” Former Defence Manager

Contamination, reported by Linton Besser and presented by Sarah Ferguson, goes to air on Monday 9th October at 8.30pm. It is replayed on Tuesday 10th October at 1.00pm and Wednesday 11th at 11pm. It can also be seen on ABC NEWS channel on Saturday at 8.10pm AEST, ABC iviewand at

Okay we know the ABC is sometimes a Tad melodramatic, BUT!

Lots of thunder and noise about defence airports, hand wringing and anguish, yet secondary airports raise not a whimper, wonder why?

PFAS was blown all over some of the GA secondary Airports yet not a question raised.

Bankstown airport for example.

Contaminated with PFAS blown all over land already contaminated by
  • Millions of litres of bunker oil for dust suppression
    • shit pits full of "night soil"
      • Live ammunition buried in pits.
        • All covered over with 4 meters of asbestos contaminated fill on a flood plain that leaches into the Georges river.

          Yet not a whimper, wonder why?

          A vital safety related runway closed to accomodate the land fill, contrary to the airport Act and the head lease for the airport, I wonder why?

          Ah! billionaire development shark spots an opportunity to add to his billions with a nice new DFO allegedly employing thousands of people.

          One can only wonder how much was paid by who to whom to engineer subversion of the law, commonwealth leases and the environment.
Aviation insurance: Liability and whose to blame?

Slight thread drift here but there is a point -  Rolleyes

Joseph Wheeler in today's the Oz:
Quote:A reminder that planes and animals not always a good mix
  • Joseph Wheeler
  • The Australian
  • 12:01AM October 13, 2017
What do 18 cattle found dead on arrival in China, on a flight from Melbourne, and an aircraft col­liding with a kangaroo after landing at Kempsey Aerodrome have in common? They involve animals, aviation and recent successful claims for damages in Aus­tralian courts.

In both cases, the respective courts found that those legally ­responsible were aware of the risks associated with the aircraft and the animals but failed to take adequate precautions to reduce the risk of harm.

For people operating in the aviation industry, concepts of hazards and risk management are common. Yet rarely do we hear about them being applied to or for animals. Whether for live export or wildlife strike risk mitigation, better recognition of what can go wrong and its social and financial importance appears to be needed, as demonstrated by these cases.

The “cattle case” was decided on August 30 by the NSW Court of Appeal: Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Limited v Principle International Pty Ltd. It concerned the packing and loading of cattle on to cargo aircraft for live export to China. The risk at issue was that of harm to the cattle during the flight. When the cattle, loaded into crates, arrived in China having suffocated en route, the ­exporter sued the carrier under the Montreal Convention 1999 for the value of the cattle — incidentally the same international treaty that covers passenger deaths and personal injuries.

The court concluded that the carrier was liable for the cattle deaths because it loaded them on to the lower deck of the aircraft (where there was a lack of ventilation), instead of the upper deck (where there was ventilation). However, further consideration of who was responsible for taking steps to prevent that harm resulted in a reapportionment of blame. The exporter, who packed the cattle into the crate, was aware of the risk of harm to the cattle if they were loaded on the lower deck and failed to take appropriate steps to inform the airline. Thus it was held to be 80 per cent responsible for the loss of the cattle. This meant the exporter only received 20 per cent of the value of the cattle in damages.

The “roo strike case” was ­decided two weeks later on September 13: Five Star Medical Centre Pty Limited v Kempsey Shire Council. This involved an altogether different risk involving ­animals. Shortly after landing, an aircraft collided with a kangaroo, killing the kangaroo and causing $161,195 worth of damage to the aircraft. Luckily no one was ­injured. The aircraft owner sued the council, which operated the aerodrome, for failing to control the kangaroo hazard. There was a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan in place for the aerodrome but aspects of it had not been ­followed.

Expert advice indicated that a kangaroo-proof fence was ­required around the aerodrome to properly mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage to aircraft.

The council acknowledged that it should have complied with procedures in the management plan but it did not install the fencing because of lack of funds. The court nonetheless found the council negligent for not having adequate mechanisms in place to control the kangaroo hazard, particularly without the fencing. ­Because operating the aerodrome was a function the council was not required to carry out, it was determined that it should not have chosen to do so if it didn’t have funding for the fence.

What are the lessons here? On the one hand, for animals that are carried legitimately as cargo, carriers, shippers and freight forwarders need to communicate better when it comes to planning for carrying such a load to ensure humane treatment and minimisation of loss.

On the other hand, when it comes to separating aircraft from animals that have no place near aircraft, those responsible for risk mitigation need to take those risks seriously too, so as to ensure preventable loss of life and damage that inevitably comes with wildlife strikes.

Kangaroo strikes are thankfully relatively rare in Australia but bird strikes are not. The Kempsey case is a reminder for airport operators to remain vigilant against them all.
"..On the other hand, when it comes to separating aircraft from animals that have no place near aircraft, those responsible for risk mitigation need to take those risks seriously too, so as to ensure preventable loss of life and damage that inevitably comes with wildlife strikes..."

Q/ What about who is responsible for separating aircraft from encroaching urban development? Confused

[Image: 4221396001_5330664607001_5330632425001-v...0632425001]

[Image: Australia-Melbourne-Essendon-Airport-769916.jpg]

[Image: Essendon-Airport-Direct-Factory-Outlets....=560%2C533]

While on airport safety and the encroachment of inappropriate and unsafe urban development in the vicinity of Federal Government leased airports; Sandy has forwarded to me the following copy of a Moorabbin airport NOTAM that is very relevant - Wink
    FROM 06 060837 TO PERM

[Image: runways-s.jpg]

MTF...P2 Cool
Can't see this happening here... and my apologies - I had the article open on my phone via the facebook app, and inadvertently closed it before I finished copying it. Still, you get the picture..
Quote:FAA tells City of Tehachapi special treatment at airport must stop

The City of Tehachapi has to make some changes to the how it uses land and hangars at the Tehachapi Municipal Airport after a Federal Aviation Administration conducted a sight survey which revealed many tenants, including the city, were receiving preferential treatment.

September 29th the FAA sent a letter to the city stating if changes weren't made to bring the airport into compliance then future eligibility for FAA grants would be put in jeopardy.

The FAA conducts periodic land use inspections of federally funded airports to detect and correct any inappropriate or unapproved land uses.

Among other things, airport operators must get FAA permission before leasing airport land for non-aeronautical uses. As a condition of the FAA approving a non-aeronautical use, the airport operator must show it would charge fair market value for the land.

The FAA conducted an inspection of Tehachapi Municipal Airport in May. The inspection found that the city’s use of airport property and some tenant lease agreements did not comply with the airport’s federal grant assurances.

According to FAA Spokesman Ian Gregor, specific findings of the May TSP inspection included:

-The lease for the Airport Industrial Center exceeds the FAA’s 50-year maximum lease policy.

-There are non-aeronautical uses of the airport and it appears the tenants were not paying fair market value or leasing for free. The FAA did not approve these uses. It does not appear the city got appraisals of the fair market value of the assets it is renting out for non-aeronautical purposes.

-Two hangars are used by other city agencies for non-aeronautical purposes, rent free. At the same time, there is an aeronautical wait list for hangars.

-The TSP Airport Layout Plan does not reflect non-aeronautical uses.

-A number of non-aeronautical uses may not have been charged fair market value. These include:

o Municipal land use for water sewage flow ponds.

o The Airport Industrial Center.

o Tehachapi Mountain Rodeo Association.

o City rent-free use of two hangars, and city rent-free use of land on which it stores vehicles.
Interesting bit of scuttlebutt bobbed up this morning, have no idea of its veracity but allegedly that paragon of corporate virtue Bankstown Airport limited, in a desperate attempt to accelerate the exodus of GA businesses off the airport thus facilitating the development sharks carve up of the airport. They must be salivating at the millions of $$$ going begging
but for a bunch of aviation fanatics standing in the way.
BAL are to audit the financials of companies renting at the airport with a view to charging them a percentage of their profits. This on top of the outrageous rents and lease tenures.
BAL has already become an energy retailer, buying electricity in bulk and on selling it to tenants, no doubt with a hefty markup.
If all this is for real it really is time for a judicial inquiry of the whole airports privatisation rort.
Following on from the snippets thread an article from IATA regarding the folly of creating privatised monopoly airports.

Pity the mandarins who advised the government that this was a good idea will never be held accountable for their crook advice.

AAPA: IATA challenges privatized airport model
Karen Walker
Oct 26, 2017

IATA director general Alexandre de Juniac

Airport privatization has been a failure that mostly leads to higher fares for airlines but no service benefits, a study soon to be released by IATA finds.
IATA has conducted what it says is an extensive study of airport privatization and expects to release it in the next few days.
Speaking Oct. 25 at the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines annual assembly in Taipei, IATA director general and CEO Alexandre de Juniac said that as governments struggle to fund infrastructure investments—particularly for airports—many see privatization as the solution.
“We have no issue with injecting private sector mentality into the operation of an airport. But our message to governments on infrastructure is that airports perform better in public hands. That is the conclusion of three decades of largely disappointing experiences with airport privatization.
“The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst. But in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority. And we struggle with costs at privatized airports as far flung as Paris, Sydney and Santiago,” de Juniac said.
“To date, we have not seen any long-term success stories. Our message to governments on airport privatization is to be cautious and to consult the industry before making any decisions.”
During a follow-up round table with journalists, de Juniac said the study shows airport privatization “has been a failure.” He said airline fees increase even as airfares go down and the gap becomes “significant,” while no service improvement is seen to justify the extra costs.
He also pointed out that five major hub airports that are consistently ranked as among the best in the world—Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Seoul Incheon and Singapore Changi—are all government owned.
“The privatization model by itself is not a problem, but it shows the state does not care and we have not found one efficient privatized airport,” de Juniac said. “A state privatizes an airport because it needs money, so the interest in aviation is very remote.”
Karen Walker

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)