Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Airports - Buy two, get one free.
BJ's airport conundrums: All woes lead to CASA - Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Planes delayed at busy Hobart


[Image: 6e3df81c98f35ec11e0bea2080a31001]12:00amMATTHEW DENHOLM
Flights and passengers are being delayed at an increasingly busy Hobart airport.



Planes waiting up to ‘half an hour’ to park at Hobart Airport


[Image: 4cbf1a8f99081ab68efa79858b00c16c?width=650]

Flights and passengers are being delayed at an increasingly busy Hobart airport, and the cost of compliance with regulation is blamed by some for holding up a simple fix.

Aviation sources told The Australian that during peak periods aircraft were waiting up to 30 minutes for access to parking bays at Hobart Airport, costing airlines in extra fuel and compounding schedule delays.

The problem is linked to Hobart having only five aircraft parking bays. Sources said a simple solution — using push-back tug vehicles to push the planes out of parking bays — was stymied by costly Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation.

Push-back tugs, commonly used at other major and regional airports, remove the need for pilots to manoeuvre aircraft out of parking bays, freeing up space. At Hobart, it is estimated this would allow three more parking days.

Push-back tugs would also reduce the risk of planes clipping each other when leaving parking bays.

This occurred in Hobart in December 2016, when one Virgin Australia plane clipped the wings of another, which was boarding passengers at the time.

However, sources said any change to the parking apron would trigger CASA regulations and require multi-million upgrades to meet international standards, costs that could drive up landing fees and airfares. Rolleyes

Hobart Airport operations manager Matt Cocker said the current five parking bays were sufficient to deal with daily peak periods — morning, midday and late afternoon — if aircraft kept to the schedule.

However, this schedule was disrupted when planes arrived late. “From time to time, due to scheduling changes or delays inbound, there may be some times when some aircraft may have to wait before moving into a bay,” he said.

Hobart airport has seen a 34 per cent increase in passenger numbers during the past five years, fuelled by Tasmania’s tourism boom.

Mr Cocker said the airport planned to work with airlines to solve the problem. “We’ll work closely with those airlines that come into Hobart in developing options for increased parking positions into the future,” he said.

CASA regulations meant any solution would require approval and investment. “Even line-markings are subject to regulations under the CASA,” he said. Shy

Push-back tugs were one option being discussed.

A CASA spokeswoman said international standards must be met but that cost was considered in making regulatory decisions. - Really Huh

“Apron design, line-marking and lighting are covered by CASA regulations and are aligned with international standards,” she said.

“When performing our regulatory functions, we take into account all relevant considerations, including cost, with safety as our most important consideration. blahblahblahblah - the old CAA section 9A motherhood statement... Dodgy Refer here:  Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all? #1

It is understood the issue is complicated by Hobart Airport’s plans — subject to sufficient demand — to offer access for wide-bodied planes capable of flying international routes.

Those plans would also require an upgrade of the apron.
#1 - Another Chocfrog post from LB off the UP Wink :
Quote:..The reality is that affordable safety is everywhere, and is unavoidably everywhere.


The problem in aviation regulation - particularly in Australia - is that the estimation of the probabilities of things happening - like a double engine failure on a 777 or an engine failure in a C208 or PC12 - are almost invariably grossly overestimated. The required mitigations are, accordingly, almost invariably a gross overreaction. It’s across the regulatory spectrum, from air operator certification to medical certification. The proposal for 20nm CTAF procedures is a specific, recent example.

The reason for this is completely uncontroversial and well-understood. The contemplation of awful consequences - like a double engine failure in a twin jet at 35,000’ over the ocean or a mid-air near a CTAF - results in a natural overestimation of the probabilities of it happening.

Dick’s aeronautical engineer - if he exists - is merely being what’s known as ‘human’. He intuitively ‘knows’ that a four engined-aircraft ‘must’ be safer than a two engined-aircraft. His knowledge and experience and objectivity go out the figurative window when he intuitively ‘knows’ the comparative risks.

‘Everyone’ intuitively ‘knows’ that pilots with CVD ‘must’ not be able to meet the same competence standards as pilots without CVD, and therefore pilots without CVD ‘must’ be riskier than pilots without CVD.

Of course, as a matter of objective fact, the intuition is bollocks. But it is natural (and, purely coincidentally, very lucrative for those who make their living out of safety bureaucracy).

Manifestations of this are everywhere. Look at the component overhaul and replacement periodicities in most GA aircraft designed in the 50s/60s/70s. My favourite is the flap flex drive shafts on Beechcraft. There are aircraft with 10,000 hours, plus, flying around with the original shafts. There are thousands of aircraft with multiple thousands of hours on original shafts. What do you reckon the maintenance manual says about the ‘life’ of those shafts?

And then I think of the poor bastard LAME whom CASA crushed for not having replaced vacuum pumps on a Cessna 310 at 500 hours. The pumps were still going strong after 500 hours, one by a further 886.9 hours and the other by a further 1,599.6 hours. But he had to be crushed because someone had plucked 500 out of his arse to put in a maintenance manual 40 years ago, and the number thus became holy writ the breach of which was a safety heresy. The objective evidence of millions of hours of vacuum pump operation and the collective wisdom of what causes vacuum pump failure were irrelevant. That’s aviation ‘safety’ for ya...

While on the UP - plus very much related to CASA's seemingly absconded airport oversight responsibilities (refer Senate thread post: Beware the Bureaucrat's spin) - and in the lead up to the anniversary of the tragic Essendon DFO B200 accident; I note that there is an interesting thread running with the title - Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy Confused

Quote:717tech -Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy

Interesting email today from the AFAP regarding Essendon RWY26/08.

It mentions that the strip must be at least 300M wide for Precision/ Non Precision Approaches. Due to the DFO and other structures, it’s only 230M.

My question is who’s responsible? Which of the many strict liability offences are we committing by accepting an ILS onto 26?

fujii - ERSA says it’s 300.

717tech - I believe that’s the issue. ERSA is supposedly incorrect and there’s no NOTAM.

fujii - If that’s the case, it’s been wrong for 12 1/2 years or longer if you include construction time.


Falling Leaf - Don't worry, CASA will just construct a 'safety case' and issue a waiver as everyone know's that the horse has well and truly bolted on this one.

Money talks - and the greed, back slapping and dodgy deals that allowed an aerodrome to be converted into a commercial retail district would make a great article.

Now today I note that thunderbird five has put up a very interesting link for the 20 November 2017 RAPAC Victoria meeting minutes: https://www.casa.gov.au/files/vic171120pdf

Quote:3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width


The Convenor introduced the paper (attached) and advised that CASA had now responded in writing. The summary of CASA’s response is as follows:

 - The 180m strip width was consistent with the aerodrome standards that applied at the time when Essendon became a domestic airport following the opening of Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport (circa early 1970s).
- It was also consistent with the Manual of Standards for Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (MOS Part 139) until November 2014, subject to landing minima adjustments.
- A landing minimum penalty applies on the Runway 26 instrument landing system procedures.
- Accordingly, based on the 180m wide runway strip and associated OLS in 2004, the DFO complex did not infringe the OLS.
- The November 2014 version of MOS Part 139 removed the provision for a lesser strip widths to be provided subject to landing minima adjustments.
- Subsequently, the strip width for RWY 08/26 was published with a 300m strip width which resulted in established buildings infringing the OLS.
- After considering a safety case submitted by the airport operator, CASA determined that the risk to aviation safety would be acceptable subject to mitigations including appropriate obstacle lighting and publication in AIP.
- An appropriate legal instrument was issued by CASA in 2015.
- These established buildings are now obstacle lit with low intensity steady red lights and AIPERSA publishes the presence of these buildings.

Some members remained concerned that information published about the runway strip width was not accurate given that there were obstacles within the strip. The Chair advised that based on the information reviewed by CASA, the developments around the runway were compliant with all relevant regulations at the time they were approved and constructed.

The Chair undertook to investigate the concerns raised by members and provide additional detail out of session.
  

[Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-1.jpg][Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-2.jpg][Image: Civil-Air-AFAP-3.jpg]


And for reference here is the YMEN ERSA link (refer pg 3):  https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip...v-2017.pdf


PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
08/26 077 63a PCN 25 /F /C /1400 (203PSI) /T Grooved WID 45 RWS 300
17/35 166 49a PCN 29 /R /C /1400 (203PSI) /T WID 45 RWS 150
Braking SFC friction variable due no grooving on concrete SFC BTN TWY H and RWY 08 THR.

TICK TOCK Barnaby! - Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Albo mentions the A-word? - UDB!  Rolleyes

BJ is yet to acknowledge aviation and aviation safety are part of his portfolio responsibility? However I note that today in Parliament Albo has drawn a very rare partisan line in the sand on matters of aviation safety... Huh

Via Federation Chamber Hansard:  [Image: pdf.gif]Download Fragment  [Image: video.gif]Watch ParlView Video
 
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...%2F0000%22

 
Mr ALBANESE  (Grayndler) (12:13): I move:

That this House:

(1) declares:

(a) its support for the vital work performed each and every day by the highly trained professionals providing aviation rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) services to ensure the safety of the flying public;

(b) that the ARFF service is particularly important to the safe operation of airports in regional Australia where it also responds to non-aviation emergencies within its local communities; and

  © that the presence of the ARFF service is key to safeguarding the safety and security at major metropolitan and regional airports around the country, which is critical for international and domestic tourism; and

(2) calls on the Government to reject any proposal to increase the threshold for the provision of ARFF services at airports from the existing 350,000 passenger movements annually, noting that this would preclude the establishment of these services at Proserpine Whitsunday Coast Airport and lead to the removal of these services from the following regional communities: Ballina; Coffs Harbour; Ayres Rock; Gladstone; Hamilton Island; Broome; Karratha; Newman; and Port Hedland.  

Firefighting services at our nation's airports are critical to the safety of travellers. Our nation has an excellent record when it comes to aviation safety. We also have a strong commitment to investment in the emergency services that would be necessary in the event of an accident. Indeed, in 2009, as transport minister in the Labor government, I was proud to deliver a $70 million program to upgrade fire trucks at our nation's busiest airports. It included 33 new trucks, new fire stations at Perth and Maroochydore, new vehicles to meet the needs of the A380 and fire alarm monitoring at 20 locations nationwide.

Safety is also critical at our smaller regional airports. In 2014, the aviation rescue and firefighting services responded to some 6,700 calls relating to airport emergency assistance. That's why I today, through this motion, am calling upon the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to reject the absurd proposal for a reduction in firefighting capacity at regional airports. Current Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations require an aviation fire and rescue service at every Australian airport that has at least 350,000 passengers travelling through it each year. However, CASA has recently accepted recommendations from an infrastructure department aviation rescue and firefighting services regulatory policy review which would weaken this standard. Going forward, the threshold would rise to 500,000 passenger movements a year. This idea makes no sense. The minister for transport should reject it today in the interests of safety and regional economic development. Under the international standards and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization, aviation firefighters are specifically trained. They must be stationed to be able to respond within three minutes to an aircraft crash or fire for the best chance of rescue. Our existing standards and thresholds on provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services reflect Australia's commitment to ICAO standards and recommended practices, including article 9.2.1, which provides that rescue and firefighting equipment and services shall be provided at an aerodrome.

Let's look in practical terms at what the acceptance of this proposal would mean for regional communities that rely upon jobs in tourism and regional aviation to get access to capital cities. Here are some airports that have aviation rescue and firefighting services and are below the 500,000 passenger threshold: Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Ayers Rock, Gladstone, Hamilton Island, Broome, Karratha, Newman and Port Hedland. I understand that, under pressure from local communities and Labor, the government's considering maintaining firefighting services at these airports and then imposing a new threshold from here on in. That, of course, would be good for those airports and communities that have fought to maintain these services, including, of course, the union that represents them. However, it would lead to a two-tiered system. In the future, airports with passenger movements between 350,000 and 500,000 per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities. Other airports are on the cusp of meeting this criterion, including Proserpine. It should have an aviation firefighting service established because 353,000 passengers passed through that airport last year. The government must today state clearly that the Proserpine airport will be provided with rescue and firefighting services. Just make a decision and support this community.

The change being contemplated should be rejected. Anyone who has had the privilege of being a minister in a government knows that, from time to time, bad ideas come forward from the bureaucracy. Some of them, once rejected, keep coming back again and again. This is one of those ideas. It first came to my attention when I was a minister and I banished it. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now. These are issues upon which the minister for transport, who's new to the portfolio, needs to deliver. The fact is that, across the board, issues of aviation safety—the safety of the travelling public—have been bipartisan issues. That needs to continue to be the case. The minister should rule out these proposals today and do it urgently in the interests of those communities, in the interests of firefighting in Australia and in the interests of regional economic development in those communities.


Knowing Albo's track record of 'do nothing' and 'leaving it to the experts' in matters of aviation safety - ref: Three-peat: The Empire (CASA Iron Ring) strikes back. - does anyone else feel themselves reaching for the bucket ( Confused ) when you read some of those motherhood statements and weasel words??  

"...Our existing standards and thresholds on provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services reflect Australia's commitment to ICAO standards and recommended practices..." 

P2 comment - That'd be the commitment that under your watch as minister saw the notified differences to the ICAO SARPs more than triple in number to a peak of 4024 (reference: Mount NCN post #8)

Quote:4024 notified differences for Australia?? Recently I had collated from the 2015 AIP GEN 1.7 SUP that notified differences had grown to a total of 3116. However in actual fact between the 2011 SUP the figure had grown to 4024 but due to the loose ICAO arrangement of only listing NDs every 3 years this was missed. So from my approximate estimate from 2011 to 2014 the NDs had grown by 2500.
 
Where's BJ?

"...The fact is that, across the board, issues of aviation safety—the safety of the travelling public—have been bipartisan issues. That needs to continue to be the case..." - Hmm...I get the impression that Albo is trying to goad BJ.

Oh well it looks like the fat bloke from NQ is providing top cover - Rolleyes - for BJ on this particular partisan motion.

Reference the Hansard link & also via the Whitsunday Times:


Christensen lets fly over airport safety concerns
5th Feb 2018 12:46 PM


[Image: b881209777z1_20180205131510_000g4jvcreu2...20x465.jpg]
The Whitsunday Coast Airport. Dane Lillingstone




CLAIMS of reduced airport safety services in the Whitsundays is "totally false" according to Federal Member for Dawson George Christensen.  

Mr Christensen shot down the claims of Labor MP Anthony Albanese in Canberra today, that airport rescue and fire-fighting services on Hamilton Island would be cut and that Proserpine would be unable to establish a service.  

In his speech to the Federation Chamber today Mr Albanese stated the LNP Government would implement a tiered system that would mean airport receiving 350,000 and 500,000 passengers per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities.  

"However, it would lead to a two-tiered system. In the future, airports with passenger movements between 350,000 and 500,000 per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities," he said.   

"Both of these claims by Labor on cuts to airport fire and rescue services at Hamilton Island and Proserpine are false," Mr Christensen said.  

"They were false two years ago when they first raised them and they're false now.
  
"When the United Firefighters Union of Australia Aviation Branch first brought this to my attention, I followed up with the Minister, to ensure that services in my electorate would not be cut."

  Mr Albanese said the Whitsunday Coast Airport near Proserpine was "on the cusp the cusp of meeting this criterion" as it received 350,00 passengers a year.   

"It should have an aviation firefighting service established because 353,000 passengers passed through that airport last year.

The Government must today state clearly that the Proserpine airport will be provided with rescue and firefighting services," Mr Albanese said.   

He called on the LNP to reject changes that would deprive the Whitsunday Coast Airport of aviation firefighting services.   

"Just make a decision and support this community," he said. 
 
Mr Christensen said the information was clear that existing services "would remain untouched".  

"Also untrue is the claim that Proserpine's Whitsunday Coast Airport will be unable to establish an Aviation Rescue and Fire-Fighting Service," he said.  

"The establishment of services at Proserpine is already underway, and I understand that the case will be presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week.  

"Therefore, the services at Proserpine will not be affected by changes.

The only thing I agree with Anthony Albanese on in relation to airport firefighters is that they do a great job.  

"And I look forward to welcoming new aviation firefighters when services come online at the Whitsunday Coast Airport."



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Would seem to me that the unions have perhaps put a fly in Albo's ear.

Is there a "Safety case"  for fire services at these regional airports?
In regards to ICAO compliance, it was my understanding that fire services were only required
at international airports.

Can't recall airport fire services ever saving anyone from an aviation disaster
in Australia, I'm open to correction on that.

Would it perhaps make better and more economic sense to train local fire brigades to attend the airports? I suspect airport fire services come under a different union who no doubt would not take lightly another union encroaching on their turf.

Are airport fire services just another bit of fluff, bit like airport security, that give the punters an illusion of "Safety", but no-one ever tells them how much it puts on their ticket price.
Reply
Cattle class BBQ, anyone..

One of the ‘shortcomings’ in the dramatic, politician scaring, generalizations is the total lack of accuracy regarding exactly what occurs when a large aircraft ‘crashes’. Take a look at the LA event or any of the crash video – even the Essendon event. A crash is a violent collision between aircraft and whatever it hits. The result is nearly always fire; it is only during the first seconds and minutes of the event that significant saving of life can be achieved. This means rapid evacuation of passengers. The fire trucks cannot help with that – they have established protocols to protect their crew and are there to extinguish the flames etc..

For those on board, those who survive the impact, the imperative is to beat the fire to the nearest exit and get as faraway from the aircraft as possible. This assumes they can actually egress the hull. There exists a wide gulf between the time an orderly evacuation, in controlled conditions takes for certification purposes and the time it takes for a hundred traumatized people to extricate themselves from the cramped confines of a wrecked, dark, smoke filled, burning cabin.

Much as I like the notion of a fire truck on stand-by; to a passenger trapped in the narrow, cramped confines of the seating position, hampered by the incredible amount of spilled carry on baggage; desperately trying get out of the seat row, to find an exit, opening it and getting out, the fire truck is completely irrelevant.

I wonder how many politicians have sat in economy and considered just how difficult it would be to actually get out of their seat to get to the loo, let alone a clear path to an exit in a burning aircraft. Not too bloody many I’ll bet. Remember – if the aircraft is burning there is a chance for explosion – fire and rescue crew will not be allowed inside the danger zone, until the fire is extinguished.

Thankfully, the statistics favour it never happening, but when it does, the survival statistics are against an even chance. The statistics for rescue, by fire crew are even slimmer. But, it’s nice to know they are there.

Toot toot.
Reply
3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width

The summary of CASA’s response is as follows:
  • The 180m strip width was consistent with the aerodrome standards that applied at the time when Essendon became a domestic airport following the opening of Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport (circa early 1970s).
  • It was also consistent with the Manual of Standards for Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (MOS Part 139) until November 2014, subject to landing minima adjustments.
  • A landing minimum penalty applies on the Runway 26 instrument landing system procedures.
  • Accordingly, based on the 180m wide runway strip and associated OLS in 2004, the DFO complex did not infringe the OLS.
  • The November 2014 version of MOS Part 139 removed the provision for a lesser strip widths to be provided subject to landing minima adjustments.

Here is the 2004 version of the MOS requirement.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=404]

Interesting to note however that in 2003 the strip width met the 300m MOS requirement.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=331]

So why the need for landing minima adjustments?

Why was it not practicable to provide the full runway strip width if it already met the requirement?

Maybe, just maybe; the landing minima adjustments were needed because of the DFO!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=332]

And from that same 2004 MOS:

6.2.18.4          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.

So where is the safety case Mr Carmody? Dodgy


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
Full story here

Quote:'We don't need two airports': Aerodrome should be sold

THE Toowoomba Regional Council could make more than $100 million by selling the City Aerodrome to property developers.

That's the opinion of Toowoomba property consultant Gordon Grover, who declared the long-time airstrip superfluous to the city's needs.

Mr Grover, the director of Specialised Property Consulting, said Wagners' Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport was already satisfying the region's commercial air needs, and the aerodrome's clients should be moved there.

"It makes no sense to have two airports competing for the same services," he said.

"It's such a massive underutilised space - it's prime land in one of the major growth corridors in Toowoomba.

"It's a 52-hectare site, which if you only got housing lots on 50% of that, there's $65 million in potential revenue for the council."

Mr Grover, who has acted as a consultant for the Queensland Government and companies like Aldi in the past, said Wagners would likely be happy to take on extra business.

Deputy Mayor Carol Taylor said there were no plans to sell off the aerodrome.

"With more than 25,000 aircraft movements per year, the Toowoomba City Aerodrome is vital to the general aviation sector of the Darling Downs region and further afield," she said.

"The Toowoomba City Aerodrome provides a number of aviation ancillary services and facilities, with around 30 businesses operating at the aerodrome.

"The aerodrome is an important site for the Royal Flying Doctor Service with 285 landings in the 2017/18 financial year.

"The aerodrome is a major public asset with the Toowoomba Aero Club serving as a valuable pilot training centre."
Reply
Picked this up on twitter. Shannon’s comment, while succinct, just about nails ‘the problem’ down.  Choc frog?

Shannon Wells‏ @shannon_wells
.

1hour ago.

Well what do you know, a little council in little old Tasmania has identified a major issue in general aviation which no one is talking about.


[Image: DVgA6ygUMAEN6Bt.jpg:large]
Reply
Part II - 3.2 Essendon Runway 26 Runway Strip Width

Courtesy the AFAP (TY Cap'n Wannabe -  Wink ):


AFAP Safety Bulletin 18AFAPSAB01
Posted: Thursday, 1 February 2018 Category: General News, Safety & Technical

[Image: LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bj4WXsnnWDM%253d&portalid=0]

Essendon Airport
 
Runway 26/08- runway strip width discrepancies in published Operational Data.

The AFAP believes that all pilots operating to and from Essendon Airport should be aware of this discrepancy.

Current operational data published for runway 26/08 at Melbourne’s Essendon Airport states the width of the runway strip (RWS) as 300 metres (or 150 metres each side of the runway centreline). This is the required RWS for a precision and non-precision approach for Code 3 or 4 runways.

Under the definitions of RWS published in CASR Part 139 Manual of Standards, any obstacles with in the RWS must be ‘of low mass and frangibly mounted’ in order to ensure minimal damage to an aeroplane in the event of a runway excursion.

ICAO Annex 14 provides a similar definition of RWS.

Currently to the south of the Essendon RWY 26/08 centreline there is a security fence, light poles, two very large steel water tanks and associated building approximately 112 metres from the centreline and the DFO building approximately 130 metres from the centreline.

As these structures are neither of low mass nor frangibly mounted they effectively reduce the actual RWS to approximately 230 metres rather than the 300 metres published.

CASA, Airservices and the ATSB were notified of our concerns in November 2017.


YMEN Runway Strip Width – Code 3 or 4 Precision Approach Runway
Required Total Width = 300m
[Image: LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4FpZyV5k3co%253d&portalid=0]

MOS Part 139 Version 1.14 (January 2017)
6.2.24 Objects on Runway Strips
6.2.24.1 A runway strip must be free of objects, other than visual aids for the guidance of aircraft or vehicles:

(a) within 77.5 m of the centre line of a precision approach category I, II or III runway, whose code number is F; or
(b) within 60 m of the centre line of a precision approach category I, II or III runway, whose code number is 3 or 4; or
© within 45 m of the centre line of a precision approach category I runway, whose code number is 1 or 2.

6.2.24.2 All fixed objects permitted on the runway strip must be of low mass and frangibly mounted.

[Image: LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dUwm4K_40S8%253d&portalid=0]


What say you Mr PB? And the chorus goes up - "Show us your safety case Mr Carmody!??" Big Grin  


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
ATSB splits the Essendon B200 DFO investigation - WTD?

Via Oz Flying... Wink



[Image: ATSB_VH-ZCR.jpg]The damage to the DFO building after the crash of VH-ZCR. The ATSB is investigating the building approval process. (ATSB)


ATSB launches Investigation into Essendon DFO Approval
16 February 2018

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has launched a separate investigation in to the approval of a building struck by a Beech King Air at Essendon last year.

Six people died aboard King Air VH-ZCR when it struck a Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) building at Essendon after the aircraft diverted from its take-off path and failed to gain altitude.

The ATSB said that it has opened investigation AI-2018-010 into the approval process that led to the DFO being approved so that it would not delay the investigation report into the crash.

"The building was part of the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre development, which was proposed by the lessee of Essendon Airport in 2003 and approved by the Federal Government in 2004," the ATSB has stated.

"Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development, and not to delay the final report into the accident from February 2017, the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately.

"The investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport."

The investigation report into the cause of the crash on 21 February last year is thought to be in the final stages, and the tentative date for the report into the building approval has been set for August 2018.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...FC3e7Y3.99



Hmm...Mr PB your thoughts on this development... Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Cool

Ps Off this week's LMH Hitch gives his OP on this interesting development Wink :

Quote:The ATSB indicated last year that they would likely examine the approval process for the Essendon DFO that was involved in the fatal King Air crash in February 2017, and now they've announced a separate investigation that will go on even after the final accident investigation report is published. They say where there's smoke, there's fire, and I suspect the ATSB has found an inferno. If the planning process had played a negligible part in the crash, I think the ATSB would have folded that into the accident report. That they have elected to run a separate report tells us that the building location played a significant role in the tragic outcome. The results of the investigation may have ramifications right across the country, as there are many other buildings on federally-leased airports that have the potential to find themselves occupying space that an aircraft in an emergency might need one day.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...DRfFLl9.99
Reply
If’s, And’s and Bluffs.

"The ATSB indicated last year that they would likely examine the approval process for the Essendon DFO that was involved in the fatal King Air crash in February 2017, and now they've announced a separate investigation that will go on even after the final accident investigation report is published. They say where there's smoke, there's fire, and I suspect the ATSB has found an inferno. If the planning process had played a negligible part in the crash, I think the ATSB would have folded that into the accident report. That they have elected to run a separate report tells us that the building location played a significant role in the tragic outcome. The results of the investigation may have ramifications right across the country, as there are many other buildings on federally-leased airports that have the potential to find themselves occupying space that an aircraft in an emergency might need one day."

This is risible. How much lower can the ATSB sink; just when you think they’ve bottomed out, we get the disgusting pap above spoon fed.

Big IF – if ATSB had the skill set required and some serious experience of unravelling ‘Corporate’ scams, machinations and ‘finely stretched’ points of ‘law’, then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB do not.

Big IF – if ATSB had a stellar investigative track record of such things and an unblemished record for fearless, honest reporting of accident and incident, then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB do not.

Big IF – if ATSB was a shining example of integrity and true independence from external influence, rather than a PR outlet for CASA and the major airlines and the minister, rather than a well schooled lap dog; then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB are not.

Big IF – if anyone else, other than Hood was running the ATSB there may be a chance, slim, but acceptable, of a reasonable result. The Hood name has been associated with some very shaky doings; the FAA audit and Pel-Air for examples. Innocent until proven guilty is the accepted norm, but until there is a broad investigation of the entire ‘situation’ about the time of the Norfolk ditching, beginning with ‘the minister’, Hood is one of several who must remain in the shadow of suspicion.

We do have agencies, such as the ANAO and other ‘corporate watchdogs’ must better qualified to take a look under the ‘airport’ carpet and sweep up the mess. The ATSB is, at best, an air accident investigator; not ASIO.

Aye well, it sounds like a good thing and will, undoubtedly, fool some of the people. ATSB must now hope the FAA and NTSB are amongst the gullible. Good luck with that.

Toot – toot.
Reply
"Big IF – if ATSB had the skill set required and some serious experience of unravelling ‘Corporate’ scams, machinations and ‘finely stretched’ points of ‘law’, then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB do not."

Finely stretched points of law K?

I could be mistaken but I thought I just heard the twang of snapped knicker elastic!(Memories of back seat of the FJ at the drive in)

I was trawling around the traps looking for snippets and came upon this article.

Agreed not about airports but ports nonetheless, ports of a nautical flavour. Got me a tad intrigued, so after reading the original judgement in the Federal Court and the appeal, a tedious read, not as bad as Aviation reg's, but an epiphany all the same.
Seems like a couple of Chinese Companies saw a money tree and won the lease for Newcastle Port from the NSW Gov, McBank must be kicking themselves.

Does this sound familiar?

They immediately increased Port charges by up to 50% and began bullying tenants of leasehold property to vacate for "other" non port activity, rents skyrocketed and people went broke or moved on.

The ACCC, after receiving complaints about unfair treatment took it to the Federal Court, where five judges agreed owners of leases of public Infrastructure could not just willy nilly throw their weight around and intimidate users of that infrastructure.
Apparently the judgement was appealed by the port and they lost.

To my mind, and I admit I'm no legal expert, but it all sounds so familiar. A Port is a Port, whether it an Air-Port for aircraft or a Port Port for floating thingies. Does this judgement set a precedent where monopolies have gouged users of ALL Ports be they aeronautical or nautical?


Aug 16 2017 at 11:17 AM

by Jenny Wiggins "Financial Review"

The Port of Newcastle has lost its battle to have the Federal Court overturn the Australian Competition Tribunal's decision to "declare" access to its shipping channels after the court dismissed its application for a review.

The decision means that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will become the arbiter of the prices that can be charged by the owners of the Port of Newcastle lease, Hastings Funds Management and China Merchants Group.

Port of Newcastle chief executive officer Geoff Crowe said the decision was "disappointing," not just for the port but  potentially for other major infrastructure providers.

"It could have wide-ranging implications for the profitability and value of nationally significant assets," Mr Crowe said.

The port said it had a "commercial imperative" to maximise trade volumes and that its pricing was "competitive" with other Australian ports.

But mining group Glencore, which has been pushing to have the ports services declared, welcomed the decision. "The introduction of a reasonable regulatory constraint is critical for all users of monopoly owned infrastructure," the miner said.

Glencore, which uses the port to export coal from the Hunter Valley, asked the National Competition Council in May 2015 to declare services at the port, which would allow the ACCC to intervene in pricing disputes.

Glenore argued that after the port's new owners acquired a 98-year lease in 2014 for $1.7 billion, the price for coal ships using the channels to enter and exit the port was increased by between about 40 and 60 per cent without any improvement in the quality of service provided or significant consultation with port users.

The port, which revalued itself at $2.4 billion, argued that it has to compete with other domestic and international coal ports and that if it charged excessive prices it would price itself out of the market.

The NCC recommended against Glencore's request, and acting Federal Treasurer Mathias Cormann refused to declare the services.

But Glencore applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Minister's decision, and the Tribunal ordered in mid-2016 that the services should be declared, starting in July 2016 and expiring in July 2031.

The Australian Logistics Council said the Federal Court decision appeared to indicate "increasing ACCC involvement" in pricing and access issues at ports.

"If that is going to be the case, then it is imperative that the ACCC ensures it is properly resourced with personnel who have had exposure to and experience in dealing with the complex and unique nature of these infrastructure assets," said ALC managing director Michael Kilgariff.

"Pursuing a 'template' approach to regulation by merely imposing regulatory frameworks designed for other industries will do nothing to enhance supply chain efficiency. Indeed, it could well lead to inappropriate cost structures that have serious consequences for supply chains and the profitability of significant freight infrastructure."

Rod Sims, chairman of the ACCC, has previously described the NSW government's sales of the Port of Newcastle as well as Port Botany and Port Kembla as examples of badly structured public asset sales.

Mr Sims has said that opening the Port of Newcastle's services to ACCC arbitration would allow the regulator to balance the interests of the port and Glencore.

The Federal Court said it was not its role to review the merits of the Tribunal's decision, but to ensure that it accorded with the law.
Reply
Good catch Thorny – and yes, it does sound familiar. (Memories of back seat adventures, accompanied by the twanging of elastic at the drive in aside). What beats me is, back in the day, the FAC used to return a profit to government and there was ‘infrastructure’ developments at our aerodromes. Nothing flash or fancy, but the grass got mowed, pavement was repaired and no one was obliged to leap tall buildings as part of a take off procedure. Not only that, but FAC could be, and on occasion were, held to account and responsible for their actions. Australia has gained nothing by selling off the airports, not even tax revenue.

Toot toot.
Reply
Safety Case?????

Some interesting developments on the DFO investigation. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion over runway 26; but let’s get back to 17/35 for a moment.

The runway is code 3 and 45m wide, so a visit to that 2004 version of the MOS again.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=405]

As this photo from 2003 shows; there is a fence encroaching on a full strip width of 300m. Could the fence have not been moved, say a few meters to the east?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=327]

Well yes, the fence could be moved…………and it was moved……….40 odd meters west!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=330]

But you say there must to have been further impediments to make it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement?

As this photo from 2006 shows there were in fact small shrubs and a building.  Could these not have been taken away? An afternoon with a slab of VB, a chainsaw and a bull dozer would surely have done the trick.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=338]

Well yes they could have been taken way…………..and they were…….to make way for a public access road (amongst other things).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=342]

So, there is a fence that can be moved and some shrubs and building that can be taken away; so, what is it that makes it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement.

Could it be a series of developments?

And again, from that 2004 MOS:

6.2.18.4          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.


Ah yes; the SAFETY CASE????????????????????

It did seem to be missing from the FOI on the DFO development....just saying! Dodgy


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
(02-19-2018, 09:13 AM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Safety Case?????

Some interesting developments on the DFO investigation. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion over runway 26; but let’s get back to 17/35 for a moment.

The runway is code 3 and 45m wide, so a visit to that 2004 version of the MOS again.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=405]

As this photo from 2003 shows; there is a fence encroaching on a full strip width of 300m. Could the fence have not been moved, say a few meters to the east?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=327]

Well yes, the fence could be moved…………and it was moved……….40 odd meters west!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=330]

But you say there must to have been further impediments to make it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement?

As this photo from 2006 shows there were in fact small shrubs and a building.  Could these not have been taken away? An afternoon with a slab of VB, a chainsaw and a bull dozer would surely have done the trick.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=338]

Well yes they could have been taken way…………..and they were…….to make way for a public access road (amongst other things).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=342]

So, there is a fence that can be moved and some shrubs and building that can be taken away; so, what is it that makes it not practicable to satisfy the 300m requirement.

Could it be a series of developments?

And again, from that 2004 MOS:

6.2.18.4          If an aerodrome operator wishes to provide a lesser runway strip width to that specified in the standards, the aerodrome operator must provide CASA with a safety case justifying why it is impracticable to meet the standard.  The safety case must include documentary evidence that all relevant stakeholders have been consulted.


Ah yes; the SAFETY CASE????????????????????

It did seem to be missing from the FOI on the DFO development....just saying! Dodgy

The approval processes for the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre Investigation number: AI-2018-010

Summary

On 21 February 2017, a building that is part of the Essendon Airport Bulla Road Precinct retail centre was struck by a Beechcraft King Air B200 (VH-ZCR). The ATSB’s preliminary report for this accident was published in March 2017. This preliminary report stated that the approval process for this building would be a matter for further investigation.

The building was part of the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre development, which was proposed by the lessee of Essendon Airport in 2003 and approved by the Federal Government in 2004.

Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development, and not to delay the final report into the accident from February 2017, the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately.

The investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.
 
General details
Date: 21 February 2017
Investigation status: Active
Location   (
show map): Essendon Airport, Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre
Investigation type: Safety Issue Investigation
State: Victoria
Report status: Pending

Expected completion: August 2018
 

 
[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 08 February 2018

So Mr PB I wonder how thorough the ATSB will be in examining the safety case for the DFO development approval??

I also wonder what this means for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's 1 year extended inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]:


                    
Recent aviation incidents

1.12 On 21 February, soon after the initiation of this inquiry, a Beechcraft B200
Super King Air VH-ZCR crashed at Essendon Airport. The aircraft impacted the DFO
shopping centre alongside the airport resulting in a major fire. An Australian pilot and
four American tourists on board died in the crash.

1.13 These tragic events brought into stark relief the importance of appropriate
airport planning regulation and processes.

1.14 Evidence received by the committee at Additional Estimates on 27 February
detailed the accident investigations currently underway by the Australian Transport
Safety Bureau. In addition, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development (the Department) noted that it was examining 'development approval
processes involved in the land-use planning at the airport'.11 Departmental Secretary,
Mr Mike Mrdak informed the committee that the Department had provided advice to
the Minister on the accident investigation process as well as the development approval
process for buildings allocated at the DFO site.12

1.15 The committee was also advised that the National Airports Safeguarding
Advisory Group (NASAG) was considering the adoption of draft national guidelines,
regarding runway public safety zones around airports, and runway end safety zones.
Queensland is currently the only Australian jurisdiction to have public safety zone
legislation.13

1.16 On 2 March, correspondence was received from Minister Chester requesting
that the committee consider extending its inquiry in light of the tragic accident and
subsequent investigations underway (at Appendix 1).

1.17 The committee recognises that the findings and recommendations of the
investigations into this tragedy, and the work of NASAG, may have implications for
the bill. It takes the view that sufficient time should be provided to allow the
investigations to proceed and for the committee to then properly consider their
findings.

1.18 Therefore, the committee recommends that its inquiry on the bill be extended
to allow consideration of the investigations and any other relevant aviation regulation
developments.

1.19 Submissions already received and published by the committee (at Appendix
2) will be considered as part of the inquiry following the outcome of the
investigations.

Recommendation 1

1.20 The committee recommends that the Senate grant an extension of time
for the committee to report to the first sitting day of March 2018.

Senator Barry O'Sullivan

Chair


Appendix 1 - Correspondence from The Hon Darren Chester MP (PDF 442KB)

Appendix 2 - Submissions received (PDF 28KB)


Confused  Rolleyes  Shy  Huh


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
It’s probably not worth revisiting the CASA approach to public safety within aerodrome boundaries, seeing as how their ‘expert’ has been shuffled off to Montreal, tucked away in the ICAO safe house.

But it is a strange ‘having cake and eating it’ situation at Essendon; they need the lower approach minimums (wider runways) to keep the airport attractive for air traffic revenue and the revenue from those who have the shopping outlets. So much to squeeze into a small area and aircraft don’t crash that often do they.






Time the Estimates committee took the brakes and the kid gloves off methinks.




Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)