Airports - Buy two, get one free.
C’mon guys, get along and play together. Runways, planes, airports, buildings, turbulence..... WHO CARES! We have NOTAM’s! Miles and miles of letters, numbers, acronyms, symbols and they can be printed out in volumes and carried on the flight deck!! That makes things safe. All good. No worries. Move along please.....
A Fox in the Dept & miniscule's chookhouse shed? Rolleyes

Reference from above in a short exercise of joining the dots  Wink :

(10-18-2018, 01:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote: YSCB in stoush with RAAA - Rolleyes

The following is a link for the RAAA submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the airports:
Quote:Case study 8

Canberra Airport
For Canberra Airport, Airservices Australia has been obliged to put the following warning in its En Route Supplement Australia: “During strong westerly winds TURB may be experienced in touch down area LDG RWY 35” This warning of turbulence resulted from airline pilots complaining about a safety issue arising from severe turbulence caused by a hangar that was built too close to the runway. The hangar could have been placed further away from the runway if the land behind the hangar was not being used for non-aeronautical commercial development. Additionally, the ATSB undertook an investigation as a result of an Air Safety Incident Report relating to severe wind turbulence over the threshold of Runway 12 at Canberra due to buildings being too close to that threshold. The report was released in 2011 and noted s i g n i f i c a n t shortcomings and a commensurate reduction in safety as a result of poor consideration of the effect of non-aeronautical developments near Runway 12.

It must be noted that some airports achieve the balance between aeronautical and nonaeronautical development and Essendon Airport is a good example where significant non-aeronautical development has taken place without compromising aeronautical infrastructure. P2 - Note how the RAAA have cleverly stepped around the YMEN DFO prang by stating that they haven't compromised 'aeronautical infrastructure (ps will come back to this bollocks statement very soon)  

Unfortunately for the RAAA took umbrage to the above case study and responded to the PC inquiry with this... Rolleyes :

Quote:This submission is related to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) submission dated September 2018 which alleges that Canberra Airport has experienced a reduction in safety due to the wind effects of development too close to Runway 12.

We would like to definitively go on record noting that every building, aviation and commercial, has been approved, both before and after construction, through proper channels which include aviation safety regulators, CASA and Airservices. These allegations are not supported by fact.

Further, the Qantas Hangar and the Majura Office Park buildings have been in position for more than ten years. Aviation users have continued operations since the buildings were complete. We have heard from pilots, who have used this airport for decades, both before and after the construction of these buildings, that from time to time, planes have experienced turbulence due to combinations of Canberra’s unique terrain, and varying wind directions and velocities. This happened sporadically before construction of these buildings, as well as after. There is no pattern of increased claims of turbulence.

Additionally, over the past 20 years, we have had rare turbulent events on 35 Arrival in North Easterly wind (no buildings near), including heavy landings. We log all of these events.

We take allegations of any potential threat to safety very seriously, and Canberra Airport’s risk analysis warns ‘pilots of the rare potential weather event,’ a practical, reasonable and diligent safety management tactic.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please let us know if you have any additional queries.

And also from the RAAA submission:

Quote:The Importance of Regional Services This is recognised by different Governments and various schemes exist to assist in the provision of regional air services. At the Commonwealth level there is the Enroute Charges Scheme, the Remote Aviation Access Program and the Remote Areas Services Subsidy while at the State level there are some route subsidies, notably in Queensland. These generally target very remote areas but regional aviation also provides essential air services in not so remote areas. A number of local governments value the need for essential air services by partnering with small airline operators to open new routes or re-establish closed routes throug h incentive deals in relation to passenger charges or other start-up costs. Some have assisted the introduction of routes by arranging meetings with and surveying local businesses to gauge the level of support for a new or re-introduced route. For example, Essendon Airport and Sharp Airlines and Coffs Harbour Airport and Corporate Air. 

Quote:Case study 5

Essendon Airport

Essendon is in close proximity to Melbourne Airport and has to compete with them to attract airline and corporate operators. When it became apparent that existing operators at Essendon were experiencing difficulties with arrivals and departures due to airspace conflicts with Melbourne Airport, Essendon engaged an independent expert at their own expense to consult with Airservices Australia in order to improve the Air Traffic Services into their airport. While the RAAA takes nothing away from Essendon Airport management, who are genuinely interested in fostering aviation at their airport, it must be noted that this is a rare case where market power does not exist.

Next this from the Oz yesterday:

Quote:Rich-listers in $100m super fund deal to help airport take off

Billionaire Lindsay Fox and fellow rich-lister Max Beck have clinched a deal for their Essendon Airport to raise $100 million in long-term debt from three Australian superannuation funds.

AustralianSuper, the country’s biggest industry super fund, Cbus and fund manager IFM Investors have agreed to lend the money to Mr Fox and Mr Beck’s privately held Essendon Fields over 10 years in a deal understood to be led by Westpac’s institutional bank.

The groundbreaking deal follows that of billionaire Anthony Pratt, who last year arranged with AustralianSuper and IFM to lend $150m to his cardboard box maker and paper recycling firm Visy over 10 years in a deal also led by Westpac.

He has expressed interest in making further agreements with super funds in Australia, and is using the $150m to refinance existing senior debt.

As owners of private companies, the billionaires and rich-listers do not have access to equity markets, making them more reliant on traditional bank financing.

Mr Pratt has promoted the super funds as an alternative source of money. His 2017 deal was one of the first by a large, privately owned Australian company with super funds, and was similar to deals worth more than $500m he has struck in the US in the past two decades to drive the rapid growth of Visy’s sister company Pratt Industries.

A source told The Australian that the Essendon Fields deal mirrored the one arranged by Mr Pratt last year.

Essendon Fields is jointly owned by long-time friends Mr Fox, a transport magnate, and Mr Beck, a property developer.

The duo’s rapid construction at Essendon has left the precinct with a book value of about $1 billion.

The long-term debt will help continue property development at the airport precinct, where management want to build more office towers to complement the large car yard zone and Hyatt Place hotel and conference centre that was opened last year.

It also comes at a time when bank lending practices have come under close scrutiny at the banking royal commission.

Mr Fox, who made the bulk of his estimated $3.56bn fortune from the Linfox logistics and trucking giant, has expressed some frustration with the banks, while Mr Pratt has previously enlisted the help of former Prime Minister Paul Keating to promote his cause.

Mr Pratt has championed the idea of convincing super funds about the merits of lending to Australia’s large and medium-sized businesses, which could allow corporations to bypass the traditional bank lenders or equity markets to fund their expansion plans.

His Pratt Industries has funded the building of several paper mills in the US, typically with money raised in long-term 25-year debt from pension and super funds.

Last year, Pratt Industries had a super fund bond raising of $200m of 30-year debt, which was a mixture of tax-exempt and taxable bonds.

Mr Pratt has previously revealed that all of the debt he has raised in the US has been long-term and at fixed rates, whereas in Australia that figure is closer to 40 per cent.

Another rich-lister, Christian Beck — no relation to Max Beck — last year reportedly raised $350m for his search and software business InfoTrack.

The money was raised from a variety of institutions throughout Asia, including Singapore and Hong Kong, along with Australian and Canadian pension funds, and was arranged by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.

Essendon Airport is the biggest corporate jet base in Australia and still runs an operating airport.

It has the largest car dealership precinct in Australia with 15 car sellers.

Its owners are keen to build more office towers.

They plan to roll out one every 18 months.

Mr Fox and Mr Beck paid $22 million to the federal government for a 99-year lease 17 years ago on land that is about 11km from the Melbourne CBD.

Which all kind of makes sense of the miniscule's impromptu YMEN visit back on August 9 2018:

[Image: DkXCAfRU8AAcZqH.jpg]

...and dare I say it the ATSB topcover - "the pilot did it" - snowjob of the YMEN DFO accident investigation:

Ah yes money talks -  Dodgy

MTF...P2  Cool
And the YMEN DFO accident fairy tale growsDodgy

HVH and the ATSB are now under the false premise that they have effectively killed/whitewashed the MSM and public interest in the YMEN DFO accident and investigation with the standard "..nothing to see here - the pilot did it..". 

So in the interest of joining the dots and getting back to ToRs on what exactly Hoody's topcover agency is attempting to whitewash in their bollocks YMEN DFO accident report - AO-2017-024:

Dot 1

Quote:Bulla Road Precinct – Retail Outlet Centre approval process

Although there were exceedances identified with the Essendon Airport overall obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), ZCR did not collide with the sections of the outlet centre which breached the OLS. In addition, the outlet centre did not impinge on the required obstacle clearance zones for a departure from runway 17.

It was unlikely that the outlet centre had an influence on the severity of the accident. In the absence of the Retail Outlet Centre buildings, the aircraft’s trajectory would likely have resulted in the aircraft colliding with the Tullamarine freeway, east of the Bulla Road overpass. Dashboard camera footage provided to the ATSB indicated that there was a significant amount of traffic on the Tullamarine Freeway at the time, with potential for casualties on the ground.

The reasons for the OLS breaches were complex and related to the airport operator’s obligation to establish an OLS in accordance with applicable standards and CASA advice to, and oversight of, the airport operator. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to adequately examine the issues found with the outlet centre building approval processes. Consequently, the ATSB has initiated a separate investigation, AI-2018-010. That 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.
And ref: AI-2018-010

Quote: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.

Dot 2

Somewhat ironically, given his past association and ongoing support for the Iron Ring led Big R-regulator, the following reference comes from one Ironbar's (Ron Bartsch) AvLaw blog...  Blush


Quote:ATSB Finds No Safety Management Principles in Department Decision-Making

A recent ATSB investigation highlights the importance of safety management-based approaches in assessing applications for buildings that may affect air safety.

In May 2018, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released its Final Report (ref: Building approval process for structures in the vicinity of Australian airports. The Report found that the requirements contained in the Airports Act 1996 (Cth), the prime legislation that governs the planning framework for federally-leased airports, may not provide the proper safety management approach that it was intended to provide.

Application giving rise to report

In October 2009, Hume City Council applied to operators at Essendon Airport to build a radio mast on top of the council office building in Broadmeadows, Victoria. Pictured below shows existing antennas (circled in red) and the proposed radio mast (indicated by a blue arrow).[/url]

[Image: HCC-building.png][img=468x0][/img]

Source: ATSB Report AI-2013-102 page 1 © Commonwealth of Australia 2018
The application identified that the building and masts had not been approved under the relevant regulations, the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (Cth). These regulations required that any proposed construction breaching protected airspace around certain airports be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (now known as the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities).  This particular application was for a mast that intruded into protected airspace, which included airspace defined by the airport’s ‘obstacle limitation surfaces’ (OLS). The Secretary was required to approve this proposal unless it would have an unacceptable effect on the safety (ref: http://unacceptable%20effect%20on%20the%20safety%20of%20existing%20or%20future%20air%20transport%20operations/ ) of existing or future air transport operations.

The initial response from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was that the building and masts were hazardous to aircraft and therefore should be marked and lit. The proposed radio was simply a further hazard. The Department considered this advice to be inadequate and instructed CASA to find that either the application for the mast had an unacceptable effect on safety or it did not. CASA ultimately found in the negative but advised on lighting and marking requirements.

ATSB finds no application of safety principles

The ATSB carried out an investigation four years later in 2013 into the procedures of these decision-making processes. This was done as a response to a REPCON report received in September 2012 (P2 comment - bizarrely the ATSB REPCON database doesn't appear to go back to 2012??) expressing concerns a proper safety case was not conducted on the proposal. The ATSB’s Final Report concluded that whilst the procedure was compliant with the Airports Act 1996 and the Regulations, it “did not require the application of risk management principles to the Department’s consideration”. This was highlighted as a safety issue.

The Department instead adopted a prescriptive rather than a safety management-based approach in its decision-making. This meant that the process required an answer to the question of whether the obstacle was either acceptable or unacceptable. This was a simple binary approach and did not involve the application of safety management principles. The Department did not even have the necessary expertise or resources to make such an assessment. Because of this, they relied on CASA’s advice. The Department weighted CASA’s opinion above all others and there was nothing to suggest CASA was provided with all relevant safety information.

Such an approach was contrary to the risk-based approach advocated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). ICAO had required member States in 2006 to establish a State Safety Programme, which the Department adopted in 2011. Australia’s program identified certain laws relevant to the oversight of safety in aviation. That legislation included the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and several other regulations. Interestingly, the Airports Act 1996 and its Regulations were not included. (P2 comment - UDB???)

What has been done

The Department has now advised that it will confer with key stakeholders in the process in relation to risk management practices. It released a Public Consultation Paper (ref: ) in December 2016 entitled Modernising Airspace Protection. It has also initiated public consultation. AvLaw Consulting is [url=]pleased to have contributed to this consultation. You can see our submission here: AvLaw – Modernising Airspace Protection – 28 Feb 17 – FINAL (ref:

This case demonstrates the importance of safety management approaches within our government institutions. ICAO considers the safety management approach ‘best practice’ and has been adopted by numerous countries around the world. If you need any advice on safety for a building application, do not hesitate to consult our aviation and construction experts at AvLaw Consulting.[/size] I wonder why the ATSB feels the need to do basically a repeat of their July 2013 initiated investigation??

Quote: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.
Dot 3

Although it took nearly 5 years to complete (P2 -  Dodgy Huh ) (ref: ) the ATSB did manage to identify a significant hole in the cheese:
Quote:The use of risk management principles when considering an application under the Airports (Protected Airspace) Regulations
The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities adopted a prescriptive approach to the Hume City Council building application within the obstacle limitation area of Essendon Airport, which was in accordance with the process prescribed under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, but did not require the application of risk management principles to the department’s consideration.
Safety issue details Issue number:
Who it affects:
Airports managing protected airspace associated with their runways
Safety action pending

The question there is when was this significant safety issue 1st identified? Another question is - why wasn't the 2013 investigation and final report referred to in either the YMEN DFO accident final report; or in the (AI-2018-010) above summary??  Dodgy

MTF? Yes lots...P2  Cool
Joining the dots continued on YMEN DFO attempted cover-up -  Dodgy

Extract from "V" off the Accidents - Domestic thread:

Quote:Ventus - The advertising towers ?

Note shadows for height, and the "framework" of the closest one.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=416]

Following up on the "V" post I refer from page 60 of this Dept FOI document: 

03/07/17 Essendon DFO development plan (17-96):

[Image: Dq4CT2EU4AArDlx.jpg]

Although a bit blurry, I believe the height of the advertising towers is listed as 15.5m. It would appear that this height plus the height of the building on the northern side of the DFO (7.5m) is governed by the 1 in 7 OLS gradient table (refer page 59 & 63):

[Image: Dq4JPkpU0AAuqnd.jpg]

[Image: Dq4CcJTU8AATdxf.jpg]

Therefore by definition the DFO building is in compliance with the ICAO/PAN-OPS/ CASR Part 139 OLS requirements and did not require prior approval or exemption from the Dept or CASA. 

However given YMEN is Federal Govt leased airport it also falls under the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (ref Ironbar above or: ):

3. Prohibition of the construction of buildings in specified areas  
4. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 25 feet in height in specified areas  
5. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 50 feet in height in specified areas  
6.Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 150 feet in height in certain areas 


Okay so the 7.5m falls under the prohibited 25 ft height requirement but the advertising towers exceed both the 25ft and 50 ft prohibited construction of buildings requirement??


I also note with those regs that other than the height restrictions for building construction there is no mention about 'safety zones' or safety buffer areas around airports. 

For the benefit of NASAG perhaps a consultation with the Californian State authority CalTrans would be helpful; or even a reference to chapter 3 of their  Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ref: ) for a mature take on mitigating risk around airports... Wink 
However I guess this would mean having to admit that there is a problem in the first place - TICK TOCK miniscule 8G McDo'Naught...TICK TOCK indeed -  Confused 

MTF....P2  Cool
Hayward Executive Airport Safety Zone Policy Overlay - Zone 1 and 2 at Essendon

[Image: attachment.php?aid=427]

Attached Files
.jpg   Essendon Zone Overlay.jpg (Size: 309.23 KB / Downloads: 71)
(11-07-2018, 03:31 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Hayward Executive Airport Safety Zone Policy Overlay - Zone 1 and 2 at Essendon

[Image: attachment.php?aid=427]

Excellent stuff Mr PB... Wink  Mr PB if we reference the Caltrans Airport Planning Use Handbook - - from page 55 thru to pg 61-63, you can see that there is a basic template for different size and capacity runways:

  [Image: DrZL224VsAA48L1.jpg]

[Image: DrZL8y4U4AASs97.jpg]

[Image: DrZMDhwUUAA_iZg.jpg]

Using that as a guide would it be possible to overlay zones 3 thru to 6 on the YMEN runways? 

I also note in your PM to me your reference to the Hayward table 3-2...
[Image: DoyE1OEU0AAi-V_.jpg]

 ...and the people per acre at the top of the table where zone 1 thru 3 list acceptable levels of 10, 40 & 80 respectively and how in business hours the DFO complex could have up to a 1000 people - very disturbing... Confused 

I also wonder Mr PB if it would be possible to work out what the concentration of open land is around the DFO and whether it comes anywhere near meeting the 40% recommended requirement for zone 2 under the Californian State laws? 

MTF? - Yes much!...P2  Cool

It seems that Cairns airports issues just won’t go away. It all started a couple of years ago when GA were purposefully squeezed out by deliberate and sustained fees and charges increases aimed at booting them out. Then the airports fantasy of a Heli precinct east of the airport was crushed due to them not considering mangrove impact. Then their fantasy of a DFO being built where the existing GA precinct is on the western side was squashed due to PFOS contamination. Add into the mix a constant run of operations non-conformances and a culture of hiding things and you have a toxic mix. They recently changed security providers and have had a plethora of issues including AMS (OTS) systems test failures. Probably due in part to 7 or 8 NQA security managers bailing in less than 8 years as nobody can stand the now COO bully and her incompetent sidekick. Recently the airport has been pounded again, this time by CASA, for non-conformances which again have been caused in part by a toxic management culture hell bent on hiding problems rather than fixing them. You would think that after 20 years the root cause would be obvious - the COO.

Just another poorly managed airport where our landing fees and charges are meant to provide us with a safe and secure operating environment, yet all we get is harassed by incompetent ARO fools on power trips and we get to park our aircraft on a shitty GA surface that is constantly crumbling and damaging props.
AAA conference: Airports want to keep with the current regulatory regime. 

Via Oz Aviation today:

written by Jordan Chong November 13, 2018

An aerial shot of Tullamarine. (Melbourne Airport)

Melbourne Airport chief executive Lyell Strambi says the energy sector is a good example of what happens to an industry facing regulatory uncertainty and has urged the aviation sector not to go down the same path.

The regulation of Australia’s airports is currently the subject of a Productivity Commission inquiry (ref: ).

Submissions to the inquiry, which commenced in June, have included calls to change the current regulatory arrangements for the nation’s airports, which some have described as natural monopolies with no effective competition or reason to change or innovate and calls to change.

In response, the Australian Airports Association (AAA) told the Productivity Commission the current framework had led to better quality of service outcomes, cheaper airfares for passengers and increased discounts to airlines on international charges.

Strambi said investment and superannuation funds, which hold large stakes in a number of Australia’s major airports, wanted regulatory certainty.

“It really concerns me greatly to see some of the regulatory uncertainty and upheaval in some other segments at the moment,” Strambi told the AAA national conference in Brisbane on Tuesday.

“You know the change in the energy market at the moment, that constant change, I think is just having a chilling effect on investment.

“We as a nation can’t afford that kind of attitude towards investment in airports. The cost would be huge to us.”

[Image: Terminal-Aerial_750.jpg?resize=750%2C420]
Melbourne Tullamarine is revamping its Terminal 3, the home of Virgin Australia. (Virgin Australia)

The terms of reference indicated the Productivity Commission would seek to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the current arrangements and determine whether they remained appropriate.

Further, the inquiry would consider the “appropriate economic regulation of airport services, including the effectiveness of the price and quality of service monitoring” to promote the economically efficient operation of, and timely investment in, airports and related industries; minimise unnecessary compliance costs; and facilitate commercially negotiated outcomes in airport operations.

An indication of what is at stake can be gleaned from some of the strong language used in a number of submissions.

For example, the AAA called the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s criticisms “ill-founded slurs”, described sections of the airline industry’s push for change as a “campaign of disparagement” and accused IATA of leading an “ill-informed global debate” on the topic.

Quote:The AAA called the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s criticisms “ill-founded slurs”

Meanwhile, airline industry group Airlines for Australian and New Zealand (A4ANZ) said the current regulatory model was “powerless to curtail airports’ market power”.

And Qantas said Australia’s airports displayed monopolistic behaviour and have been “price gouging” everyone from the airlines to the cafes that rent retail space in the terminal to the taxis that pick up and drop off passengers kerbside.

Strambi said the current regulatory system was far from broken.

“All the credible evidence that we are seeing to date suggests to us the light-handed regulatory regime actually works really well and serves the country well and will continue to do so,” he said.

“I would say that while airports can technically be described as monopolies, we certainly don’t behave like one. Our airports really have to compete hard for traffic and not just amongst the local airports but actually on a world scale.

“Airlines actually are free to move their capacity to the most profitable routes and that keeps a really hard-edged focus on what we are doing and it is important.”

“Of course that movement of capacity is not binary and airlines have to be cognisant of the market and the demand that is there but they do have choices that they can make, certainly at the fringe of their schedules.

“Together these effects really provide a strong incentive for our airports to price aeronautical services really competitively.”

[Image: IMG_2378_750.jpg?w=750]

Melbourne Airport chief executive Lyell Strambi at the 2018 AAA national conference.

Tullamarine handled 36.7 million passengers in calendar 2017, comprising 25.8 million domestic passengers and 10.9 million international passengers.

In keeping with broader trends, the highest growth rates were on international passengers, as more tourists from the broader Asia Pacific region headed to Australia.

By contrast, the domestic market remained flat.

Figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) show domestic regular public transport (RPT) capacity, measured by available seat kilometres (ASK), was lower for a second straight year in 2017/18, dropping 0.2 per cent in the 12 months to June 30 2018 compared with the prior corresponding period. The number of RPT aircraft trips decreased by one per cent.

However, the number of available seats on RPT flights rose 0.3 per cent.
Meanwhile, the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) most recent traffic report noted demand, measured by revenue passenger kilometres (RPK). fell 0.9 per cent in September, compared with a year earlier.

“The bigger picture is that RPKs have now broadly tracked sideways in seasonally adjusted terms over the past year or so,” the IATA report said.

Strambi, who previously was chief executive of Qantas’s domestic operations, said this broadly flat domestic market was proving a financial boom for Australia’s local carriers.

“We do need our airlines to be successful,” Strambi said.

Quote:“We do need our airlines to be successful,” Strambi said.

“But it is also true that a constraint in growth is not a bad thing for the bottom line of an incumbent airline at a particular port.

“You only have to look at what is happening in the domestic market at the moment to actually see this live example, to see the effect of this so-called domestic market capacity discipline that is really driving domestic profitability up.

“But we have to remember that comes at a cost of higher airfares and suppression of demand and that has a much wider effect.”

Qantas and Virgin Australia have kept domestic capacity flat over the past two years. (Rob Finlayson)[/size]
While on Airports I note the following "Dear Sarah" open email from Sandy to his local MP... Wink :

Quote:Dear Sarah,

In recent times I notice conditions imposed by airport operators that infringe the principal purpose of publicly available, Government registered airports, that is that they can be used by pilots safely and predictably at any time. 

For example, not just as a destination, but also as an alternate airport in case of any changing condition in flight, such as unforeseen weather, which might make a diversion the prudent choice. Similarly much as roads are expected to be freely available to licenced drivers with registered vehicles, one can pull up on the road side or into a bay as required. 

One case is a new requirement at Wynyard airport in Tasmania where airside personnel are required to wear “reflective vests,” in addition to displaying the ‘ASIC’ Identity Card ($288 every 2 years). In more than 50 years of professional flying, including piloting into every capital city airport, I cannot imagine where such a requirement would have had any advantage to anyone. Airport ground workers perhaps;  but charter pilots or private pilots at those airports are always escorted, though they, having been landing charge priced out of such use, would be very rare at capital city airports nowadays. 

Another is Olympic Dam (near Andamooka) the BHP controlled airport in South Australia, where one is required to have two lots of indemnity insurance of $20 million and one cannot use the airport at certain times as dictated by BHP either side of their frequent company flights. 

SA Senator David Fawcett please take note, hundreds of light aircraft used to visit Andamooka Opal Fields, now virtually none and the town is dying. 

Thus General Aviation is inhibited from using such airports, airports that are gaining the advantages of government registration. Freedom of movement is a very important element of our nation, creeping bureaucratisation like this inhibits business and all the other advantages of General Aviation in the transport mix. 

I would like to know from the Minister for Transport if he accepts the conditions imposed as outlined, and in particular, if he agrees with and endorses the status at Wynyard, should not the requirement of wearing reflective vests be applied to the public road system in Australia? 

Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Kind regards,

MTF...P2  Tongue
Federal Govt continues to obfuscate decades old airport safety issue?   

Having been tasked by Aunty Pru - Huh - to troll through decade old Estimates Hansard where Shane Carmody was a feature at Fort Fumble (CASA) -  Huh - I happened to come across an interesting passage of Hansard that featured none other than Sterlo submitting a QON to the then Murky and crew at the department... Rolleyes

Quote:Senator STERLE—I want to raise with you an article at page 8 of the Australian on
Tuesday where it is reported that the minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport
because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane. Are you aware of that?

Mr Mrdak—That is correct. The minister has recently rejected a major development
proposal by the Sydney Airport Corporation for a retail commercial development in close
proximity to the runways of Sydney airport.

Senator STERLE—Do you know how high that building would have been?

Mr Mrdak—My recollection is of the order of 18 metres. I can check that. It is of that

Senator STERLE—Would you be able to tell me the size of the chimney stack for the
Perth brickworks?

Mr Mrdak—I will come back to you on that.

Senator STERLE—You may want to take this on notice, Mr Mrdak. How close to the end
of the runway is that chimney stack?

Mr Williams—We will take on notice the exact details. The assessment took into account
the potential impact on what is called the obstacle limitation surface which is the protection of airspace in and around the airport. The chimney stack came well within the height limitations of the obstacle limitation surface. It did not penetrate the OLS. The assessment said that the plume that would come out of the chimney stack would not penetrate and cause a potential impact on aviation operations. The conditions on the approval also highlight towards the end that, once the brickworks is operational, if the speed of the plume coming out of the stack is different to what was proposed or modelled in the MDP, that would need to be referred back to CASA and to Airservices for further assessment.

Senator STERLE—I will get you to take it on notice. Can you come back to me with the
height and the distance from the end of the runway. I have no further questions.

Somewhat irrelevant (IMO) this was the answer to the good Senator's QON:

The height of the stack is 37 metres above ground level.
The distance of the brickworks stack to the closest end of Runway 06/24 is
approximately 1,350 metres and the stack is offset from the centreline of the runway
by approximately 450 metres.
What perked my interest was Sterlo's reference to the...

 "..minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane.."

A quick Google did not bring up the Oz article but it did bring up a SMH article (or three):

Quote:Sydney Airport shops plan thrown out

By Jessica Irvine
13 February 2007 — 2:00am

The Transport Minister Mark Vaile has rejected a revised proposal by Sydney Airport to build a large shopping centre and business park onsite.

Mr Vaile cited "public safety" concerns for the decision, expressing concern about the proximity of the proposed shopping centre to the end of runways.

"I am not satisfied that SACL [Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd] has fully assessed and addressed the issue of public safety,'' Mr Vaile said in a statement.

"My decision also had regard to the level of uncertainty that remains regarding the potential impact the development could have on local traffic around the airport," Mr Vaile said.

The revised proposal was for a 48,000-square metre outlet centre, bulky goods/homemaker centre and discount store, 2000 square metres of office space, commerical buildings and 2412 parking spaces in the south-east precinct of the airport.

Under the Airports Act 1996, the minister has the power to reject proposals submitted by the operators of leased federal airports.

AAP Reports: Sydney Airport chief executive Russell Balding said the company was committed to ensuring public safety.

"More work will be done on the issues of concern to the minister,'' he said.

"Sydney Airport understands that given this decision it will need to undertake additional analysis and work before deciding whether to again submit the retail centre for the government's consideration.

"Should Sydney Airport make a decision to proceed further with the proposal there would be a new round of public consultation.''


Quote:Airport shopping mall grounded

13 February 2007 — 11:00am

IT WASN'T quite in the jaw-dropping league of unexpected decisions, but the Macquarie Bank empire found yesterday that it's not always going to get its own way over the future of Sydney Airport.

With its influence over the airport already causing the bank some turbulence regarding the $11 billion takeover of Qantas - since rival airlines are not happy it is likely to end up unduly controlling both - the Federal Government showed a surprisingly tough line by rejecting a $200 million plan to build a massive retail centre on land next to Sydney's three runways.

Transport minister Mark Vaile knocked back the proposal on safety grounds because he feared a jumbo jet could plough into the shopping centre if it overshot the third runway.

I haven't been able (yet) to find the basis for the Minister's decision on aviation safety grounds and whether it was because the shopping precinct proposal would impinge on the ICAO Annex 14 defined OLS; or the... 

Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (ref Ironbar above or: ):

Quote: Wrote:
3. Prohibition of the construction of buildings in specified areas  
4. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 25 feet in height in specified areas  
5. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 50 feet in height in specified areas  
6.Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 150 feet in height in certain areas 

..., however I can fully understand why Sterlo attempted to garner a 'please explain' on why it was the Minister Mark Vaille rejected the SACL proposal for a shopping precinct onsite at Sydney airport but did not reject the Perth Airport MDP application for a brickworks development proposal within the Federally controlled airspace surrounding the Perth airport. 
IMO the former Minister's decision also sets a precedent for rejecting the construction of high capacity public shopping precincts in close proximity to Federally controlled/leased airports. 
It is therefore deeply disturbing that one year after the former Minister made that decision the ICAO audit team identified a parallel safety issue in regards to...(refer pic)

[Image: DrrQtQlVAAAh3Uu.jpg]   
...and again nearly a decade later...(refer pic)

[Image: DrC4MctUUAE67m1.jpg]

....and yet despite having a supposedly fully compliant ICAO Annex 19 State safety management system (SSP) this repeatedly ICAO and Minister identified significant safety issue is STILL yet to be effectively risk mitigated by any or all directly interested parties responsible for the effective implementation of the ICAO Annex 19 SSP - PLEASE EXPLAIN??

MTF...P2  Dodgy 

Ps If you think too deeply about the following dept QON and attachments you'll despair that we are being controlled as an industry by bureaucratic morons; or you can quite simply think of it as an episode of yes minister or Utopia... Big Grin : 
.pdf   aaa.pdf (Size: 575.02 KB / Downloads: 3)
.pdf   aaa05attach.pdf (Size: 308.45 KB / Downloads: 2)
Sterlo on a mission on transport safety matters??

Reference the RRAT committee "Other Committee Activities" web page link:

Note that on top of the "Oversight of CASA" inquiry there has also been hearings into the "Oversight of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities", looking into road safety and heavy vehicle regulation:

Quote:Oversight of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

Public Hearing

Monday 19 November 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 118KB), Hansard transcript - (PDF 124KB)
Monday 3 December 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 99KB)

Answers to Questions on Notice

Answers to Questions taken on Notice by Mr Bill McKinley, Chief of Staff, Australian Trucking Association, at a public hearing on 19 November 2018. Received on Friday 30 November 2018 - (PDF 675KB  )

Tabled Documents

Regulatory Impact Statement extracts (heavy vehicles), tabled by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities at a public hearing on 3 December 2018 - (PDF 12660KB

And yesterday there was a "Oversight of AMSA" public hearing...

Quote:Oversight of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority

Public Hearing

Tuesday 4 December 2018, Parliament House, Canberra, Program - (PDF 96KB)

Tabled Documents

Opening statement of Mr Mick Kinley, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, tabled at a public hearing on 4 December 2018 - (PDF 50KB)
..which the CEO of AMSA explained his understanding for the public hearing in the opening paragraph of his opening statement:

Quote:"..I understand the purpose of the hearing is to consider how AMSA has implemented headcounts and other safety measures, following the coronial findings in relation to the death of Mr Damian Mills in Western Australia in 2014, and that the Committee is also interested in the decision not to proceed with prosecutions in the matter..."

A couple of passing strange issues struck me about these hearings; first there was a similarity to the long ongoing 'Performance of Airservices inquiry (see here:; second is this a new committee strategy for isolating individual agencies/departments that the committee has oversight concerns over? 

Last but by no means least, isn't it particularly concerning that all these agencies and the department are supposedly meant to be effectively oversighted by a responsible Minister of the Crown? 

This embarrassing situation where the miniscule is repeatedly MIA was perhaps best summed up by Sterlo in this Youtube segment: 

After the AMSA hearing yesterday there was another hearing into ASA, Harfwit and the OneSKY trough feeders:- 

Until the Hansard is out I won't bother to rehash any of yesterday's hearing but to explain the purpose for this hearing please refer to Harfwit's 30 November correspondence to the committee: 
Quite obviously the committee were unimpressed with the ASA evidence provided yesterday because I note that today in the Senate Senator Sterle had a proposed inquiry motion agreed to:


[Image: picture.jpg?width=30]
Senator Sterle

*# Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Sterle): To move—That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the second sitting day in August 2019:
The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports, with particular reference to:

  1. the current standards applicable to the provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services relating to community safety and the emergency personnel safety;
  2. the standards for the provision of emergency response at Australian airports, including emergency medical response and response to structure fires and other incidents;
  3. the comparison of safe systems of emergency response standards and systems of work for firefighting and rescue operations for structure fires, aircraft rescue, emergency medical response and other emergency incidents;
  4. the consideration of best practice, including relevant international standards;
  5. the mechanisms and criteria for the review of the provisions of safety standards for the provision of rescue and firefighting services, if any;
  6. a review of Airservices Australia policy and administration of aviation rescue and firefighting services;
  7. the effectiveness and independence of the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), to uphold aviation rescue and firefighting safety standards;
  8. the impact on Australia’s national and international reputation and aviation safety record as a result of any lowering of aviation rescue and firefighting services; and
  9. any other related matters.
I find g & h of particular interest, especially when you consider the high profile findings/deficiencies of the ICAO 2017 final audit report (ref: ) under AGA (Annex 14), in particular No 2: 

1) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements on Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at aerodromes.
2) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements for the provision of rescue and firefighting (RFF) services at aerodromes, which take into account the aerodrome location and the surrounding terrain.

Perhaps the committee should be requesting a copy of the corrective action plan and an update on what stage the proposed corrective actions are at?


5.1 In accordance with the MOU agreed to between Australia and ICAO, Australia replied in a letter dated 23 February 2018 that it had no comments on the draft report and also reiterated its commitment to develop its CAPs accordingly.

5.2 According to the MOU, the State undertakes to submit its updated CAPs directly on the USOAP CMA online framework ( within 45 days after receipt of this final report.

5.3 The CAPs should provide specific actions and estimated implementation dates, as well as a responsible office for taking action to correct the deficiencies identified in the findings. Further guidance on how to develop effective CAPs is outlined in the “Guidance for States on Developing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)”, which can be found in the “CMA Library” of the online framework.

5.4 ICAO will provide Australia with feedback on the acceptability of the proposed updated CAPs. If any proposed corrective actions do not fully address the associated findings, the State will be notified accordingly.

5.5 If no CAP is submitted, ICAO will contact Australia to determine the reasons for not providing a CAP and report its findings to Council.
 While they are at it could we also get an update on where the proposed corrective actions are for this finding/deficiency?


Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.
MTF...P2  Cool
180 minutes and 50 feet? - The difference between Australia's worst aviation disaster and yet another.."the dead pilot ducked up"...and killed himself plus (fill in the number?) 4 innocent pax:

(NB: 180 minutes because that is the difference in the time of day between the peak trading period when there could have been over a 1000 people on site at the DFO and when the crash actually occurred)

Now let's rewind back to December 2004 when the then Minister John Anderson signed off on the proposed Bulla Rd precinct DFO building development plan: see FOI 17-96: 

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_121018_121551_PM.jpg]


Note at (e) that CASA did not provide a view but down the track (after the DFO was approved) they did provide input and exemptions for 7 identified OLS breaches:

Quote:Ref: - The airport data for Essendon included seven obstacles that breached the airport’s obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS). Four of those obstacles infringed the runway 26 transitional surface component of the OLS and were associated with two buildings within the outlet centre that were not struck by the aircraft. CASA accepted the breaches in 2015 after the airport operator applied lighting and colour to the obstacles to mitigate their risk to aircraft operations.
However besides these Annex 14 identified OLS breaches it does not appear that CASA provided a view/opinion on the possible public safety implications of building a shopping centre complex that has a parking capacity for up to 1900 vehicles (i.e a minimum of 1900 people)?

Which makes it passing strange that a bit over 2 years later it would appear, the supreme expert authority on all matters of an aviation safety nature, offered very contrary advice to the then Minister for Transport Mark Vaille?  
Quote:Ref -

"...Mr Vaile cited "public safety" concerns for the decision, expressing concern about the proximity of the proposed shopping centre to the end of runways..."

& ref -

"...Transport minister Mark Vaile knocked back the proposal on safety grounds because he feared a jumbo jet could plough into the shopping centre if it overshot the third runway..."
What makes all this even more bizarre is that the CASA bureaucrat that would have helped facilitate that CASA 'view'/'opinion' would have been the same individual that said to Senator Fawcett at Senate Estimates...(see Carmody's response to Sen Fawcett's question at about 02:30 min):

How is it remotely possible that CC could not remember the advice given to a Minister a decade before on the very same issues to which Senator Fawcett was referring?  Dodgy

Hmm...maybe CC has early onset Alzheimer's?  Rolleyes 

MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Speaking of overshooting runways... Big Grin


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)