Originally Posted by
Ixixly
Can we stop calling these sorts of things "Unintended Consequences", it implies there was any real thought as to consequences at all when CASA clearly just don't bother to stop and think about it.
Perhaps they did, because there were grandfathering clauses built in. Perhaps the fault lies more with the council failing (or choosing not) to act, rather than CASA changing the rules.
CASA said grant options and exemptions were offered to smaller aerodromes, though the council did not apply for either on behalf of the Mallacoota Airport.
"Grandfathering provisions applied to existing facilities, including Mallacoota Airport, so smaller aerodromes did not need costly work to meet the new standards," CASA said.
"No infrastructure changes were required as part of the transition process."
Methinks this is more a ploy of the council to shame the Feds into stumping up for some improvements, rather than them either electing to maintain the status quo, or paying themselves. Only 6 out of 350? Perhaps Angel Flight should rethink who it is pointing the finger at.
When you look at the other 5 airports, perhaps South Gippsland Council should reconsider the company it compares itself with.