BROOME DAS
Gaunty,
The Broome DAS was not done to protect our corporate butt, it was done after Mike Smith told me Broome was going to become a CTAF(USA) and no CAGRS.
We had seen too many near misses when BME was a 15nm MBZ to believe that BME as a CFAF was an aceptable risk. Legally we could have sat back and let the process happen as directed by CASA.
I reported the matter to our board, including the advise that no safety study was to be done by ARG/NASIG and that they were saying airports like BME existed in the USA with no RADAR, G Class airspace, CTAF procedures and our level of RPT and GA traffic.
I further advised them that our extensive research had found this was probably a complete lie and dispite repeated letters to DOTRS ARG NASIG etc. asking to give us some examples of such USA airports our request were not even answered!!
The Board decided that we had a moral obligation to do a proper DAS to ensure lives were not being put at considerable risk. The rest is history.
Strangly enough we are now in a more difficult position, legally, if CASA tries to reduce our CAGRS/MBZ boundary to 10nm during CAGRS hour. As the final engineering/mathematic modelling of uncontrolled terminal airspace is nearing completion and confirms the semi-quantative findings in the DAS that there is an increase in risk if this change from 30nm to 10nm occurs.
If we have proof (which we do) that the change increases risk for no cost saving to the airport users, how far do we take it before saying you are the regulators we will knowingly obey.
My belief is we should injunct the CASA regulations and get them to try to explain to a Federal Court, why they want us to comply to an regulation that aeronautical risk analysis has shown increases risk and by the ruling of the Chief Justice of the High Court is a negligent act to which we could be joined.
There is ways to solve this impass:
1 CASA proves there is no increase in risk and that our consultants got it wrong and we as directors can therefore accept a CAGRS 10nm radius.
2 We refuse to comply to any such CASA directive and seek injunctive relief and are subsequently ordered by the Court to comply, or CASA is ordered to amend the legislation.
3 We leave CAGRS at 30nm and revert to a 10nm CTAFR outside CAGRS hours.
Though the DAS has cost $150,000 and the legal battle will cost more than that, especially if we lose! I believe the Board will determine that we have a moral obligation to the public using our airport and decide it must be one of the above alternatives.
Sometimes in life you have to say "this is more important than profits" and slug it out and unfortunately we are in that position unless we can negotiate solution 3.
Cheers
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group