Slight thread drift here but I see that the Archerfield’s tenants group are taking Albo to court. From Paul Phelan’s article ‘Day of reckoning for Albanese’:
Van Zyl Lawyers, solicitors for the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc (AACCI), filed a comprehensive Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on March 8, naming Minister Albanese as respondent and AAC as second respondent. Following directions hearings recently, AACCI members believe the matter is likely to be heard by AAT President and Federal Court Judge, the Hon Justice Duncan Kerr, assisted by Deputy President Phillip Hack SC.
Some on here may say…“
well so what?” However given the thread’s latest focus on the FAA (ICAO) audit there is relevance!?
A certain good Senator had been banging on about FF and DOIT lack of oversight of airport development and the safety risks posed by encroachment on protected areas (runway splays, overrun, overshoot and obstacle clearance restrictions) surrounding airports. Here’s a couple of examples from the relevant authorities and quoted from Senate Estimates Hansard 18/10/2011:
Aviation and Airports
Senator FAWCETT: Section 9.2 of the lease talks about maintenance of runways and pavements:
“The lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the lease.”
Why then at Bankstown Airport has the airport operator ripped up the cross-runway, which is the only north-south runway available to light operators in the area, closed taxiways, reduced the number of runways by nearly three-quarters and moved the purpose-built compass wing area to a part of the tarmac that has ferrous material in it, which makes it not suitable, and also reduced significantly the area available for rotary wing training operations by moving it from the south to the north side of the runways?
Mr Doherty: The decommissioning of the cross-runway at Bankstown occurred in March 2005. It was identified in the master plan as a change of the layout of the aeronautics and that is provided for in the Airports Act. The new master plan was approved in 2005, so that was the basis for the action that then followed.
Senator FAWCETT: The changes were also opposed by operators at the airfield and MOPS 139 requires operators be consulted. Also with the cross-runway, particularly where there is ab initio training involved which there is—in fact the minister just in the last 12 months has reported the number of training operations at Bankstown is increasing—means the useability factor for a runway and cross-wing operations in particular should be 99.5 per cent. Was it actually established prior to that plan being approved and were the opinions of the users taken into account? The users certainly still believe that whilst they put forward contrary positions they were not considered nor in fact available publicly to see who opposed it.
Mr Doherty: I can only speak broadly. I understand that there were submissions from two of the tenants at the time which were taken into account and, I think before the decision was made, advice was sought from both CASA and Airservices. The essential advice was that the cross-runway was used very rarely, that it was inappropriate to use it while the main parallel runway system was in operation and the requirement to use the cross-runway occurred on maybe a couple of days a year for part of a day, so it was used to a very small extent, and there was no objection raised from CASA on safety grounds.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, how often do you use the airbags or seatbelts in your car?
Mr Doherty: I use the seatbelts all the time.
Senator FAWCETT: To prevent injuries in an accident. How often are they required?
Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.
Senator FAWCETT: Minister, my point is that the process in terms of transparency around the relationship between the department, regardless of the flavour of government, and the aviation operators is not effective in terms of actually preserving the utility of airports for their primary purpose which is aviation. To quote the current minister: 'Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important in aviation as safety.' I have no further questions.
Airservices
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take this on notice if you need to, but could you come back to the committee with any situations where you have had to revise your PANS-OPS criteria as a result of urban development or city development in either the Brisbane or Sydney areas in particular, or anywhere in Australia, but particularly those two?
Mr Russell: We will take that on notice. There have been some issues that I would like to make sure we get right.
Senator FAWCETT: Could you expand on that, please, Mr Russell, and tell the committee what those issues have been.
Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.
Mr Harfield: I just want to provide some clarity. What we will do is provide information where there has been a redesign or a variation as a result of a change being put in. We do not have the authority to change PANS-OPS criteria. I just wanted to make that clear.
Senator FAWCETT: Yes, I understand that. With the issues you are working through, Mr Russell, do you feel as though there are appropriate checks and balances in place such that, if a developer does actually put forward a proposal, the operator, CASA and Air Services Australia have opportunity in a transparent way to register their opposition to something which is going to adversely affect the operational capacity of an airport and the requirements of airlines to actually fly steeper gradients during departures or approaches?
CASA
Senator FAWCETT: So you are satisfied that there are suitable options for a student pilot flying a Cessna with a 10 knot cross-wind limit to land in adverse wind conditions, in a north-southerly or a northerly wind in the Sydney Basin?
Mr Cromarty: I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in.
Senator FAWCETT: Conditions do vary, so that is not necessarily a fail-safe. Coming back to runway 28 at Archerfield, you talked about that overlap between the two points. It does not take away from the fact, though, that the information that is provided, for example into the en-route sub—because it is only a registered airfield as opposed to a certified airfield—comes from the operator and the description of 150 used in that equation, as opposed to the 180 from my readings of the MOS and the tables in there, particularly 7.1-2, appears to be an error. Yet that appears to be the basis of the take-off requirement. Is there any other circumstance in Australia where the compromise you have referred to of having to keep that obstacle visual during an IFR take-off has been applied, or is that unique to Archerfield?
Mr Cromarty: Not that I am aware of, no.
Senator FAWCETT: So it is unique, it is unusual, but it maybe accounts for the take-off. But what about the overshoot case, where somebody has come off the 28 RNAV, is forced to do an overshoot because of heavy rain and so does not have visual contact with what is now quite a large obstacle that intrudes into the airspace?
Mr Cromarty: May I take that on notice and get the definitive answer for you?
Senator FAWCETT: Please do, but it just highlights the fact that the system of oversight—putting safety ahead of the commercial interest—has broken down and there are operators who are at risk because of that breakdown in the system.
Mr McCormick: I do not think that is correct. I am not sure that that is the case and that we necessarily agree with that.
Senator Fawcett has consistently badgered the point in every Senate Estimate hearings since, including the last one on the 12/02/2013. There has also been fielded questions directly to DOIT but we could be here forever...
So finally back to the thread...it would appear that the FAA has also picked up on the same concerns and long before DF was even a Senator:
Hmm interesting comment in the 'estimated implementation date' section… “Ongoing”. Kind of brings more relevance to DF’s QON 129 and makes further mockery of the DAS statement….“ We can take most of that on notice, if you like. What I can give you now is that the majority issue was around the fact that we did not have sufficient training, in their mind, for our inspectorate”…and further on… “Since then we have rectified that completely.”
This represents just another example of a FAA NCN that appears to have been unaddressed and remains outstanding, I wonder how many more there is in that NCN list??
More to follow here me thinks??