Slight drift but I promise there is relevance...
Kharon quote from Senate thread:
Keep digging Sarcs, there is a constant factor, join the dots and soon or late, the pattern will emerge from under the rubble; a hint, look at airport management.
Interesting challenge that one…I note that airports and in particular management of airport lease agreements, expansion plans etc has been a favourite bugbear of one Senator Fawcett right from the first day of face to face engagement with the Dept in Senate Estimates. It is also a hot topic for Kimpton and co representing the Archerfield Tenants group, plus I reckon it is listed high on the Kingcrats CV as significant achievements in the course of him being in the top job.
So challenge accepted even if, for a knuckledragger, it is a somewhat dreary subject!!
Pages 154-171 from the
GWEP (if you can bear to read it) contains the previous government’s (Albo’s) policy on Airport planning and development.
What struck me, as most disturbing in regards of the
GWEP is that it takes until page 159 before the word ‘safety’ is mentioned. Even then it is just a throw away line…. “
Advice from the Expert Advisors would supplement other sources of advice, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in respect of aviation safety,”.
The
GWEP does somewhat redeem itself from page 166 under the heading of
Safeguarding Airports and Communities and mentions…
> protection of the safety of aircraft operations by preventing developments that could present a physical obstacle to aircraft, interfere with communications or navigation equipment, or produce significant hazards in the form of smoke or turbulence.
There is even a PANS-Ops reference further on…
> work with state and territory governments and authorities to strengthen arrangements to protect airspace around airports:
– address potential risks to aviation safety arising from inappropriate developments in the vicinity of aerodromes;
– ask that all states and territories put in place statutory powers and regulations to prohibit unauthorised construction that penetrates the published Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANSOps) surfaces for all airports;
– strengthen requirements for notice of proposed developments in areas where protected airspace might be affected a proposed structure, by cranes or other equipment used during construction, plumes or other gaseous emissions;
– extend the coverage of operational airspace safeguards to all registered airports
and aerodromes including incorporating requirements for notification to CASA and
Airservices Australia of potentially impacting developments;
– prevent unnecessary interference to aviation technical facilities, such as radar, from new buildings in the vicinity of airports; and
– prevent unnecessary lighting and other pilot distractions from off-airport sources.
However this information would all appear to be tacked on at the end as an inconvenient encumbrance of not much significance and low on the priority list.
This is on the back of the former Minister stating numerous times that aviation safety is his highest priority. No wonder Senator Fawcett took on the airport development/planning issue as a personal crusade.
Hansard from Senate Estimates May 2012:
Senator FAWCETT: I turn to answers you gave on notice at the last estimates following up on the NASAG. One of the questions I asked was: do you consider that the airspace and noise considerations are all that is required to safeguard airports? Your answer was yes. Are you aware of the ATSB report into engine failures or degradation of power after take-off?
Mr Mrdak: I am not aware of—
Senator FAWCETT: There is a specific report. I would like you to look into it. That report made recommendations about the requirement for forced landing areas for aircraft. There were 240-odd incidents leading up to 31 December 2010 in the decade before that. They include degradations in the forced landings and 75 energy failures. I would like you to revisit the discussion on public safety areas that has been pushed off to a later date. I would like your response to that on notice as to whether it is adequate.
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, Senator. I will do that.
Senator FAWCETT: Secondly, in terms of Adelaide and the efficacy of the NASAG process, I asked if a request to extend building heights were put forward, how would it be handled? The response was that there is no request. In February this year, the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser reported on a strong push to get rid of what they called archaic limitations on building heights. There was some talk of a 100-storey building. If you are familiar with the layout of airports in Adelaide, that would have a huge impact. I would like your written answer as to how you will handle that request when it inevitably comes.
Thirdly, I asked about the investment into aviation infrastructure in leased airports. During the briefing your staff gave, you talked about the percentages, and quite high percentages, in some cases. At Jandakot, for example, the figure is in the tens of millions allocated against the airport. The best the Parliamentary Library could find was water supply, sewerage, drainage, electricity, gas communication systems and existing interests. There is no mention of runways, taxiways, aircraft run-up areas and additional runways, which have been on the books for ages. What oversight does your department have on the implementation of the undertaking that these lessees have to invest the money they make in aviation related infrastructure?
Mr Doherty: I am not sure that there is a general obligation on us to do that. When the sale agreements were set up for the initial privatisation of the airports, a number of the airports did have obligations in relation to particular developments. They were discharged within the time frame for those obligations. So we do not as a rule have a process of keeping an account of the individual investment.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, thank you. I ask you to take this on notice, given that we are rapidly running out of time. How will the department implement your stated vision from the white paper and your response to me that airports are predominantly about aviation? How will you actually achieve that vision statement for your department’s view of airports if you do not monitor the investment and the upkeep? I ask you to also extend that to ALOP aerodromes, particularly given that the transfer deed specifically prohibited local government from doing things like building dams or things that might attract bird life? Right at the moment there are a number of councils who are doing things like interrupting drainage, creating bird habitats and building dams right next to runways. I would like your detailed explanation about how you will maintain oversight of aviation infrastructure that is clearly degrading at both the leased airports and within the ALOP space.
Yawn 
and on it goes but I think you can get the picture…having now taken a small peak at the former govt policy on airports..I’d be somewhat surprised if more GA IOS members don’t follow in the footsteps of the Archerfield tenants group and take the Dept head on, after all they’ve got a vested interest with a lot to lose if they don’t.
Here it is from the horse’s mouth 
(Senate Additional Estimates Hansard February 2012):
Hansard from Senate Additional Estimates February 2012:
Senator Fawcett: In the white paper on page 156 it states that the government’s position is that the primary purpose—and in this case you talk about federal leased airports—is aviation. What does that actually mean?
Mr Mrdak: I think that reflects the very strong view by the government that the primary development on airport sites should be aviation focused. As you know, there has been criticism in the past that at some of the leased federal airports there has been development, which in the view of some in the aviation industry has diverted from the primary purpose of the airport. In leasing the airports we are always seeking to maximise non-aeronautical revenue to support the airport. I think in that statement the government is clearly stating its view that in reviewing master plans, major development plans and the way in which the airports develop, it is looking to make sure that the primary planning focus is allowing for aviation growth.
Nup no mention of 'aviation safety'..
??
All I can say is…‘God help GA!’