Have now reviewed and copied several segments of interest from last night's evening session of Estimates...
Before I post these (for those interested) I would like to make an observation from the evenings festivities that IMO was quite striking.
Just prior to the aviation safety bureaucrats stepping up to the plate we had the crew from AMSA and I have to say the comparison was quite remarkable, I truly wish we could bottle what AMSA have got going on...
The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair...
Oh well onto Airports & Archerfield where earlier in the day the Heff asked this about the upcoming AAT hearing...
Then in the evening Senator Fawcett questioned Mr Docherty in regards to Archerfield and runway length (shortening) proposed in the airport master plan...
Here is the 1st part of the AQON from CAsA to which Senator Fawcett refers:
Answer:
An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.
Okay so CAsA effectively wipe their hands of the matter..
.. as the runway length is solely a matter for the airport operator to determine and the responsibility of the PIC to comply with the restrictions that a proposed runway shortening may have in regards to aircraft performance (or in some cases useability)...
However although the good Senator mentions some light to medium weight and performance twins in his questioning he forgot to point out that CAsA (seemingly blindly) accepted the
Archerfield Airport Limited opinion that the most critical aircraft for calculation was...
"..CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report "Archerfield Airport Planning Issues" they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length..."
I would have thought it was in the interest of CAsA (& the Dept) if they had also consulted with the industry stakeholders at Archerfield, to whether the Cessna 208B Caravan was a true representation of the most critical aircraft currently being operated or planned to operate out of Archerfield.
But why am I not surprised that in the grand scheme of things that the operator/pilot always comes an insignificant last in consultation...
Next the mi..mi..mi..Beaker segment which was hardly worth mentioning - especially with Senator Milne trying to politicise the MH370 search..
- but we do get a firm date from Beaker for the release of the TSBC report. We also establish that, since last Estimates, there has been no 30,000ft death plunges that may have been causal to a CVD pilot...
Oh and Senator Wacka does bring up the issue of the higher incidence of ADF CTA LOSA events...
MTF...