Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Kharon]

Starting at the top - Airport amnesia.

The video at SARCS post 2345 caught my attention. - Seems to be a lot of selective forgetfulness when it come to airports, particularly those of the secondary variety. It's a pretty sordid little story and the whole saga would have slipped from the collective memory, to be covered in houses and shopping malls had it not been for a few good folk, some hard work, first class research, hefty donations and a lot of sacrifice. The continuing efforts of the non chem-trail Senators are to be applauded, as they 'refresh' the departmental memory of those responsible.

No one has as yet mentioned the 'redefining' of what constitutes 'air-transport'; you notice the Mrdak careful selection of 'words', for the devil is in the detail of 'his version' of the translation, he did after all redefine the meaning to exclude pretty much any class of operation bar 'heavy' RPT. The video at Sarcs post 2345 misses the very important, carefully enunciated Mrdak words, which glibly state 'his' defining parameters. I shall hunt it down in Hansard, I believe the Senators are talking about one thing not realising that a home spun redefinition of the meaning of 'air transport' has been accomplished, which renders the debate nugatory – they ain't talking about the same thing.

Then we have the CASA 'support' for the AF master plan – which, while stating nothing but the truth – carefully steps around the real issues of the spirit and intent of the lease agreement for the aerodrome. It may well be that an airport can build a runway and that the PIC is responsible for the final analysis – however; if AF reduce the runway length to say 500 meters; then clearly, no one can 'safely' use it for practical purposes; and, as the existing operations are not 'air transport' ala Mrdak, the airport become useless – welcome to Westfields.

Then there are calculations floating about the place based on certification data and performance data, which conveniently omit many of the 'peripheral' legally required performance requirements, focusing purely on the absolute minimum runway length required for a take-off roll. The safely go – or safely stop logic is erased; the notion of landing straight ahead is erased. The assumption that a FAR 23 aircraft can climb out, OEI on a warm day and not hit anything is left standing along with the notion that if, IF the aircraft can achieve some form of climb performance, that it requires no distance at all to accelerate to that speed. Bollocks..

Back of a stamp calculations – Accelerate Stop Distance (ASD) for a PA 31 at MTOW - ::1300 meters, Accelerate Go Distance (AGD) :: 1800 meters. The calculations being bandied about to support runway length reduction rely on the manufacturer AFM data which indicate that at MTOW the Chieftain can get airborne within as little as 870 meters. So our unfortunate passengers in a Chieftain with OEI are to launch off a 900 meter strip, live on their luck for the first 500 feet (10-12 miles straight ahead), pray that height can be maintained, the weather allows the aircraft to be returned to the departure airport and that the pilot can neatly place them back on the threshold and manage to stop the aircraft within the confines of an un factored, nice dry landing distance.

They know that no sane pilot or operator would allow such and operation; thus, despite the rhetoric – welcome to Westfields – because the bloody airport is, to all intent and purpose, useless, only of value to the birds, busking for chips from the shopping fraternity.

There are lots of weasel words floating about and some very selective mathematical and legal definitions being touted, but (IMO) if you want to keep the secondary airports – you'll have to fight for them. Big bucks, affordable housing and 'jobs' is a powerful argument to beat down. Can you operate from 900 meters – sure; but can you, under all conditions guarantee that safety – No, is the short answer.

Selah.