View Single Post
Old 10th Dec 2014, 23:57
  #1638 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
BRB hypothesis - M&M's grand plan for GA decimation??

'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings.
Most disturbing indeed - I once had the upmost respect for that FOI in question,especially after completing and passing a MECIR renewal where I was hopelessly out of IFR currency and no extra funds to do a pre-test flight.

However now I have heard of at least two similar tales about this FOI & former ATO... The first was probably one of the worst examples of FF pilot embuggerance that I have ever had cause to review - & that was before this FOI was coerced across to the dark side and into Wodger's warren...
(i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.
Hmm...wish I could have made it to the BRB I have vast volumes of information that could IMO have swung the consensus to at least 60/40 for M&M being the root of all evils for the woes of the IOS/MaM...

Back at post #1550 I highlighted a speech made by M&M at the recent AAA convention which was also belatedly reported on (regurgitated) by MMSM Steve - Mrdak stresses need to protect airspace from residential projects
Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak was among those who emphasised the need to protect airspace around airports, describing it as one of the critical areas of future public policy.

“Having been through the experience of trying to get a new airport through, I think it’s very important that we as an industry talk a lot about why it’s so important to protect our existing assets,’’ he said.

“Safeguarding our airports from inappropriate development around them which will have the potential to constrain the growth of our airports, I
think, is a key fundamental planning area for reform in Australia.

“And this will become a more intense and difficult challenge as our major cities grow.’’

Mr Mrdak said that as aviation demand expanded and major cities doubled in size by the middle of the century, the issue of co-ordinated planning was assuming *increasing importance.

“It is very vital that airport planning take into account the *development around airports but also that airport planning be rigorously transparent,” he said.

“But just as important is that … planning by state and local *governments take account of airports, their role and value to the community.

“Developments around airports and under flight paths can constrain operations, either directly, where they conflict with the safety or airport operations, or indirectly where they lead to public pressure to change flight paths or impose on increasing restrictions on operations.’’

The infrastructure head said good planning was essential to protect the amenity of residents near airports,

He said every effort should be made to avoid placing residential developments in areas “which are or will be affected by significant noise’’, or at the very least making sure people understood clearly what they were dealing with when an airport introduced changes.

He recognised this was a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use their own jurisdictions.

“But as we know, if we don’t protect our long-term assets, then we aren’t going to meet our growth challenge.’’
However - as he has done many times in the past - that speech was carefully crafted so that there was never any mention of major city Secondary Airports; nor does he mention any consultation with the tenants or users of these airports...:
Mr Mrdak said proscribed airspace was defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any building penetrating it *required commonwealth regulatory approval informed by advice from CASA, Airservices and the industry.

“If our advice is that if the construction activity will reduce safety or efficiency for an airport, we cannot and will not approve it,’’ he said.
“I’m afraid it’s going to be that simple and we have to be much more determined on our position on these matters.

“And I know this is becoming a much more resource-intensive task for our major airport operators and it can be an unwelcome distraction, but if we don’t protect that airspace now, we will in the long term come to rue our failure to do so.

“I think it’s one of the most important tasks government and the industry must work on together.’’

The closest thing so far is a National Airports Safeguarding Framework set up in 2012 to protect airspace near airports.

The infrastructure secretary said there had been some progress with the framework, which now included guidelines for planners on particular issues such as aircraft noise, hazards, wildlife strikes, lighting distractions and windshear.

“There are further guidelines under development but implementation, unfortunately, remains patchy across jurisdictions,’’
Fascinating that certain parts of the M&M pretty much parroted statements he made back in 2011 (yes over three years ago..) at the Sup Estimates:
Mr Mrdak: This is an area of growing concern for us, as the department acknowledged before the dinner break. Mr Russell, Mr McCormick and I, as the aviation policy group, which is the CEOs of the aviation agencies, have discussed this issue at length. We have recognised the need to improve the processes involved in judging and advising. Also in relation to the point you raised, to some degree the aviation industry has worked hard to accommodate in the past some of these breaches of services. I think we have reached the point where we believe we can no longer do that. Hence there is some work happening at the moment where we have established a group of officers from our respective departments and agencies which is now working on a much more robust approach to, firstly, identifying potential breaches. As you know there are regulations under the Airports Act which provide for protection of prescribed airspace. How do we better identify those, how do we ensure that local and state governments are aware of it and how do we as the agencies get together much more effectively to make sure that those breaches of the services are no longer accommodated in the way that they have been?
This was in response to a Senator Fawcett line of inquiry, this was also the 1st appearance by DF and officially announced the new Senator's keen interest in all things aeronautical - starting with Aviation & Airports:
Senator FAWCETT: I want to confirm whether the department still acts on behalf of the Commonwealth in leases of airports?

Mr Mrdak: Yes.

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.
Oh there is so much more in the Sup Estimates Hansard of 2011 - that supports the BRB hypothesis - but in the interests of not drifting I think this subject would be better discussed on the Senate thread...

MTF...

Ps The worst thing in regards to the Whitworth Aviation embuggerance is that it is further proof that Wodger and his cronies are still at it - & obviously feel that the M&M campaign of GA decimation is alive & well...

Pps Feedback on yesterday's festivities in Cantberra reveals a disturbing suspicion that there are signs that GB is being wooed across to the dark side and the Miniscule (with GB support) is advising that the AICC members should knock off for Xmas i.e. standby and wait...well I say bollocks to that...
Sarcs is offline