Originally Posted by
Creampuff
The Terry towling boys are just doing what everyone else in aviation does: leveraging off the temporary political advantage arising from the public's natural reaction to an accident, to make a point.
Unless the desired result is for the already-encroached airfields to be closed, I suggest that there is no current political advantage for the industry whatsoever.
For an airport such as Essendon, we all know that the horse has well and truly bolted (decades ago) for development outside the airport fence*. If the industry wants to argue that this encroachment is unsafe, then obviously success would mean goodnight to the airport as a whole.
(* Despite the relatively recently planted and official "this area is inappropriate for housing development" signs in airport property on the Mascoma Ave. boundary)
Alternatively, if it argues that the risk to the surrounding suburbs is sufficiently tolerable, then there is pretty much no chance that the community would concurrently accept that the shopping complexes, hotels, supermarkets, trampoline sheds and car yards on various bits of airport property are a safety hazard for aviation (excepting, of course, obvious obstructions to flight). To be honest, many of the non-aviators who know the Essendon area well would be tempted to conclude that the DFO building acted as a safety barrier last week.
I get the arguments that are put forward around death spiral economics for GA, and the undervaluation of airfields as community assets (city or country) that leads to this state. But there is no short-term political mileage to be gained, and I doubt that the community has the inclination or aggregate honesty and mental capacity to arrive at a reasoned position - except, maybe, under some kind of brutal force such as a natural disaster or public health crisis. Gruesome as it may seem, the industry probably needs to prepare its arguments ready for prosecution under that kind of vector.