Albanese v Archerfield.

[Kharon]

It's been coming a while, and Congratulations to the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (Queensland). Well done, indeed. Bravo.

"Proceedings were commenced against the Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister (Mr Anthony Albanese) in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the Federal Court (“AAT”) on Friday last by Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc".

"Additional Background Information: Earlier Media Releases and Technical Resources for Journalists and TV Stations are also available by the attached link".

Media Release (http://www.aacci.org.au/index.php/media-releases/77-general-aviation-industry-joint-media-release)


Thing is can they get it done before the election and he slithers off the hook ?; does (will) it matter ?. The 'support team' will still be place, can't imagine that Albo will fall on his sword to protect them. Certainly going to be interesting to watch.

[Sarcs]

Looks like Sandilands is onto it as well "K":

There are two valuable and endangered species that are incompatible with commercial interests near the centres of major cities and town in south-eastern Australia. Koalas and general aviation airports.
Archerfield, 11 kilometres from the centre of Brisbane, is one such airport. Last week the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce, which represents significant general aviation stakeholder interests in the busy airport began legal action seeking to overturn the approval recently granted by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese to the Master Plan submitted by the airport’s owners.
As the media statement reproduced below makes clear, this could turn into a rather fierce clash about due process in assessing Master Plans, notwithstanding the minister’s strong and passionate record in querying airport owners as to what exactly they are on about when major master plans land on his desk.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2012/08/Archerfield-action-600x400.jpg (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/08/21/brisbanes-other-airport-becomes-war-zone/archerfield-action/)What happens to small, invaluably located airports may not seem nearly as important as what happens to the airlines using larger airports. But they are a crucial part of the knowledge and training food chain in aviation, which makes general aviation much more important to the general public than is widely realised.
This is a brawl worth keeping an eye on.
Brisbane's other airport becomes war zone? | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/08/21/brisbanes-other-airport-becomes-war-zone/)

Phearless Phelan as well:Albanese headed for a day in court – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/albanese-headed-for-a-day-in-court/)

Can't be long before more mainstream media catch hold of it!

[Sarcs]

Thing is can they get it done before the election and he slithers off the hook ?; does (will) it matter ?. The 'support team' will still be place, can't imagine that Albo will fall on his sword to protect them. Certainly going to be interesting to watch.

The point is that 'Albo's Circus' and his various circus clowns, along with the re-enactment by Fort Fumble of the seige of Alamo, had huge amounts of forewarning in regards to this matter.

Questions have been constantly asked in Parliament, in particular by Senator Fawcett since his first appearance at the Supplementary Senate Estimates in October last year:
TUESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2011: Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air or a 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?....blah bloody blah
...and Fort Fumble hasn't escaped Fawcett's scrutiny either:TUESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2011:
Senator FAWCETT: I accept that from a development perspective, but MOS 139 and other regulations point to the fact that the primary concern is the safety and the ongoing utility of the airport as an air operating environment, both the airspace and the surface, to make sure there is continuing access. And the lease that the Commonwealth has signed with airports such as Bankstown and Archerfield, as the two that are in question at the moment, go to the fact that we need to preserve that safe operating environment. What people come back to us with frequently is: 'If CASA has not objected then we are good to go.' What we do not see in the public space is a transparent record of what CASA's position has been. For example, with runway 28R at Archerfield, when people have had concerns about the new corporate hangars and the Warbird hangars, what has CASA's position been? Do you have concerns about the IFR take-offs, the restricted runway length and the potential impact of someone doing an overshoot off the 28 RNAV?
Mr Cromarty: As I understand it, the situation at Archerfield was that the hangar was in a position where it was at the precise point where there was an anomaly between the obstacle limitation surfaces and the PANS-OPS surfaces. Now, when I was watching the committee broadcast earlier, I heard there was some question about the diligence we had put into this. I can assure you we spent a huge amount of time trying to come to a compromise position which would allow the airport to continue to operate as it had done and comply with the regulations that we could comply with. In the end, Airservices and CASA came to a compromise position, a conservative position, which facilitated the airport's operations yet also enabled us to comply as we could with the contradictory requirements of the ICAO standards.
As far as Bankstown is concerned, the withdrawal of a runway, as I said before, is a commercial decision for the airport; and, provided the airport in all considerations complies with MOS part 139, then CASA is satisfied....nah Albo has had plenty of 'Heads Up' on this matter, he's going to have to carry the can..but hey that's not to say he won't be seeking retribution in the meantime!:ok:

[gobbledock]

Albo will get off 'scott free'. Teflon is the middle name of every politican.
But it is interesting that Albo's 'protection unit' - Bureaucrats, Mrdak, Screaming Skull, CASA Board and others have failed to keep the stain of pooh off the Minister on this occasion?
Perhaps Albo no longer cares, knowing that at the next election he is gone and that he will end up working for some aviation entity somewhere?

Albo's security entourage???

http://www.thechangelab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mib-memory-flash.jpg

[aroa]

" CASA's primary concern is the safety of fare paying passengers and for those that lie beneath the airways." Quote. Makes a nice little 'sound bite' snip anyway. Could be/is BS if you relate that to GA fields

So yet another classic example of what CASA says ... and what CASA actually does. So much for their primary concern of "safety".....that magical buzz word for bullsh*tting politicians

Any "compromise" of safety is not something that is allowed to any operator under the regs...nor should it be for any Authority or Department under the law.

The AAT transcript should be a VERY entertaining read.

3 cheers for ACCI for their testicular fortitude. :ok: :ok:

[gobbledock]

Any "compromise" of safety is not something that is allowed to any operator under the regs...nor should it be for any Authority or Department under the law.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE - This is not applicable if you fit into the criteria of being a 'law unto yourself'! i.e Fort Fumble, the ATO, and government departments or structures.

Oh dear, Creampuff and Flyingfiend will be most upset with my comments.

[YPJT]

Good on them. Reminds me of the battles the Jandakot operators had to endure with the South Afircans that took over the airport and surrounding land. It wasn't until a threat of a writ of mandamus was drafted by the Chamber of Commerce and delivered to the then minister - Mark Vaile that their plans to move the airport were quashed - almost immediately. :D

[Kharon]

Hamlet - Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times,

I just wonder who will play Yorick to Albo's Hamlet. I can picture it now, strolling into the AAT with a couple of bleeding scalps hanging off his belt and a freshly severed head on a silver platter. "No defence will be offered M'lud; I have discovered the miscreants and metered robust justice, cleaned up the department" (shows severed head, bows politely and leaves).

He has a goodly range of victims, Mrdak seems to be in the direct line of fire.

Perhaps we should run a book.

[gobbledock]

I just wonder who will play Yorick to Albo's Hamlet.
On this one, if anybody was to be sacrificed at the altar i think it would be Mrdak. The Skull, although a tasty offering, should escape this issue intact.

"Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"

[Frank Arouet]

Perhaps Albo no longer cares, knowing that at the next election he is gone and that he will end up working for some aviation entity somewhere?


Marrickville is a strange pace. Local council tried to get rid of the Jews once and those same greens don't give preferences to "The Tories". I think he's pretty safe unless he upsets the Left Wing of The Labor Party too much more with a Rudd "love-in".

I'd be interested to know where he might fit in working for some aviation entity somewhere. This bloke wouldn't even pass muster for a Diplomatic post in Romania.

[LeadSled]

Frank,
Actually, he could go down to the (Red) Greens, if he was to be tipped out. As you probably remember, Carmel Tebbutt only just squeaked back in at the last state election.
Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

Well a loss of credbility wouldn't worry him.

I wonder what Tebbutt sees in him? What a waste of....... no forget it, not worth the risk.