Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ICAO trough list.
Master Burden, the process for choosing the ICAO delegate is done by Infrastructure. They always choose a 'wordsmith' to represent the good people of Aus. No actual aviation skill is necessary, just the ability to spin, speak bureaucratic lingo, polish the turd and write 10 000 word executive summaries, policy statements and other such baloney. My sources who are deep within the bowels of the Australian system told me that Dr Hoodoo was disliked when he spent time as the Aus representative at ICAO. No tears were shed when he left.
If you look at name number 6 on that amazing list you may find out some interesting stuff when researching her. My sources tell me that she too worked for Infrastructure and was a 'wordsmith' who industry thought was an idiot. Mention her name around PASO and see what response you get
Dr Voodoo (who has worked closely with her before) brought her across from Infrastructure to manage CAsA's ITSAP program. Dr Voodoo took that portfolio off Terry and brought her across when the former ITSAP manager was pineappled by the GWM. When she arrived she and Dr Voodoo proceeded to tinker with, stall and stuff up the ITSAP program, and the Indonesians hated her!
She is a former 'journalist' (ha ha) and doesn't have an aviation bone in her body, so to speak.
The two Fort Fumble inspectors in the program resigned (there was some alleged mischief as well) and the program was handed to Consultants who royally rooted it completely. Well done Fort Fumble
Interestingly this same woman also used to serve on the selection/interview panel for choosing the Aus ICAO delegate! Perhaps she will be next to move to Montreal for three years? Maybe it will be a close acquaintance who lands the coveted gig? Oh Fort Fumble, there is always a story, always a link, never is the smell of pooh far from them
'Safe skies are gravy train filled skies'
Toot toot
If you look at name number 6 on that amazing list you may find out some interesting stuff when researching her. My sources tell me that she too worked for Infrastructure and was a 'wordsmith' who industry thought was an idiot. Mention her name around PASO and see what response you get
Dr Voodoo (who has worked closely with her before) brought her across from Infrastructure to manage CAsA's ITSAP program. Dr Voodoo took that portfolio off Terry and brought her across when the former ITSAP manager was pineappled by the GWM. When she arrived she and Dr Voodoo proceeded to tinker with, stall and stuff up the ITSAP program, and the Indonesians hated her!
She is a former 'journalist' (ha ha) and doesn't have an aviation bone in her body, so to speak.
The two Fort Fumble inspectors in the program resigned (there was some alleged mischief as well) and the program was handed to Consultants who royally rooted it completely. Well done Fort Fumble
Interestingly this same woman also used to serve on the selection/interview panel for choosing the Aus ICAO delegate! Perhaps she will be next to move to Montreal for three years? Maybe it will be a close acquaintance who lands the coveted gig? Oh Fort Fumble, there is always a story, always a link, never is the smell of pooh far from them
'Safe skies are gravy train filled skies'
Toot toot
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc etc....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Rep
Hi 004,
Think we are talking at cross purposes. I must have been confused by Frank"s reference to Oz ICAO reps. There are 2, usually appointed for 3 year terms. The senior is the Councillor, the other is the ANC commissioner.
Present Councillor to whom I am referring is Kerryn Macauley, thought she had been reappointed for a 2nd term. Very smart lady with a good aviation background. Time may have flown and there may be someone else in the wing of whom I know nothing.
Hope this clears things up.
Think we are talking at cross purposes. I must have been confused by Frank"s reference to Oz ICAO reps. There are 2, usually appointed for 3 year terms. The senior is the Councillor, the other is the ANC commissioner.
Present Councillor to whom I am referring is Kerryn Macauley, thought she had been reappointed for a 2nd term. Very smart lady with a good aviation background. Time may have flown and there may be someone else in the wing of whom I know nothing.
Hope this clears things up.
The ICAO 'ozfucation nine' - (D)7 on MH370 & Airports
One of the IO9 gives us an update on the recent junket..
..err...ICAO meeting on MH370:
DH7 is also apparently the resident Dept guru on airports, & was earlier (along with MM) parrying questions from Senator Fawcett...
Watch & weep...
..err...ICAO meeting on MH370: DH7 is also apparently the resident Dept guru on airports, & was earlier (along with MM) parrying questions from Senator Fawcett...
Watch & weep...
For What It's Worth
hamble701, you missed the point of my post.
It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.
Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?
Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?
My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.
004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside.
It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.
Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?
Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?
My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.
004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside.
Frank...
See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf
Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...
I'd like to know if/when an external candidates have been appointed.
And if in recognition of paragraph 8.5 the positions are ever advertised so that external candidates can apply, and so that their qualifications and experience can be evaluated alongside those of the Infrastructure, Airservices and CASA candidates to ensure that the most qualified and experienced candidates are selected for the positions in the best interests of Australia.
My suspicion is that no external candidates are ever going to be considered, particularly when internal candidates who are 'smart' people with 'a good aviation background' (whatever that means) are available.
See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf
Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...
...but this would not rule out the selection of a candidate external to these agencies.
And if in recognition of paragraph 8.5 the positions are ever advertised so that external candidates can apply, and so that their qualifications and experience can be evaluated alongside those of the Infrastructure, Airservices and CASA candidates to ensure that the most qualified and experienced candidates are selected for the positions in the best interests of Australia.
My suspicion is that no external candidates are ever going to be considered, particularly when internal candidates who are 'smart' people with 'a good aviation background' (whatever that means) are available.
Let me tell you where failure of the Truss aviation review leads...
It leads directly to the destruction of jobs and businesses and a lack of new investment in anything to do with the aviation industry, period.
The key ingredients in Western Economies that differentiate them from Third World Economies are trust and cooperation as Francis Fukuyama observed over Ten years ago in a book on that subject. The reason for this is that transaction costs (the costs of doing a business transaction) are minimal in a high trust environment, but stratospheric in a low trust environment because one has to try and manage the risks associated with unconscionable or illegal behaviour by the other party. In many parts of the world, there are obvious business opportunities going begging because no investor or entrepreneur can trust Government or counterparties not to either steal the investment itself or confiscate the profits made.
To put that another way, there are fields ripe for planting in the Third world because the landowner is frightened that his investment of seed, fertiliser and labour will be for nothing. Confiscatory official taxation, land appropriation, "fees" and other forms of blackmail eat into his revenue.
To put that yet another way, I know of a Russian polypropylene manufacturer who refused to sell product to the West because he knew that the instant he had a stream of foreign currency - U.S. dollars, in his revenue, the Russian mafia would move in and become his "partner".
So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.
CASA and now the ATSB and perhaps Airservices have totally lost the trust of the aviation industry.
Does anyone seriously doubt what I say?
The first and vital conclusion the review must draw is that CASA has lost the trust of the industry - all else follows from that, starting with the obvious immediate requirement to restore trust.
To put that another way, if that conclusion is not drawn, then nothing the review can recommend, nor the Government mandate, will make the slightest bit of difference to the current situation and further decay is inevitable.
It leads directly to the destruction of jobs and businesses and a lack of new investment in anything to do with the aviation industry, period.
The key ingredients in Western Economies that differentiate them from Third World Economies are trust and cooperation as Francis Fukuyama observed over Ten years ago in a book on that subject. The reason for this is that transaction costs (the costs of doing a business transaction) are minimal in a high trust environment, but stratospheric in a low trust environment because one has to try and manage the risks associated with unconscionable or illegal behaviour by the other party. In many parts of the world, there are obvious business opportunities going begging because no investor or entrepreneur can trust Government or counterparties not to either steal the investment itself or confiscate the profits made.
To put that another way, there are fields ripe for planting in the Third world because the landowner is frightened that his investment of seed, fertiliser and labour will be for nothing. Confiscatory official taxation, land appropriation, "fees" and other forms of blackmail eat into his revenue.
To put that yet another way, I know of a Russian polypropylene manufacturer who refused to sell product to the West because he knew that the instant he had a stream of foreign currency - U.S. dollars, in his revenue, the Russian mafia would move in and become his "partner".
So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.
CASA and now the ATSB and perhaps Airservices have totally lost the trust of the aviation industry.
Does anyone seriously doubt what I say?
The first and vital conclusion the review must draw is that CASA has lost the trust of the industry - all else follows from that, starting with the obvious immediate requirement to restore trust.
To put that another way, if that conclusion is not drawn, then nothing the review can recommend, nor the Government mandate, will make the slightest bit of difference to the current situation and further decay is inevitable.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what has that got to do with CASA? Simple. CASA operates a capricious, untrustworthy regulatory environment for Australian Aviation. The regulations are deliberately opaque, contradictory, arbitrary and deliberately capable of multiple interpretations depending on the whim of the interpreter. Enforcement is by Kangaroo court without a shadow of due process nor fairness and the administration of this entire system seems designed and constructed to benefit the regulators, not the general public let alone the industry.
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc
Back to topic though. Does anyone still think that the situation that Sunfish describes is going to be altered 1 jot by the current review? Posted in November
.
I'm not sure why a review is required or why more submissions are required as the Senate has a compactus full. If significant and structural change emerges from this review not only will I be pleasantly surprised but I will go to parliament and extend to the Rt Hon Mr Truss a laurel and hardy handshake as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Privatisation of Secondary Airports being a mistake”.
We are extremely lucky to have someone of the calibre of Senator David Fawcett in there asking the real questions. The way that Messers Mrdak and Doherty sidestep the issues when asked the pointed questions just hardens the resolve of those who are actively working away to see that this shambles is reversed.
Take the time to look at the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc website to see progress so far. After more than five years of exhaustive research and correspondence with Government Departments we now find ourselves nearly two years in the AAT dealing with political stone-walling and double-speak along with many legal diversions!
www.aacci.org.au
Recent media release about the appalling status of our secondary airports.
MEDIA RELEASE
Dear Member,
In April Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. wrote to Hon Warren Truss Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about
“Privatisation of Secondary Airports being a mistake”.
The Chamber stated that “It was incumbent on all of us to address the shortcomings (of Secondary Airport Privatisation) by means other than repossession of the airfields. The task though falls primarily on the government of the day as they alone have the resources to take the required action.”
The Chamber further stated to Minister Truss that “In the policy the coalition took to the polls, undertakings were given that many of the existing defects in policies relating to aviation would be addressed. So far there have been no changes implemented and more tellingly no public discussions of the prospect of any changes.”
The Chamber warned “We are aware of important enquiries that you have implemented and we fully acknowledge the importance in probing deeply into some industry matters so that root and branch corrective action can be taken in order for effective and permanent redress to be achieved. That inevitably involves some delay in instituting change. While accepting that point, the really important fact that we live in a commercial world cannot be ignored.”
Minister Truss was told that many current policies are causing great financial cost directly to the General Aviation industry which is as a consequence in undeniable accelerated decline.
This is particularly true of the Secondary Airports which are in catastrophic decline post privatisation.
Total General Aviation Flying Hours[i] (which excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport) are almost static as to actual hours but in decline compared to population.
Archerfield Airport’s movements[ii] are now only 47% of pre-privatisation levels.
The loss has been a 53 % decline post airport privatisation, that is 134,336 movements per annum down from pre-privatisation levels.
Minister Truss was advised that “A large number of these factors are self-evident and do not need an expensive and protracted enquiry to establish their existence. Immediate action however is required.”
A classic example of that is, in relation to airports, the failure of successive governments to implement the statutory provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airport Sales Agreements –including the Commonwealth leases and the Sale Transfer Instruments.
To list only a few examples;
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”
The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”
The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.
The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.
The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.
Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Lindsay Snell
President
Contact: (07) 3274 1477
Download Media Release as PDF (
161kb)
Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal ( 137kb)
[i] Source: BTRE General Aviation Activity Reports (excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport)
[ii] Source: Airservices Australia and Airport Master Plan Movement Reports - During Tower hours)
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Australia
Website
Take the time to look at the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce Inc website to see progress so far. After more than five years of exhaustive research and correspondence with Government Departments we now find ourselves nearly two years in the AAT dealing with political stone-walling and double-speak along with many legal diversions!
www.aacci.org.au
Recent media release about the appalling status of our secondary airports.
MEDIA RELEASE
Dear Member,
In April Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. wrote to Hon Warren Truss Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about
“Privatisation of Secondary Airports being a mistake”.
The Chamber stated that “It was incumbent on all of us to address the shortcomings (of Secondary Airport Privatisation) by means other than repossession of the airfields. The task though falls primarily on the government of the day as they alone have the resources to take the required action.”
The Chamber further stated to Minister Truss that “In the policy the coalition took to the polls, undertakings were given that many of the existing defects in policies relating to aviation would be addressed. So far there have been no changes implemented and more tellingly no public discussions of the prospect of any changes.”
The Chamber warned “We are aware of important enquiries that you have implemented and we fully acknowledge the importance in probing deeply into some industry matters so that root and branch corrective action can be taken in order for effective and permanent redress to be achieved. That inevitably involves some delay in instituting change. While accepting that point, the really important fact that we live in a commercial world cannot be ignored.”
Minister Truss was told that many current policies are causing great financial cost directly to the General Aviation industry which is as a consequence in undeniable accelerated decline.
This is particularly true of the Secondary Airports which are in catastrophic decline post privatisation.
Total General Aviation Flying Hours[i] (which excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport) are almost static as to actual hours but in decline compared to population.
Archerfield Airport’s movements[ii] are now only 47% of pre-privatisation levels.
The loss has been a 53 % decline post airport privatisation, that is 134,336 movements per annum down from pre-privatisation levels.
Minister Truss was advised that “A large number of these factors are self-evident and do not need an expensive and protracted enquiry to establish their existence. Immediate action however is required.”
A classic example of that is, in relation to airports, the failure of successive governments to implement the statutory provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the Airport Sales Agreements –including the Commonwealth leases and the Sale Transfer Instruments.
To list only a few examples;
- the failure to maintain the airports at least to the standard at the commencement of the lease;
- the failure to make provision for development for future aviation and aviation related needs;
- the failure by lease holders to adhere to their privatisation obligations to renew the leases of hangar owners who have title to their hangars and equitable interests as to renewal;
- the permanent quarantining of land through long term leases for non-aviation industrial purposes thereby denying future expansion for aviation purposes- clearly aimed at bringing about the premature demise of this public utility,
- the way airport leasing companies stifle both competition and development in the aviation service industry by denying, without explanation or reason, both the expansion of established industry or the introduction of competition on their airfields;
- the lack of any mechanism to restrain the abuse of the monopoly powers in the hands of the airport leasing companies including:
- Denying lessees renewals to gain their assets by reversion,
- Placing unreasonable restrictions on lessees upon lease renewal, for instance renewing leases that previously permitted aircraft maintenance and hangarage to aircraft hangarage only with no justification for the additional restrictions
- very high rental increases which cannot be afforded by the industry that are leading to the destruction and closure of general aviation business being irreplaceable losses to the industry.
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “The Parliament enacted a Bill which, with the benefit of hind sight, had many short comings. That said, it has never been properly implemented. The interpretation of the Airports Act 1996 has been left entirely in the hands of the bureaucrats, an unelected and unaccountable body answerable to no one, whose members are technically ignorant both of the needs of the aviation industry and of commercial reality.”
The Chamber complained that “When any member of the aviation world has written to the various Ministers of Transport the reply always comes back from a public servant who invariably states that any dispute with a lease holder is a commercial matter and should be decided in the court room, irrespective of how blatantly the Act has been breached. Departmental policy has always been to support and promote the interests of the airport lease holders. In short the interpretation and implementation of the Act has been left entirely to the bureaucracy who developed the policy of ‘LIGHT HANDS” as justification for their actions, a policy which lacks a statutory base.”
The Chamber reminded Minister Truss that “It is not within the power of any government to turn a blind eye and fail to implement what is on the statute books. Some of the significant economic problems the industry faces in General Aviation can be ameliorated by resolute implementation of the Act.”
The Chamber Stated “the secondary airports in Australia form the nodal points, the very heart of general aviation in this country being the advanced centres of aviation technology and knowhow and the gateway to the regions. They must be allowed to function efficiently as public utilities not private fiefdoms of property developers.
The aviation industry is impatient for these impediments to be addressed and fails to see why some of the readily apparent and easily tackled failings have not been dealt with.
The Minister therefore should as a matter of great urgency abandon the Light hands policy and endorse the establishment of an Airports Review Tribunal.
Given the Federal Attorney General’s 13th May 2014 media announcement to merge all the Federal Review Tribunals, now is the time to implement it.
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Lindsay Snell
President
Contact: (07) 3274 1477
Download Media Release as PDF (
161kb)Download Airport Review Tribunal Proposal (
137kb)[i] Source: BTRE General Aviation Activity Reports (excludes sport aircraft and Airline Transport)
[ii] Source: Airservices Australia and Airport Master Plan Movement Reports - During Tower hours)
Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc
GPO Box 2511
Brisbane Qld 4001
Australia
Website
Top post AACCI...
and well timed...
Presumably you guys put in a Submission to the ASRR?? So any chance of getting a viewing or at least a quote??
Here is part of the Hansard segment for the Airports questioning in Estimates (link here):
The mention of Essendon is in reference to Truss recently approving (in concept) the 2013 Master Plan, see here
Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
Again top post AACCI & welcome to the ranks of the IOS...
ps Sunny maybe you should extend the distrust factor to include the Department and (by association until proven otherwise) the Miniscule...
Presumably you guys put in a Submission to the ASRR?? So any chance of getting a viewing or at least a quote??
Here is part of the Hansard segment for the Airports questioning in Estimates (link here):
Senator FAWCETT: Essendon is a case in point, where it is proposed possibly to shorten a runway. I was asking CASA about their professional input, which says that the length of the runway, particularly for lower weight aircraft under 5,700 kilos, is not just a function of the flight manual but there are a number of factors that have to be applied which significantly lengthen the requirement that an operator has to meet to allow for engine failures and other things. CASA have confirmed that it is the case that they have to be applied. Can I ask: if the advice that a consultant gave as part of a master planning process did not include that factoring information and it was subsequently shown that CASA had verified that the figures they had interpolated from the flight manual were correct but they had not actually notified the department that the operator had to take these other things into account so that the runway that was proposed by the master plan ended up being too short for the aircraft that would be using it, what would happen to the master planning process? Would it be overturned? Would you go back and change it? What would the department do in that case?
Mr Doherty : Perhaps I could start the answer and Ms Horrocks may wish to add to it. With the general thrust of your question being about whether, in considering a master plan, we would look to the impact of a change in runway, not only in terms of the technical compliance with a manual but in terms of the overall impact about how that change would affect the operations, clearly our interest would be in being able to assess the impact on operations practically. In terms of the detail of how that assessment is conducted, I think it is correct that we would be looking to CASA for an assessment on some of those technical aspects. As for the advice that they provide in relation to each master plan, we would be looking for that sort of advice. When it comes to input from a technical expert or consultant engaged by the airport, we would be keen to understand whether that is reliable and would get an expert opinion ourselves on that. Initially that would come from CASA. If that information is available then to the minister, the minister would make his call in terms of whether that master plan is something that should be approved or not.
Senator FAWCETT: I guess the question I have for you is that I have had a large number of complaints from operators at Archerfield Airport who contend that the expert who was called to support the master planning process looked at the AF10, the flight manual, and derived from that, for each of the aircraft type that flies at Archerfield, a strip length for the new north-south runway which was less than a thousand metres—I think it was about 900 metres—but it did not take into account the factoring that the CAOs require an operator to put into their operations manual. They contend that CASA, in double-checking the figures on behalf of the department, said yes, they accurately interpreted the AFM but did not highlight the fact that factoring had not been included; therefore, the master plan, which has been approved, endorses a runway which is too short to meet the legal requirements that CASA actually require the operators to meet. So my question is: if that contention is validated, what will happen to the master plan?
Mr Doherty : I think CASA took on notice last night the issue about what exactly their assessment was and what it covered in the Archerfield circumstance and I would certainly be happy to take on notice from our side too to look at that assessment. In terms of the impact of that decision, I am not entirely sure at this stage just where the process of the runway changes at Archerfield are and whether there would be some formal further approval required before they were actually given effect to.
Mr Mrdak : If I may add, I think our view would be, in the circumstances that you have outlined, where it was shown that there was any error or there was further information which may have changed that consideration, that would not necessarily invalidate the master plan. What it would mean, though, at the time the airport was to bring forward a major development proposal for the runway work—and I will ask Ms Horrocks to comment about the status of that—is that is the point at which that adjustment would need to be made and a separate approval process would apply. However, coming to your question, I do not think our view would be that the master plan would be invalid, because it is a concept planning document which is set out predominantly for zoning and planning purposes. The details of any runway shortening at either Archerfield or Essendon would have to be dealt with through an MDP and a specific approval program. If you do not mind, I will get Ms Horrocks to give us an update on where we think Archerfield is at on that runway proposal.
Ms Horrocks : Archerfield has not developed the MDP at this point in time. We would normally seek to look at any preliminary or exposure draft of an MDP and identify any required information at that point in time and then it would go through the legislative process for an MDP.
Senator FAWCETT: Can I just go to a broader issue now around the Commonwealth's responsibilities in terms of both airports it has gifted or sold or leased—and there are a number under that. There is a common theme here—and you would be very well aware of this, Mr Mrdak; I have raised at almost every estimates for a few years now—and it is the issues of aircraft operators, whether they be maintenance shops or flying schools or charter operators, which feel as though the monopoly power of an airport owner or leaseholder has led to unconscionable decisions in terms of conditions of lease renewal or barring them doing certain things on the airport, which, to a layman's reading, appears to be in direct contravention of the terms of the lease in terms of maintaining the airport for aviation and not barring reasonable access for airlines or aircraft operators for aviation-related activities. The feedback I have had from the department again and again is that it is a commercial issue and that those people should take up their commercial remedies. I have had feedback from a number that they have tried that with no success, from the point of view that people say, 'This is an issue between the Commonwealth as either the holder, the owner of the land and at the head of the lease or, in the case of Sale or Broome International Airport that was actually sold, the covenant that was signed between the purchaser and the Commonwealth points back to the Commonwealth having responsibility.' So could I just ask: has the department sought legal advice as to its responsibilities or any powers it may have to enforce the terms of a lease or the covenant that was signed by somebody that it sold an airport to?
Mr Doherty : You are right; there are two different categories. In relation to the ALOP deeds, which are the deeds that applied in relation to the transfer of many of the regional airports, not the leased federal airports, we have taken legal advice on issues from time to time which clearly shows some gaps in the capacity. The practice over a period with those leases has been that we are able to, and do as a matter of policy, ensure that the airports continue to operate as airports but that our powers to control what happens on the airport in any more detail would be very limited. In relation to the federal leased airports, we obviously have a range of more direct regulatory controls which go through the master planning and development plan processes and, in that circumstance, we are trying to achieve the right balance between the airport operators' rights in relation to the site, which they acquired through a tender process, and the development of the site and the interests of the users.
Senator FAWCETT: The question that arises, though, from somebody who has invested significant money in an asset—for example, a hangar—on an airport is that, if the Commonwealth has signed a lease or a sale document with a covenant that says, 'This will be maintained predominantly for an aviation purpose,' and then they are told that they cannot actually park private aircraft on the airfield because it is running out of space and yet the airport owner is selling off airport land for housing, how is that maintaining the prime purpose of that airport for aviation? And if, indeed, we have signed a covenant, what is the point of a contract or a covenant if it is not going to be enforced?
Mr Doherty : Perhaps I could start the answer and Ms Horrocks may wish to add to it. With the general thrust of your question being about whether, in considering a master plan, we would look to the impact of a change in runway, not only in terms of the technical compliance with a manual but in terms of the overall impact about how that change would affect the operations, clearly our interest would be in being able to assess the impact on operations practically. In terms of the detail of how that assessment is conducted, I think it is correct that we would be looking to CASA for an assessment on some of those technical aspects. As for the advice that they provide in relation to each master plan, we would be looking for that sort of advice. When it comes to input from a technical expert or consultant engaged by the airport, we would be keen to understand whether that is reliable and would get an expert opinion ourselves on that. Initially that would come from CASA. If that information is available then to the minister, the minister would make his call in terms of whether that master plan is something that should be approved or not.
Senator FAWCETT: I guess the question I have for you is that I have had a large number of complaints from operators at Archerfield Airport who contend that the expert who was called to support the master planning process looked at the AF10, the flight manual, and derived from that, for each of the aircraft type that flies at Archerfield, a strip length for the new north-south runway which was less than a thousand metres—I think it was about 900 metres—but it did not take into account the factoring that the CAOs require an operator to put into their operations manual. They contend that CASA, in double-checking the figures on behalf of the department, said yes, they accurately interpreted the AFM but did not highlight the fact that factoring had not been included; therefore, the master plan, which has been approved, endorses a runway which is too short to meet the legal requirements that CASA actually require the operators to meet. So my question is: if that contention is validated, what will happen to the master plan?
Mr Doherty : I think CASA took on notice last night the issue about what exactly their assessment was and what it covered in the Archerfield circumstance and I would certainly be happy to take on notice from our side too to look at that assessment. In terms of the impact of that decision, I am not entirely sure at this stage just where the process of the runway changes at Archerfield are and whether there would be some formal further approval required before they were actually given effect to.
Mr Mrdak : If I may add, I think our view would be, in the circumstances that you have outlined, where it was shown that there was any error or there was further information which may have changed that consideration, that would not necessarily invalidate the master plan. What it would mean, though, at the time the airport was to bring forward a major development proposal for the runway work—and I will ask Ms Horrocks to comment about the status of that—is that is the point at which that adjustment would need to be made and a separate approval process would apply. However, coming to your question, I do not think our view would be that the master plan would be invalid, because it is a concept planning document which is set out predominantly for zoning and planning purposes. The details of any runway shortening at either Archerfield or Essendon would have to be dealt with through an MDP and a specific approval program. If you do not mind, I will get Ms Horrocks to give us an update on where we think Archerfield is at on that runway proposal.
Ms Horrocks : Archerfield has not developed the MDP at this point in time. We would normally seek to look at any preliminary or exposure draft of an MDP and identify any required information at that point in time and then it would go through the legislative process for an MDP.
Senator FAWCETT: Can I just go to a broader issue now around the Commonwealth's responsibilities in terms of both airports it has gifted or sold or leased—and there are a number under that. There is a common theme here—and you would be very well aware of this, Mr Mrdak; I have raised at almost every estimates for a few years now—and it is the issues of aircraft operators, whether they be maintenance shops or flying schools or charter operators, which feel as though the monopoly power of an airport owner or leaseholder has led to unconscionable decisions in terms of conditions of lease renewal or barring them doing certain things on the airport, which, to a layman's reading, appears to be in direct contravention of the terms of the lease in terms of maintaining the airport for aviation and not barring reasonable access for airlines or aircraft operators for aviation-related activities. The feedback I have had from the department again and again is that it is a commercial issue and that those people should take up their commercial remedies. I have had feedback from a number that they have tried that with no success, from the point of view that people say, 'This is an issue between the Commonwealth as either the holder, the owner of the land and at the head of the lease or, in the case of Sale or Broome International Airport that was actually sold, the covenant that was signed between the purchaser and the Commonwealth points back to the Commonwealth having responsibility.' So could I just ask: has the department sought legal advice as to its responsibilities or any powers it may have to enforce the terms of a lease or the covenant that was signed by somebody that it sold an airport to?
Mr Doherty : You are right; there are two different categories. In relation to the ALOP deeds, which are the deeds that applied in relation to the transfer of many of the regional airports, not the leased federal airports, we have taken legal advice on issues from time to time which clearly shows some gaps in the capacity. The practice over a period with those leases has been that we are able to, and do as a matter of policy, ensure that the airports continue to operate as airports but that our powers to control what happens on the airport in any more detail would be very limited. In relation to the federal leased airports, we obviously have a range of more direct regulatory controls which go through the master planning and development plan processes and, in that circumstance, we are trying to achieve the right balance between the airport operators' rights in relation to the site, which they acquired through a tender process, and the development of the site and the interests of the users.
Senator FAWCETT: The question that arises, though, from somebody who has invested significant money in an asset—for example, a hangar—on an airport is that, if the Commonwealth has signed a lease or a sale document with a covenant that says, 'This will be maintained predominantly for an aviation purpose,' and then they are told that they cannot actually park private aircraft on the airfield because it is running out of space and yet the airport owner is selling off airport land for housing, how is that maintaining the prime purpose of that airport for aviation? And if, indeed, we have signed a covenant, what is the point of a contract or a covenant if it is not going to be enforced?
Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
Again top post AACCI & welcome to the ranks of the IOS...
ps Sunny maybe you should extend the distrust factor to include the Department and (by association until proven otherwise) the Miniscule...
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th May 2014 at 09:21.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The can of worms is offically open!
Excellent work AACCI, excellent factual post. And good follow up work Sarcs. The responses and obsfucation from Truss (and former bureaucrats), as well as the pooh that was flowing from Doherty and 'Pumpkin Head' undoubtedly proves that the issues go way beyond CAsA, ATSBeaker and ASA, the problems stem from the Miniscule through Infrastructure and down the chain. The can has truly opened for all to see.....
TICK TOCK
TICK TOCK
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I want to be known as an infrastructure prime minister" Tony Abbott.
well tony why don't you have a go at the total farce that is the government's approach to aviation. ....before we all lose our pants.
it is wasting you an unbelievable amount of money!
well tony why don't you have a go at the total farce that is the government's approach to aviation. ....before we all lose our pants.
it is wasting you an unbelievable amount of money!
Fawcett vs MM's Aviation Airports mob cont/-
On M&M he sure bears a strong resemblance to Red...
Ever since Senator Fawcett first entered the parliament (July 2011) he has been on M&M's case on the lifeblood of GA, those pesky secondary & ALOP airports. Here is another example:
My error (FIMD) it appears that the Oz Flying article provided the answer to my...Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
The miniscule's statement is interesting in light of the AACCI letter to him...
Oh well considering some Essendon operators are having probs pulling up on the other runway...
...I guess there will be intensive training, by certain operators, on shortfield landing technique...
Ever since Senator Fawcett first entered the parliament (July 2011) he has been on M&M's case on the lifeblood of GA, those pesky secondary & ALOP airports. Here is another example:
My error (FIMD) it appears that the Oz Flying article provided the answer to my...Q/ For those Essendon operators in the know, which runway is the DRAFT MP proposing to shorten??
Truss said he recognised there was significant interest within the community about the proposed investigation into the shortening of the airport's north-south runway.
“My approval of the 2013 Master Plan is not an approval for this proposal to proceed,” he pointed out.
“A decision on this proposal will only be reached after Essendon Airport completes a very detailed investigation involving examination of operational, safety and environmental impacts, including from aircraft noise.
“The outcome of this investigation will then need to be considered through the regulatory processes under the Airports Act 1996. A key component of these regulatory processes is public consultation.”
Truss said the Master Plan included significant non-aviation developments.
“However, I will not agree to any development which would compromise the use of Essendon for aviation,” he said.
“The Government is committed to supporting sustainable growth in civil aviation."
“My approval of the 2013 Master Plan is not an approval for this proposal to proceed,” he pointed out.
“A decision on this proposal will only be reached after Essendon Airport completes a very detailed investigation involving examination of operational, safety and environmental impacts, including from aircraft noise.
“The outcome of this investigation will then need to be considered through the regulatory processes under the Airports Act 1996. A key component of these regulatory processes is public consultation.”
Truss said the Master Plan included significant non-aviation developments.
“However, I will not agree to any development which would compromise the use of Essendon for aviation,” he said.
“The Government is committed to supporting sustainable growth in civil aviation."
Oh well considering some Essendon operators are having probs pulling up on the other runway...
...I guess there will be intensive training, by certain operators, on shortfield landing technique...
004wercras...
You commented on Australia's ICAO appointments (ICAO Trough List), and I subsequently referred to the arrangements for those appointments:
I think we might have missed an opportunity here with the ASRR Terms of Reference stated outcomes, that is (in particular):
Maybe it should have been argued that the ARRS should also have:
• examined and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for the arrangements for Australia's ICAO Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Bugger
You commented on Australia's ICAO appointments (ICAO Trough List), and I subsequently referred to the arrangements for those appointments:
See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf
Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...
Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...
The report of the review will (amongst other things):
•examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;
•examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;
• examined and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for the arrangements for Australia's ICAO Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.
Bugger
