Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Six airports to be decertified including Mallacoota

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Six airports to be decertified including Mallacoota

Old 31st Jul 2022, 23:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 70
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
IS this any different to CAsA's attempt a few years back when they were going to decertify several hundred airports', ALA's, hospital HLS', etc??

I particularly love this quote.
Unless you need to descend through cloud in order to see the runway.

And to think that idiot is the CEO of the organization that represents airports nationwide... FML.
The bloke is a tool. Read his LinkedIn bio, he has no aviation experience prior to commencing his current role with the AAA. Just another wordsmith, policy maker, ‘communications expert’ - all piss and wind and exactly what the industry doesn’t need.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2022, 23:29
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The counterproductive strategies of CASA

Sunfish identifies one most serious consequence of CASA’s relentless disregard of cost and practicality in virtually all of its regulatory approach.

The CASA strait jacket doesn’t fit and over the years the great majority of the General Aviation community has lost respect for the regulator and its laws. Unlike the rules around surface transport which are largely respected, being practical and fit for purpose.

The result in GA is pervasive, unhealthy and stultifying. A blot on our Nation.
Sandy Reith is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2022, 05:35
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sandy Reith View Post
Nobody would bother to put ideas out, here or anywhere else, unless there’s some hope that sooner or later there’ll be a collective view that inspires change through the Parliament.
You've conflated my assertion that a specific tactic won't work while ever the Laborials continue to control the Senate for a suggestion that absolutely nothing can be done.

Chester's recent aerodrome corro is pantomime. He as Minister would have received similar corro and have done with it what the current Minister will now do with Mr Chester's corro. And that pantomime has been going on for decades. Throwing rocks one day in opposition and ducking them the next as Minister. And on the rare occasions that CASA could be bothered to pay any attention to the pantomime, it just laughs.

Correctly focussed and timed action is the only thing that has some small chance of bringing about substantial change.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2022, 06:18
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How to achieve change and reform

Quote LB :-

“Correctly focussed and timed action is the only thing that has some small chance of bringing about substantial change.”

Yes but what action or actions is obviously the burning question.

In addition there’s no doubt that numbers of voices and persistence give weight and momentum to the call for reform. The deletion of the Cessna SIDs program is one reform that we could reasonably assume would not have come about if not for the General Aviation community voicing its concerns.

Ring, write contact your local MP and State Senators regularly. My local MP certainly knows me and knows he will get an earful whenever we meet and his staff always have correspondence from myself to deal with.

PS, Good to see Darren Chester, former Minister, making a contribution on the thread dealing with the CASA induced Mallacoota airport problem. Any MP that might be persuaded to read that thread, and such as this, will undoubtedly be better informed about the disastrous losses that have occurred in GA. The continual CASA strangling of what should be a vibrant sector employing many more thousands must be recognised.
Sandy Reith is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2022, 08:13
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What aspect of Part 139 and MOS triggered this decision by the Council. CASA did not threaten to decertify aerodromes? The regulatory status terminology changed from “regulated” to “ certified” for some aerodromes.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2022, 11:14
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ixixly View Post
Can we stop calling these sorts of things "Unintended Consequences", it implies there was any real thought as to consequences at all when CASA clearly just don't bother to stop and think about it.
Perhaps they did, because there were grandfathering clauses built in. Perhaps the fault lies more with the council failing (or choosing not) to act, rather than CASA changing the rules.

CASA said grant options and exemptions were offered to smaller aerodromes, though the council did not apply for either on behalf of the Mallacoota Airport.

"Grandfathering provisions applied to existing facilities, including Mallacoota Airport, so smaller aerodromes did not need costly work to meet the new standards," CASA said.

"No infrastructure changes were required as part of the transition process."

Methinks this is more a ploy of the council to shame the Feds into stumping up for some improvements, rather than them either electing to maintain the status quo, or paying themselves. Only 6 out of 350? Perhaps Angel Flight should rethink who it is pointing the finger at.
When you look at the other 5 airports, perhaps South Gippsland Council should reconsider the company it compares itself with.

Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 2nd Aug 2022 at 12:30.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2022, 05:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Vag277.

Given Squawk7700's experience with the specific council concerned, and my experience with councils on matters aerodrome, it is quite possible that the council has put the local aerodromes into the 'it's-no-longer-worth-the-effort' basket.

It's also possible that the council is engaging in the sport of level-of-government blame-shifting, encouraged and aided by Mr Chester. Let's think about what tactic would be better for the Member for Gippsland's (Mr Chester's) popularity: Calling on a Gippsland shire council to get off its backside and sort through the transitional arrangements and exemptions to maintain the certification status of the aerodrome, or dumping on a Federal agency for complex rules made "supposedly in the name of safety". (Surely, as Minister, Mr Chester noticed that all rules made by CASA are "supposedly in the name of safety".)

And it's possible that property developers are licking their lips at the prospect of getting hold of aerodrome land and have given council a 'do we have a deal for you' proposal, and council needs a convenient excuse to give it the tick.

Or a combination of some or all of the above.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2022, 06:03
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As an interesting but relevant aside, CASR Part 175 is the single biggest bureaucratic overreach in relation to small aerodromes. In this thread titled 'Lost - 2000+ airfields' I 'mocked up' a letter from Airservices to the Upper Kikatinlong Shire Council setting out the requirements of Part 175:
Airservices would like to continue to publish information about your aerodrome/HLS/ALA. Before you provide the information, and before Airservices publishes the information, please note the following:

You must appoint a single senior manager within your organisation as the AIP responsible person for your organisation. If you do not, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

If the person you appoint does not have knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

Equivalent requirements and offences apply to your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one.

You must provide Airservices with the name of the AIP responsible person (and your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one) and notify Airservices of any changes. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

You commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units if you do not notify Airservices of the need to change aeronautical information, as soon as practicable after you become aware of the need.

The data or information you provide must be in accordance with specifications Airservices gives you, or you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

You must review, at least annually, the data and aeronautical information published in the AIP for which you are responsible, keep a record of that review and provide a copy of the review to CASA on request. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

Yours in aviation safety and love and kisses

Airservices Australia
That thread was started in 2017, when none other than Dazzling Darren was the Minister. I don't recall him giving himself an uppercut for Part 175.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2022, 07:24
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 39
Posts: 996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
As an interesting but relevant aside, CASR Part 175 is the single biggest bureaucratic overreach in relation to small aerodromes. In this thread titled 'Lost - 2000+ airfields' I 'mocked up' a letter from Airservices to the Upper Kikatinlong Shire Council setting out the requirements of Part 175:That thread was started in 2017, when none other than Dazzling Darren was the Minister. I don't recall him giving himself an uppercut for Part 175.
You do yourself a disservice, LB. I remember that letter well. I also remember the address you used to attempt to explain why ASA "Couldn't contact" the Aeronautical Data Originator of Upper Bumphuck Council.
KRviator is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2022, 09:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In this day and age of RNP Runway aligned instrument approaches you could easily write a MOS that just required survey of the approach and missed approach and runway strip splays. Have it designed as no circling and that's it, nothing else is required really for it to be safe for RNP IAP operations. I don't see why a non certified aerodrome can't have runway align RNPs if those critical areas alone are maintained. You could quite easily install cameras that monitor these zones for periodic remote inspection and double as weather cams.
43Inches is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2022, 01:14
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
In this day and age of RNP Runway aligned instrument approaches you could easily write a MOS that just required survey of the approach and missed approach and runway strip splays. Have it designed as no circling and that's it, nothing else is required really for it to be safe for RNP IAP operations. I don't see why a non certified aerodrome can't have runway align RNPs if those critical areas alone are maintained. You could quite easily install cameras that monitor these zones for periodic remote inspection and double as weather cams.
Exactly!

(Everyone knows where PO Box 1 the Gaffa is, KR!)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2022, 03:15
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you to all who responded to this post. It was an interesting read. I'm pleased to report a happy ending to this story (or at least this chapter).


Flying Ted is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2022, 04:55
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Anvya
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Great news
KAPAC is online now  
Old 23rd Aug 2022, 11:05
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good news

As Ted implied good until next time.

Of course all the angst, time and trouble should never have occurred in the first place. If there’d been minuscule portion of a brain applied to the outcome of CASA’s latest regulatory change the problem would not have surfaced. It should have been well and truly ironed out beforehand. CASA’s budget is in excess of $200 million. Even given they don’t have the expertise that they should have, they could have quietly taken advice that would have made their changes acceptable and without unnecessary deleterious effects.
Sandy Reith is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2022, 01:50
  #35 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sandy, I agree with you but I can understand how these happen through no ill will from either CASA or the council. This has all the hallmarks of something that has fallen through the cracks between CASA's processes and the council's own day to day worries. The rapid about face suggests an oversight rather than malice. The positive outcome is that CASA and the council have both been reminded that YMCO is an important community asset that needs to be look after.

It does make me wonder about the status of other airports that were under threat. Cheers FT.
Flying Ted is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2022, 02:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oversight?

Originally Posted by Sandy Reith View Post
As Ted implied good until next time.

Of course all the angst, time and trouble should never have occurred in the first place. If there’d been minuscule portion of a brain applied to the outcome of CASA’s latest regulatory change the problem would not have surfaced. It should have been well and truly ironed out beforehand. CASA’s budget is in excess of $200 million. Even given they don’t have the expertise that they should have, they could have quietly taken advice that would have made their changes acceptable and without unnecessary deleterious effects.
Originally Posted by Flying Ted View Post
Sandy, I agree with you but I can understand how these happen through no ill will from either CASA or the council. This has all the hallmarks of something that has fallen through the cracks between CASA's processes and the council's own day to day worries. The rapid about face suggests an oversight rather than malice. The positive outcome is that CASA and the council have both been reminded that YMCO is an important community asset that needs to be look after.

It does make me wonder about the status of other airports that were under threat. Cheers FT.
With respect I think more on the mark to qualify CASA’s approach as thoughtless rather than oversight.
Having watched them fairly closely from my early days, from 1968, flying commercial GA, the pattern is clear, the more so since they were ousted from Ministerial control back in 1988.
Malice? Certainly in some individual cases it’s hard not to see elements of that but that’s not been suggested as their motivation here. Rather the CASA modus operandi is one of disregard for the practical effects of its ever more unworkable and costly regulations and administrative ways, or one could say straight up incompetence. CASA has around eight hundred employees plus consultants and costs us all in excess of $200 million pa. Pip Spence commenced as new CEO on the 17th May last year. Reading the CASA annual report to June 30th 2021, Ms. Spence received for her first six weeks a total remuneration of $253,089.

Couldn’t we expect a better service and no oversights on the crucial matter of airport access?
Sandy Reith is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.