Six airports to be decertified including Mallacoota
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 11:30.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
(Everyone knows where PO Box 1 the Gaffa is, KR!)
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.
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.
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.
It does make me wonder about the status of other airports that were under threat. Cheers FT.
Oversight?
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.
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, 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.
It does make me wonder about the status of other airports that were under threat. Cheers FT.
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?
