Secret airspace meeting at Bankstown Airport
One wonders what law one would break if one disclosed information in ‘breach’ of the ‘acknowledgement’. And any person with any involvement in aviation will have at least a perceived conflict of interest in the subject matter. (Or maybe this is the first situation in history in which GA, RPT, airport operators and Airservices have had a group hug and are as one on the airspace arrangements?)
The following users liked this post:
The following 3 users liked this post by aroa:
You get all you need to know from that email signature 
The following 5 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
The meeting security was controlled via a check-in desk at the entrance to the meeting room. With a DITRDCA representative checking each person in and ensuring that they had signed and submitted their confidentiality document. It was clear that they did not intend to let any person into the room unless they had signed.
I did some background checking prior to the meeting and was informed that there were over 50 invitations issued for the meeting, comprising of several industry association representatives and a majority of local aviation business stakeholders. There was no list of invited stakeholders published.
On the day of the meeting, I counted only 25-30 of the invited 'stakeholders' attended the meeting, the following government and airport representatives were in attendance. Interestingly enough, the meeting agenda listed those persons out formally, but did not include the names of the invited stakeholders;
Daniel Jarosch, CEO Aeria Management Group (Formerly Sydney Metro Airports)
David Binskin, General Manager, Aeria Management Group
Danny Namgyal, DITRDCA (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications & the Arts)
Ellen West, DITRDCA
Joshua Haze-Moran, DITRDCA
Matthew Shepherd, To70
Cameron Todd, To70
Anthony Nugent, CASA
Anthony Lawler, CASA
Alex Dallwitz, CASA
Phil Lee, CASA
Daniel Jackson, Airservices Australia
Rory Delaney, Airservices Australia
Annette Dittmar, Airservices Australia
Jerod Duenas, Airservices Australia
The meeting AGENDA was the following;
1. Welcome and Introductions 15min 1300-1315
2. Project Status Update 20min 1315-1335
3. Sydney Basin Airspace 45min 1335-1420
3.1 Bankstown Procedures
3.2 Camden Procedures
3.3 Westmead Procedure
3.4 Containment
3.5 Richmond Airspace
4. Proposed Airspace Classification 25min 1425-1445
4.1 Safety Case/Justification
4.2 Airspace Proposal
5. Flight Threads 60min 1445-1545
5.1 VFR Departures and Arrivals
5.2 VFR Transits
5.3 IFR Departures and Arrivals
5.4 IFR Transits
5.5 EMS VFR/IFR
6. Ideas and Comments 60min 1545-1645
7. Next Steps 15min 1645-1700
I did some background checking prior to the meeting and was informed that there were over 50 invitations issued for the meeting, comprising of several industry association representatives and a majority of local aviation business stakeholders. There was no list of invited stakeholders published.
On the day of the meeting, I counted only 25-30 of the invited 'stakeholders' attended the meeting, the following government and airport representatives were in attendance. Interestingly enough, the meeting agenda listed those persons out formally, but did not include the names of the invited stakeholders;
Daniel Jarosch, CEO Aeria Management Group (Formerly Sydney Metro Airports)
David Binskin, General Manager, Aeria Management Group
Danny Namgyal, DITRDCA (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications & the Arts)
Ellen West, DITRDCA
Joshua Haze-Moran, DITRDCA
Matthew Shepherd, To70
Cameron Todd, To70
Anthony Nugent, CASA
Anthony Lawler, CASA
Alex Dallwitz, CASA
Phil Lee, CASA
Daniel Jackson, Airservices Australia
Rory Delaney, Airservices Australia
Annette Dittmar, Airservices Australia
Jerod Duenas, Airservices Australia
The meeting AGENDA was the following;
1. Welcome and Introductions 15min 1300-1315
2. Project Status Update 20min 1315-1335
3. Sydney Basin Airspace 45min 1335-1420
3.1 Bankstown Procedures
3.2 Camden Procedures
3.3 Westmead Procedure
3.4 Containment
3.5 Richmond Airspace
4. Proposed Airspace Classification 25min 1425-1445
4.1 Safety Case/Justification
4.2 Airspace Proposal
5. Flight Threads 60min 1445-1545
5.1 VFR Departures and Arrivals
5.2 VFR Transits
5.3 IFR Departures and Arrivals
5.4 IFR Transits
5.5 EMS VFR/IFR
6. Ideas and Comments 60min 1545-1645
7. Next Steps 15min 1645-1700
The following users liked this post:
Some general observations;
- The meeting was delivered in the Bankstown Airport terminal building with three 80-inch LCD TV units used to present slides and maps. The lighting was such that the maps were quite hard to see and the colours used to delineate airspace boundaries etc were so bad that it was very difficult to see clearly what was being presented. No printed materials were provided.
- A particular emphasis was placed on informing everyone in attendance that the meeting was not 'formal consultation', but was instead an opportunity to provide a more personal briefing ahead of the formal Environmental Impact Statement public consultation. Yet, at the same time the meeting was told that they were seeking feedback and would do their best to incorporate such feedback. In addition, an email address was provided at the end of the meeting, but the room was informed that they should not expect any response should they submit something, as this was not a formal consultation. The presenters stressed that stakeholders should use the EIS public consultation process which would start in the coming months.
- It was incredibly clear to me that the airspace design had been settled quite some time ago and that they've been holding off communicating until the situation was entirely 'fait accompli'. Advance notice of what was disclosed would have 100% resulted in an effort by GA to involve the media and to lobby the politicians. The timing of the disclosure was everything. They have waited until everything was locked and loaded, and no matter how much noise is generated or how many politicians are approached, the airspace changes will happen. I back my own assessment up with statements made by the DITRDCA and Airservices/CASA representatives during the meeting that they had been running airspace simulation assessments for some time to test the outcome presented at the meeting. Yet, in the opening of the meeting the presenter advised the group that the final outcome had only recently been arrived at and that this was the earliest they could inform everyone of the airspace plan. My opinion is the statements did not add up.
- I sat in the back of the meeting and to the side so that I could watch the entire presentation and audience. It was a very telling experience. Everyone on the left of the room was DITRDCA, Airservices, CASA and also had representatives of a Consulting company. The industry stakeholders sat in a congregated group in the centre, and the privatised airport representatives sat separated and at the rear of the room. There was clear and obvious separation from the three stakeholder groups, and I think that was rather intentional.
- Throughout the meeting, the government representatives keenly observed the reactions of industry, with plenty of whispering into each others ears. My observation was that they were expecting a significant negative reaction. The DITRDCA presenters continually stated that they knew the GA stakeholders would not be happy with the information they were receiving. At times the DITRDCA presenter tried to make light-heated jokes in reaction to the somewhat startled and shocked reactions of the general aviation stakeholders. Numerous times the presenter lamented that he understood that those speaking weren't happy and that the news the room was being provided was not great.
- At the conclusion of the meeting, and by way of observing the persons throughout, I left with the view that the privatised airport representatives had full knowledge of the airspace changes presented and that they too had been withholding this information from the general aviation industry stakeholders at Bankstown and Camden airports. And, I would assume for good reason. If leaseholders had been presented this information three years ago, I wonder how many would have renewed their leases? Furthermore, the aviation amenity and use of the airport will be dramatically negatively impacted as a result of these airspace changes and will unquestionably have a marked negative impact on the aviation property lease values at these airports. I can only assume that it has been in the commercial financial interests of the privatised airport operator to withhold any disclosure of these changes for as long as they could. This raises so many serious issues and red-flags. Have businesses been misinformed and drawn into leasing arrangements that are unconscionable... this needs to be explored.
- Throughout the entire presentation the room was continually reminded on how deep and broad the consultation process was with industry stakeholders, yet by their own admissions and statements during the meeting they affirmed that they had hand-selected small representative groups, comprised of selected flight schools and/or operators during the design phase. Their statements were contradictory and following the meeting I was contacted by numerous persons asking if I knew of anyone that was involved in the consultation meetings mentioned etc. I am sure the consultative documentation will be an interesting FOI in the coming weeks.
The following 2 users liked this post by AOPA:
Thread Starter
Amazing situation.
When will those effected know the facts?
Or do we need Wikileaks?
And this is supposed to be a rumour network- what then are the rumours?
When will those effected know the facts?
Or do we need Wikileaks?
And this is supposed to be a rumour network- what then are the rumours?
Thanks so much AOPA, this is exactly what I was expecting from someone attending to provide us and you didn't disappoint but it's pretty clear these changes are going to disappoint many. Surely it's not too late to start kicking up a stink on this though? As you rightly mentioned it seems like stakeholders with very biased views have been consulted and were well aware of these situations but not the stakeholders that stood to lose on this such as the actual operators at Bankstown. This seems like a massive conflict of interest situation that they've created then purposely and maliciously withheld and should be held accountable for their actions now and asked who exactly they consulted with. I believe the answer to whom they consulted will turn out to be a whole lot of smoke and mirrors amounting to "No one that would actually be affected".
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
This sounds like a replica of the recent Canberra airport lies around runway 12. No, no you plebs are wrong, it’s got nothing to do with building more buildings; in fact it’s got nothing to do with the airport. Fast forward a year or so and boom! new buildings announced. Well phuck me, what a surprise. That’s how useful assets get ruined by rich pricks intent on getting richer.
Hazy Moron. Lol! 🤣
Likely Utopia were quietly sitting in getting some ideas
The following users liked this post:
I’m pleased that you attended and filled us all in. Thanks for taking one for the team as I don’t think you’ll get an invite to the next one!
The following users liked this post:
Squawk7700 you just highlighted a major problem that has done enormous damage to general aviation and is continuing to. Far too many supposed industry leaders and representatives are only interested in the next invitation. They attend these meetings and they do nothing to stand up for their members and industry colleagues. They sit in fear that if they speak up they will not be invited back. They have no backbone and they fail to stand up for what is right, their self-interest is always in the running. In fact, these people often lead the back-room efforts to degenerate and ostricise those who do speak up, encouraging the government towards such outcomes. For the 8 years I have represented our members, I have seen it time and time again with my own eyes.
The following 6 users liked this post by AOPA:
Thread Starter
Have learned this morning that neither owners or operators of the Oaks Airfield or Wedderburn Airfield were invited to attend the 'consultation' meeting last week run by the DITRDCA/Airservices/CASA. Both airfields are directly impacted by the proposed airspace changes that will come into effect June 2026. I have also been made aware that neither airfield were invited to any of the 'broad and extensive consultation meetings' that the government claims to have worked through between 2017 and 2023.
I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.
But, is anyone surprised to learn this?
I have lost count as to how many times AOPA Australia has publicly called out the Department, Airservices and CASA with respect to their so-called consultations and the genuine lack of genuine representative composition. Time and time again, these consultations are manipulated and gamed by the government.
But, is anyone surprised to learn this?
The following users liked this post:
Consulltation NOT listening
Many years ago I represented both AOPA and SAAA at some "consultation" meetings.
At one, every single industry representative (Qantas, Ansett, Regionals, Airports, AOPA, each of the sporting bodies - every single rep) was of one view yet Airservices simply ignored all of us without any explanation.
When every Australian airport went from Axxx to Yxxx industry universally wanted the US system where the last three letters of the code are both the IATA and ICAO code; KLAX, PHNL, KJFK, etc - only the first letter added for ICAO use.
That is worth a lot of money in the commercial world and saves a heck of a lot of confustion. So ASSY coulld have been YSYD etc, AMML > YMEL and so on.
Yes, Airservices pretended to consult with industry and ignored every single part of the industry.
Nothing changes.
At one, every single industry representative (Qantas, Ansett, Regionals, Airports, AOPA, each of the sporting bodies - every single rep) was of one view yet Airservices simply ignored all of us without any explanation.
When every Australian airport went from Axxx to Yxxx industry universally wanted the US system where the last three letters of the code are both the IATA and ICAO code; KLAX, PHNL, KJFK, etc - only the first letter added for ICAO use.
That is worth a lot of money in the commercial world and saves a heck of a lot of confustion. So ASSY coulld have been YSYD etc, AMML > YMEL and so on.
Yes, Airservices pretended to consult with industry and ignored every single part of the industry.
Nothing changes.
As told to me many moons ago during EBA shenanigans "Consultation is not Negotiation..."
They will always "consult". But they don't have to (and more often than not, won't) listen.....
They will always "consult". But they don't have to (and more often than not, won't) listen.....