And then make a 90 degree turn with obvious control issues and stick it between light posts? Don't think so Habibi

Yep. Off the end of 17 at Essendon, there are no safe options. Everything involves ploughing into the general population somehow. This includes putting down on the Tulla, which is absolutely a non-option, period. While it might give the aircraft occupants a glimmer of hope compared to smacking into the shops, towers or billboards, dozens could easily have perished if the King Air had not clipped the DFO before 10am. This includes workers who will have been busy in the freeway construction zone, MickJoeBill.

Vertical obstructions well off the centreline are problematic in a potential case where an aircraft has a severe loss of directional control but still has reasonable hope of levelling out or climbing. But how could the industry possibly sell this corner-case to the community? "Please support the notion of removing towers etc at DFO, so that if another aircraft loses it, the occupants have a better chance of survival, and we'll then take our chances they don't then slam into your {busy freeway, high school, suburban train line, ...}". There is a chance that this might be reasonable from a quantified risk point of view, but I am pretty sure it is not a compromise that the community will accept. (At present, they more or less accept the emergency services and RPT functions, and many like the hum of TMQ as well... but starting to call for removal of obstacles... FFS that will scare the horses!)

Ultimately I don't think there is a holistic and logical safety argument for making it easier for partially or fully out-of-control aircraft to penetrate densely populated inner suburbia.

I agree that airfields should not be allowed to be penned-in from the inside or the outside, and I'm not in favour of operations at YMEN being curtailed (despite living 800m from the threshold directly in line with 08/26). I'm just countering the notion that the non-aviating community in general could presently successfully be sold a safety argument about drastically off-centreline vertical obstructions or on-field developments.

There may be links to other threads here, specifically the death of General Aviation in Australia.

Accusations are often levelled at CASA but putting regulation to one side it seems that most airport owners want GA to go away because they cannot make any money out of these marginally profitable businesses.

Every drop in GA movements is another reason to pull up a runway and convert it to sheds; is this what the Howard Government wanted? Given the enormous wealth of financial advice available to any Federal Government it seems difficult to accept that no-one in Canberra predicted that the new airport owners could make a motza if they could only get rid of those pesky aeroplanes!

Prior to the Essendon accident, I think that if you asked any sane person in the industry which was the greater risk if an aircraft sufferred an engine failure on takeoff from RWY17: the DFO or the residential housing south of the RWY, the response would have been a unanimous "residential housing".

We now have an aircraft that has turned left after takeoff and hit the DFO. We don't yet know whether this was an intentional action by the pilot to find a green field, or a freeway, or anything but houses to put down on, or whether the aircraft just yawed left because it was out of control. We may never know.

But when we wake up tomorrow morning, and ask ourselves the same question, what will be the answer, the residential housing or the DFO?

It was less than a 90 degrees turn from his track to hit the embankment or freeway construction.

Yes there were obstacles and workers on the freeway construction.

With, we presume, one capable engine, even just a few more seconds can be enough for a pilot to regain control.

Are the billboards and telecom towers, situated inside the airport boundary the tallest obstacles for some distance?

Moonie Ponds council fought the DFO development on grounds of traffic congestion and safety.

CASAs role in regard to development outside airports is advisory only.

Queensland is the only state to legislate public safety zones.

Public safety zone policy does not relate to development inside the airfield boundary(!) according to CASA testimony in the recent senate hearings.

So perhaps there is money to be made encircling essendon airport with a 75ft high advertising billboard, just provide a gap at the end of the runways?

Safety barrier for the public or unnecessary hurdle for pilots?


Mickjoebill

If, say, aviation in Australia was going gangbusters, and instead of DFO's etc, Essendon had filled every available piece of free land with aviation related buildings, employing hundreds in the industry, and the King Air had crashed into one of those because it was in the "wrong place", would the calls to curtail development be so strident?

This unfortunate Essendon accident is little different to that which occurred on October 30, 2014 at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, also involving a King Air 200. The aircraft impacted the FlightSafety International simulator complex. The pilot was fatally injured, three building occupants were fatally injured (ironically in a simulator undergoing training), two occupants sustained serious injuries, and four occupants sustained minor injuries. At the time about one hundred people occupied the building.

Accident Report.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...15FA034&akey=1