Airport encroachments and safety issues
 

The media reads posts to this site so perhaps it's time we all start to record the state of our airports and local airfields, and the development encroachments on and around them that potentially impact safety. Perhaps some keen investigative journalist might actually start asking questions about the people behind the appropriation of airport land and their influence?


At my home town, Shepparton Airport was outside the town boundary and there were opportunities to purchase adjoining farmland to extend the main and cross-strip runways. But the Council and the developers (funny that) saw the vacant land and it was subdivided instead. There are now houses and factories up against the aerodrome boundary and the difficulty of finding somewhere to go if there is an EFATO is increasing literally on a daily basis as more and more houses go up. This is in a country area with opportunities to expand in all directions but the airport is being built in.

Council owns the airport so stands to make a tidy sum if it gets turned over to developers. Along with some of the bright business people, Council is now talking about a new and bigger airport further out so that bigger aircraft can operate. Of course those of us who fly from there now will never be able to afdord the cost-recovery rates and other charges that will be levied so little GA will become even littler all over again.

"It's all about the money......!"

Kaz

The current development boom (all non aviation) at Moorabbin is worrying. The new warehouse being built to the south is surly within the splay of 17R

Have a look at the proposed 12L/30R for JANDAKOT. Straight over the RACWA building

You should include the access road ( like a trench ) off the end of the runways 28L and R at Archerfield.

Hoxton Park is suffering a little from the deleterious effects of encroachment.

Mr Creampuff this might add some light to the heat in the discussion.

The proximate cause of the accident at Essendon will be revealed by the ATSB in due course. My intention in posting this as a deeply concerned pilot, in a separate thread is to try to separate the accident and airport issues, if this is possible.

The Airports Act 1996 meant well but on its own has been shown to be incompetent in achieving its original aim and particularly so in the hands of an incompetent regulator.

I hear on my grapevine that a group of well-intentioned honest burghers at Jandakot in the form of their “Airport Chamber of Commerce”, reached a breaking point when the latest iteration of the real estate developers wet dream, the Jandakot Airport 2014 Master Plan was approved by the Minister.

These good burghers apparently exasperated by 20 years of Ministerial lobbying proving fruitless, took unprecedented action against the Minister, not the airport leaseholder, but the Minister, in the AAT, requesting a review of the Jandakot Master Plan 2014 in terms of the Airports Act 1996. The leaseholder was able to gain minor status in the action as a “joined party” with the Minister.
The list of witnesses for their Chamber is impressive.
Why would they do this?
Upon the release of the 2014 Jandakot Airport Master Plan by the Minister, I understand their Chamber resolved that the large amount of non-aviation related real estate development approved and developed at Jandakot Airport had reached a tipping point and that the latest 2014 Master Plan failed in its intended function.
That being, to protect the future of the airport as an airport, and had compromised the aviation safety case.
A Google look at Jandakot Airport suggests it has the most on airport non-aviation related real estate development, built and planned, of any airport in Australia.

The Decision of the Honorable Justice ML Barker Deputy President ruled in effect that the Airports Acts 1996 basically allowed the developer/leaseholder, within the bounds of the CASA MOS, “to do anything they want” in regard to commercial development on the airport. I hear that in the Tribunal, the Airport Leaseholder’s Managing Director in fact said those very words. BarkerJ was of the view that any building/s in the future that infringed on future airport development plans or safety could be later torn down. I don't believe that given BarkerJ's eminent reputation his decision would be found wanting in law.
Loud cheers from the airport leaseholders and their super-annuant shareholders around Australia could be heard.
The decision can be found here. I commend it to your consideration.

Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2016] AATA 705 (12 September 2016)

On face value it seems their AAT action failed to get a Ministerial review of the Master Plan but they did succeed in getting a respected ruling on the ACTUAL powers of the Act as distinct from that currently on foot, vis a vis, that the Act PROTECTS the airports for aviation purposes as they and we previously thought. It also legitimises the real estate development development undertaken at ALL Commonwealth owned airports around Australia.

The recent event at Essendon airport however, has tragically, highlighted and confirmed their fears about industrial and retail over-development of airport land. There was a recent C404 fatal accident in similar terms at Jandakot.
DFO are the innocent party here, but I would love to be a fly on the wall in regard to discussion with them and the airport leaseholder in re removal of their buildings if that were deemed to be necessary. The airport leaseholder had fulfilled their "safety" obligations under the Act.

The Act was originally conceived as a means of protecting and regulating the airport, its primary aviation functions, aviation businesses and users from the depredations of strolling opportunists seeking to make their fortune at its expense, when they leased Commonwealth property to private operators/real estate developers.

The birth of the Act has a long history, but the primary intention of the Government, at least as it was espoused at the time, was that the leaseholder was obliged to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity and that they may use that portion of the area not occupied then, or possibly in the future for aviation purposes, to develop revenue that would assist the leaseholder to operate the airport as an airport in perpetuity.
Good idea, at the time, as most of us would recall, none of the airports offered were financially viable on their own and there was a real need for some assistance. There would not otherwise have been any takers.
Ultimately the prices paid by the real estate developers could only have been justified on the basis of the massive real estate development opportunity they saw.

Not surprisingly, the Government was delighted, banked the money and then abandoned the airports to their fate.

As we can see at ALL of these airports, that didn't go at all well and I don't need to expand on this here.

So, the MOST important part of the National Transport Infrastructure is in the hands of twelve or thirteen DIFFERENT real estate developers who’s only common bond is the Act and squeezing what financial juice they can out of the lemon. What could possibly go wrong?

I make these observations, from the sidelines and as an observer with some trepidation, as I have been reliably informed that the leaseholder in this particular instance has made strong “suggestions” to the tenants (one of which I am not) that should they support these honest burghers or be seen in any way involved with their AAT action, there would be consequences.

Unconfirmed reports from the 'hood suggest that these burghers have also so far, been banned from future participation in the Ministerially mandated Community Aviation Consultation Group. Interesting times for those at Jandakot.

My observation is that there are, as on all of the airports, many businesses that have closed down or fled since their respective new regimes took hold. As a long time participant in the industry, I have observed that a large number of professionals and their peculiar and scarce technical skills have sadly been lost to us forever.

And whilst I am quick to point out there is no imputation that Essendon Airport had a role in this accident nor Jandakot Airport in their recent fatal, the fact is we now have the latest tragedy.

The Airports have been assiduous in their planning and construction of the buildings on their airports in accordance with how we now understand the Act and that has been ruled to be. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so in this matter.

The answer lies not with the airport leaseholders but with the Airports Act 1996, the Minister and his Department

You couldn’t make it up, but, oh wait, this is Australian aviation.

Stop complaining Creampuff, the roofs look flat. :{

Closing Bankstown 18/36 for a business park at the southern end.

The Meeja would just twist it around and turn it into a hysterical "Close the airport before someone lands on a school" shock horror piece. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

The problem is that following due process achieves nothing when the people who make the decisions at whichever government level have got big wads of cash at stake.

You Terry towling boys carry on about the statistical insignificance of the dangers of mid air collision yet now the greatest threat to aviation today is apparently buildings? Refresh me on how many times planes have plummeted to their doom into buildings in OZ? No wonder you don't get taken seriously.

The Terry towling boys are just doing what everyone else in aviation does: leveraging off the temporary political advantage arising from the public's natural reaction to an accident, to make a point.

Wake up Plazbot.

It's a developing situation, one that is escalating the safety risks and effects GA more than you tin can drivers...for now. But without little old GA how will your guys ever learn to fly? How will they build hours so they can sit up the front with all those happy pax?

The Essendon incident took out 5 folk, all onboard. Very, very sad but it could easily have killed 100's and what would have happened then?

Give pilots a bit of a chance and keep the open spaces that were originally thought to be the requirement for safe operation.

Kaz

Replacing YHOX with a Big W warehouse was certainly in the public interest.

For I can go to my local store and buy a Bangladeshi made t shirt for only $5. (Not to mention lots of plastic crap for the kids at Christmas.)

Kaz

Plazbot is a refugee from the Australian ATC provider.

Australian Airport Safety Issues - Clearways
 

On this important thread, Australian airports have been mentioned where safety has been hazarded by development, no doubt there are others

Essendon
Shepparton
Moorabbin
Jandakot
Archerfield
Hoxton Park
Bankstown

It is the duty of local and national governments to make sure development does not put lives at risk. Simple modification of development could maintain sensible clearways that could prove lifesaving in case of emergency.

And the problem isn't confined to Australian airports.

There is now a huge amount of inappropriate development around Queenstown (NZQN) -- an airport with lots of safety issues at the best of times.

Which specific parts of ICAO annexe 14 are the aerodromes listed in breach of?

Forgetting standards and practices, where is the perceived line in the sand to stop this obviously systemicly unacceptable hazard to aviation of civilisation? 3km 15 degrees from a threshold maximum height 5 metres? 56km 45 degrees? 4000m emergency landing strips every 5km across the land? Build a great big flat thingy elevated 500ft across the entire country? Chop chop, lives are at risk here!

Another often overlooked issue with developments close to airports is turbulence off the building in any sort of wind. CB currently has a development on the way which will likely cause problems I hear. Look at SY 16R and the freight terminal, can be interesting just prior to the flare in a large jet.

Unless the desired result is for the already-encroached airfields to be closed, I suggest that there is no current political advantage for the industry whatsoever.

For an airport such as Essendon, we all know that the horse has well and truly bolted (decades ago) for development outside the airport fence*. If the industry wants to argue that this encroachment is unsafe, then obviously success would mean goodnight to the airport as a whole.

(* Despite the relatively recently planted and official "this area is inappropriate for housing development" signs in airport property on the Mascoma Ave. boundary)

Alternatively, if it argues that the risk to the surrounding suburbs is sufficiently tolerable, then there is pretty much no chance that the community would concurrently accept that the shopping complexes, hotels, supermarkets, trampoline sheds and car yards on various bits of airport property are a safety hazard for aviation (excepting, of course, obvious obstructions to flight). To be honest, many of the non-aviators who know the Essendon area well would be tempted to conclude that the DFO building acted as a safety barrier last week.

I get the arguments that are put forward around death spiral economics for GA, and the undervaluation of airfields as community assets (city or country) that leads to this state. But there is no short-term political mileage to be gained, and I doubt that the community has the inclination or aggregate honesty and mental capacity to arrive at a reasoned position - except, maybe, under some kind of brutal force such as a natural disaster or public health crisis. Gruesome as it may seem, the industry probably needs to prepare its arguments ready for prosecution under that kind of vector.

Except that for a significant distance beyond the fence, freeway construction may have provided a life saving alternative.

But to reach the freeway the aircraft needed to negotiate three substantial telecom towers, 14 verticle billboards protruding above the roof line and the giagantic 100 meter long billboard wall. This forest of verticle protrusions conspire to roughly double the clearance height of the actual building structure!

Who approved these structures and should they now be removed?

Mickjoebill