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

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