Chapter 4
Essendon Airport investigations and committee views
4.1
This chapter considers the investigations into the February 2017
accident at Essendon Airport, as they relate to the bill's provisions. In
particular, and as identified by the interim report, the committee considers
the work of the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) and the
implementation of public safety zones around airports.
4.2
This chapter also presents the committee's views and recommendation on
the bill.
Essendon Airport accident
4.3
On 21 February 2017, a Beechcraft B200 Super King Air (VH-ZCR) took off
from Essendon Airport and crashed into the DFO retail complex running alongside
the airport, which resulted in a major fire at the shopping centre. The
accident tragically killed the pilot and four American tourists on board.
4.4
Airport regulation, planning and development processes play important
roles in ensuring ongoing aircraft and passenger safety. The importance of
these processes was amplified by the terrible accident at Essendon.
4.5
Particular concerns in relation to airport land use and planning were
raised after the accident. Some stakeholders noted that residential and
commercial developments were being constructed in increasingly closer proximity
to airport runways, thus reducing the space available for aircraft to take
evasive action or make emergency landings when necessary.
4.6
There is considerable interaction between federal, state and local
governments when determining the use of land around both major and general
airports. The committee is not in a position to consider planning and approval
processes at a state and local level, but has given some consideration to the
intersection of the bill with federally‑leased airport land use planning,
in light of the tragedy at Essendon.
4.7
As noted in the interim report, the committee was advised by DIRD that
following the accident, it was examining the development approval processes for
land use planning at Essendon Airport.[1]
4.8
The committee was further advised that the NASAG was considering the
adoption of draft national guidelines, regarding runway public safety zones
around airports, and runway end safety zones (collectively referred to in this
report as public safety zones).[2]
4.9
Following receipt of this advice, the committee determined that the
findings and recommendations of the investigations into this tragedy, and the
work of NASAG, would be taken into consideration when deliberating on the bill.
Discussion on these issues follows.
Investigations into the Essendon
Airport crash
4.10
On 29 March 2017, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released
its preliminary report into the Essendon crash. The report presented some
information but did not make any findings. However, it did highlight that the
continuing investigation would include a review of the approval process for the
building that was struck by the aircraft.[3]
4.11
At additional estimates in February 2017, DIRD advised that it had:
had a look at the development approval processes involved in
the land-use planning at the airport and we have compiled that information. We
have provided advice to the minister in relation to both the details of the
accident investigation process, along with the ATSB, and details of the
development approval process for the buildings located at the DFO site. We now
stand prepared to work with the ATSB in their investigation of these matters.[4]
4.12
DIRD further stated that it would await the findings of the ATSB
investigation into the accident, before examining further the processes
undertaken for building development approvals, and determining whether
amendments were needed to those processes.[5]
4.13
In March 2017, the ATSB advised that its final report, which would
contain the findings of the investigation, would be released in 'around 12
months', being March 2018.[6] On 9 February 2018, it was announced that the investigation was complete and a
draft report was in the final stages of completion. It was anticipated that the
final report would be released in late May or early June 2018.[7]
4.14
It has since been announced that the ATSB will undertake a separate
investigation into building approval and planning processes, from an aviation
perspective. This would include:
any airspace issues associated with the [DFO] development, to
determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations
at Essendon Airport.[8]
4.15
The ATSB stated that this separate investigation into building approvals
was due to the 'specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues
attached to the retail centre development'.[9]
Committee view
4.16
The committee notes with some concern the significant amount of time
that will have lapsed between the accident, and the final report being issued
by the ATSB, should the May 2018 deadline be achieved.
4.17
The committee's concerns are exacerbated by reports that an
investigation into a near-collision of two aircraft at Mount Hotham, Victoria,
in September 2015 has yet to be completed. As of 9 February 2018, the draft
report into the Mount Hotham incident was in the final stages of completion, as
the completion date had been extended due to 'a number of factors'.[10] Of particular significance is that the pilot allegedly at fault in the
September 2015 incident, was the pilot involved in the Essendon Airport crash
in February 2017.[11]
4.18
The committee is of the view that investigations by the ATSB should be
completed in a timelier manner. Doing so would allow serious safety issues to
be addressed soon after serious incidents occur, and may prevent such incidents
from happening in the first place.
4.19
The committee notes that the ATSB's investigation into building planning
and approval processes may make findings in relation to the construction
approvals for the DFO building alongside Essendon Airport.
4.20
If so, the committee encourages the Minister, DIRD and the Senate to be
aware that such findings could directly impact on the provisions of this bill. It
seems logical to the committee that any such findings are considered in future
as airports develop MPs and MDPs.
4.21
In developing its legislative agenda, it would be prudent for the
government to give careful consideration to whether the findings of the ATSB
investigation will necessitate further amendments to airport planning
legislation.
4.22
This would also give some assurance to stakeholders that the safety
concerns around airport land use have been given serious consideration in the
development of airport planning laws.
National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group
4.23
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF), established in
2012, is a national airport land use planning framework. NASF aims to improve
the safety outcomes at airports by 'ensuring aviation safety requirements are
recognised in land use planning decisions', with guidelines adopted by
jurisdictions on various safety issues.[12]
4.24
The NASAG, which developed the NASF and is consulted on amendments to
the NASF guidelines, is comprised of Commonwealth, state and territory
government planning and transport officials, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia, the Department of Defence, and the
Australian Local Government Association.[13]
4.25
The NASF currently contains seven guidelines (Guidelines A to G), which
cover a range of airport planning requirements.[14] Of particular importance to the committee is NASF and NASAG progress on the
implementation of guidelines for public safety zones around airports. These
zones provide safety areas at the ends of runways, on and off airport, to
minimise the risk of damage by aircraft during take‑off or landing.[15]
4.26
Mr Mike Mrdak, then Secretary of DIRD, updated the committee on the
progress of public safety zone areas:
Since [2012], the Commonwealth and Queensland have been
working on a guideline for public safety areas for aerodromes. There is no such
guideline in place in Australia at this time. There is very limited guidance
available from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on such runway
safety zones, and we have been looking and researching examples...in the UK and
the United States.
The current situation is that a draft guideline is being
prepared and finalised by the Commonwealth and Queensland, which is due to
shortly go out to the other jurisdictions for consideration. There has been
some resistance by some jurisdictions to having such a land-use planning
requirement; however, we are working this through. This has been prompted by
concerns over many years...around this issue of the lack of such guidance to
Australian land-use planners, both on and off airport.[16]
4.27
DIRD advised that progress has been slow on the development of the
public safety zone guidelines, given the disparities between the Commonwealth's
role, and that of state and local governments off airport, and the need to have
a consistent approach through all states and territories. Further issues were
identified by Mrs Kerryn Macaulay, Aviation and Airports Division, DIRD,
who stated that:
There are two different issues [with public safety zones]. If
it is a greenfields arrangement where you are building a new airport then it is
a much easier thing to deal with. But obviously we are going to be dealing with
airports that already exist, that already have developments around them. And
some of those are housing developments. That is where some of the sensitivities
are in terms of getting the messaging out that this is an important thing to
have, and future developments would take these things into consideration to
reduce the number of people who are living in or are concentrated in those
zones so that we can protect them into the future.[17]
4.28
In response to questions on notice, CASA advised on the progress NASAG
was making on the implementation of public safety zone guidelines:
At the most recent NASAG meeting on 14 March 2017, members
agreed to brief their respective Ministers on a draft Public Safety Zones
Guideline that has been developed by the Commonwealth and Queensland
Governments in consultation with other NASAG members. Subject to Ministers’
agreement, NASAG will conduct targeted stakeholder consultation on the draft
Guideline in the second half of 2017. The draft Guideline would then be
released for wider public consultation prior to being presented to the
Transport and Infrastructure Council for endorsement.[18]
4.29
The committee was advised at additional estimates in February 2017 that
Queensland was, at that time, the only jurisdiction to have implemented public
safety zone legislation.[19]
4.30
It appears that a draft guideline in relation to public safety zones has
still yet to be released for public consultation, or finalised.[20] The committee has been unable to determine whether any further work has been
progressed on the implementation of nation‑wide public safety zones, in
line with the Queensland legislation.
4.31
CASA was of the view that, with regard to the accident at Essendon
Airport, a public safety zone would not have played any role in the accident,
as the aircraft did not enter what would be considered a public safety zone
area.[21]
4.32
CASA further advised that it would not have objected to the location of
the shopping complex in relation to the Essendon Airport runway, as the
building location adhered with current regulations.[22]
Committee view
4.33
It is apparent to the committee that the development of public safety
zone guidelines should be progressed as a matter of priority. Notwithstanding
the sensitivities around differences in jurisdiction and presenting a clear
message on the need for these guidelines to stakeholders, such guidelines would
be an invaluable part of the airport land use planning process.
4.34
The consideration of public safety zones should be incorporated into the
development of future MPs and MDPs, in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Such
a process would be of great importance to the safety of aircraft and
passengers, and to the commercial and residential developments built in close
proximity to airports.
4.35
The committee encourages NASAG to release the draft guideline for public
consultation as soon as possible, which should be followed by the prompt
endorsement of the guideline and its application across the nation's airports.
Submissions relating to land use
planning
4.36
In commenting on the bill, some submitters took the opportunity to voice
their concerns about broader planning and development risks and safety issues
around airports. Many of these concerns were amplified by the events at
Essendon Airport and also highlighted the need to better assess the risks
associated with land use on and around airports.
4.37
For example, Perth Airport was of the view that there needed to be a
'greater effort, through the Council of Australian Governments process, to have
a consistent approach to land use policy and regulations across Australia,
based on the NASF guidelines'.[23]
4.38
The Melbourne CACG submitted that it:
strongly supports the existence [of] a robust land use
planning framework around airports to protect existing and future residents,
and ensure the important economic and social roles performed by airports are
sustainable.[24]
4.39
In its submission, AIPA stated that it did not support the bill in its
current form, and argued new provisions should be inserted into the Act to
address operational risk management.[25]
4.40
AIPA was most concerned with buildings and structures near runways
creating 'dangerous turbulent wakes in strong winds', and changing light
sources and in-flight visibility. Land use near airports could result in the
'hazardous wind disturbance of aircraft'. AIPA suggested that:
The existing legislative framework does not provide a uniform
management scheme for these operational risks. The Airports Amendment Bill 2016
potentially makes the situation worse by excluding more projects on the basis
of cost being treated as "major" developments that require
appropriate risk treatments.[26]
4.41
AIPA called for a provision requiring an MDP to properly consider
developments 'likely to have significant impact on operational risks to
aircraft using the airport' and that may 'compromise the efficient operation of
airports'. Such a provision would require operational risks to be assessed,
regardless of development costs. AIPA argued that the bill should not proceed
without this emphasis on safety.[27]
4.42
CASA expressed its concern that the increase to the MDP monetary trigger
in the bill could have an effect on aviation safety. However, CASA argued that
risks could be:
remediated by continued monitoring by the Department of
Infrastructure and Regional Development as the relevant agency and advice to
all federal leased airport managers that any construction (even below the
current or proposed dollar trigger) should be discussed with CASA for possible
safety implications prior to proceeding.[28]
4.43
CASA did highlight that the issue of building‑generated wind shear
and turbulence had emerged in recent years, given the increased prevalence of
buildings constructed at heights just below the prescribed airspace at the
site. CASA was able to provide advice based on the NASF and additional criteria
by the Netherlands Aeronautical Research Laboratory (NLR). CASA argued that:
NASF and NLR criteria are used because CASA, like every other
aviation safety regulator, does not have standards relating to this matter.[29]
Committee views
Essendon Airport accident
4.44
As the investigations continue into the tragedy that occurred at
Essendon Airport in February 2017, the committee observes that such a terrible
event may trigger reinvigorated discussions at all levels of government on
broader airport land use planning and development issues, to improve the safety
for all those who engage with airports.
4.45
The recently announced ATSB investigation into the building approval
process for buildings around Essendon Airport, resulting from the Essendon
crash, will play an important role in progressing discussions about aviation
safety in relation to urban development. As previously noted, the findings of
this investigation should be carefully considered in the context of legislative
changes to airport planning laws.
4.46
The committee hopes that the important work of NASAG goes some way to
addressing the concerns of stakeholders about building and structures near
runways, and the impact these have on safe aircraft operation.
4.47
It appears to the committee that the encroachment of developments, be
they residential or commercial, on and near airport land presents significant
safety concerns. It is essential that safety on and around airports is given
proper consideration at all times, without being overridden by commercial
pressures.
4.48
The committee is of the view that a holistic approach should be taken to
airport planning, and this should be reflected in the MP process. It should be
incumbent on all airport lessees, developers and planners to do more than the
bare minimum to adhere to airport planning legislation and frameworks, in order
to give proper consideration to broader safety considerations.
Master Plans
4.49
An eight year MP cycle is likely to provide considerable benefits to the
airport lessees of secondary and general airports, and representatives of these
airports offered considerable support for the change. The committee believes it
is sensible to retain the five year MP cycle for the five major airports, given
their size and complexity, and potential impact on nearby communities.
4.50
The committee understands the view of some submitters that the MP cycle
could be further extended to ten years for some airports, particularly given
the financial and labour costs involved with compiling such a complex document.
However, as acknowledged by AAA, the amendments are a result of extensive
consultation and eight years is considered by the committee to be a suitable
compromise.
ANEFs
4.51
Given that the MP process has been extended from five to eight years,
the committee sees it as sensible to require a new ANEF to be obtained for each
MP.
4.52
Despite any extra administrative or regulatory tasks this may involve,
it would appear to the committee that new ANEFs would provide better
information to local communities and airport stakeholders. It is hoped this
will support better planning outcomes and allow for more informed consultation
with stakeholders and communities around airports during the MP process.
Monetary triggers for MDPs
4.53
The review and possible revision of the MDP monetary trigger every three
years will ensure the trigger better reflects the prevailing economic
environment at the time. Utilising statistical information should help reduce
large increases in the trigger amount, noting the larger the monetary trigger,
the fewer large-scale airport developments will be subject to MDPs and
associated public consultation processes.
4.54
The committee notes the view of some submitters that a higher monetary
trigger increases the risk of some developments, as the higher threshold will
exclude some significant developments from the MDP process. Given that the Act
contains a number of triggers for an MDP, including if a development is likely
to have significant environmental or community impacts, the committee is
satisfied that appropriate protections remain in place to consider all major developments.
MDP consultation periods
4.55
It was argued that the automatically approved reduced consultation
period, in the absence of a Ministerial decision within 15 business days, will
provide certainty to airport lessees for their planning processes. It appeared
to some submitters that consideration had not been given to the impact this
amendment may have on airport community groups and other airport stakeholders.
4.56
The committee notes DIRD's advice that a shorter consultation period can
only be approved if the draft MDP aligns with the final MP, and will not raise
any issues likely to have a significant impact on the airport community.
4.57
The committee appreciates the complexity and detail involved in MDPs,
and therefore encourages suitable public consultation wherever possible. The
committee trusts that in the event a request is automatically approved under
these new provisions, it does not result in any negative consultation or
planning outcomes.
Substantial completion of an MDP
4.58
The committee understands the need for extending the completion deadline
for major developments in certain circumstances, and the need to do so without
penalty for the parties involvement. This will provide greater certainty to
airport lessees when undertaking major works, especially in instances where
significant time, money and resources have already been invested.
4.59
However, lengthy extensions for major development completion should
consider the flow‑on effects of ongoing and incomplete construction for
stakeholders, such as airlines, retailers and other commercial interests, and
the surrounding local residential communities.
4.60
Overall, the committee sees the bill presenting a number of common sense
amendments to federal airport regulation, developed after extensive
consultation.
4.61
The committee does note, however, the potential for the ATSB
investigation into building approval processes to have an impact on airport
planning regulation, which may require further legislative amendment. The
committee encourages the government to take this into account when developing
its legislative agenda.
4.62
The committee commends the bill to the Senate.
Recommendation 1
4.63
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the Airports Amendment
Bill 2016.
Senator Barry O'Sullivan
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page