An Evans Head group has warned that the Essendon Airport crash must act as a ‘wake-up’ call for the NSW Department of Planning and the Environment (DOPE) in NSW, planning authorities in other states, and the federal government with regard to residential and other forms of development such as shopping centres on and around airports regardless of location.
The group says the federal government seems to have left planning around airports including safety zones entirely to state governments despite the fact that aviation and aviation safety is a cross border issue.
President of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Dr Richard Gates said the most concerning feature of planning around airfields and airports in NSW is that how close residential development is permitted to come to an airfield is determined by a noise nuisance measure, the Australia Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF).
‘The ANEF is a series of contours which reflect increasingly louder noise nuisance profiles for aircraft noise with developments of certain types not permitted within certain contours or with mitigation such as double glazing or sound insulation,’ Dr Gates said.
‘The problem is that the noise contours are used as a surrogate for safety zones around airfield, a quite inappropriate use of a noise nuisance measure.
‘Aircraft noise and risk of accident around airfields are two quite different profiles with accident risk for take-off and landing requiring a much larger land area particularly around the end of runways where accident data (widely respected and used California accident data sets) show that most accidents occur.
‘The problem with the federal aviation authorities is that they have moved to an ‘affordable risk’ model for aviation safety. This model is based on the fact that aviation accidents in Australia are relatively rare in Australia so if the chances of an accident are 3 in a million take-offs and landings then insurance risk is low and authorities can afford to cover such eventualities should there be a loss of a ‘hull’ [aircraft].”
‘The problem with the model is that you can’t predict when such an accident will occur. While the incidence might be very low it could be the very next flight which crashes into a residential area with loss of life and consequent calls for an airfield to be closed as we have seen at Essendon yet again.’
‘For years the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee has opposed residential development on and around the four airstrips of the State Heritage Listed Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome where Richmond Valley Council has made decisions based on the ANEF noise profile and has given no consideration to larger safety zones which we believe are required to maximise public safety.
‘One of the federal government authorities involved in aviation made it very clear to us that existing residential development at Evans Head was already too close to the runways but council ignored those comments and used the ANEF contours to decide where residential development should be allowed. The problem is that the local planners making the decisions seem to have little or no knowledge of aviation and aviation safety and the potential risk of catastrophic engine failure. But more than that they are not even using the latest ANEF ASA standard in making determinations. A council staff member we spoke to admitted that council did not have the latest standard.’
Dr Gates said that the current proposed OASIS development for the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome was just a repeat of the failed RSL LifeCare project with development being permitted too close to runways. Again the ANEF contours were being used as the determinant for where residential development should go.
Dr Gates said that an experienced aviator, Ron Fisher, with a background in the RAAF and QANTAS and life-long experience as a flying instructor had raised concerns about the risk of a crash on the aerodrome into adjacent residential areas when the RSL development was on the cards based on his own experience of a catastrophic engine failure when he was flying a Mustang for the RAAF. Mr Fisher showed that his aircraft would have crashed into the retirement village had it been in place (https://vimeo.com/29029804).
Mr Fisher was roundly ridiculed for his concerns and abused at a JRPP hearing by proponents for the development. Richmond Valley Council ignored what he had to say.
The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee in conjunction with Mr Fisher plotted out California accident data for Evans Head and was able to show that at least 14 aviation incidents would have occurred within the site for the retirement village.
Dr Gates said that Richmond Valley Council has an obligation under a Transfer Deed over the aerodrome with the federal government to prevent land use planning conflict on and around the aerodrome with regard to inappropriate residential development.
‘Not only should council be taking account of aircraft noise but also aviation safety around the airfield. Council needs to protect both residents and aviation by putting in larger safety zones around the aerodrome and commit itself in the public interest to move away from an ‘affordable risk’ model to one of conservative risk management,’ he said.
‘Council already knows that there are problems with safety zones from the aircraft accident in Casino in the residential area at the end of its main runway a couple of years ago yet it is allowing residential development to encroach on the end of its runway.’
Dr Gates said that there was a much larger problem with ANEF standards for Australia with the big developer lobby getting a hold of the standards and planning agenda. There was an attempt at reform of the ANEF which is now almost forty years old and out of date but the federal government was stymied by the big developer lobby which led a campaign against any significant change to ANEF rules and consequently to planning rules.
‘In our view this is a matter which should be investigated by a Royal Commission,’ he said.
Dr Gates who has a background in acoustics and the effects of noise and has published widely in scientific journals asked that his committee be permitted to sit on a review of the ANEF but Standards Australia refused. Standards Australia also refused to consider someone from AOPA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a peak body for aviation in Australia.
‘In our view all of this begs a question not only about ANEF standards in Australia but also planning for safety around Australia’s airfields. The sooner we have a Royal Commission the better. My committee is writing to appropriate authorities about this matter as a matter of urgency. We have made representation on a number of occasions previously. This whole planning mess needs to brought out into the open”.
‘In the interim Richmond Valley Council needs to cease all residential development on both its aerodromes.’
Sometimes I think the FBQ is populated with people who do not have enough going on in their lives….,.
I agree Dr Gates that not much thought goes into the airport surroundings and the buildings near an airport. It is all about noise, physical and political noise and not about the risk of a crash. That sort of thinking is everywhere in building of infrastructure.
On the 18th January this year people in Sydney gathered on a Granville railway bridge to throw 83 roses onto the train track for the 40th anniversary of the Granville train disaster on 18th January 1977.
Eight-three people died when the train going at speed just rocked a bit too far over and hit the car-bridge support and brought part of the bridge down onto the train.
That is the same as at an airport. The bridge support was too close to the train although engineers would not think so, and they know their work as they are university trained. Probably more than a million trains had passed under that bridge safely, but it only needs one crash out of a million and 83 people die, and there were a massive number more with injuries. Emotional scares ar ethere today. That happened in 1977, and here we are with many grieving Australians in 2017 grieving over deaths of relatives of those killed in 1977.
A crash devastates the whole nation, so a train crash or an air crush is more than insurance and money.
Buildings around an airport need to be put well back as the carnage from an air crash are more likely the people innocently going about their business on the ground. The great numbers killed from a plane coming down are those people not in the plane.
Remember 9/11 when two planes hit the buildings of the World Trade Fair. It brought the greatest nation on Earth, the USA, to its knees as the carnage and the deaths and injured was of all the people in those buildings.
And when the USA is abused andt they want to grieve they want to yell out and defend themselves with “Remember 9/11”.