Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Disaster narrowly averted at Canberra airport in January

By johnboy - 5 April 2011 15

report cover

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released its safety report into “Turbulence event
Canberra Aerodrome, Australian Capital Territory, 31 January 2010, VH-ERP Grumman Traveller AA-5”.

From the summary:

The investigation determined that it was probable that the severe turbulence was generated by a combination of the wind conditions on the day and the position of the two buildings located about 220 m and 290 m upwind from runway 12. In addition, there were no standard criteria for assessing the potential local wind effect of aerodrome building developments on aviation operations, and no national building codes for aerodrome developments that address the phenomena of building-induced turbulence.

The aerodrome operator had commissioned pre-construction wind impact assessments of the two buildings to the north of runway 12. These reports concluded that the buildings would not result in adverse wind effects on aircraft operations. This conclusion was based in part on the assessment that use of runway 12 was unlikely in northerly wind conditions. However, operations to that runway remained possible in those conditions without any alert to affected pilots about possible risk. By contrast the Canberra Aerodrome information in the En Route Supplement Australia alerted pilots of the possibility of severe turbulence during touchdown on runway 35 in strong westerly winds.

You will, no doubt, be thrilled to hear that there is “potential” to install a wind shear detector at Canberra Airport.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
15 Responses to
Disaster narrowly averted at Canberra airport in January
Deref 7:28 am 06 Apr 11

Robertson said :

Privatisation is theft. It’s a scam, and it is a deadly one at that.

+1

Safety? Who cares – there’s money to be made!

The sooner we reclaim airports as public facilities the better.

pandaman 10:00 pm 05 Apr 11

damien haas said :

A privately run anything is not by definition ‘more expensive’. Governments run businesses are not always paradigms of fiscal control.

Ya see, I would consider that to be a problem requiring a solution other than selling the asset the government cannot competently manage. Rampant selling of public assets is a very shortsighted way of raising cash and lowering the governments exposure to risk, particularly when the sale creates a privately owned monopoly, which WILL raise the cost to the public. But when your only focus is to remain in office for a decade or so until a cushy taxpayer funded retirement, who gives a rats about long term consequences?

p1 5:31 pm 05 Apr 11

Robertson said :

Seeing as a privately run airport has to deliver not just a service but also a profit, a privately run airport is by definition more expensive.

Well, there is a lot of things that the Snowster is doing to turn a profit which I would hope the government would not have done had they owned it (or allowed, were they given any input) such as shopping malls and office space well away from the accommodation of people who might work or shop in them. This has then necessitated vast expenditure on roads and supporting infrastructure to support Snowy’s profit making venture. In addition to roads and bridges and roundabouts, there is the social cost of people driving (or otherwise commuting – who am I kidding, driving) all the way to the airport when all that office space could have been built in the middle of a town centre. People could be spending an extra hour a day with their families, burning less petrol, but they are not, and Snowman is the only one it benefits.

damien haas 5:03 pm 05 Apr 11

A privately run anything is not by definition ‘more expensive’. Governments run businesses are not always paradigms of fiscal control.

jase! 4:22 pm 05 Apr 11

landing on 12 became crappy after the office block went up. nothing like getting a nice stabilised approach then getting thrown around everywhere just before you wanted to get on the ground. thanks a bunch canberra airport.

I am sad brindabella closed their flight training operations but not so sad that my money goes to camden airport rather than the snow family now

Robertson 4:05 pm 05 Apr 11

How does privatisation”save” any money? Clearly Jim Snow makes money off the deal, therefore the government has foregone a revenue stream which is clearly sufficient to run the airport.

Seeing as a privately run airport has to deliver not just a service but also a profit, a privately run airport is by definition more expensive.

It makes no sense whatsoever for the government to deliver into private hands the running of monopolies, which is what the airport is.

And nobody can honestly state that there is insufficient money for health and education so long as the government is spending $$millions ferrying illegal immigrants around the country on charter flights and providing them with a raft of benefits which should be reserved for the taxpayers and citizens of this country.

Snave81 3:21 pm 05 Apr 11

p1 said :

Snave81 said :

If airports weren’t privatised would everyone be happy paying higher taxes so that the Government could look after them all? Imagine all the complaints then about higher taxes and then money being spent on things like airports and not on health and education.

Because everybody is so much happier with all the extra fund health and education has now, compared to before the airport was sold.

There isn’t enough federal funding for health and education now so if the federal government still had to run the 21 federal leased airports and other regional airports that were taken over by local councils there would be less money to go around all the items in the budget.

There would also have to be some pretty high landing fees to pay for the upkeep and/or expansion of the airports and the 1000’s of extra public servants to replace the current private sector airport opeator staff across all the airports.

damien haas 3:16 pm 05 Apr 11

While I agree with privatisation of busineses that a government should have no hand in running, im not sure the ACT received the full benefit of the revenue received for this asset. Did our budget receive the money or did it go straight to the Commonwealth ?

Robertson 2:19 pm 05 Apr 11

@Johnboy,

Don’t forget the parking fees…

p1 1:30 pm 05 Apr 11

Snave81 said :

If airports weren’t privatised would everyone be happy paying higher taxes so that the Government could look after them all? Imagine all the complaints then about higher taxes and then money being spent on things like airports and not on health and education.

Because everybody is so much happier with all the extra fund health and education has now, compared to before the airport was sold.

johnboy 1:28 pm 05 Apr 11

Given that Canberra Airport is not run as a charity I’m pretty sure the government could break even with the landing fees.

Snave81 1:16 pm 05 Apr 11

EvanJames said :

Robertson said :

Privatisation is theft. It’s a scam, and it is a deadly one at that.

My oath, agree 100%. And every patch of ground will have buildings on it. I wonder if the report refers to the Majura Park development? It’s right next to the little aeroplanes runway, but Brand Depot kind-of shields the big runway from the west.

Which run way is 12 and which is 35?

Runway 12 is the one pointing in a south easterly direction, starting at the Majura Rd end and heading towards the Fairbairn Pine Plantation. Runway 35 (the main runway) is the one pointing alomost north, Pialligo Ave goes past the end of it.

If airports weren’t privatised would everyone be happy paying higher taxes so that the Government could look after them all? Imagine all the complaints then about higher taxes and then money being spent on things like airports and not on health and education.

Captain RAAF 1:13 pm 05 Apr 11

EvanJames said :

Robertson said :

Privatisation is theft. It’s a scam, and it is a deadly one at that.

My oath, agree 100%. And every patch of ground will have buildings on it. I wonder if the report refers to the Majura Park development? It’s right next to the little aeroplanes runway, but Brand Depot kind-of shields the big runway from the west.

Which run way is 12 and which is 35?

Runway 12 is the threshold closest to the Majura Rd/Fairbairn Ave roundabout (the little planes use it and usually taking off from it heading over the roundabout). Runway 35 is the threshold closest to Pialligo Ave as you head out to QBN, the big boys generally land on it.

EvanJames 12:45 pm 05 Apr 11

Robertson said :

Privatisation is theft. It’s a scam, and it is a deadly one at that.

My oath, agree 100%. And every patch of ground will have buildings on it. I wonder if the report refers to the Majura Park development? It’s right next to the little aeroplanes runway, but Brand Depot kind-of shields the big runway from the west. Which run way is 12 and which is 35?

Robertson 12:23 pm 05 Apr 11

Privatisation of airports was flagged by CASA back in 2007 as a cause of increased risk to air travellers and people on the ground.

Now we have the proof.

Privatisation is theft. It’s a scam, and it is a deadly one at that.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site