Propsed Boonah airfield closure.

[MartyG]

Hey all, Have posted link to a Beaudesert Times article regarding to proposal to close the airfield at Boonah in the Scenic Rim QLD. There is also a Save Boonah Airfield FaceBook page looking to obtain signatures for an online petition to fight the closure. Admin if this is not allowed please delete.

 

https://www.beaudeserttimes.com.au/story/6396975/boonah-residents-oppose-council-decision-on-airfield/?fbclid=IwAR20LhmOHf4H0DHLwcTtm-a16YizlS2oZxhWGxX2J1UONGEhIcWbVI5RTyg

 

 

[old man emu]

 

[Old Koreelah]

Let's get behind the Boonah flying community on this one.

 

Did people not notice the existing airfield when they built houses under the flight path?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Let's get behind the Boonah flying community on this one.

 

Did people not notice the existing airfield when they built houses under the flight path?

 

You should have read the story more carefully; residents WANT the airfield.

 

The problem is a Safety Audit, and not surprisingly the Council's reaction is that if there's no airfield, the risk falls back to zero.

 

This will not be fixed by a call to arms, but an examination of how applicable the Audit was to an aviation operation, whether there were formal safety procedures in place, whether there were any infringements, and whether the PL insurance cover was adequate for those risks.

 

If the answers were YES, NO and YES then the Council should be able to move on without disturbing the airfield participants because it has discharged its obligations.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

If there have been multiple near misses and risk taking, that can be addressed.

 

If the insurance is inadequate, that can be addressed and so on.

 

This needs logical people face to face with Councillors and Officers.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I have flown in and out of Boonah this year a few times. Dave is a well know RAA instructor operating a flying school plus a large active glider club. Lots of planes in all the hangars. Great place.

 

g

 

Old Koreelah -  is right with a nice new sub division and one end of the runway. Where was the report then saying not a good idea and did the council put a big sign to people saying aircraft flying low over this area?

 

Who cares about a bit of a hump in the middle as may other fields have them and non tar pilots don't have any problems as well as  inaccurate windsocks, inadequate fencing on many other airfields.

 

Anyone looking for a fun airstrip to land on try the Whitsundays with the windsocks  pointing different directions.

 

The idiot council as per the usual way the whole government in this country goes  - is to order a third party report with a outcome already known. Then use it as a shield to the public saying we have no choice.

 

If the council do take the airfield are they then going to sell the land for more houses for more money and short term gain? 

 

Just Venting and pissed off with the news.

 

 

[Garfly]

You should have read the story more carefully; 

 

Maybe.  Or you more cynically.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You should have read the story more carefully; residents WANT the airfield...

 

Yes Turbs, but when I dropped in a few years ago I was told of complaints from residents who'd built under the flight path. 

 

I suspect a minority stand behind the anti-airfield councillor, so we would do well to lend our support. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Some years ago I was involved in risk assessments for mines. You know, likelihood and impact/severity. The airstrip was usually the highest risk activity on site with potential for multiple fatals. Worse than underground or open pit operations. 

 

 

[old man emu]

Some years ago I was involved in risk assessments , likelihood and impact/severity. The airstrip was usually the highest risk activity on site with potential for multiple fatals. 

 

And what was the risk assessment for the bus service transporting people from the airstrip to the mine/residences? 

 

Any risk assessment rating is the  product of two things, Likelihood and Severity. It's true that pranging an aircraft can result in a high severity incident, but the chances of a prang happening is low.  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

CONSEQUENCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insignificant

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Minor

 

2

 

 

Moderate

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Major

 

4

 

 

Severe

 

5

 

 

 

 

LIKELIHOOD

 

 

 

 

Almost certain

 

A

 

 

Low

 

A1

 

 

High

 

A2

 

 

High

 

A3

 

 

Very High

 

A4

 

 

Very High

 

A5

 

 

 

 

Likely

 

B

 

 

Low

 

B1

 

 

Medium

 

B2

 

 

High

 

B3

 

 

High

 

B4

 

 

Very High

 

B5

 

 

 

 

Possible

 

C

 

 

Low

 

C1

 

 

Medium

 

C2

 

 

High

 

C3

 

 

High

 

C4

 

 

Very High

 

C5

 

 

 

 

Unlikely

 

D

 

 

Low

 

D1

 

 

Low

 

D2

 

 

Medium

 

D3

 

 

Medium

 

D4

 

 

High

 

D5

 

 

 

 

Rare

 

E

 

 

Low

 

E1

 

 

 Low

 

E2

 

 

Medium

 

E3

 

 

Medium

 

E4

 

 

Medium

 

E5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIKELIHOOD

 

 

 

How likely is this event?

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

 

Almost certain

 

 

 

Expected to occur

 

 

 

 

 

B

 

 

Likely

 

 

 

Will probably occur

 

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

Possible

 

 

 

Could occur at some time

 

 

 

 

 

D

 

 

Unlikely

 

 

 

Is not likely to occur in normal circumstances

 

 

 

 

 

E

 

 

Rare

 

 

 

May occur only in exceptional circumstances

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSEQUENCES

 

 

 

How severe is the result?

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

Insignificant

 

 

 

Controlled on-site impact

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

Minor

 

 

 

Slight off site impact

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

Moderate

 

 

 

Uncontrolled on-site impact

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

Major

 

 

 

Significant controlled off-site impact

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

Severe

 

 

 

Significant uncontrolled off-site impact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like an asteroid impacting a densely populated city. The consequences would have extreme severity, but the likelihood (probability) is rare.  The resultant risk level computation makes such an event very low risk E5, but don't tell the dinosaurs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Does anyone have any specific details in writing of either of the above scenarios.

 

There's not a lot of point trying to do something, just based on hearsay.

 

 

[Yenn]

Inaccurate windsocks? How can they be inaccurate and surely if they were there would have been accidents. It looks to me that the report was prepared to come to a conclusion to suit someone in authority.

 

As far as airstrips being more dangerous at mine sites. The fatality figures for mining show otherwise. The possibility is there but it has not eventuated.

 

 

[M61A1]

And what was the risk assessment for the bus service transporting people from the airstrip to the mine/residences? 

 

We use these all the time. I think they are extremely subjective and depend a lot on the imagination of the author. For example most people use the most conservative scenario they can imagine, so when we do an off site recovery, the most dangerous parts is the drive there because the person doing the assessment thinks a vehicle crash is quite possible, and if it happens, could result in multiple fatalities. Yet the same people drive to work every day and think nothing of it. They are a joke, yet industry runs off them.

 

 

[old man emu]

Does anyone have any specific details in writing of either of the above scenarios.

 

There's not a lot of point trying to do something, just based on hearsay.

 

 

 

 I think they are extremely subjective and depend a lot on the imagination of the author.

 

TP, as for most discussion of risk evaluation, the case studies are mostly based on "worst case" scenarios with a good does of subjectivity thrown in, as M61A1 said.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In my examples the possible causes of multiple fatalities were listed. Then likelihood considered. There were no examples of a magazine explosion in decades (though two in explosives manufacturing, but not in Australia) and no examples of a multiple fatality bus crash in Australia relating to a mining commute. But there were several examples of plane crashes involving mine personnel. So it got a higher likelihood. There is a question - has this ever happened - and if yes then it rates highly. Water inrushes also rated highly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

 

TP, as for most discussion of risk evaluation, the case studies are mostly based on "worst case" scenarios with a good does of subjectivity thrown in, as M61A1 said.

 

My question was whether anyone had anything in writing about whether the potential airfield closure was about:

 

(a)  An unacceptable level of risk at the airfield, (as asserted by a press report), OR

 

(b)  Agistation by developer/residents who want to build around/on the airfield. (as asserted by a couple of people from hearsay.

 

I suspect that answer is no, so everyone has started to go off in different directions on their favourite themes (and I admit I often do that myself)

 

If it's (a) there should be documents available from the Council which can be read and discussed and answered by the airfield stakeholders.

 

So far I've seen nothing from the Council or the Airfield operators.

 

If it's (b) there will be plenty of consultation material from the Council about any proposal or location.

 

So far nothing has surfaced.

 

Too often we've had debates on here that have raged for weeks over something that was never going to happen, or we haven't been given critical facts which might have helped us save another airport.

 

There's nothing wrong with talking about risk evaluation etc. but it's pointless if (and I'm not saying this is the case here) a Council has issued several warnings for an Airport to address known safety issues (ie beyond doubt), and/or cover their operations with a suitable insurance policy, and been met with a brick wall, for months or years. In that case it's also none of our business.

 

 

[old man emu]

TP,

 

I have no disagreement with what you have written, as for this statement:

 

Too often we've had debates on here that have raged for weeks over something that was never going to happen, or we haven't been given critical facts which might have helped us save another airport.

 

for better or worse, we members have a penchant for shooting from the lip. If we relied on the facts of a matter, these threads would dry up faster than a nylon shirt on a hot day.

 

 

[cherk]

"these threads would dry up faster than a nylon shirt on a hot day."

 

and smell just as badly?

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP,

 

I have no disagreement with what you have written, as for this statement:

 

for better or worse, we members have a penchant for shooting from the lip. If we relied on the facts of a matter, these threads would dry up faster than a nylon shirt on a hot day.

 

Well I can't disagree with that, because I'm one of the people who speculates.

 

What I was trying to get at was the subtle difference between that, and someone representing something they got third hand, or told by a mate etc. as official fact, when by doing something as simple as going on a Council website they can link to the exact fact.

 

I don't disagree that even irrelevant discussions can help with another airport somewhere, just trying to get the actual facts on this one.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Coincidentally, at a meeting this week of an Association I'm in we had a visit from a Barrister who respresented us successfully in a recent case, and he was outlining what affected groups should and shoudn't do when controversial Planning issues arise, such as residential and industrial encroachment, in this case in Melbourne's open spaces, but also applying to all peri-urban (open space around the edges of cities and towns) all over Australia.

 

Comments in blue are his comments; comments in black are mine.

 

Doesn’t think the solution to incursions will be the Legal process

 

(the Legal process is whether the Application meets what is written in the Planning Scheme applying to the location; The Political process is whether the State Government will strengthen Uses and/or Planning processes to prevent unwanted erosion of these areas.)

 

This is a very important point for us, because he's telling us if we want to protect these airfields from sneaky business or the argy bargy of short term knee jerks from Councils, the best way to fix it in the longer term is to make the Planning Scheme Airfield Use much more bullet proof.

 

Probably the most important point made on the night.

 

Melbourne needs open spaces, but the Government didn’t buy the land.

 

The problem now is that Melbourne has changed.

 

Major zonings have held off development, but pressure is now on to take those open space uses and use them in Urban settings (houses and factories)

 

The Planning System is ad hoc and reactive

 

With each inappropriate development approved in the open spaces they get less open

 

Airfields will need to approach State Government to protect their patch. One big blunder which has occurred over and over again is that when Planning/Development Applications were made for airfields they only applied for the property footprint, not the flight circuit, and that allowed people to come in and build houses under the circuit and then make a strong Amenity case agains the airfield.

 

What can stakeholders do?

 

1.     Show up; there’s a chance of winning. Even by losing you’re there. The Council becomes aware of the pressure.

 

2.     Have a good relationship with the decision-makers, e.g. the Council Officers, the Councillors, the Minister for Planning.

 

3.     Talk only about the Planning Scheme and the Land. Talk about the and itself and what is the future of the land.

 

4.     If you lose, get to the Council and change the attitude.

 

5.     The threat will be the Open Space Uses in a Melbourne with more than 5 million people.

 

6.     Town Planning argument is in 2019 demand for affordable housing, education, religion, particularly where there is a need for large spaces.

 

7.     Confining these Uses and/or redefining them for greater protection is a Political problem, not a Planning problem.

 

Arguing about definition of Uses in a planning case is not productive.

 

8.     Cumulative effect is not a good argument. Drawing in similar incursions which have occurred in Open Spaces tend to make this Application more likely to succeed.

 

9.     If you only have an objection to part of the Application, accentuate that and say you accept the rest. It shows that thought has been given to the Application. It may force the Applicant to run a Conditions Case at the Appeals Tribunal where the Applicant is locked in to only being able to talk about the condition you objected to.

 

10.  Don’t elevate one part of the Planning Scheme over others; you’ll usually come unstuck.

 

11.  If there will be an Amenity loss, have the people direcftly affected personally attend the meetings/CAT and make the statement; that way it carries a lot of weight.

 

 

[old man emu]

Always helps to get the advice of someone who works "within the System".

 

Post # 19 should be bookmarked for easy retrieval, because we all strongly suspect that Boonah, Tyabb and others won't be the only times this happens. Sydney lost Hoxton Park, and The Oaks could be on shaky ground. What about Warner Vale and Luskintyre. And they are only a couple of examples in NSW.

 

 

[MartyG]

There is a meeting being organised between the  AOPA and Scenic Rim Council to discuss future of Boonah Airfield.

 

https://aopa.com.au/aopa-australia-to-meet-with-scenic-rim-regional-council-to-discuss-future-of-boonah-airfield/?fbclid=IwAR3-dhhZTfIcx0gPdqDlVTVVMzKOzmc4-FDk5LyI6qx1ifeyxsyPF6D_QJE