After 2300 hours post-curfew operations in SYD on Sunday 5 June 2016

[medhead]

Correct. The government being in 'caretaker mode' has no effect on these ordinary administrative decisions. 'Caretaker mode' refers to a set of political conventions not to take decisions that would bind the next government by, for example, making a major appointment (eg High Court appointment) or a major policy decision.

It is a federal government decision taken under federal legislation: the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (Cth).

Edit: Weather is generally not considered an exceptional circumstance that warrants dispensation:



Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

What like, say, making a decision to grant a dispensation for something that isn't normally considered an exceptional circumstance but that would set a precedent for the next government?

I would also suggest a number of you have got a bit caught up on the detail. The question was raised about the caretaker discussion somehow being political. that's the context, that's the question. Thanks for all the fine detail, interesting, not sure how it helps decide if there is a political aspect to this thread.

 

[Melburnian1]

Or sitting waiting for others to land, I would imagine there was a bit of a bank up.

BAM1748, yes, there were three planes or so that landed in quick succession between about 2257 or 2258 and 2305 or so on Sunday 5 June 2016 at SYD. I wrote these up in the various airline delay/ cancellations threads, with from memory two of these flights being JQ ones. Most or all of these arrivals were from the east.

That notwithstanding, there were then gaps of several minutes at times between post-2300 hours departures to the south. Again, I wrote these up in the individual threads regarding airline delays and cancellations.

 

[Franky]

After 5 pages of discussion, we seem to have resolved little except that someone in authority exercised some common sense to allow some planes to land/take off after a curfew as a result of severe storms. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees, but what's all the fuss about?

 

[Melburnian1]

Franky, in the past aircraft noise has been a significant issue in Federal elections. The incessant, high volume rain, and arrivals and departures after 2300 hours on Sunday 5 June were during an election period, one that ends on 2 July 2016.

Notwithstanding fine detail in any legislation or legislative instruments, public perception would be that the 2300 hours to 0600 hours nightly SYD curfew prohibits landings or takeoffs (except for designated freight and small passenger aircraft, emergency services planes and in three or so instances, early morning arrivals, the latter only for six months of the year and only between 0500 and 0559) between 2301 to 0559 inclusive.

As noted above, there have been previous documented instances where airlines did not receive the delegated official's approval and were prosecuted for such a failure, sometimes receiving a significant fine.

As noted by others such as levelnine, 'bad weather' is not normally sufficient as a (standalone) criteria for an approval to be granted.

Until the report is presented to Parliament - 'tabled' - no one but 'the delegate' (or public servants who know him or her) can say for certain that approval was granted. If it was, we do not know the exact reason(s) why, but these are normally explained in the report - and can be interesting reading.

Many of us who live far away from SYD might indeed consider it a 'fuss', but in the past it has been a concern that has been brought loudly and persistently to the attention of Federal MPs and Senators prior to various elections. They have typically regarded it as a mainstream issue that required addressing, which is why for instance there is a consultative committee.

If 'someone' in authority such as a Ministerial delegate made a series of decisions that turned out to not be based on criteria set out in legislation, then that would potentially be a serious breach of his or her obligations. If however the decision maker acted in accordance with the fine detail of the legislation, then everything would be hunky dory.

 

[Franky]

I guess I am being a little cynical about those who live in the centre of the universe, whilst most of the rest of us live in cities with 24/7 airports..

 

[Melburnian1]

Most of us do live in cities without major airports that have a curfew, but Sydney and Adelaide airports have curfews.

While Melbourne was historically protected by having a new airport that opened around 1970 in Tullamarine, it has more residents living within a few kilometres than was the case 40 years ago. This is a gradually increasing concern of the airport lessees if I correctly read their occasional public statements.

 

[jb747]

Making one from the other...

 

[Melburnian1]

Very funny jb747, but your attitude would not be shared by whoever put together this:

Our Problems

 

[russ]

It is a federal government decision taken under federal legislation: the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (Cth).

Edit: Weather is generally not considered an exceptional circumstance that warrants dispensation:

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

Thank you for citing a source! It defines an unexceptional circumstance as not just "weather" but weather that could be "reasonably expected". I thought that this weather event had been predicted days in advance, so it would be interesting to know how the airlines argued for a dispensation. There is an overarching requirement regarding safety, so perhaps the airlines argued that.

Interestingly, the guidelines don't appear to be mandatory. Section 20 of the Act merely says "(3) In granting dispensations, the Minister must have regard to guidelines." I guess you could challenge that in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but even if you won, it wouldn't change much in practice.

 

[straitman]

Very funny jb747, but your attitude would not be shared by whoever put together this:

Our Problems

Remember that there are two sides to every story and this article is about as one sided as it comes.

ps.... I agree with jb747 on this one.

 

[russ]

Making from the other...

You're saying that on a forum with 78 page thread on the FLounge menu?!

 

[JessicaTam]

You're saying that on a forum with 78 page thread on the FLounge menu?!

Hey! Some things are important, you know!

 

[Milboo]

Franky, in the past aircraft noise has been a significant issue in Federal elections. The incessant, high volume rain, and arrivals and departures after 2300 hours on Sunday 5 June were during an election period, one that ends on 2 July 2016.

Notwithstanding fine detail in any legislation or legislative instruments, public perception would be that the 2300 hours to 0600 hours nightly SYD curfew prohibits landings or takeoffs (except for designated freight and small passenger aircraft, emergency services planes and in three or so instances, early morning arrivals, the latter only for six months of the year and only between 0500 and 0559) between 2301 to 0559 inclusive.

As noted above, there have been previous documented instances where airlines did not receive the delegated official's approval and were prosecuted for such a failure, sometimes receiving a significant fine.

As noted by others such as levelnine, 'bad weather' is not normally sufficient as a (standalone) criteria for an approval to be granted.

Until the report is presented to Parliament - 'tabled' - no one but 'the delegate' (or public servants who know him or her) can say for certain that approval was granted. If it was, we do not know the exact reason(s) why, but these are normally explained in the report - and can be interesting reading.

Many of us who live far away from SYD might indeed consider it a 'fuss', but in the past it has been a concern that has been brought loudly and persistently to the attention of Federal MPs and Senators prior to various elections. They have typically regarded it as a mainstream issue that required addressing, which is why for instance there is a consultative committee.

If 'someone' in authority such as a Ministerial delegate made a series of decisions that turned out to not be based on criteria set out in legislation, then that would potentially be a serious breach of his or her obligations. If however the decision maker acted in accordance with the fine detail of the legislation, then everything would be hunky dory.

Seriously I doubt anyone living under the flight path cared about the late landing/ departing flights on Sunday. I suspect people were a tad more concerned about localised flooding, the Local rivers breaching their banks and whether their fences etc were going to go flying than a little bit of aircraft noise - provided you could even hear it above the weather.

I see very little in local press about aircraft noise these days and have lived in affected suburbs for at least a decade.

i very much agree with JB about mountains and molehills.

 

[marki]

Seriously I doubt anyone living under the flight path cared about the late landing/ departing flights on Sunday. I suspect people were a tad more concerned about localised flooding, the Local rivers breaching their banks and whether their fences etc were going to go flying than a little bit of aircraft noise - provided you could even hear it above the weather.

I see very little in local press about aircraft noise these days and have lived in affected suburbs for at least a decade.

i very much agree with JB about mountains and molehills.

secretly that's what I thought too

 

[straitman]

The thread has been renamed. The 'request' was reported which drew my attention to it. Moderators aren't able to read every thread, so reporting is the best way to let us know.

Thank you JessicaTam.

One other moderator claimed a month or two back that 'every' thread was read by he or one of his colleagues.

Melburnian1,

To spell it out for you. Most or all of the posts are read by at least one moderator BUT reporting is necessary and appropriate to ensure a response/fix in a timely manner.

 

[Mattg]

Seriously I doubt anyone living under the flight path cared about the late landing/ departing flights on Sunday. I suspect people were a tad more concerned about localised flooding, the Local rivers breaching their banks and whether their fences etc were going to go flying than a little bit of aircraft noise - provided you could even hear it above the weather.

I live under the flight path and I certainly didn't care....

 

[Milboo]

I live under the flight path and I certainly didn't care....

Amusingly, I read this with the hum of an engine or 2 in the background!

 

[docjames]

Have we considered given the weather, the difficulty in finding accommodation, transport logistics, and seats on flights the next day?

 

[russ]

Have we considered given the weather, the difficulty in finding accommodation, transport logistics, and seats on flights the next day?

The Guidelines state that reasonably expected weather, disruptions to network and airline management requirements are not generally considered to be exceptional circumstances. See https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

 

[Altair]

The Guidelines state that reasonably expected weather, disruptions to network and airline management requirements are not generally considered to be exceptional circumstances. See https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

These are guidelines and not absolute criteria for the granting of exemptions even your statement "not generally considered" is not an absolute and a Minister in consideration of the request using the guidelines still has discretion to give an exemption outside the guidelines. It will need to be documented however s14 Making decisions about dispensations does not require the reasons for dispensation to be documented, just any special operating conditions.
In my line of work in the NZ side we have successfully used this and made sure there was a public announcement that the Minister had considered the guidelines etc....
Regarding caretaker provisions etc. the world still moves on. Our last Minister remained Minister for several weeks even after he was no longer a member of parliament, due to not contesting the election, but remained the Minister until he handed his warrant in, right before the swearing in of the new Cabinet.
IMO this event is definitely not something to be worried about, the reality of the curfew has not changed and there is no new binding precedent established, but we probably will never know the full story, besides whether an exemption was actually requested and approved.
Oh I live near WLG and moved there, but I also knew the airport has a curfew and would expect it to stay unless there was significant consultation/need regarding change.