Wellington Airport

[Dave Homewood]

So why no charges laid I wonder?

[tbf25o4]

Having visited Wellington airport twice in the last week am impressed by the expansion going on in the domestic terminal. One of the changes has been the moving of Gate "13" from down on the end
of the main departure/arrival terminal (old Gates 13 - 15) and repositioning it down along the long arm that serves Air2There and Sunair. When I saw the new temporary "Gate 14a" taped over the old sign, thoughts immediately turned to have they got superstitious? and removed "13". No counter staff assured me that it was because of the renovations which has seen some of the gates along that end no longer available so hence the shift of several to the long arm. Another interesting change is that check-in for that long arm is at the top of the new extension, so non-passengers can't proceed down the arm to welcome/wave good by to pax

interesting times!1

[kiwithrottlejockey]

They're going to have one security screening area for ALL jet gates, just like they do in Auckland.

[tbf25o4]

correct my previous to read Soundsair vice Sunair (failing memory!!)

[planewriting]

Did anyone else notice that flyernzl's predicted 5 year time line on progress was written two years ago yesterday. Updates anyone . . .

[planewriting]

In haste I hope they didn't notice; it was actually three years ago, which highlights Peter's point even more so.

[Dave Homewood]

Again, why was no-one charged over taking a hazardous and banned substance onto an airliner and causing a full scale emergency through their actions? In the USA they probably would be on terror charges by now.

[Brett]

I kinda wondered that myself.

Bleach needs to be declared when checking in, rather than being completely forbidden. Perhaps it was declared, meaning the passenger did the right thing.

The bleach could possibly have been provided for the cabin crew to use. What cleaning materials are routinely carried on board?

The bleach could have been left by the cleaning crew, meaning no passenger infringements but a stern finger-wagging at the cleaning company.

My personal theory is that the rest of the locker contents were checked, and on finding rubber gloves, duct tape, zip ties, a hacksaw, large heavy-duty plastic bags, a shovel and a bag of lye, that they decided the particular passenger was not someone they wanted to upset.

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks Brett, maybe it was declared, yeah.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

It's interesting that a camp stove is a prohibited item, yet a camp stove without fuel bottles or gas cannisters is a totally inert, non-dangerous piece of equipment.

Back when I was indulging in alpine tramping and climbing and combining the two with the bi-annual Warbirds Over Wanaka airshows (we used to use one of the Railway Welfare holiday apartments at Queenstown as a base for 4-6 weeks around Easter every second year), I used to have untold arguments with Air New Zealand about it when I turned up at Gisborne Airport to fly to Queenstown and again when I turned up at Queenstown to fly home to Gisborne. I used to keep a stock of fuel bottles in the caretaker's garage at the holiday apartments so I didn't have to travel with them, yet I still used to have the big arguments with Air NZ when I checked in. As soon as they saw a pack with ice-climbing tools tied to it, they'd ask if there was a stove inside the pack, and I'd reply that there was, but that it was just the stove with no fuel tank attached and no fuel bottles or gas cannisters and I'd take the stove out to show them, but they'd still create a huge scene over it and hold things up while they sought advice from elsewhere. It was always really frustrating.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Dominion Post....

Truck hits QANTAS plane on tarmac at Wellington Airport

By TOM HUNT | 11:00AM - Wednesday, 08 June 2016


The QANTAS 737 which was crashed into by a ground truck in Wellington on Tuesday.
— Photograph: Cameron Burnell/Fairfax NZ.

MELBOURNE-bound passengers leaving Wellington had to be put on another QANTAS plane after their one was hit by a truck.

The airline on Wednesday morning confirmed the incident, which happened on the tarmac in Wellington on Tuesday night.

A worker was hospitalised with minor injuries but released shortly afterwards.

The stationary 737 plane was hit by a ground handling truck, the statement said.

The aircraft was due to operate flight QF172 from Wellington to Melbourne with a scheduled departure of 5pm.


The QANTAS plane remained on the tarmac on Wednesday morning.
— Photograph: Maarten Holl/Fairfax NZ.

A new plane, brought down from Auckland where it was meant to be parked up for the night, left Wellington at 9.50pm.

The damaged plane remained on the tarmac at Wellington on Wednesday morning.

A QANTAS spokeswoman said there was minor damage to the underside of the 737 and engineers were still examining it on Wednesday.

She could not say how long the plane would be grounded but said no more flights would be affected.

A Wellington Airport spokesman said Civil Aviation Authority and WorkSafe had been notified.



The vehicle that hit the truck was contracted to QANTAS.

A CAA spokesman said the situation was being dealt with by WorkSafe, where a spokeswoman could not say whether it had been notified.

www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/80835442

[Swingtail]

Maybe the truck driver is not a fan of Sir William Hudson.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Hahahaha....

• Wellington Airport

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Construction of the “Leaning Tower of Wellington Airport” is well underway, as seen on Sunday, 4th December....




Another view this morning (Friday, 16th December) also showing the old control tower in the background....

[kiwithrottlejockey]

from Fairfax NZ....

CAA must review safety areas at Wellington Airport,
Court of Appeal rules

Pilots win over runway — concerns over safety areas
at proposed airport extension upheld by court.

By HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 1:05PM - Tuesday, 28 February 2017


An aerial map of Wellington Airport showing where the proposed runway extension
would be built to the south.

THE Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has to revisit a decision over whether a longer runway safety area is needed if Wellington Airport extends its runway, a court has ruled.

In a decision released on Tuesday the Court of Appeal has agreed with the NZ Airlines Pilots' Association (NZALPA) that the CAA must consider if longer runway safety areas (RESA) can feasibly be constructed, and also consider the use of arresting systems if appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that in ruling that Wellington's existing 90 metre safety area as compliant and appropriate for Wellington Airport's proposed extension, the director of the CAA “made material errors in law”.

Under international aviation rules, regulators must ensure that airports operate with RESAs of at least 90m, and if “practicable” of at least 240m.

In 2012 Wellington Airport requested clarification from the director of the CAA about the length of required RESA if the runway was extended.

Two years later the director of the CAA informed both the airport and NZALPA that it would not be practicable to require the airport to provide a RESA exceeding 90m, given the low risk of a crash and high cost of a larger safety area.

When the matter came before the the High Court, Justice Karen Clark ruled that what was “practicable” was a balancing exercise between safety considerations and the cost and difficulty involved.

However the Court of Appeal decision differed from Justice Clark, saying that while cost had some “limited relevance” in considering what was practicable, the real test was what was able to be constructed.

“Cost is not a predominant factor to be balanced against the requirement of promoting safety; given its removal from the amended primary legislation, ‘reasonable cost’ is now a factor of subordinate importance,” the Court of Appeal decision said.


Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson said it was too early to say what
impact the Court of Appeal ruling would have on the proposed runway extension.

Steve Sanderson, chief executive of Wellington Airport said the company was disappointed with the decision.

“We will discuss next steps with the Civil Aviation Authority which is the principal defendant. It is too early to say what impact this decision will have on the proposed runway extension.”

The ruling appears to only apply to an extended runway, rather than prompt a review of Wellington Airport's existing safety zone arrangements.

NZALPA “expressed their delight” at the decision.

“As commercial pilots and air traffic controllers, our members have much to gain from an increase in flights landing and leaving from Wellington Airport, but not at any cost — especially if that cost is to the safety of passengers, local people, and airport staff,” NZALPA president Tim Robinson said in a statement.

Tuesday's Court of Appeal decision criticised the decision-making process of the CAA, claiming its director failed to meet the required tests in coming to his decision on the Wellington Airport RESA.

“He was obliged to require a RESA from the threshold minimum of 90 metres to a distance of at least 240 metres providing that was practicable. There was nothing to suggest that the director undertook that critical inquiry or referred to evidence which might be relevant to it,” the Court of Appeal said.

“There was nothing in the material before the director to suggest that an extension to the RESA of an extra 150 metres (taking it to 240 metres) was not practicable.”

“There was nothing to suggest a RESA of 240 metres was not feasible or able to be accomplished according to known means and resources; and there was nothing to suggest that a RESA of that distance was unachievable given the engineering technology available and the potential construction options for dealing with this site.”

The CAA said it was not able to immediately comment on the decision.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related stories:

• Wellington Airport runway extension clears major hurdle as pilots' legal challenge fails

• Court fast-tracks pilots' appeal over safety of Wellington Airport's runway extension

• Wellington Airport puts resource consent plans for runway extension on hold

• Wellington Airport asking councils to restart runway extension application

• Wellington Airport runway extension cost could blow out to $458m, says expert

www.stuff.co.nz/business/87647482

[hamfists]

It's silly really because any further runway length adds safety. Whether they include the addition as resa but increase take off distance in the opposite direction or just explain the addition as more take off length by increasing available stopping area is all just more length therefore more safety (less go arounds etc) gotta be a good thing

[haughtney1]

Feb 28, 2017 23:35:37 GMT 12 hamfists said:

It's silly really because any further runway length adds safety. Whether they include the addition as resa but increase take off distance in the opposite direction or just explain the addition as more take off length by increasing available stopping area is all just more length therefore more safety (less go arounds etc) gotta be a good thing

The thing is Hamfists you've missed the point. Ostensibly you are correct in your assertion that a longer runway is inherently and statistically safer, but those statistics for the most part include many more runways where the runway end safety area is a great deal larger than 90m or there is EMAS placed as a compromise. The more pressing element in my view is the takeoff element, airlines and manufacturers optimise takeoff performance predicated in part on a rejected takeoff....that extra stopping surface is a significant safety enhancement, to have the opportunity to engineer the extra margin into the product at the outset is not only best practice it's also the right thing to do and should not be the political cost/benefit football that's being passed around.
Just my view..but I'd venture to say 99.9% of my large jet colleagues would agree.

[hamfists]

So you're saying that you're not against extending the runway, but for the bigger aircraft they're hoping to attract it needs to be longer than 240m?

[madmac]

Hmmm one wonders if this is another one of CAA's decisions that flowed down hill to the director. Corruption or incompetence I wonder.

[haughtney1]

Hamfists, I'm saying that if the runway extension goes ahead I am off the opinion that as part of the final product their needs to be either a mitigation programme via the use of EMAS, or, included in the extension of the runway, an adequate RESA..90m is not adequate and never has been for large transport category jets and is why EMAS was invented.
I have no horse in the race, this is merely an opinion.