ILLAWARRAREGIONALAIRPORT
COMMUNITY PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT:
The IllawarraRegionalAirportis owned by Shellharbour City Council and is located at Albion Park Rail (in the Illawarra) within the state of New South Wales. Shellharbour City Council Quarterly Management Plans appear to show aircraft movements for the 2001/2002 financial year at 5099 and 2002/2003 financial year at 4403. A document included in the development application file for No.47/03, however, states that council advise is that annual movements are 15,200; email from Nicholas Wolff on 30 January 2003 to Ian Rankine at Shellharbour Council.
Councils Website provides 2 versions regarding the airports history:
FirstAirport History
‘The airport was constructed by the Commonwealth Government in 1945 for the purpose of training RAAF pilots. During the 1960’s a shared ownership plan was introduced by the Government to encourage local councils to participate in the operation & management of approximately 170 airfields throughout Australia. Shellharbour Council participated in this plan and maintained and managed the airport utilising annual Commonwealth Government subsidies until 1990 when the government withdrew from agreements on all locally owned/operated airports. The government offered Council total ownership of the airport conditional upon Council continuing to operate it as an airport. Sale of the airport or any part of the airport requires Government approval with any funds being utilised to either further develop the airport or being split between the Council and the Government.
Council adopted a management strategy in 1991 for the future development of the airport. Essentially this strategy is to encourage development, which will provide employment and financial return to Council. Council’s airport is now profitable and is providing a number of services to people in the Illawarra. The regular public transport services introduced by Impulse Airlines to Melbourne proved to be popular. Unfortunately this service was withdrawn late in 2000.
Council is currently lobbying for funds and assistance to reconstruct the main runway to increase its capability for the operation of aircraft of up to 50 seat capacity. The provision for an increase in aircraft size will greatly boast the potential to tourism as well as expand both inter and intra state business opportunities for this region.’
[
SecondAirportHistory:
‘The airport was constructed as an RAAF pilot training facility during WW2. Initially, Trans Australian and Australian National Airlines ran services through AlbionParkAirport to Canberra and Melbourne however these services were withdrawn in 1950. Low key general aviation operations continued including civilian pilot training.
In 1960 Shellharbour Municipal Council was granted permissive occupancy of the aerodrome and in 1962 the ownership was transferred under the Commonwealth Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP).
Although aircraft charters operated for a number of years it was not until the 1970’s that Southbank Aviation commenced commuter services to Canberra, MelbourneNewcastle. This company relocated to Sydney in the late 1970’s. Two pilot training schools and an aircraft maintenance operation were the main airport tenants in the early 1980’s.
The National Safety Council established a base at the airport essentially for helicopter rescue operations. Following their demise the N.S.W Health Department took over the facility using Lloyd’s to provide the rescue service under contract arrangement.
The Commonwealth Government withdraw from the local ownership plan in 1990 leaving Council with the full responsibility for care and control of the airport. The annual maintenance and operational costs effectively doubled for Council through this arrangement, as Council no longer received financial subsidies.
A management study, completed by aviation consultants in 1990 provided a framework for future management and development for the airport. A master plan was prepared and still forms the basis for current development proposals. A number of studies and business surveys have been carried out to support development works and other initiatives aimed at establishing a commercially viable business, which provides a range of services to the public.’
[
AERODROME HISTORY
In 1989 Council commissioned a study into the airport.
RUNWAY PAVEMENT AND AIRCRAFT USAGE
In 1991 Shellharbour City Council commissioned a report to evaluate regular passenger transport at the IllawarraRegionalAirport. The report made several points:
- Up until 1972 only aircraft up to 5.7 tonnes utilized the aerodrome
- In April 1972, March 1973, a Gulfstream 1 and Gulfstream 2 utilised the aerodrome and damaged the runway. Subsequently council requested that the Department of Civil Aviation withdraw concession for the Gulfstream.
- Since this time traffic was generally restricted to 5.7 tonne or 450KPa tyre pressure, except Falcon 900 15 tonne 1100 KPa tyre pressure in which 6 operations were recorded in 1991 (25/3/91,27/3/91(2 operations), 8/5/91, 16/5/91, 20/5/91): pg. 8.
- 1973 and 1991 site investigations show that the main runway consists of finely graded crushed rock base course material sealed with multiple layers of sprayed tar and bitumen seals. The typical thickness is 250mm. The apron and taxiway are marginally thicker but coverage ratio is less then pavement. Strength, however, is comparable. The pavements appear to be based on poorly drained subgrade consisting of sandy to clayey silt material rated CBR 4%. 5,770 kg maximum mass and 45 KPa tyre pressure is considered appropriate from a pavement point of view.
- The different categories of runway are:
- 1. Bandierante-no pavement concession is necessary.
- 2. Meteroliner/BAE Jetstream 1/Beech 1900
- Increase pavement rating without the need for pavement concession.
- 3. SAAB340A/Dash 8/SHORTS 36
- Occasional use on pavement.
- Upgrade for regular use will cost 2.4 million dollars
- 4. F50
- Very occasional use on existing pavement.
- Upgrade to regular use will cost 3 million dollars.
- 5. F25
- not suitable for pavement.
- Upgrade to regular use will cost 6.3 million dollars.
- 6. BAe146
- Existing pavement no suitable.
- Regular operations unlikely and not costed.
AIRCRAFT NOISE REPORT AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
In 1996 Shellharbour City Council undertook an Aircraft Noise Study which allowed for an ANEC (Australian Noise Exposure Contour) for 2010 and ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) for 2020. The introduction on page 1reads:
‘IllawarraRegionalAirport is located at AlbionPark, approximately 4km east of Warilla and is bounded by the Princess Highway, the Illawarra Highway and Tongarra Road. Residential areas of Albion Park Rail, Oak Flats, and and Albion Park boarder its sides from the eastern and southern sides. The airport is currently used for flying training, joyflights, charter operations and private flying. These operations are generally undertaken by light aircraft with maximum take of mass of less then 5,700kg. The aircraft movements are forecasts to significantly increase over the next five years, including growth in the light jet and turbo prop aircraft with seating capacity up to 30 passengers. The longer term growth forecasts includes jet aircraft up to the size of BAe146.’
The airfield covers approximately 117ha and consists of two bitumen sealed runways with associated taxiways and aircraft parking aprons. When preparing an ANEF it is important to consider likely future infrastructure development for the airfield. In the Illawarra Regional Airports case, a number of physical and practical limitations to development exists. The high terrain of the escarpment limits the manourving area available for aircraft using the airport and precludes the use of the airport, in its current configuration, by large domestic aircraft. Furthermore, existing roads and residential areas to the north, south and east of the airport exclude the development of the airfield in these directions. An extension to the cross runway is possible to the west but only at the expense of realigning the Illawarra Highway. Practically speaking the proximity of the airfield to Sydney, coupled with the available surface transport (road and rail) between the Illawarra Region and Sydney, implies that it is unlikely that a demand for international or domestic services would be sufficient to warrant the expansion of the existing airfield infrastructure.
Given that the development of the airfields runway is unlikely, the existing infrastructure has been used for the ANEF calculations.’
RUNWAY IN GOOD CONDITION
In 1999 Shellharbour City Council commissioned a report regarding runway pavement upgrade options (Gutteridge Haskin’s & Davey, ‘Illawarra Regional Airport-Pavement Upgrade Options’, 1999 known in sections of this report as GHD). It stated that Council advice was that the runway was in good condition having been resealed 2 years prior. It also noted that for the runway to be upgraded the sealing would need to be removed and would need to be included into any costs.
Council also commissioned an airport feasibility study in 2001 (Sinclair Knight Merz, ‘Illawarra Regional Airport-Economic Study’, 2001 known as SKM). The report states on page 11 that:
‘IllawarraRegionalAirport licensed and as the following characteristics:
- Runway 16/34 is 1827m long, 30m width, 7500kg weight and 600 KPa restriction.
- Runway 08/26 is 1331 m long, 30m width, 7500kg weight and 600KPa restrictions.
- Runway 08/26 is 1331m long, 30m wide and is unrated.
- Navigational aids include a Non Direction Beacon, Precision Approach Path indicator (PAPI) for runway 16 and 34, Global Positioning System (GPS) approach for Runway 16 and Pilot Activated Lights for Runway 16/34.
- Special procedures include right hand circuits Runways 26 and 34, night operations restricted to VFR aircraft up to 7,500 kg MTOW and night operations by RPT or aircraft above 5,700kgs MTOW require prior approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for Runway 08/26.
- Noise abatement procedures include avoiding take-off on Runway 08 and landing on Runway 26 unless operationally necessary, practice touch and goes on Runway 08/26 to be avoided and simulated engine failure to be avoided.
- Noise abatement procedures Runway 16/34 include avoiding night take-offs on Runway 16 unless operationally necessary and circuit training is not permitted after 1200hr.’
AIRPORT OPTION PLANS
The report provided three scenarios for the airport on pages 37 & 38:
‘Scenario A:
The resumption of RPT services to Melbourne on the same basis as previously operated by Impulse Airlines. The services would be operated by a Beech 1900 (19 seats) or similar size aircraft, providing three return flights each weekday. The smaller aircraft would be replaced by a larger aircraft such as a Dash 8 with 36 seats) when load factors permit, projected to be in about ten years. Pavement strengthening would not be required until then. The council would continue its current maintenance regime and minor improvements programmed.
Scenario B
The resumption of RPT services to Melbourne, with operation by a larger aircraft (Dash 8 or similar size aircraft) with reduced frequency-two return flights per day for three days each week. This frequency would increase to five days per week after five years, when load factors permit. Pavement strengthening would be required now.
Scenario C
As for Scenario B, plus promotion of new tenants. Four new hanger sites and development site areas of 1.1ha(now) and 1.0ha(in five years) would be made available for leasing at market rates. Sites would be made available to AVIEX and HARS at nominal rates, to attract other tenants. In addition to pavement strengthening, other infrastructure improvements (eg. Aprons, taxiways) would be made to encourage and service new tenants.’
The projections indicate that Scenario A is financially viable for the Council. However, the Airport is substantially under-utilised and the economic contribution that it can make to the Region is minimized. Also, it may be difficult to encourage an airline to provide the service assumed, with a starting load factor of 55% and increasing to only 65% in five years.
Scenario B, even though potentially attractive for an airline operator with a starting load factor of 73%, is not financially viable for council with a cumulative shortfall of $434,000 over the first five years.
Scenario C is financially viable for the council, provided that it can fund a cumulative shortfall of $192,000 in the first three years ($120,000 occurs in the first year). This scenario also provides substantial regional economic benefit in the way of additional employment, household income and output (refer Section 7.4)
The significance of the proposed BHP contribution of materials to the runway upgrading is illustrated by the increase in cumulative shortfall to $607,000 in the first four years ($423,000 occurs in the first two years).’
REPORTS UNDERTAKEN REGARDING THE AIRPORT INCLUDE:
‘1989Airport Management Study
-Gives guidance on a range of issues including ownership management goals, business development and provides an Airport Master Plan.
1991Evaluation of RPT Aircraft Pavements
-Provides engineering evaluation of pavement strengthening required for aircraft including Dash 8, SAAB 340 and F50.
1996Aircraft Noise Assessment Report
-Provided Aircraft Noise Exposure Forecasts leading to Wollongong and Shellharbour Councils notes on 149 Certificates for property inquiries within aircraft noise affected areas.
1996Illawarra Regional Information Services Marketing Survey
-Identified Melbourne and Brisbane as the main destinations.
1999Report on Pavement Upgrade Option
-Recommended a minimum overlay thickness of 150mm of well compacted 80/20 slag basecourse with a two coat sprayed bitumen chip seal.’
THREATS TO AIRPORT EXPANSION
It has been noted on page 28 in the 2001 feasibility report that threats to airport expansion include ‘
- There are signs of urban encroachment around the airport considering the increased new housing activities in the area. This may hamper the future growth of the airport.
- The nearby NowraIndustrial Park is being marketed and the possibility of establishing a similar facility at the airport could lose out in the race.
- The threats of potential environmental issues resulting from the development of the airport which will have to be addressed. There is also the risk of aircraft accidents with increased traffic that requires management of safety.’
LACK OF AIRCRAFT MONITORING
Although the airport appears to have fire safety at hand no air traffic control is evident. It also appears that the Noise Flightpath Monitoring System only extends as far as Corrimal, well short of Albion Park Rail and its surrounding suburbs. It is therefore unclear how environmental and safety issues can be managed. Airservices in an email dated 26 August 2003 stated that:
‘You may or may not be aware that the airspace above AlbionPark, betweenground level and 7500ft above mean sea level is referred to uncontrolled airspace. Above 7500ft is controlled airspace, and within this controlled airspace aircraft can be directed by air traffic control to manoeuvre as required to maintain a safe flying environment. It is within this airspace that the vast majority of commercial flights,particularly jets, operate.
However it appears that your complaints refer to aircraft that are operating outside (beneath) controlled airspace. Within this uncontrolled airspace, provided that the statutory aviation rules and regulations are complied with, pilots of jet and propeller aircraft are at liberty to operate their aircraft in a manner and at altitudes that best suit the circumstances of their flight. Consequently, there is nothing that can be done to vary the manner that aircraft are currently operating in the AlbionPark area.
Unfortunately the coverage of the Flight Path Monitoring System only extends to Corrimal so the full extent of aircraft activity over AlbionPark cannot be observed. Nevertheless, the coverage to Corrimal is sufficient to get a reasonable appreciation of the majority of the transit flights in the area.’
[Email to Sonya McKay from Airservices Australia, Customer and Community Relations, SydneyAirport, ‘Aviation Activity’, Tues 26 August 2003, SY_CCR <>, 16:03:19]
AVIEX
Page 29 of the 2001 feasibility study commissioned by Shellharbour City Council states:
‘The investigation undertaken by the AVIEX Group has confirmed that the IllawarraRegionalAirport was suited for its intended purpose due to the following reasons:
- The enthusiasm and support shown by the Shellharbour City Council in promoting these activities at Illawarra Regional airport.’
‘The AVIEX Group therefore submitted an application to the Shellharbour City Council on 28 September 2000 seeking permission to use IllawarraRegionalAirport as a permanent site for the AVIEX.’
‘Shellharbour City Council approved the application on 10 October 2000 subject to the submission of a “Local Approval”application, approval from the CASA and submission of public liability insurance held by AVIEX Group indemnifying the Council against any risks.’
AVIEX relocated from Bankstown to the IllawarraRegionalAirport. Shellharbour City Councils Airport Update dated April 2002 stated that ‘The runway, taxiways, hardstand and building works will be completed by November in time for AVIEX 2002, Australia’s only general aviation exhibition which is expected to draw crowds of up to 60,000 to the Illawarra Regional Airport’. An administrative Appeals case ensued. The following CASA excerpt is from AVIEX Pty Limited and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2002] AATA 327 (10 May 2002):
In view of the types of military and other civil and aerobatic aircraft types involved, including limited category aircraft types (which under CAR 262AM subpara (10) are not permitted to overfly populous areas), obstacles immediately south of Albion Park Airport and the confined nature of the area surrounding the airfield, the closeness of Albion Park Airfield to populous areas cannot be discounted because the risk of injury to people and the risk of damage to property is real. Likewise, noise will disturb residents, pets and stock and motorists on busy roads such as the Princess Highway and the Illawarra Highway which are very close to the airfield, will be distracted with associated risk of accident. Spread of wreckage over a built up or populous area following a catastrophic collision or in-flight breakup carries risk during acrobatic events as evidenced from many air displays overseas. Risk is assessed to be excessive.’…
The airshow was not permitted to proceed and numbers for the general aviation exhibition were well short of the 60,000figure. Infrastructure developments meant to be undertaken by council were not undertaken in time for the AVIEX exhibition. Media Reports suggested that AVIEX subsequently went into liquidation.
According to Table 10 (Appendix) it appears that a DA process was not recorded for AVIEX which would have included a public exhibition period and calls for submissions specifically regarding the its airshow. If the housing of AVIEX was included in DA 838/01 no environmental impact statement was undertaken for it.
THREE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS