Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
  1. #16

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    And this is not the first time its happened either. Qantas is not the only offender. Have you ever heard of it happening in the past?


  2. #17

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    It worries me when those responsible for withholding information being released to the public are slow to do so. The term used is "duty of care" and in this case, the lack of it. Our track record for looking after our waterways is sinking badly, is it too grim reaper to becoming catch and release only? My confidence in consuming uncontaminated seafood is fading real fast.

    Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Ausfish mobile app

  3. #18

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    1. Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) acquired Brisbane airport from the Federal Government under a 50 year lease in 1997. BAC is a private non-listed Queensland company and has full responsibility for the operations at BNE so lets drop this thinking the federal gov controls Brisbane airport.

    2. The question still remains why it took more than 4 days to notify the general public and from all accounts why commercial prawning operations were not notified until a week after the event which meant during this period (especially being Easter) commercial operations caught and sold hundreds of kg of prawns to the general public

    3. What was the Gov trying to achieve or hide by sitting on their behinds on this one

    4. The Qld EHP/EPA appear to have no credibility when it comes to the job they are supposed to be doing under a minister that appears to have absolutely no idea
    Bac are the lesees and manage the place.
    They have a master plan for expansion etc.
    Authority for assessing anything code or standards related or works done under a building approval rests with the Airport Building Controller which are appointed Australia wide by the federal government, in this case Philip Chun and associates.
    If the system was code/standards compliant at the time it was built I don't think either will be hit too hard with the naughty stick as I don't know that anyone was under any duress to change anything.

    Sad, yes, and a disgrace, yes. I hope it forces retrospective change but that will be of a magnitude that will break many smaller companies. Not even the state government did that.

  4. #19

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    1. Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) acquired Brisbane airport from the Federal Government under a 50 year lease in 1997. BAC is a private non-listed Queensland company and has full responsibility for the operations at BNE so lets drop this thinking the federal gov controls Brisbane airport.
    For some reason you seem desperate to exonerate the Federal Gov SatNav but you are barking up the wrong tree here. It is most certainly Federally controlled and administered land.
    ~~~><))))*>

  5. #20

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Delisser View Post
    For some reason you seem desperate to exonerate the Federal Gov SatNav but you are barking up the wrong tree here. It is most certainly Federally controlled and administered land.
    1. No simply pointing out the actual parties responsible in this debacle, that being BAC and the Qld government.

    2. Brisbane airport was privatized in 1997 and acquired from FAC by BAC and it is BAC who have ultimate responsibility for Brisbane airport.

    3. I am not sure why some keeping trying to put this back to the feds when it has absolutely nothing to do with the feds responsibility or otherwise I would be pointing the finger at the feds. The feds have nothing to do with this so lets point the finger in the right direction shall we!.

  6. #21

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    Regardless of what is accredited or authorized or much else, two (2) pertinent questions

    1. Why did it take the authorities (that being the Qld Gov) four (4) days to notify the general public

    2. What was the Qld Gov trying to hide or achieve (or avoid ....) by doing this?
    Federal land and federal rules.
    But would be interesting to know when the Feds told the Qld Govt, and where the delay was in the public finding out. 4 days is a disgrace. Many people fish boggy creek, it is a very popular flathead spot, and even quite a few bank fisherman. Would have been a lot of fish gone home in the gap period.

  7. #22

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    1. The only thing Federal about the BNE airport is they do own the land but BAC have a 50 year lease with an option for another 40 years. It is the BAC that has absolute control of BNE, BAC don't run back to the Feds when somebody leaks in the hangar, it is BAC's responsibility. BAC failed big time as did EHP in this case

  8. #23

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    A couple of articles which are relevant.
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-0...emical/8460276

    This one shows the timeline of events and public notification.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...15-gvlgga.html

    Like I said, qantas has had a good dig at cleaning up a product which isn't against the law to use and all the boxes were ticked. There won't be much more than a slap on the wrist unless there is a civil suit filed for not containing the part which made it into the stormwater which should not have happened, . Most hangars have environmental separators and emergency valves. I don't know about that one though.

    Bac are a rent collecting figurehead who park cars and planes in their spare time. They go to great lengths to distance themselves from being any sort of authority. The land the hangars are on is long term leaseheld by qantas who built their own structures in accordance with federal standards. Bac collects the rent and don't need to know what goes on inside the boundary because that is the smart way the leases are set up. When the lease expires, qantas will need to demolish the hangars and services and hand back the same grassy paddock they started with.

    The airport is so removed from state control that even the fire systems are different. If a state fire truck tried to help at a fire out there they would need a separate hydrant to the ARFF trucks and hope nobody has nicked the British adapter so their lines will fit.
    The qld police are 'invited' by the AFP to carry out speeding ops out there.
    The only thing that has any resemblance to not being federal is the potable water system which follows the brisbane city council guidelines because it runs off their mains.
    I'll shut up now.

  9. #24

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    1. Buck passing at its best, so many parties,so convenient to pass the buck, even the Prime Minister's office gets a mention, so much mumbo jumbo but what is absolutely clear and what is the real issue here is the total incompetence of the minister (and EHP) in withholding this from the public until the Friday (Easter Friday) morning, this is the key here and there are no excuses for this outside of incompetence. And how that Jeanette Young keeps her job is beyond many.

    2. Now if Airservices have no control over what airlines use then who the hell does?

  10. #25

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Bottom line, as is often the case, the 'bad' gear is the best for the job. There is no better alcohol resistant foam.

    Totally agree that unless you collar all three equally they'll pass the buck all day long.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ne permissi illegitimatus carborundi

  11. #26

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    1. Buck passing at its best, so many parties,so convenient to pass the buck, even the Prime Minister's office gets a mention, so much mumbo jumbo but what is absolutely clear and what is the real issue here is the total incompetence of the minister (and EHP) in withholding this from the public until the Friday (Easter Friday) morning, this is the key here and there are no excuses for this outside of incompetence. And how that Jeanette Young keeps her job is beyond many.

    2. Now if Airservices have no control over what airlines use then who the hell does?
    Not sure how Airservices ended up in the mix here, all they do is manage aircraft movement and anything associated with aircraft movement. Once the plane is in the hangar its no longer their responsibility. They have nothing to do with Brisbane airport nor the management of airport facilities or incidents.


  12. #27

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    1. Yes aircraft movements and Airservices handle all fire fighting and rescue services

  13. #28

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    1. Yes aircraft movements and Airservices handle all fire fightingraft and rescue services
    The firefighting and rescue part is for aircraft movement areas, not maintenance facilities.


  14. #29

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Sort of right both ways. The arff will assess fire systems against code and operational suitability (safety in design etc), and will inspect and sign off during the certification process once the system is built.
    All that means in this context is that the system was compliant when it was built or modified enough to require a building approval. The arff as far as I know only assess against standards, but cannot change them. Changing the code in this context would be a politically driven decision.
    This is the third major spill I have heard of from that hangar over the years. The foam is extremely expensive so rest assured the client qantas would be unhappy about losing it down a drain. I'd assume it would have been a servicing mistake by a third party but that is just a guess based on past events.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ne permissi illegitimatus carborundi

  15. #30

    Re: There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

    Environment Department investigates second toxic foam leak near Brisbane

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...29-gvvijm.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us