EK to front court over SYD curfew breaches

[VHOEJ]

That's bizarre. Surely the simplest and cheapest way of enforcing the curfew is to require ATC to prevent aircraft taking off.

Exactly. Seems similar to a policeman with a radar gun catching you speeding - instead of actually pulling you over at the time, they just put a fine in the mail and you recieve it 3 weeks after the events.

 

[markis10]

Anyone comment as to why ATC and the decision-making process related to the curfew are disjointed?

I can see some "benefits" as to why... or rather, I can see reasons why ATC would prefer not to be charged with the responsibility of denying / approving movements with respect to the curfew...

Its hardly disjointed, the delegated rep was an ATC officer in the past (I have been involved in approvals).

That's bizarre. Surely the simplest and cheapest way of enforcing the curfew is to require ATC to prevent aircraft taking off.

ATC don't exist to provide law enforcement, its not a role endorsed by any of the 191 member countries of ICAO. ATCs role has clearly been spelt out by ICAO since 1946 in Annexe 11 to the convention on civil aviation:

Air traffic control service. A service provided for the purpose of:
a) preventing collisions:
1) between aircraft, and
2) on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions; and
b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic.

Pilots, specifically the pilot in charge, are given legal powers in terms of enforcement (re restraint/arrest of other humans) and also the right to disobey laws where a good excuse is on offer:

ICAO Annex 2, "Rules of the Air", under par. "2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command":
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety.

Annex 2, par. "2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft":
[1]
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

 

[Jack_OC]

Thanks for the links Markis. The thing is though, it would virtually never be "absolutely necessary in the interests of safety " for a plane to take off. As such I don't see how a pilot could be entitled to take off after curfew unless cleared to do so by ATC. I appreciate that ATC's role is not law enforcement, but in this case it seems the airlines require ATC to actively facilitate them breaking the curfew. That's what I find strange. There's a difference between law enforcement and simply not helping someone to break the law.

 

[markis10]

Thanks for the links Markis. The thing is though, it would virtually never be "absolutely necessary in the interests of safety " for a plane to take off. As such I don't see how a pilot could be entitled to take off after curfew unless cleared to do so by ATC. I appreciate that ATC's role is not law enforcement, but in this case it seems the airlines require ATC to actively facilitate them breaking the curfew. That's what I find strange. There's a difference between law enforcement and simply not helping someone to break the law.

ATC are not facilitating anything beyond what they normally do, if you listen to the takeoff clearance given in such circumstances you would have heard ATC clearly outlining the conditions in place, specifically a clearance to depart and not hit anything with a reminder that said clearance was not condoning the action of breaking curfew. ATC are not empowered to actively enforce pilots to follow directions in a legal sense, same with ships captains at sea under the laws of the sea, from which the laws of the air are derived.

 

[medhead]

A very valid point. The fine is cheaper than all the costs involved for putting everyone up.

Not according to the post you quoted $100000 is less than $550000 last time I checked.

 

[medhead]

Thanks for the links Markis. The thing is though, it would virtually never be "absolutely necessary in the interests of safety " for a plane to take off. As such I don't see how a pilot could be entitled to take off after curfew unless cleared to do so by ATC. I appreciate that ATC's role is not law enforcement, but in this case it seems the airlines require ATC to actively facilitate them breaking the curfew. That's what I find strange. There's a difference between law enforcement and simply not helping someone to break the law.

That comes down to the airline/pilot's defence for taking off. Obvious they can't claim it was a safety matter and hence they shouldn't be fined. If a pilot determines to break the law by taking off ATC still has their primary responsibility to prevent collisions (etc.). They need to do that not just for the aircraft taking off but also for other aircraft that might legally using the airspace that could be impacted by the aircraft taking off.

BTW police do watch people speed past and then send a fine later.

 

[Jack_OC]

That comes down to the airline/pilot's defence for taking off. Obvious they can't claim it was a safety matter and hence they shouldn't be fined. If a pilot determines to break the law by taking off ATC still has their primary responsibility to prevent collisions (etc.). They need to do that not just for the aircraft taking off but also for other aircraft that might legally using the airspace that could be impacted by the aircraft taking off.

Yeah I see the point you're making. On the other hand, if clearance to take off was not granted by ATC, the plane would not take off, which would also ensure everyone's safety. Anyway, clearly that's not how things work.

BTW police do watch people speed past and then send a fine later.

Yeah I know - I didn't really get that analogy either. I don't really see any parallel, as the police aren't clearing you to speed and then imposing a fine!

 

[medhead]

Yeah I see the point you're making. On the other hand, if clearance to take off was not granted by ATC, the plane would not take off, which would also ensure everyone's safety. Anyway, clearly that's not how things work.



Yeah I know - I didn't really get that analogy either. I don't really see any parallel, as the police aren't clearing you to speed and then imposing a fine!

I don't know that detail either. I'm not sure I'd assume that lack of a clearance prevents take off. But there'd be a whole range of factors to check before saying either way.

My mistakes I thought you did the speeding analogy.

 

[cmon0005]

IMHO curfew needs to be reviewed and either scrapped fully or hours changed. The economic benefits to the country and nsw of a 24/7 airport would be great not to mention spreading out road traffic over a greater time period, better connections... Etc.. Just imagine if changi airport had a curfew like Sydney would it be the power house of success it is today, no. At least here in mel we have no such issues

 

[UP4014]

Reading this thread with interest.

FOr those who think the curfew should be lifted for the countries best interest I would direct you to look at some overseas examples of this sort of thinking.

Iran, China, North Korea. I believe these places don't have curfews but also don't have noise complaints.

The pollies have listened to the people around Sydney airport and stuck up for them and the curfew is in place, I think people need to accept that is the current rule and until changed we need to get over it.

I don't live under the flight path in Sydney but I have no issue with a curfew, it demonstrates the little people still get a say.

Matt

 

[maninblack]

That comes down to the airline/pilot's defence for taking off. Obvious they can't claim it was a safety matter and hence they shouldn't be fined.

You are saying that even though they had no defence for taking off such as a safety issue they still shouldn't be fined

As to other peoples comments regarding the ATC it's just not within their powers to enforce the curfew. They advise pilots both landing and taking off of the curfew times but the final call is with the pilot.

 

[RooFlyer]

OK, lets take it out of the hands of ATC then.

The regulators force SYD airport to refuse to operate the airbridge of the departing plane if they believe there will be a curfew breach (and certainly from 10:50pm onwards); and/or refuse tug and related services

"Sure, you have the right to operate your plane, Captain, but we have the right to operate (or not) our airport services."

Sure SYD would scream, but we all know that the regulators have the ultimate power - and preventing a breach of the law would seem reasonable grounds for such action.

 

[eastwest101]

Perhaps an alternative approach might be that EK accept the fine for breaching curfew, I don't know what their lawyers are going to argue, but the fact that it has got this far may mean that their lawyers believe that they have some kind of valid defense or legal precedent worth trying for. We will see....

Another alternative approach would be charging a SYD Airport Noise Curfew Surcharge for all passengers on EK fares, of course this would not be payable for EK flights to/from non-curfew airports such as MEL/BNE and the codeshare QF flights from SYD to non-curfew airports. The danger of this is that EK price themselves out of the market.

An even better way would be for all the airlines to collaborate and impose a uniform SYD airport curfew surcharge per passenger for all domestic and international flights. This would obviously be justified in terms of the inefficiencies brought on their operations by having to operate within the constraints of the SYD curfew. This would undoubtably attract the attention of the ACCC but may also focus the attention of SYD and NSW residents both State and Federal govenmnents and prompt some action as SYD airport finds itself being strangled by surcharges.

Actually - scrap that - get the airlines to charge a SYD Airport noise curfew surcharge on all Local, State and Federal government purchased airfares (or maybe just politicians airfares but difficult to implement). That would prompt some movement.

 

[maninblack]

Why not just let the legal process take it's course, end of story. If Emirates want to keep breaking the law, keep fining them. I don't know what is within the legislation but perhaps there are provisions for further sanctions against repeat offenders.

 

[markis10]

OK, lets take it out of the hands of ATC then.

The regulators force SYD airport to refuse to operate the airbridge of the departing plane if they believe there will be a curfew breach (and certainly from 10:50pm onwards); and/or refuse tug and related services

"Sure, you have the right to operate your plane, Captain, but we have the right to operate (or not) our airport services."

Sure SYD would scream, but we all know that the regulators have the ultimate power - and preventing a breach of the law would seem reasonable grounds for such action.

Nice idea but flawed, as the airport does not operate the ground handling equipment, and they are also a private organisation as are the ground agents, neither of which would be happy being placed in the role of law enforcement for a federal law. The only such agency that could do the role is the Federal Police, and as such there are no provisions to actively stop action under the law, only post action enforcement via fines/court action, rewriting the law to permit the Federal Police to intervene would invoke some interesting diplomatic responses from other countries I suspect, and put in place a precedent one might come to regret.

 

[markis10]

Why not just let the legal process take it's course, end of story. If Emirates want to keep breaking the law, keep fining them. I don't know what is within the legislation but perhaps there are provisions for further sanctions against repeat offenders.

I am not legally trained but it would appear its a flat penalty without a scale of fines based on recidity.

Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995

 

[amaroo]

If they didn't get the Go GO GO from Albo - they're stuffed Flight Captain Albanese decides which flights take off | TheTourismNews

Wonder if they discussed it over a few kebabs at the QF/EK party in Dubai Emirates and Qantas begin historic partnership | News | About Emirates | Emirates Austria

 

[cmon0005]

The pollies have listened to the people around Sydney airport and stuck up for them and the curfew is in place, I think people need to accept that is the current rule and until changed we need to get over it.

I don't live under the flight path in Sydney but I have no issue with a curfew, it demonstrates the little people still get a say.

I think its less about the pollies listening and more about them knowing its an easy vote winner hence every party in a particular seat offers this promise so no matter who wins in a particular seat they'll push for curfew, but in reality 24/7 airport operations, boosts the economy, boosts jobs, makes the roads more efficient..these are the things people often don't think about when voting, they just take on a "Not in my backyard" approach to it.

I've lived under both Melb and syd flight paths over the years, to be honest after a while you just become used to it as being a fact of life and I can sleep through it (I am a light sleeper too).

This is why I am saying there needs to be a review on curfew not just a gov wanting to overturn it, not just residents wanting to keep it, a proper technical, benefit and solutions based review done independently then the gov needs to legislate changes to the curfew.
As others have mentioned on here A380's, new gen 737's, 787's are incredibly quiet compared to older aircraft, and taking off over the bay at night is a sensible compromise.

Anyway I know that these are just my opinions but the Gov really needs to take a stand and review curfew for the greater good, if we always listened to everyone on their opposition to things we wouldn't have highways, mobile coverage, rubbish dumps, sewage treatment.etc.

 

[medhead]

You are saying that even though they had no defence for taking off such as a safety issue they still shouldn't be fined
.

Oops. Double negatives got me there, plus two related ideas. I mean, they can't claim a safety issue. They shouldn't be fined for a safety issue. Or They can't claim a safety issue and hence can't claim they shouldn't be fined.

Missing words or double negatives. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps an alternative approach might be that EK accept the fine for breaching curfew, I don't know what their lawyers are going to argue, but the fact that it has got this far may mean that their lawyers believe that they have some kind of valid defense or legal precedent worth trying for. We will see....

Depends on enforcement requirements under the act. It may very well be the case that penalties can only be determined by a court. (Likely given the apparent lack of enforcement officers, who would be required to apply on the spot fines) As such the airlines lawyers may have had no say as the government has decided to proceed with a prosecution.

I think its less about the pollies listening and more about them knowing its an easy vote winner hence every party in a particular seat offers this promise so no matter who wins in a particular seat they'll push for curfew, but in reality 24/7 airport operations, boosts the economy, boosts jobs, makes the roads more efficient..these are the things people often don't think about when voting, they just take on a "Not in my backyard" approach to it.

That is listening to the voters, isn't it?