EK to front court over SYD curfew breaches

[medhead]

But when did anyone suggest "that ATC enforce the curfew" in such broad terms? The question initially posed by RooFlyer was simply this:

I think the question was raised about enforcing curfew. Sure you clearly meant that only for take offs. But the other point to consider is that enforcement agencies can't pick and choose which laws to enforce or when to enforce them. Anyway, as you say the discussion has moved on.

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

 

[Melburnian1]

One problem in lifting the SYD 2300 - 0600 curfew may be that departures or arrivals over water cannot be guaranteed.

Of course, as it stands it is not a complete curfew, as a very limited number of international flights touch down from 0500 of a morning (depending if I recall on winter or summer timetables) while AustralianAirExpress and Toll Holdings continue to operate freight/ parcel/ Express Post flights in the small hours most mornings.

 

[Jack_OC]

I think the question was raised about enforcing curfew. Sure you clearly meant that only for take offs.

Exactly, I made it abundantly clear I only meant for take offs. Even in the sentence you just quoted! Talk about a straw man argument!

But the other point to consider is that enforcement agencies can't pick and choose which laws to enforce or when to enforce them. .

It would be perfectly simple to introduce a policy as follows:
- after curfew, handle landings as normal, but do not grant clearance to take off. Any exceptions must be specifically authorised by [insert figure of authority here].

As I said, there seems to be only one simple reason why ATC don't prevent take offs after curfew - it's just not their job to stop airlines breaking curfew.

 

[medhead]

Exactly, I made it abundantly clear I only meant for take offs. Even in the sentence you just quoted! Talk about a straw man argument!



It would be perfectly simple to introduce a policy as follows:
- after curfew, handle landings as normal, but do not grant clearance to take off. Any exceptions must be specifically authorised by [insert figure of authority here].

As I said, there seems to be only one simple reason why ATC don't prevent take offs after curfew - it's just not their job to stop airlines breaking curfew.

Not at all. I'm making the point that if someone enforces a law it has to be all or nothing. They can't choose to enforce the same law for take off only and not for landings. If they dont enforce it for landing then the natural question arises "Should there be a curfew on landings at all". The discussion following your post was clearly about ATC enforcing the law.

 

[anat0l]

Exactly, I made it abundantly clear I only meant for take offs. Even in the sentence you just quoted! Talk about a straw man argument!

I think the problem is that medhead is not proposing a straw man, but rather has typed a period when he meant a comma.

It would be perfectly simple to introduce a policy as follows:
- after curfew, handle landings as normal, but do not grant clearance to take off. Any exceptions must be specifically authorised by [insert figure of authority here].

Well the figure of authority is quite simple - that would be the Minister (as defined in the relevant Act which dictates the curfew). That doesn't mean you have to get the Minister, but in the Act it is a convenient way of saying that whoever ultimately makes the decision, it will be both (a) a delegate acting for the Minister, and (b) vicariously the ultimate responsibility of the Minister.

Whilst the proposal you've given is sound in principle, in practice I don't think it's that easy to dictate. I also think it will end up being rather redundant. Think about it: let's say an aircraft has a legitimate exception. They seek approval from the Minister for dispensation to take off and are granted. How is this authorisation communicated to ATC to allow them to pass? An electronic system that has tickets showing which flights / aircraft are approved to break curfew? That's another system or layer that must be added on top of what ATC already have to manage. Also, the disallowing or otherwise of ATC will have impacts on flight sequencing, then to position ATC as to wield that authority to say yes or no complicates things further.

In another sense, it may be easy to implement your proposal if the law is rewritten such that granting aircraft clearance to take off would be punishable under the curfew Act (notwithstanding exceptions). In this case, the culpability would fall fully on the working ATC at that time, i.e. if an aircraft without dispensation took off after curfew cleared by ATC, whoever was working ATC at that time could face penalties under the Act as administered by the court - fines, imprisonment, etc.. That would, oddly enough, remove the culpability fully off the airlines who intend to break the curfew, to the ATC who allowed an errant airline to break it. I think I'd be just a little scared of the legal ramifications of working in SYD ATC in that case.

 

[Jack_OC]

Not at all. I'm making the point that if someone enforces a law it has to be all or nothing. They can't choose to enforce the same law for take off only and not for landings. If they dont enforce it for landing then the natural question arises "Should there be a curfew on landings at all". The discussion following your post was clearly about ATC enforcing the law.

I'm not saying they shouldn't enforce the law for landings. I'm saying they should enforce it in a different way (the way they do now - after the fact by taking legal action and imposing fines). There are multiple ways of enforcing all sorts of laws, and different mechanisms are used in different circumstances all the time.

By the way, I just came across this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-08-08/45-second-late-plane-refused-landing-clearance/1461658

This article states "Air traffic control has admitted the Virgin Blue flight was prevented from landing at Sydney airport last night" because it arrived after 11pm. If this is true, it seems to completely contradict the claims earlier in the thread that ATC can't/won't refuse clearance because of the curfew.

(BTW, this doesn't change my view that planes should be allowed to land after curfew, and this particular example - if accurate - is absolutely absurd).

 

[Jack_OC]

I think the problem is that medhead is not proposing a straw man, but rather has typed a period when he meant a comma.

The straw man was the comments along the lines of "it would be too dangerous to refuse clearance to land" when the suggestion was simply to refuse clearance for take offs.

 

[anat0l]

By the way, I just came across this:
45-second late plane refused landing clearance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

This article states "Air traffic control has admitted the Virgin Blue flight was prevented from landing at Sydney airport last night" because it arrived after 11pm. If this is true, it seems to completely contradict the claims earlier in the thread that ATC can't/won't refuse clearance because of the curfew.

That statement alone doesn't confirm that ATC actually did the refusal of landing at SYD (whether or not ATC were legally empowered or not). It is simply a statement from ATC which says that the VA (or DJ, rather, given that year) flight was prevented from landing, most likely because ATC told them of the arrival time and the airline / flight was not granted dispensation / didn't apply for it, so the flight decided to not risk breaking curfew and, perhaps unfortunately, was forced to go back.

 

[medhead]

The straw man was the comments along the lines of "it would be too dangerous to refuse clearance to land" when the suggestion was simply to refuse clearance for take offs.

Comments that I did not make.

I was also simply pointing out that only enforcing the laws for take off is problematic as the curfew law applies to both take off and landing.

 

[JessicaTam]

I'm not saying they shouldn't enforce the law for landings. I'm saying they should enforce it in a different way (the way they do now - after the fact by taking legal action and imposing fines). There are multiple ways of enforcing all sorts of laws, and different mechanisms are used in different circumstances all the time.

By the way, I just came across this:
45-second late plane refused landing clearance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

This article states "Air traffic control has admitted the Virgin Blue flight was prevented from landing at Sydney airport last night" because it arrived after 11pm. If this is true, it seems to completely contradict the claims earlier in the thread that ATC can't/won't refuse clearance because of the curfew.

(BTW, this doesn't change my view that planes should be allowed to land after curfew, and this particular example - if accurate - is absolutely absurd).

Not sure how relevant an article from over 10 years ago is.

 

[anat0l]

Not sure how relevant an article from over 10 years ago is.

Relevant enough in that the curfew was the same then as it is now (viz. exactly the same application and time doesn't affect these things much). Just doesn't prove the point it was cited to do so.

 

[eastwest101]

Amongst the discussion here - we still really don't know what EK's legal team is attempting to do here. I guess as the case is heard we will find out is the EK lawyers have any tricks up their sleeves, but from my novice point of view - contesting the fines seem to be a waste of time and money as far as I can see...

 

[anat0l]

Amongst the discussion here - we still really don't know what EK's legal team is attempting to do here. I guess as the case is heard we will find out is the EK lawyers have any tricks up their sleeves, but from my novice point of view - contesting the fines seem to be a waste of time and money as far as I can see...

I was particularly interested to know what EK's lawyers will try. Obviously, given the complete lack of precedent and speculation on this thread, no one has absolutely no idea what they will try.

 

[Jack_OC]

Comments that I did not make.

.

I didn't say you made those comments. I meant LuckyMan's comments, which you were defending, constituted a straw man argument.

Relevant enough in that the curfew was the same then as it is now (viz. exactly the same application and time doesn't affect these things much).

Exactly, it's clearly very relevant. Bizarre that anyone could question the relevance!

Just doesn't prove the point it was cited to do so.

The article certainly implies that ATC refused to grant clearance to land (in fact, the headline explicitly states "plane refused landing clearance"). The article may of course be misleading/inaccurate (as I alluded to), as that's always a possibility with news reports, but if it is accurate, it suggests that ATC can indeed refuse to grant clearance because it's after curfew.

 

[eastwest101]

I was particularly interested to know what EK's lawyers will try. Obviously, given the complete lack of precedent and speculation on this thread, no one has absolutely no idea what they will try.

Emirates charged with breaching overnight curfew at Sydney Airport

This more recent SMH article refers to EK lawyers asking for more time to get all transcripts and paperwork.

Could just be a delaying tactic but if not - and this is speculation only - the fact that the EK lawyers need transcripts may in fact have something to do with a potential defense along the lines that the EK pilot was not clearly or sufficiently warned that they were breaking curfew, or some other loophole that EK may be trying - who know??? :?:

I can't see how a delaying tactic is going to work for them, they either have to succesfully contest/exploit/create a loop hole or simply shut up and pay the fine.....

 

[Jack_OC]

Whilst the proposal you've given is sound in principle, in practice I don't think it's that easy to dictate. I also think it will end up being rather redundant. Think about it: let's say an aircraft has a legitimate exception. They seek approval from the Minister for dispensation to take off and are granted. How is this authorisation communicated to ATC to allow them to pass? An electronic system that has tickets showing which flights / aircraft are approved to break curfew? That's another system or layer that must be added on top of what ATC already have to manage. Also, the disallowing or otherwise of ATC will have impacts on flight sequencing, then to position ATC as to wield that authority to say yes or no complicates things further.

.

There is already a system in place to seek dispensation to take off/land during curfew hours:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ews/SydneyAirport/DispensationGuidelines.aspx

 

[straitman]

The article certainly implies that ATC refused to grant clearance to land (in fact, the headline explicitly states "plane refused landing clearance"). The article may of course be misleading/inaccurate (as I alluded to), as that's always a possibility with news reports, but if it is accurate, it suggests that ATC can indeed refuse to grant clearance because it's after curfew.

As markis10 pointed out earlier though the aircraft captain can then decide to land or takeoff should he/she so decide. There can be situations where they need to make such a decision.

 

[Jack_OC]

As markis10 pointed out earlier though the aircraft captain can then decide to land or takeoff should he/she so decide. There can be situations where they need to make such a decision.

Right, but it has also been stated by several people in this thread that ATC cannot or will not refuse clearance in the first place. Is that incorrect?

 

[anat0l]

There is already a system in place to seek dispensation to take off/land during curfew hours:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ews/SydneyAirport/DispensationGuidelines.aspx

That system as described has no interaction with ATC whatsoever.

Your proposal would require rewriting of the Act and relevant guidelines to account for the responsibilities of ATC in the decision-making process. This is not a "bolt-on" responsibility.

 

[Jack_OC]

That system as described has no interaction with ATC whatsoever.

While not explicitly mentioned in the document I linked to, the system does indeed include a mechanism to interact with ATC (obviously). As it happens, it's mentioned in the equivalent document regarding the Adelaide airport curfew:

"Requests for curfew dispensations at Adelaide Airport should be made to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport on telephone number 02 6274 6100. All calls to this number, also used for Sydney, Coolangatta and Essendon airport curfew dispensation requests, are received by an answering service and immediately diverted to a duty officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport responsible for handling dispensation requests.

The duty officer will contact the person seeking the dispensation, make a decision on the request and advise the aircraft operator of the decision. If appropriate, the duty officer will also advise Airservices Australia’s Air Traffic Services at Adelaide Airport of the dispensation request and decision at the earliest practicable time."

Your proposal would require rewriting of the Act and relevant guidelines to account for the responsibilities of ATC in the decision-making process. This is not a "bolt-on" responsibility.

I never said ATC should be part of the decision making process, I said the dispensations should be granted by a "figure of authority", meaning the same person(s) who have authority to grant dispensations now, so I have no idea why you think it would require re-writing of the Act.