After 2300 hours post-curfew operations in SYD on Sunday 5 June 2016

[junbugging]

Probably weird because there is no political aspect to this thread.

Well then allow me to rephrase: I do not think the government being in caretaker mode has any bearing whatsoever on what went on yesterday. Nor does the fact that "we" are currently in an election campaign.

 

[JohnK]

I would like to see the thread renamed as no one breached curfew as it was approved.

Reporting the OP would bring it to the attention of the moderators who could rename the thread.

 

[Melburnian1]

Reporting the OP would bring it to the attention of the moderators who could rename the thread.

JohnK, I tried to rename it to this:

After 2300 hours post-curfew operations in SYD on Sunday 5 June 2016


but found that this only renamed the first post, not the entire thread. You imply that only moderators can rename the latter. Thank you to Simo for the suggestion.

 

[Milboo]

Not surprised. I came in last night ex AKL and we were warned to expect up to 40 mins holding but we got lucky and slotted in as we were 10 mins ahead of schedule.

I live under the flight path being used last night with the single runway operations and couldn't hear much over the rain and wind.

 

[JB001]

Even though aircraft may have departed after the 2300 curfew, it does not mean that they had dispensation to depart after 11pm. The legislation requires that an aircraft must be in receipt of a taxi clearance prior to 2300, not ready for takeoff. In theory an aircraft could request a pushback and taxi clearance when ready prior to 11pm and not pushback or taxi for quite some time.
All departures after 2300 have to be from RWY16R and landings on RWY 34L irrespective of wind unless there is a specific dispensation.
When RWY 34L is in use for departures in the evening the final aircraft to depart must be wheels up by 2245 local irrespective of whether they depart prior to 2300. There have been occasions, particularly during summer where there has been storms and the late international departures have been unable to depart from RWY 34L and have had to taxi and wait at the holding point for RWY 16R until the wind conditions (generally downwind component) are within limits for the aircraft to depart.
It would be very unlikely that any aircraft received dispensation to depart during the curfew period and just complied with legislation of being in receipt of a taxi clearance prior to 2300 and departing from RWY 16R.

 

[JessicaTam]

The thread has been renamed. The 'request' was reported which drew my attention to it. Moderators aren't able to read every thread, so reporting is the best way to let us know.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thank you JessicaTam.

One other moderator claimed a month or two back that 'every' thread was read by he or one of his colleagues.

 

[medhead]

Well then allow me to rephrase: I do not think the government being in caretaker mode has any bearing whatsoever on what went on yesterday. Nor does the fact that "we" are currently in an election campaign.

Dispensations are a ministerial decision. That decision making process changes when in caretaker mode. I think it is valid to wonder about how that process worked last night, regardless of the politics of the players in the process. Wondering about the functioning of government is not inherently a political discussion, even if politics is often in the background.

 

[Mattg]

I can't say with certainty that all these operations were officially approved. Highly likely, the more so because there were multiple takeoffs that occurred well after 2300 hours but that's why a report is presented on a quarterly basis to the Federal Parliament about whether in each case 'dispensation' was granted.

I'm not an expert in this at all but, with or without a dispensation, I don't believe that an aircraft taking off after 23:00 is necessarily in breach of curfew. My understanding is that they would be allowed to depart as long as they were ready and requested clearance before 23:00. Happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

 

[Melburnian1]

Dispensations are a ministerial decision. That decision making process changes when in caretaker mode. I think it is valid to wonder about how that process worked last night, regardless of the politics of the players in the process. Wondering about the functioning of government is not inherently a political discussion, even if politics is often in the background.

medhead, absolutely.

While it is probably the case (without looking up weather bureau records) that on Sunday night 5 June 2016 the situation was more 'severe' (because it had gone on for longer, and there was 150mm of rain in 30 hours at SYD) than on the previous occasions I highlighted in the report tabled in Parliament (go back a few posts in this thread), on the latter occasion when there was a 'normal' government functioning, two requests were NOT approved.

Last night, it appears ALL requests were approved although to know that for sure we will have to wait until the next report is tabled in Federal Parliament. However I am unsure why they were approved (if in fact they were).

It may be that during 'caretaker mode' the Ministerial delegate has a more concillatory approach to airlines asking for permission for a late departure while when the Minister is truly a Minister (elected, not a 'caretaker') the decision maker is just a bit more cognisant that his or her decisions might not be completely separate from the world of politics. The airlines lobby MPs and public servants in more than one way: the electorate (you and I) may do so if we have a strong view about a matter such as airport noise or conversely not having our trip home abandoned for the night because our aircraft could not obtain departure clearance late at night.

So yes, entirely valid to 'wonder' as you suggest.

 

[woodborer]

Dispensations are a ministerial decision.

Under the Act the minister can delegate, and as far as I am aware, decsisions are typically made by 'the delegate' following the set down rules. Until we see the dispensations for the night published (as the will in due course), we won't know what the basis of any dispensations were, and whether any were rejected.

 

[JB001]

medhead, absolutely.

While it is probably the case (without looking up weather bureau records) that on Sunday night 5 June 2016 the situation was more 'severe' (because it had gone on for longer, and there was 150mm of rain in 30 hours at SYD) than on the previous occasions I highlighted in the report tabled in Parliament (go back a few posts in this thread), on the latter occasion when there was a 'normal' government functioning, two requests were NOT approved.

Melburnian 1 curfew dispensation has always been and will continue to be very rare. There have been much more severe weather which has brought Sydney to a complete standstill from 5:30 until close to curfew. On one occasion 6 or so years ago there was lines of aircraft who had taxied stopped on taxiways unable to depart due to storms sitting over the airfield. No dispensations were granted on this evening and it is my experience that a dispensation is very much a one off and applied for a significant reason.

Last night, it appears ALL requests were approved although to know that for sure we will have to wait until the next report is tabled in Federal Parliament. However I am unsure why they were approved (if in fact they were).

It is more likely that no dispensations were applied for and the airlines operated within the legislation of the curfew period. You stated that the last depart was at 2319, that is not a long time at all if the crew were trying to depart on the duty runway prior to curfew, realised that they were not going to make it, pushed back and received a taxi clearance prior to 2300 and then sat at either a holding point or on a taxiway to redo their performance figures etc and assess the conditions for departure on RWY 16R. The legislation is very clear that provided an aircraft is in receipt of a taxi clearance prior to 2300 they can depart from RWY16R at 0559 if they have had to wait that long.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thank you JB001.

While it will be some months away, I will try to remember to link this thread to a copy of the report that will be eventually tabled in Federal Parliament and which covers 5 June 2016 so we can definitively ascertain if any dispensations were applied for on the evening in question.

 

[marki]

Wow interesting thread had no idea of the extent of the complexities

 

[ABC1]

Approval was granted and given... QF IOC sought approval from DOTARS and it was granted to all carriers.. They sought approval because Air Services Australia placed a ground stop on SYD from 2000-2115 due to destructive winds/weather on the Sunday night.

 

[UP4014]

It is more likely that no dispensations were applied for and the airlines operated within the legislation of the curfew period. You stated that the last depart was at 2319, that is not a long time at all if the crew were trying to depart on the duty runway prior to curfew, realised that they were not going to make it, pushed back and received a taxi clearance prior to 2300 and then sat at either a holding point or on a taxiway to redo their performance figures etc and assess the conditions for departure on RWY 16R. The legislation is very clear that provided an aircraft is in receipt of a taxi clearance prior to 2300 they can depart from RWY16R at 0559 if they have had to wait that long.

Or sitting waiting for others to land, I would imagine there was a bit of a bank up.

 

[harvyk]

Dispensations are a ministerial decision. That decision making process changes when in caretaker mode. I think it is valid to wonder about how that process worked last night, regardless of the politics of the players in the process. Wondering about the functioning of government is not inherently a political discussion, even if politics is often in the background.

Whilst this sub-conversation is probably best served in it's own thread, here goes...

Caretaker mode is a convention rather than actual law. It basically states that during an election campaign the government of the day won't make any decisions which would commit the next government to action without first discussing the decision with the major opposition party.

Caretaker mode does not prevent day to day operations and minor decisions which will not commit the next government to any action and emergency decisions are still permitted.

So in the event of dispensations for a single night due to extreme weather, that is a decision which can be made by the minister and is very valid even during caretaker mode.
BTW is it NSW or Fed gov't which makes the decision?

 

[dajop]

So in the event of dispensations for a single night due to extreme weather, that is a decision which can be made by the minister and is very valid even during caretaker mode.

I think what happens when in caretaker mode ... dispensation applied for ... minister instructs pollsters to take a quick poll of pax sitting around SYD to determine which electorates they come from. If statisically signficant number of pax come from marginal electorates then dispensation granted. If most come from safe seats ... dispensation denied.

[ I am joking, at least I hope I am joking]

 

[levelnine]

Whilst this sub-conversation is probably best served in it's own thread, here goes...

Caretaker mode is a convention rather than actual law. It basically states that during an election campaign the government of the day won't make any decisions which would commit the next government to action without first discussing the decision with the major opposition party.

Caretaker mode does not prevent day to day operations and minor decisions which will not commit the next government to any action and emergency decisions are still permitted.

So in the event of dispensations for a single night due to extreme weather, that is a decision which can be made by the minister and is very valid even during caretaker mode.
BTW is it NSW or Fed gov't which makes the decision?

Correct. The government being in 'caretaker mode' has no effect on these ordinary administrative decisions. 'Caretaker mode' refers to a set of political conventions not to take decisions that would bind the next government by, for example, making a major appointment (eg High Court appointment) or a major policy decision.

It is a federal government decision taken under federal legislation: the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (Cth).

Edit: Weather is generally not considered an exceptional circumstance that warrants dispensation:

Exceptional circumstances will not generally exist on the basis that:
(a) one of the following has caused changes to scheduled flights:
(i) adverse weather conditions, where the operator of an aircraft scheduled to fly to Sydney Airport knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, prior to take-off, that those conditions were likely to eventuate;
(ii) adverse weather conditions, where the operator of an aircraft scheduled to depart Sydney Airport knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, within a reasonable period prior to take-off, that those conditions were likely to eventuate;

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00450

 

[Danger]

Danger, we are in a Federal election period as the writs were issued for dissolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate with a Federal election - called in this case a 'double dissolution' - to occur on Saturday 2 July (with voting also possible by post, absentee and from two Mondays before the polling date, at an early voting centre).

During what this time is an unusually long about 50 day period, Ministers remain so but by convention are restricted in what decisions they can make. The nomenclature therefore calls them 'caretakers.'

I am not sure during the caretaker period whether the Federal Minister's delegate, who is a public servant if I recall, would have to refer any contentious decisions to the Minister or his staff, as the Ministers are in 'caretaker mode' as noted above.

As others have alluded to I think you're getting unnecessarily caught up in the caretaker convention. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in this situation, hence my original confusion as to why you used the term.

I don't understand your comment in regards to Politics as the curfew rules are controlled by the Govt and as we are in election period the current Govt is in Caretaker mode.

Many times in the media the term caretaker is used at the moment.

Yes, but it is entirely irrelevant in this context.

There is nothing above about 'politics', which is adversarial.

The 'caretaker period' is by convention, and essentially an administrative arrangement. Government still needs to function, as any public servant who receives a fortnightly pay packet would understand, or anyone who receives a Centrelink benefit. However in a democracy we have a period after which parliamentarians are no longer 'the Member for...' or 'Senator the Hon...' and need to seek re-election, or retire.

Yes, but that period only begins when the polls have been declared. The term relates to a caretaker government. I have never heard of a parliamentarian being considered a caretaker during an election period, any moreso than they are caretakers outside this period.

It is troubling that many individuals in our society do not understand longstanding concepts like this. 'How can such individuals make an informed choice at an election?' will be the extent of any 'political' comment.

I find it troubling that some people seem be taking this convention as being far more than it is in practice.

Probably weird because there is no political aspect to this thread.

Certainly not to the level some think it is, no.

Well then allow me to rephrase: I do not think the government being in caretaker mode has any bearing whatsoever on what went on yesterday. Nor does the fact that "we" are currently in an election campaign.

Exactly.

Dispensations are a ministerial decision. That decision making process changes when in caretaker mode. I think it is valid to wonder about how that process worked last night, regardless of the politics of the players in the process. Wondering about the functioning of government is not inherently a political discussion, even if politics is often in the background.

I would be blown away if the decision making process for curfew dispensation was impacted by the caretaker period. As suggested, the convention applies to significant decisions relating to spending and those that would bind an incoming government, as well as major appointments (like, for example, the appointment of a former Minister as Australia's Ambassador to a powerful Asian nation which will have to wait until after the new government is certain).