EK to front court over SYD curfew breaches

[JessicaTam]

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.

My point was that over time staff change/departments change focus/governments change so that what was applied 10 years ago may not be how the law is applied or interpreted today. No biggie.

 

[Saab34]

I know of another carrier who once broke a curfew in another capital, the captain spoke with senior management of the company who authorized them to depart in curfew.

I wouldn't think a flight crew would break a curfew without contacting some senior people in the company.

In this case, the cost of Emirates not departing would cost them a fortune, not to mention these late night stranding tend to turn into a PR disaster.

 

[anat0l]

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.

But if you grant ATC the powers to refuse movement for take off due to the curfew, that shifts part of the decision-making process related to the curfew to them. That decision they are making - whether to give allowance to take off or not - is a legally empowered one according to an Act which is very much not part of the core functions of air traffic control.

The Act needs to include this fact, as well as connect the decision-making process related to dispensations to ATC. It doesn't have to mean ATC are a decision-maker with respect to dispensations, but they are a decision-maker with respect to movement within the curfew.

My point was that over time staff change/departments change focus/governments change so that what was applied 10 years ago may not be how the law is applied or interpreted today. No biggie.

No biggie here either - was just anticipating how the article was being used.

That said, IMO I think nothing has changed much in the application of the law. Sure, departments do change, but the application of the law itself I believe has not.

I know of another carrier who once broke a curfew in another capital, the captain spoke with senior management of the company who authorized them to depart in curfew.

I wouldn't think a flight crew would break a curfew without contacting some senior people in the company.

In this case, the cost of Emirates not departing would cost them a fortune, not to mention these late night stranding tend to turn into a PR disaster.

Which is fair enough in this case. I guess it's a decision too like do you not worry about a speeding ticket because you had to rush your pregnant wife to the hospital to give birth. (OK the latter is a really facetious example but I can't think of a better analogy).

If the curfew is intended to be punitive then I guess one might argue that it may not have a large enough penalty attached to it. It would be very interesting to see how the community who support the curfew view such a perspective taken by an airline like Emirates.

 

[Jack_OC]

But if you grant ATC the powers to refuse movement for take off due to the curfew, that shifts part of the decision-making process related to the curfew to them. That decision they are making - whether to give allowance to take off or not - is a legally empowered one according to an Act which is very much not part of the core functions of air traffic control.

The Act needs to include this fact, as well as connect the decision-making process related to dispensations to ATC. It doesn't have to mean ATC are a decision-maker with respect to dispensations, but they are a decision-maker with respect to movement within the curfew.

.

The Act doesn't need to include that fact. The precise way legislation is administered in practice is almost never defined in detail in Acts of Parliament (deliberately so, as it would be unworkable when any procedural changes are required). The minister could simply implement a procedure along the lines I described.

 

[markis10]

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.

Rubbish, as previously posted ATC are often approved delegates and this is part of the act:

Delegation (1) The Minister may, in writing, delegate the Minister's powers to grant dispensations under section 20 to:
(a) the Secretary of the Department; or
(b) an officer of the Department; or
(c) an employee of Airservices Australia.

ATC are very much involved in the process however given a PIC has law enforcement powers far beyond what is on offer to ATC, there will never be legislation effectively prohibiting movement based on ATC clearances or lack thereof, its ultimately the PIC say be it go or no go. If you think it through in the real world, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Major]

It would be interesting to find out if there were any actual complaints received regarding these alleged breaches by EK. Also whether any complaints are received regarding the freighters which operated during curfew hours.

There are probably some vexacious complaints lodged but I think residents have accepted some aircraft movement and can see no reason why the 2 over the Bay runways couldn't be used on a regular basis

 

[anat0l]

Rubbish, as previously posted ATC are often approved delegates and this is part of the act:

Delegation (1) The Minister may, in writing, delegate the Minister's powers to grant dispensations under section 20 to:
(a) the Secretary of the Department; or
(b) an officer of the Department; or
(c) an employee of Airservices Australia.

Thanks for clearing that misconception up.

It really does sound like in that section there that ATC could very well control the curfew if they so wished (or rather, if given delegation to do so). That said, I do note that the section you described only relates to ATC's role in granting (or denying) dispensations; it doesn't relate much as to whether ATC can deny movement (with or without dispensation). I assume there is a part of the Act that covers this.

ATC are very much involved in the process however given a PIC has law enforcement powers far beyond what is on offer to ATC, there will never be legislation effectively prohibiting movement based on ATC clearances or lack thereof, its ultimately the PIC say be it go or no go. If you think it through in the real world, it makes a lot of sense.

That does make sense, and reinforces - without my misconceptions - the current arrangement that ATC does not have the powers to deny aircraft movements (take-offs or landings) is more effective than if they had such powers (even if it is just take-offs).

That is cold comfort for those that still believe that the curfew enforcement should at least be at the most "obvious" levels at the coal face.

 

[Melburnian1]

Has this legal action progressed any further that we know of? It is relevant to tonight's 14 minute breach of the SYD curfew by EK414, which landed at 2314 ex DXB.

 

[Jamesl]

Has this legal action progressed any further that we know of? It is relevant to tonight's 14 minute breach of the SYD curfew by EK414, which landed at 2314 ex DXB.

As per other threads - dispensation was granted.

 

[Melburnian1]

Here is a link to the dispensation report tabled in Parliament that notes how on 6 March 2014 EK414 from SYD to DXB (with 512 including 30 crew onboard) was refused a dispensation:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ationReports/2014/files/Webreport_02_2014.pdf