[CAN] 51 Pirie Street | 94m | 21 Levels | Hyatt

[CDJ]

This is what, the second or third time now we're hearing about issues with cranes and pan-ops in recent developments?
How come other cities don't appear to have issues with tall buildings going up and the cranes used? or is it simply because we haven't had any significantly tall buildings (in Adelaide terms) go up in a long time that we aren't used to these issues?

Possibly it's part of the "curse" of only having a fifteen-minute taxi ride from the airport to a city hotel. Moving the airport to the outer suburbs might solve this problem, but would it be worth it?

This is limiting the height on most multistorey developments in the city now - not just a two or three. Proximity to the airport is not a valid argument - Sydney's airport is the same distance. The excessively onerous airspace restrictions over Adelaide CBD are not based on any valid technical reasons. The RTCC is not used by aircraft in proximity to Adelaide CBD. Every single airline and operator using Adelaide Airport (and NRAH) has confirmed that they have no objection to the RTCC being raised by 300ft as it won't affect their operations. They also have no objection to PANS-OPS being lifted on east side of the city as the governing PANS-OPS surfaces are either not used at all by them (e.g. VOR approach the Runway 23 - not used by anyone) or can be replaced by safe alternatives which are higher and have no significant effect on efficiency. The only thing holding back development in the CBD now is a "can't be bothered" mentality from the federal airspace regulators. Potentially billions in investment being blocked for no reason. The airlines support development because they know it will help their businesses.

[[Shuz]]

I can't recall if it was you CDJ or another forum member who mentioned a few months ago about there being some sort of work being done behind the scenes about lifting the airspace restrictions?

[CDJ]

I can't recall if it was you CDJ or another forum member who mentioned a few months ago about there being some sort of work being done behind the scenes about lifting the airspace restrictions?

Hi Shuz - yes there is a lot going on in the background. This activity is at a higher level than some might imagine (no pun intended)!

[aceman]

I can't recall if it was you CDJ or another forum member who mentioned a few months ago about there being some sort of work being done behind the scenes about lifting the airspace restrictions?

Hi Shuz - yes there is a lot going on in the background. This activity is at a higher level than some might imagine (no pun intended)!

what level is that?

[[Shuz]]

If you read CDJs previous post - "The only thing holding back development in the CBD now is a "can't be bothered" mentality from the federal airspace regulators."

So, CASA.

Seems like everyone else is on board and pushing for it, but CASA is the roadblock. If memory serves me correctly from the discussion on the SkyscraperCity forums (haven't been on it in a couple of years) but essentially, a similar thing happened in Melbourne, Brisbane and Gold Coast recently.

Brisbane wrestled for years, if not a decade, trying to get their height limits lifted to about 270m (and could've been much higher).

Melbourne actually went backwards in their review as height limits were lowered in the northern part of their CBD, cutting off the heights off Swanston Central and Aurora Melbourne developments. Southbank is the only place they can go 315m maximum. They're challenging it again in light of Green Square and Australia 108 and Crown developments.

Gold Coast is a bit of a weird one, but I suspect it's more to do with economic risk than height limits. They can go to about 400m in Southport. But I don't think CASA will allow anything above 330m in all of the Australian cities for some unexplained reason.

[Ho Really]

[...]

But I don't think CASA will allow anything above 330m in all of the Australian cities for some unexplained reason.

Perhaps it is for the sake of consistency and uniformity (unlike the road rules you mentioned elsewhere).

Cheers

[Nort]

Part of CASA's job is to put safety front and center. If they say something is required to ensure safety and an airline says that it isn't cost effective, they will generally come back and say tough.

What that means is that CASA isn't easily swayed by arguments like saying that increased height limits would spur development. What's required is for them to be 100% assured that changes don't increase risk in any way. In an area as complex as aviation that's a big task.

[GrowAdelaide]

Part of CASA's job is to put safety front and center. If they say something is required to ensure safety and an airline says that it isn't cost effective, they will generally come back and say tough.

What that means is that CASA isn't easily swayed by arguments like saying that increased height limits would spur development. What's required is for them to be 100% assured that changes don't increase risk in any way. In an area as complex as aviation that's a big task.

Seems like a bit of a guilty until proven innocent approach to me. What was the evidence based argument they used to initiate the restrictions in the first place, I wonder?

[Nort]

Part of CASA's job is to put safety front and center. If they say something is required to ensure safety and an airline says that it isn't cost effective, they will generally come back and say tough.

What that means is that CASA isn't easily swayed by arguments like saying that increased height limits would spur development. What's required is for them to be 100% assured that changes don't increase risk in any way. In an area as complex as aviation that's a big task.

Seems like a bit of a guilty until proven innocent approach to me. What was the evidence based argument they used to initiate the restrictions in the first place, I wonder?

Planes + hitting things = bad probably.

[CDJ]

It's a mistake to assume that the current limits are related to any actual safety issue. The limiting surfaces over the eastern half of Adelaide CBD (RTCC and the lowest PANS-OPS surfaces) are outdated/arbitrary and have no relationship to currently used flight procedures. In the past there hasn't been a need to challenge this, but in recent years it has become a major constraint on the economy. So change is now appropriate.

There are many stakeholders that input into decision-making around aviation, not just CASA and not just aviation-related organisations. The Federal Minister is the ultimate arbiter. Nort is right that it is a big task and a lot of work has been done to demonstrate that safe adjustment can be made that allows current levels of flight efficiency to be maintained.

[Ben]

Thanks for your updates CDJ. Looking forward to you breaking the good news in the future your lobbying has been successful

[rev]

This talk of height limits and safety for planes reminded me of a video I saw of some Spanish and Greek firefighting planes that were sent to Israel..literally flying right besides and between apartment buildings, below their roof tops, to dump water on fire.

[CDJ]

This talk of height limits and safety for planes reminded me of a video I saw of some Spanish and Greek firefighting planes that were sent to Israel..literally flying right besides and between apartment buildings, below their roof tops, to dump water on fire.

Modern flight systems are far safer than what was in place 30 years ago and this means pilots can quite safely fly procedures in closer proximity to obstacles. I've landed in some airports in the Alps where you an look out the window and see vertical cliff face a few hundred metres away (737 or A320).

It is absurd for regulators to suggest that Adelaide Airport couldn't safely and efficiently deal with taller buildings on the east side of our CBD. There is 360 degree access to the airport and we are talking about 1-2 degrees out of this, at a height which affects no procedures which are actually used. Aircraft have no need to be flying low anywhere near the east side of the CBD, even under emergency conditions. The pilots and technical leaders from every airline operating out of Adelaide airport agree that increased height can be accommodated with no issues for aviation.

[bm7500]

I've flown into London City Airport (Western approach) and can tell you it feels like you are within touching distance of the skyscrapers in Canary Wharf. If this is permissible within one of the bigger cities in the world; Maximum building heights in Adelaide's CBD should be revised upwards imminently.

[CDJ]

I've flown into London City Airport (Western approach) and can tell you it feels like you are within touching distance of the skyscrapers in Canary Wharf. If this is permissible within one of the bigger cities in the world; Maximum building heights in Adelaide's CBD should be revised upwards imminently.

London is a very relevant example. Flight procedures there were changed to allow The Shard to be built and it subsequently resulted in a huge amount of regeneration in the surrounding area. London City Airport and Heathrow actively supported the changes as obviously a growing city is good for their business. If the busiest airspace in the world can accommodate increased building height, I think Adelaide can manage it.