A pilot has managed to escape crashing into a house after his aircraft lost power in Casino this morning.
The light plane narrowly missed a house, landing on it’s side on a property next to the airstrip.
No one was injured.
text will be replaced
A pilot has managed to escape crashing into a house after his aircraft lost power in Casino this morning.
The light plane narrowly missed a house, landing on it’s side on a property next to the airstrip.
No one was injured.
My deepest respect to the pilot.
Locally, it is said the Pilot wanted to avoid homes on his return to the runway after losing power.
To have those thoughts and carry out the manouvres required is a credit to him.
So very glad for himself and his family he was not injured.
I too am very pleased the pilot made it down safely and that no-one was hurt or injured at the Casino Village. However the crash today vindicates very clearly the position of the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Inc. which has been saying for many years to Council and State and Federal government authorities that residential development has been approved by Council too close to Richmond Valley Council airfields at both Casino and Evans Head.
It begs the question what expertise does Council have in aviation safety and on what basis did Council conclude that the residential development was far enough away from the airfield to be safe? At one time responsibility for these issues fell to the Federal government but former Minister John Anderson changed all that with a stroke of a pen in January 2004 when he liberalised Transfer Deeds over 240 ALOP aerodromes around Australia and left it to local government to decide what to do with their airfields and planning around them. This policy has continued with the current government under the control of deputy prime minister Albanese who continues to tell us that local government is ‘best placed’ to make decisions about the use of its airfields including safety issues. What nonsense this is. Today’s accident confirms that local government with a vested interest in development is not best placed to make decisions about land use planning around aerodromes. It should not be involved in planning about its own airfields. It has a conflict of interest.
Now one of the most interesting questions relates to the use of the airfield for Rural Fire Service Water Bomber operations. My committee argued strongly for the RFS to set up its base for its Water Bombing ops at Evans Head but we understand that council pushed for Casino so that it could carve up Evans Head for residential development. What a big mistake that was. Perhaps the RFS needs to revisit Evans Head as home for its Water Bomber ops particularly now that land at the southern end of the airfield is no longer being developed, inappropriately we might add, for the retirement village. The case for such a development is strong as the airfield is to be used for aviation and has four runways to deal with cross wind conditions making it highly versatile for most weather conditions compared with Casino. But more than that it is near where most of our fires occur and the population centres of the coastal strip where bushfire is ever present. Now that council has had its request for funds for lengthening of the runway at Casino refused, why not move to Evans Head.
And who is going to be held accountable for the dumb decisions about residential development at Evans Head and Casino?
Readers should note that former Premier Christina Keneally approved rezoning for residential development at the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome in September 2009 when she was planning minister on the recommendation of Richmond Valley Council when there were already sound options for more appropriate aviation development at Evans Head going back to December 2002.
Sadly we cannot feel relaxed about the federal government doing the right thing about safety as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau uses a bean counters’ model for safety called “affordable risk”. In the good old days planners did everything in their power to try and minimise risk for development near aviation facilities by keeping them a suitable distance but now they use a model which puts a price on human life and says how much can we afford to fork out if a plane went down in a residential areas and then play the odds in determining distance. So they might conclude on the basis of accident data that there are only two chances in a million take-offs and landings of an aircraft having a nasty crash in a residential area and we can afford to pay that out, but what they can’t tell you is when that crash might occur. It might be on the second take-off or 999,999th! They can’t tell us when! Sad to say it will take a major crash with multiple human casualties to return to the old model which gave us greater margins for error and safety. In the meantime all three levels of government need to be challenged about their current safety models. The crash at Casino today is a wake-up call. Time for governments to start looking after the public interest. Nothing less will do.
Dr Richard Gates, president, The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Inc.