Raglan Air Field

Raglan Airfield Update


Keeping you updated:

We will keep you updated through the RCB Board Meetings, RCB FB page and our website.

Please contact the Chair, Gabrielle Parson or Community Board members if you need to.  All contact details on the Members Page of the Community Board website. 

Next Board meeting is on8 December 2021, 01:30 pm - 04:00 pm online. All welcome.  Public forum at 1:30pm is for you to bring ideas and concerns. 

Other relevant documents:

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Lawson
John Lawson
5 months ago

Thank you for sharing all the information.

  • Has Duncan been asked why he rated Probability as 3? NZTA use a similar matrix (see https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/rail/operating-a-railway/risk-management/risk-matrix-likelihood-and-consequence-tool/), but by their definitions (Rare: May occur, but only in exceptional circumstances. It would be highly unexpected – ie not in the next 50 years) it would be 1, not 3.
  • Similarly, why is the likelihood of runway defects causing an accident so low, when that has happened quite recently and why is the consequence also only 3?
  • Why aren’t the risks of hitting the fence, or losing power and ditching on Duncan’s list, when those have also happened recently?
  • Did Duncan find out if the airfield can be closed until the potential hazards can be mitigated?
Gabrielle Parson
Gabrielle Parson
5 months ago
Reply to  John Lawson

Hi John,

Here are answers to your questions.

Has Duncan been asked why he rated Probability as 3? NZTA use a similar matrix (see https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/rail/operating-a-railway/risk-management/risk-matrix-likelihood-and-consequence-tool/), but by their definitions (Rare: May occur, but only in exceptional circumstances. It would be highly unexpected – ie not in the next 50 years) it would be 1, not 3.
 
Risk must be controlled or eliminated. Mitigation is no longer permitted under the Safety at work Act 2015. Lowering the like hood risk factor ultimately won’t change the outcome as a risk was identified. Under the Act if a risk is identified and no action taken to eliminate or control the risk and an incident occurs and Council Officers will be responsible under the Safety at Work Act 2015. 
 
The articles provided state that the risk identified must be eliminated or controlled even if it is moderate. 3 was chosen for risk as we have had reports of near misses in the past so it cannot be exclude and it is possible.
 
It should also be noted that when determining the “Inherent Risk “ (also known as the Initial Risk) the risk is viewed from a point of having no risk treatments or controls in place. Given this view point and evidence of events from throughout the aviation industry it is reasonable to assume that with no controls in place the Inherent Likelihood would be possible (i.e. feasible, a possibility of occurrence) that an aircraft could come into contact with a pedestrian or dog.
 
Similarly, why is the likelihood of runway defects causing an accident so low, when that has happened quite recently and why is the consequence also only 3?
 
It is understood that runway defects are less likely to result in a fatality, especially given the treatment that has been applied to control the risk (i.e. contractors monitor the airfield for foreign objects and defects and remediate where necessary). However given the recent incident and rational above, the Inherent Likelihood should be moved to 3 also. 
 
Why aren’t the risks of hitting the fence, or losing power and ditching on Duncan’s list, when those have also happened recently?
 
The analysis carried out focussed on the airfield and not on aircraft using it. However it’s clear that the full range of risks associated with the airfield should be considered.
 
Did Duncan find out if the airfield can be closed until the potential hazards can be mitigated?
 
The airfield can be closed to undertake safety work / implement treatments/controls to either eliminate or minimise the risks to health and safety. The duration / details of such closures need to be negotiated with the CAA.
 

John Lawson
John Lawson
3 months ago

Has no one ever considered “the full range of risks” associated with roads? Why the difference in safety standards?

John Lawson
John Lawson
2 months ago

Is the Mike Haines Review of Raglan Aerodrome link going to be added to this page please?

John Lawson
John Lawson
1 month ago

WDC has put the final review at https://www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz/docs/default-source/your-distric/raglan-aerodrome-review—september-2021.pdf. It says land ownership is out of its scope and WDC ought to talk to the community about cost. It also says the airfield could be closed just by giving CAA 30 days notice in writing. Closure seems the cheapest, quickest and safest solution.