Raglan Air Field

Raglan Airfield Summary


Through what has been a difficult process, I feel we are working together well between the Community Board, community members and Council.  Thank you everyone.  Let’s take this as a good learning process.

July Update

WDC have appointed a consultant, Mark Haines to undertake a thorough and independent review of the airfield to assess safety, community concerns and Council’s obligation as manager.  Timing for this is around 4 weeks. The red lines will be remarked to outline the operational/runway zone. 

The proposed fencing is on hold until the independent review is completed, this will inform any further discussions/decisions moving forward. 

RCB Meeting 31st March

  • Council (WDC) presented report to Community Board (RCB) regarding:
    • safety improvements to airfield.  Suggested improved signage and changes including a fenced walkway to retain access around one side of airfield and prevent people crossing the runway (operational zone). 
    • Further investigation to understand Council’s obligation to operate the airfield
  • After much discussion RCB recommended that:
    • education, improved signage and monitoring happen for 3 months first before any further action (like fences).
    • WDC do the further investigation – into the longer term plans for airfield. 

RCB Agenda and Minutes.  

WDC Infrastructure Committee Meeting 5th May

  • Staff report suggested restricing access to the Operational (Runway) Zone but not to restrict access to the beach around perimeter.  It also suggested working with RCB to mitigate the safety needs, develop an education programme and permit access as far as is reasonably practibable without compromising safety.  
  • Chris Rayner spoke on behalf of the Board
  • Infrastructure Committee went with staff recommendation to restrict access to the operational (runway) zone and improve signage.  

Infrastructure Committee Agenda and Minutes

RCB Meeting 12th May

  • RCB received questions from public forum
  • Update from WDC Staff  
    • Including acknowledgement that the WDC process has not been great.
  • Board discussed with WDC next steps.
    • That is was essential for the RCB that WDC work with us on access/solutions to the immedicate safety issues.  Agreed.
    • For action on safety improvements
      • Requested background documents for informed decisions/solutions.  Audit report and Risk Assessment and Safety at Work Act sections. 
      • Arranged meet with WDC staff, at the airfield, to discuss walkway/access solutions and education/signage.  
      • That we would like the opportunity to do further mid-term work on anything else that has come up which is of concern, or to look into other solutions.  WDC staff member was open to that. 
    • That very important for Comms to community following the meeting (WDC/RCB to work together on this)
    • Agreed that RCB members would attend Town Hall meeting and Chair would speak on behalf of Board. 
    • Indicated that RCB might want to review the WDC process with WDC staff.  Acknoweldged that it would be good to review RCB process too – Comms etc. WDC staff member indicated they would internally reflect as team.  

RCB Agenda (Airfield was addressed under Works & Issues Report)

Minutes available next couple of days.  Link will be uploaded here. 

Site Visit 14th and following that to 18th May

  • Three Community Board Members and WDC staff member met at Airfield to discuss walkway, access and operational zone etc. 
  • WDC staff sent revised plan reflecting our discussions.  This included defined Operational Zone and walkway fencing.  
  • WDC sent info on Safety at Work Act and Risk Assessment to RCB 

Town Hall Meeting 19th May – Initiated by Community Member 

  • Meeting faciliated by community member
  • WDC General Manager Service Delivery gave update from WDC
  • RCB Chair gave update from RCB
  • Community members shared their ideas and concerns
  • By show of hands commuity members showed support for various options with most support for continued access across the operational zone/runway, a warning system, improved signage and no fences.  

19th May to 26th May

  • WDC working closely with RCB for best outcomes. 
  • Airfield Operational Zone/Runway has been marked on the grass with red paint to highlight this space.  
  • Updated signs due to be installed.  
  • WDC informed RCB that they are working to engage an independent person to review the airfield and safety.  This will take into consideration the suggestions put forward by the Commuity Board and community members over the last few weeks.  This is to ensure we are well informed and that the most balanced actions are taken.
  • Update from RCB to RCB Facebook page and into Raglan Chronicle (due out 27th May)
  • Summary to RCB website

Next Steps:

  • RCB waiting to hear from WDC regarding independent review.
  • New signs to be installed

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 on 23rd June, 1:30pm, Supper Room, Raglan Town Hall.  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
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Lawson
John Lawson
3 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
3 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
1 month ago

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

John Lawson
John Lawson
23 days ago

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