The reporter has raised a safety concern in relation to areas of ongoing pavement failure on the apron at [Location] Airport.
The reporter states that there have been numerous instances of pavement failure of the sealed apron surface that have not been rectified presenting a major hazard for aircraft operations. Exacerbating the problem is the requirement for heavily laden fuel trucks to traverse the area, further penetrating the failed tarmac. An example is the poor repair of a failed section of the taxi lane outside the northern hangar with extreme unevenness of the sealed surface, holes in the taxiway surface, asphalt debris, and soft malleable surfaces. (Photos supplied to the ATSB).
The reporter further states, 'Operators have attempted to discuss the matter with the aerodrome operator on multiple occasions to address multiple issues, including the current pavement condition. No further action has been taken however, and no action appears to be planned in the near future. Operators have been directed to park aircraft on unsealed dirt surfaces only accessible by taxiing via and off the end of runway 32, parking outside the gable markers. The aerodrome operator has had meetings with operators in 2024, where operators discussed the lack of suitable aircraft parking (including in relation to the multiple instances of pavement failure). The aerodrome operator, however, indicated nil intent to improve the condition of the apron and associated taxiways'.
The reporter finally states that multiple aircraft operators believe that the aerodrome operator is currently not fulfilling the requirements of MOS 139, particularly Paragraph 6.61 - Apron bearing strength, which states - 'Each part of an apron must be capable of withstanding the traffic of the aircraft for which it is designed'. (Note - This is to prevent the development of surface depressions or other hazards which may adversely affect aircraft operations).
I refer to the REPCON received by ATSB as detailed below. My first reaction is disappointment in the misinformation contained here in. I will go through the document detailing the facts.
The sub grade at [Location] airport is in places poor. Therefore, the pavement also suffers. This is exacerbated in the wet season as the water bubbles up from beneath and causes the pavement in places to fail. In the dry season we don’t have the same issue, and the pavement is quite stable. We have been investigating the area highlighted all of last year and we found that when the airport was constructed this area was filled with waste material. We also think that an underground stream may be there or thereabouts. As mentioned, this area is constantly monitored for further degradation.
The [aerodrome operator] does perform maintenance as shown in the photos (supplied to the ATSB). You can also see the standard of the sub grade in the photos. In this instance as the prior patch failed, we dug down quite a bit further than last time and filled the hole with road base to try to create a firmer sub grade for the bitumen to go over. We believe that this will ensure that the fix remains firm for a longer period of time.
I spoke to both operators of the fuel trucks last year to ensure that they only carry enough fuel for the next few deliveries and do not enter the airfield full. They advised that they do not operate at full capacity and are only maximum 60-70 per cent full at any time. I have no way of monitoring this though.
As detailed above we continued to monitor the area in question and when the conditions were conducive to the repairs being performed, we completed them. As you can see in the photos, this was completed when we finally got some fine weather and the works could proceed.
The next paragraph just borders on slander against the [aerodrome operator]. How can one say that we don’t perform any repairs when we have done so as soon as the wet season allowed us to?
We do direct aircraft to park on unsealed surface at the end of runway 32 and have done so for many years. We monitor this area to ensure that the ground is firm. This has happened here at [Location] airport for many years, and I am unsure what the point of this really is, except to create a story for the regulator that the [aerodrome operator] is not performing its responsibilities in accordance with the regulations.
The [aerodrome operator] does have regular meetings with the operators at the airport and to say our intent is not to upgrade and maintain as required is just made up nonsense. As detailed above, this is just part of what one could believe is a list of lies and stories made up for no other reason than to portray the [aerodrome operator] as a poor airport manager. Further to this, the [aerodrome operator] has engaged a specialist pavement engineer to help the [aerodrome operator] work out ways in which we can ensure the life of the current movement areas, including the runway and taxiways are maximised and maintained appropriately. We continue to work with that engineer to understand the management of those movement areas.
The [aerodrome operator] also has instructed the Aerodrome Reporting Officers (AROs) to conduct [foreign object debris removal tool] regularly. This is a Saturday task when movements are less than on the weekdays.
I have also attached the minutes (supplied to the ATSB) from our airport meeting late last year which was held to discuss parking areas and what could be done to alleviate issues and concerns. I note though that throughout that whole meeting nothing was raised regarding 'multiple instances of pavement failure' and once again this is just woven into this story to soil the good name of the [aerodrome operator].
CASA considers that the pavement failures captured in recent images presented a hazard to aircraft operations and are a safety concern. Our aerodrome inspectors have contacted the aerodrome operator seeking advice about planning to address the recent pavement failures.
CASA is maintaining a heightened surveillance posture of this aerodrome at the present time.