Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 495: To ask the Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 124 of 30 May 2000, his views on whether the Snow report in question at paragraph 4.1.2 not alone admits that the maximum sized runway protection zones in the United States extend a mere 750m from runway thresholds of some of the busiest airports in the world; the reason the red zones or approach areas at what can only be regarded as a relatively insignificant and remote rural aerodrome such as Baldonnel extend 1,370m from the runway thresholds and 1,270m in the case of runway 05 as outlined at paragraph 5.1 of the said report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36727/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would refute the Deputy's characterisation of Casement Aerodrome. Red safety areas were first adopted at Casement Aerodrome following a review in 1992 by Aer Rianta, on behalf of the Department of Defence, of policy on safety zones at the aerodrome. International civil aviation organisation standards and recommendations on obstacle limitation surfaces for airports as well as considerations in regard to public safety in the vicinity of the aerodrome were taken into account in determining the size and shape of the red safety areas at Casement Aerodrome. While the Snow report, prepared in 1999, to which the Deputy refers, contains discourse regarding safety zone determinants adopted by certain regulatory authorities such as the CAA and FAA and arrangements in other countries, the recommendation in the case of Casement Aerodrome contained in the report was that the approach areas be retained for security and safety reasons because of the large proportion of training, including single engine and solo flights by inexperienced pilots, carried out at the aerodrome.