Avalon CLOSED to GA

[impulse coupled]

I have just been told by a GA operator that Avalon is closed to GA. Is this new or has it taken time to filter down???

Airport closed is one thing, but being in class G airspace I suppose it will become popular for:

1. a waypoint in a nav to anywhere;
2. a good place to practise precautionary search and approach;
3. NDB approaches;
4. GPS approaches

and any number of things between 500' and 10,000'

:E

[Vacant Towers]

I notice in the 24 Nov 05 issue of ERSA that Avalon is identified as a "Security Controlled Airport" which could be interpreted as a backhand banning of GA. Of course there is a subtle difference between closing (sic) an airport and closing airspace.

VT

[impulse coupled]

Exactly, they have no right to the airspace and can only charge for, or refuse, a landing.

I think GA should show how it feels, I will be adding AVALON to my list of regular waypoints!!!

[John Eacott]

can only charge for, or refuse, a landing

ISTR that our caring, sharing Bracks gummint passed a law a year or so ago, allowing private airports to charge for approaches, etc, even when no landing occurs. Thin end of the wedge? :rolleyes: :yuk:

[impulse coupled]

Then Bracks gummit needs to read the constitution. Airspace is commonwealth!!!

Besides, I can get very dyslexic in stressful situations :E

[John Eacott]

Impulse,

I'm sure that Bracks' revenue collectors, sorry that should read Impartial Courts, would be delighted to have a test case to sink their teeth into ;)

Federal law says that 10% error is allowed in speedometers in cars, but the $200+ million per year raised from reducing that to <2% hasn't deterred Bracks one iota :mad:

[impulse coupled]

John

It isn't about error etc, it is about control. Airspace is managed under the CAA. Vic Govt has no control. But yes, who can afford the court case, so play alphabet soup instead!!!

'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000'

:)

[Squawk7700]

I think you're missing one very important factor.

Avalon is privately owned by Lindsay Fox. You haven't been able to fly in there for quite some time since Jetstar arrived because there are no longer and GA facilities and you can't just rock up in your 172 to a secure field and stroll in for a coffee.

Keep at 1,500ft AGL, fly over it and don't go in there; that's about all you can do about it. No prec searches below 500ft otherwise the boys from u know where will come visit you. End of story.

[impulse coupled]

Avalon is NOT built up, so why can't you fly a practise approach even to 100'.

It is simply a CTAF-R. So, provided you stick to the rules for operating in a CTAF-R you can do anything there you would at any other except land.

[Squawk7700]

Easy... Here are the facts:

Avalon is not a CTAF; it is currently an MBZ, when it is not Class C airspace by Notam or short notice.

You can't land at an airfield on which you are not authorised unless it's an emergency.

If you fly low (eg 500ft) over an airfield that is clearly marked on a VTC/VNC (particularly with Qantas / Jetstar) traffic you are in breach of CAO's and will find yourself with a "please explain" or "show cause."

If you fly a low approach, eg, prec search (and are not authorised to do so by the airport operator) below 500 ft you are technically in breach of the regulations and as a result subject to 50 penalty points at a cost of $110 for low flying. It's in the CAO's; pretty simple stuff.

'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000' - ERR- No!! it would be 1,500agl or you'll be zooming into a 767 or a340 at circuit height; not pretty and creates a mountain of paperwork and court expenses if you are lucky enough to survive, if you could in fact call that lucky...

Also, by the way, "Security Controlled Airport" refers to the new ASIC passes and associated security. Check the ERSA, as there will be a few others in there that are SCA's.

[impulse coupled]

Squark

That is opinion, please point me to the actual Reg where you read that. CTAF-R is CTAF-R and the type of traffic is irrelavent.

[Squawk7700]

Coupler guy says:

"That is opinion, please point me to the actual Reg where you read that. CTAF-R is CTAF-R and the type of traffic is irrelavent."

Squarker the non-opinionated guru says:

Ummmmm.... ok if you want. I'll drag out the CAO's book tomorrow. I don't speak in opinions unless stated, eg, IMHO.

FACT - AVALON is an MBZ, not a CTAF, CTAF-R or otherwise. But then again, I could be wrong as the last time I flew through there was at 8:30am this morning on my way to work.

FACT - Flying below 500ft even on a prec-search is in breach of the CAO's is a 50 penalty point offence; without permission.

FACT - Flying at 1,000ft over an airfield, particularly Avalon may not be a direct breach of the CAO's, however, given that it is "Avalon" it would be a act of gross negligence.

That's it. If you don't agree; find a lawyer that will agree, then try and convince a judge to agree with the both of you.

[impulse coupled]

Fact

Avalon is NOT Class C or D. Therefore flying over it at any legal height is just that, legal. There is no CAR that says otherwise.

Flying below 500', moot. If on finals then why is it not legal to 'go around'???

As for negligence, that is IMHO rubbish. If you use your radio and ALL traffic uses correct procedures, then it is not negligent. Should any traffic be using abnormal procedures with other a/c in the circuit area (i.e SI App) then that pilot is negligent, not the transiting or practising traffic.

The 'rules' say 'overfly at 1500'. Where is the problem there???

Please don't confuse being negligent to causing inconvenience.

Airpace around a CTAF-R is NOT owned by the landowner or the prime user (in this case JetScab). If JS want C type opertions they should submit to C or D airspace. Simple.

[Squawk7700]

Coupler wrote a load of incorrect crap facts.

Squarker writes the following:

Never assume that everyone has an operational radio.

Don't fly though a circuit at 1,000ft, that IS negligent.

Flying below 500ft is illegal without permission, fact, I know, trust me. 50 points & $5,500. Try and prove otherwise in court.

Avalon is an MBZ. This CTAF-R crap and landowners is totally irrelevant and when Avalon is active is IS CTA. Sorry I'm not sure, it becomes either class D or C when it's active; I'll have to check, however it CERTAINLY is not a CTAF of any description.

That is all.

[impulse coupled]

And Squark misquotes me.

I said 'overflying at 1500' is what the regs say', 1000' is irresponsible, not illegal (unless in the circuit, when it is legal). 500', moot, it isn't built up and is fully legal in the circuit for an ultralight (read the regs).

MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times :)

Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R.

As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs :E

[Squawk7700]

Get your crap together; your arguments are falling apart:

It's not a runway or an ALA unless you have permission to land on it, or to fly low over it, thus:

"As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs "

- Sure, when I get hold of them. It's the one that says "an aircraft must not fly below 500ft unless" Penalty - 50 penalty units.

Coupler writes:
[MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times ]

- No, they are not dead and right now at this point in time there is no such thing as a CTAF-R and they are not implemented. Until this time, Avalon REMAINS as an MBZ.

Coupler writes:

"Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R."

Absolutely INCORRECT. Avalon FREQUENTLY is Class C airspace for any number of operations which you are obviously not aware.


Don't try arguing with someone who flies through there to work EVERY morning, rain hail or shine! I know "just a little" about Avalon.

[Hornet_26]

Think someone needs to find out what circuit height the jets would be flying at, I would have thought 1500ft above aerodrome level. So overflying at 1500ft AGL would not be that smart an idea, hey?

[Squawk7700]

Yeah, anywhere from 1,000 - 1,500 ft, but when they do circuits it's "generally" class C, so not a huge issue, but certainly something to be aware of.

Luckily the tower is not just open on "Airshow days" otherwise they'd have heaps of problems.

[Hornet_26]

Qantas have been doing circuit ops a few days week at Avalon throughout this month and I can't remember the tower being open once during this period for there circuit training.

[Di_Vosh]

Couple of times in the last 2 months I've flown over on a Saturday.

Both times either 1 or 2 QF doing circuits at 1500'AGL

(both times I prudently overflew at 2500)

MBZ procedures applied.

Last time I saw C-class active at AV was last week.

DIVOSH :cool:

[impulse coupled]

An ALA is an ALA, permission or not. It refers to a licence (and don't think you are the only one who knows the regs :p ).

The stuff I was not too sure about I just rang a local VERY experienced CFI and asked.

His response:

"at Avalon you can fly down to 5' and go round, just as long as you don't land"

Prudent is another argument. Just as whether it is 'prudent' to deny GA access to an airport yet still expect them to act in a gentlemanly way in the airspace above (NB, I am not advocating unsafe, just within the rules).

[colonel cameron]

It appears we are orienting in time and space here;

MBZ= CTAF (R) very soon, or am I wrong?

Problems overlooked are that during times of mass confusion, (which I believe is orchestrated), a lot of CTAF's that now have RPT will shortly be CTAF (R).

I quote Griffith and Narrandera with a REX Saab doing the loop back to Sydney.

Griffith is an MBZ /and Narrandera a CTAF. Same aeroplane same passengers, same destination.

Smelling a rat I see YNAR becoming a CTAF (R) which just about buggas the local ultralight blokes who have given GA away because it's all to bloody hard and don't have a radio probably.

Orange is a CTAF, bet it becomes a CTAF (R). Bets anyone?

[impulse coupled]

Colonel, when we are not talking the pros and cons of gerriatric leadership we seem to agree. Perhaps we should stick to that.

Why not just buy a handheld and continue to fly!!!

Avalon even :)

[8Hrs-Bottle2Throttle]

"at Avalon you can fly down to 5' and go round, just as long as you don't land"


- Opinion!

[impulse coupled]

Yes I suppose it is opinion. So spurred on by Squark I have today read the CAOs on this issue.

So FACTS not opinions.

1. OCTA I can fly below 500' due to stress of weather or during approach or practise approach.
2. In a CTAF-R I must make radio calls as per the outlined procedures when in the circuit. (no mention of landing).

And, nowhere can I find any reference to any airspace above a privately owned ALA being in anyway otherwise restricted.

So, those with opposing 'opinion' please point me to this elusive 'factoid'.

[8Hrs-Bottle2Throttle]

Don't want to appear to be on the Squarkers side, however.... Impulses point 1 is pretty irrelevant...

1. OCTA I can fly below 500' due to stress of weather or during approach or practise approach.

- This is the type of excuse you make when you have done something wrong or are trying to defend yourself when you got caught. A private ALA is as such, and transiting the area must be done at 1,500ft as a rule. Try flying over Tyabb for example at 500ft... you won't be too popular and you'll end up with a "please explain" from CASA.

2. In a CTAF-R I must make radio calls as per the outlined procedures when in the circuit. (no mention of landing).

- Avalon is an MBZ and as such is not a CTAF-R - I have no idea why people are referring to Avalon as CTAF-R until it becomes one....!!! Not relevant to the argument right now anyway.

[impulse coupled]

I never said 'fly over' at 500'. I agree that would cause a please explain. I said join a normal circuit and let down on final to (say) 100' using all appropriate calls etc and then go around.

That is NOT illegal or even in my view irresponsible.

[J430]

Mr 8 Hrs, did I read this right 1500AGL? In a built up area I thought it was 1000 AGL and 500AGL otherwise.

What is the 1500 for? Apart from flying over a ALA to check the sock!

J:confused:

[impulse coupled]

Actually CTAF-R procedures don't allow that. But, a phone call to CASA has confirmed, providing you operate in accordance with the Regs you can join and decend in the circuit as low as you like provided you don't land.

So look out JetScab.

[pall]

I have transited Avalon when the tower is active (class C). Requesting a clearance prior to entry of the zone with clear intentions stated reslts in a sensible non fus clearance issed. Such a clearance contains required altitude and trcking points,