Goulburn: final death throws.

[Ultralights]

well, target a specific business much...

NOTAM INFORMATION
-----------------

GOULBURN (YGLB)
C3/14
PRIOR PERMISSION REQ FOR OPS ON TWY A RUN UP BAY
CTC AD REPORTING OFFICER 0403 368 933
FROM 02 220401 TO PERM

C10/14
AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST YGLB AMD
GNSS ARRIVAL SECTOR B MINIMUM ALTITUDE BETWEEN 25NM AND 11NM 4800FT
DIST/ALT TABLE ADD 5.8/4800 DELETE 5.5/4700
FROM 04 150654 TO PERM

C13/14 REVIEW C12/14
RWY 04/22 NOT AVBL TO ACFT BELOW 650KG ON WEEKENDS
EXCEPT WITH 60MIN PN TO ARO
FROM 05 150215 TO PERM
HJ



:hmm:

[27/09]

So, what does an AD Reporting Officer do?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Let me guess.

There is a flying school on the airfield which competes (very successfully) against that operated (very shambolicly) by the AD owner.

His last 10 years of slander have failed to dent her reputation so JF's answer is to NOTAM her out of existence - am I correct? :hmm:

[VH-XXX]

That would be funny if it wasn't sad. So the AD operator is stopping RAA Training operations and private RAA pilots from using 04/22 on weekends. Don't think I've ever seen a < less than MTOW figure ever quoted in a notam before !

The usual method would normally simply be to up their rent or just kick them out like they did at Sunbury airfield last month.

[Ultralights]

pretty much spot on Horatio..

but even reading the notam, No one, not just Raaus, can use the Taxiway or runup bay without his permission...:=

Limits the airfields use dont you think when everyone needs permission to taxi off the runway! or risk serious damage using the unsealed runway 08/26 or the grass taxiways, i would even taxi the savannah on them without huge tundra tyres



Im sure the ACCC would like to hear about uncompetitive conduct of a certain business.

[GAFA]

So no other RAA aircraft can use the runway, yet GA can.

[wishiwasupthere]

I read the NOTAM as PPR for ops on the run up bay, not the taxiway. Do runups at the holding point or on the runway. Simples!

[Ultralights]

hh yes, i can see that, amazing what different interpretations come up with

[Jabawocky]

I see a solution.

Organise a charity fund raising fly in......say for RFDS.

Advertise it heavily in all the mags and aviation traders etc, as well as forums such as pprune.

Suggest that all weekend people should go flying for local scenics and taxi via that taxiway and do their very exhaustive run ups at the holding point. But be prepared for long delays.

I am sure it would not take long for the "word to get around" on the purpose of them.

Then hand out free copies of printed NOTAMS with the phone number to call (at all hours) asking for advice on when it is suitable and just for a friendly chat. :E

[Shagpile]

What's the legalisation that says you must follow notams to the letter ?

[Stationair8]

Your terrible, Jabawocky!

[27/09]

Your terrible, Jabawocky!

Yes, but I like his style. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Geez :O I was trying to be modest in my thoughts.



Does anyone want a thorough battle plan? :E

[Hempy]

I'm with WIWUT, read it literally. You can't use the taxiway alpha run-up bay without prior permission.

You need to depart, you need to run-up. You had no way of contacting the ''ADRO" (no mobile, 50c coin etc)..surely you HAVE to run-up at the holding point or lined up!

[holdingagain]

Isn't it fascinating how we in Aus think up new aviation frustrations

Now we have a runup bay that cannot be used for run ups and a runway that can't be used if your too light! ( could they use the grass either side )

What's next

[alphacentauri]

Could this have any connection to his Bandierante jump plane that is operating parachuting on weekends?

He has pretty much just NOTAM'd his own priority......

That's ok, maybe I need to start messing about with his approaches :E

[Jabawocky]

That's ok, maybe I need to start messing about with his approaches

:}:}:}:}:} You think like I do :ok::ok::ok::}:}:}

[Ozgrade3]

An early model C150 with a skinny pilot and an hrs fuel would be under the 650 kg limit. So what is the legal position in regards to ignoring a notam that is blatantly vexatious rather than operational.

[gerry111]

Ultralights, good luck dealing with the ACCC on this issue!

But it appears to me that AD owners in Aus are able to micromanage their assets, in whatever way they see fit. And of course, always to their financial advantage.

Apart from YGLB, YSCB sure knows this pretty well too. :ugh:

[hawkerxp]

RWY 04/22 NOT AVBL TO ACFT BELOW 650KG ON WEEKENDS

Whats wrong with using 08/26?

EXCEPT WITH 60MIN PN TO ARO

PN isn't the same PPR, just need to notify them.

[Adsie]

RWY 08 / 26 is definitely grass but RWY 04 / 22 is becoming very much a composite rwy with the amount of grass that is growing through the sealed strip.

Another good example of why airports should not be privately owned.

[zanthrus]

Simply ignore the notam.


It is not a legal requirement and neither is all the fly neighbourly rubbish at AD's from time to time.


Find out where the AD owners house is and fly over it repeatedly changing power. 4 am is a good time! LOL!

[Mavtroll]

thats hilarious!!!

either suck it up or try to do something about it!

Gotta love a keyboard warrior

[brolga]

What's his home phone number?

[yr right]

I can recall a long time ago at Camden at a local meeting when they complained about aircraft noise a local got up and said. Rudely slow low over my place I can hear them changing gears. From that point on a little rev up and down over his place was common thing to do.

[roundsounds]

CAAP 89O-1 talks about the Aerodrome Reporting Officer being responsible for raising NOTAMS for a list of specific items including a catch-all, but they all relate to Safety. I cannot see how commercial considerations can be used to raise a NOTAM. I reckon the Australian NOTAM Office should be challenged on this basis. I'd also suggest the local council should be approached by those affected on the basis of restraint of trade.
There'd be many former operators and users of YGLB turning in their graves knowing what's going on there!

[yr right]

Or do as the old goulburn mayor used to say as he was coming in to land.


This a me I is a coming into land.

Oh so true believe it or not.

[Up-into-the-air]

He only has a mobile, but some of the background is here (http://vocasupport.com/airports/goulburn/) and some of the locals have been warning of this happening (http://vocasupport.com/airports/goulburn/sale-folds/)since JF was mooted as a potential owner.

My information has JF and Goulburn Council being "knocked back" for a sale at least 15 years ago.

He is a "not happy Joyce" type of person.

and some other information: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/goulburn-airport-sale.2525/

[roundsounds]

Below is an extract from the Airservices Regulation 4.12:

"(3) NOTAMS are to include:
(a) aeronautical information required to be published in a NOTAM by:
(i) these Regulations; or
(ii) the Civil Aviation Act 1988 or the Civil Aviation Regulations; or
(iii) any other Commonwealth law; and
(b) other aeronautical information, of importance to safe air navigation, that:
(i) requires early publication and can be published more quickly in NOTAMS than in the AIP; or
(ii) is of temporary relevance."

Part (a) says NOTAMS are to include information required by Reg's, Act or Commonwealth Law and (b) information affecting "safe air navigation". Commercial considerations do not fit into any of the requirements to issue a NOTAM. I would suggest the airport users challenge the NOTAM Office to have this withdrawn.
NOTAM Office: 02 6268 5063
Fax: 02 6268 5044

[TBM-Legend]

The airport proposed for Lockyer Valley near Brisbane has been approved for construction. These issues are dealt with there. Own your own hangar lot. Body corporate fees less than $3K per annum and free landing/parking etc for resident aircraft if you own a lot. 4000ft of sealed runway with lights. These 'new' airports need support and council and other ripoff merchants can wither on the vine....

[pokeydokey]

It's a sad state at Goulburn...

I arrived on the weekend as two of the owners minions were tearing across the airport in a big 4WD. The reason for the blitzkrieg excursion was to "tell-off" a local operator who had gone out in her small hatchback, with hazard lights operating, with a couple of planks of wood to assist a young woman who had managed to get a Warrior bogged on the runway. It had been bogged for some time without anyone even looking to offer a hand apparently. Now the local operator would be all of 60kgs and the woman she was helping looked about the same. The thing that was disgusting was the two minions didn't even offer a hand to the two mud-encrusted small women trying to move the fully-fueled Warrior out of a bog. They simply barked their orders and tore off...

[megle2]

Was there a notam re soft wet surface ect published or were they too busy thinking up further non safety notam restrictions

[AussieNick]

Wont take long for people to stop flying in there and it fades into the aviation history books

[InSoMnIaC]

Part (a) says NOTAMS are to include information required by Reg's, Act or Commonwealth Law and (b) information affecting "safe air navigation". Commercial considerations do not fit into any of the requirements to issue a NOTAM. I would suggest the airport users challenge the NOTAM Office to have this withdrawn.
NOTAM Office: 02 6268 5063
Fax: 02 6268 504

Wouldn't the non availability of a runway, for whatever reason, affect 'safe air navigation'

It is a legit Notam as far as affecting air safety is concerned. Whether or not they have a right to make the runway / runup bay unavailable is a different matter.

[roundsounds]

I'm not sure how the NOTAM can be "regit" given aircraft weighing greater than 650kg are not restricted in the use of the runway? I would suggest the restriction is a commercial rather than safety based issue.

[Slatye]

(note: I do fly out of Goulburn, using John's planes)

My understanding is that it's basically "enforced courtesy".

If you've just landed and you can either backtrack down the main runway (22/04 in YGLB) or down the grass runway (26/08), taking the grass strip means that the bigger planes (that need the main runway) can takeoff or land immediately. If you insist on backtracking down the main runway then they end up going around (possibly more than once) waiting for you to get out of the way. Same as if you meet a Rex flight at an uncontrolled airport; if it's not much trouble to help them stay on schedule then you might as well do that.

There are lots of little things like that in the sky, on the ground, and on the water. Not legal requirements, but actions that make everything flow a bit more smoothly. The NOTAM is essentially a response to people ignoring this.


Realistically, nobody cares where you land as long as you don't get in the way of the skydiving planes. Since they're only in the circuit area for a few minutes at a time, this is not really difficult.


roundsounds - I may be wrong, but I think that's the list of information that has to be included in a NOTAM, rather than the list of reasons that can cause a NOTAM to be published.

[InSoMnIaC]

Instead of concentrating on a simple typo, I would suggest you pay more attention to the meaning of my post.

It, (the Notam) is Legit because it concerns the unavailability of a Runway which therefore is safety related.

The fact that the decision to make the runway unavailable might not be safety related is irrelevant as the consequences of that decision is safety related and is rightly notamed

I am simply saying that the notam is not the problem. It is the decision behind it that needs fighting. Once that is sorted, the notam will sort itself out.

[ButFli]

If the notam is intended to stop people backtracking on the main runway, why does it:

1) Not mention anything about backtracking; and

2) Only apply to aircraft weighing less than a certain weight?

[Ultralights]

nobody cares where you land as long as you don't get in the way of the skydiving planes. Since they're only in the circuit area for a few minutes at a time, this is not really difficult.


Thats funny, Skydive operators at numerous other aerodromes have no problem fitting in with the usual traffic wherever they are. and nothing gives them any more right to land before anyone else! unless of course commercial reasons can justify a notam...

[Hempy]

and whats it got to do with a run up bay?

[Slatye]

ButFli - it's not just for the backtracking 04/22 scenario; that was an example. It's a general-purpose "skydiving takes priority" thing, to essentially keep 04/22 clear of very slow traffic. If the skydiving planes have priority access to 04/22 and the adjacent run-up bay (which is also where they pick up skydivers) then that's obviously good for the skydiving operation.

As for why it doesn't apply to aircraft less than a certain weight - not sure. The possible reasons I can see are (a) bigger planes tend to be faster (getting stuck behind a C172 isn't quite as bad as getting stuck behind a Gazelle), and (b) bigger planes may not be able to use the grass strip, while I suspect that anything under 650kg can.



Ultralights - presumably they've had problems fitting in with other traffic, if they went to the trouble of setting up the NOTAM. Obviously it's always possible to fit in with other traffic, but it may not be cheap or easy - especially when the speed difference is as big as it is at Goulburn (between the Bandeirante and the Gazelles).

Regarding the right to land before anyone else - I agree. It's not a right that bigger planes and/or commercial flights get to land first. However, from what I've seen (around Goulburn, Moruya, and Wollongong) it is a reasonably common courtesy.

Commercial reasons justifying a NOTAM - I would think that the owner of the airport can do more or less whatever he wants here. Closing the whole airport, requiring prior permission for any airport operations, restricting use of one runway, etc. Other airports (eg. Mittagong) require prior permission; what's been done at Goulburn seems like a less severe restriction than that.



Hempy - the run-up bay doubles as the skydive loading area. It's not great, but it's probably the only spot that avoids having skydivers wandering around on the taxiways. The obvious consequence is that there always needs to be space in the run-up bay for the skydiving planes to get in, and if someone parks right in the middle then there won't be.

Realistically, they should probably just rename that to the "skydiver loading area" and stop calling it the run-up bay.

[LeadSled]

Refer the NOTAM to Malcolm McGregor, CASA Manager, Airways and Aerodromes, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulations.

There is no doubt the NOTAM is an illegitimate document, and should be shown to be so.This is not the only leased aerodrome to do this sort of thing, but it is the most blatant I know.

It also should be a matter for the ACCC, but they are so starved for funds, such a small issue would probably not get any attention, buy the RAOz school could at least try.

Tootle pip!!

[Mavtroll]

Popcorn anyone?

[Ultralights]

it seams to me the notam is a result of "its my airport, so bugger the rest of you, i want priority so i can make money faster and screw the rest" i didnt know owning an airport gave the owner the right to dictate what happens above it.. YSBK doesnt have issues with me flying at 40kts on approach in the same airspace with helicopters, Big piston twins, Learjets and Bae146's

as said above, its just coutesy to allow faster aircraft right of way, yes, it happenes at YWOL, and other places where jump aircraft and other stuff operates, its called being friendly. no need to be told to do it.but when its notamed, and demaded you give certain people preference, well, then....


as for the 650Kg limit on aircraft, there is no safey case there.. just granting someone competitve, or uncompetitive advantage over someone else.

and as for allowing jumpers to board in a runup bay? whats the terminal building for then? runups?

[LeadSled]

as for the 650Kg limit on aircraft, there is no safey case there.. just granting someone competitve, or uncompetitive advantage over someone else. Ultralights,
If you are the aggrieved operator, see my previous post, this is clearly not a legitimate NOTAM. The uses of the NOTAM system is reasonably specific, and this "restriction" is clearly not a legitimate restriction to be published as a NOTAM. There is not much point in just complaining, do something to fix the situation, use the avenues you have, I have nominated two, you probably have other avenues with the local council, despite the local council politics.
Tootle pip!!

[Ultralights]

no i am not the aggrieved operator, i try to avoid Goulburn if at all possible, mainly due to the very poor quality of the strips, including the sealed surfaces, not to mention the landing fee! cheaper at Bankstown! with a tower! i much prefer to use Mittagong if im stuck due weather or whatever.

i just find it strange that many other operators around the country, cna work harmoniously with all the other local traffic without resorting to enforced courtesy that benefits just one operator...

[Slatye]

LeadSled - YGLB is no longer a leased aerodrome; the person running it bought it from the council a while back.

I'm not sure that disallowing access to a runway is illegal, even if there are no safety implications. Plenty of private airstrips that require permission for use; they don't do it as a NOTAM because it's a permanent condition.

I've had a look, but I can't find a source for exactly what a NOTAM can or cannot be used for. Any links?



Ultralights - Goulburn may be unique in that the person who owns the airport is also CEO of the skydiving operation. Nnlike most airports, the person who has the power to put restrictions on non-skydiving traffic also has a reason to do just that.

It's not a great situation, but it's hard to see what anyone can do about it.

[Jabawocky]

Solution is actually on page 1

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540919-goulburn-final-death-throws.html#post8503577

Seriosuly. Power to the people.

This is the apathetic problem in GA that allows this BS to happen. :mad:

[Creampuff]

Ops will return to normal when the skydiving business there becomes illiquid.

[LeadSled]

Slatye,
As I recall, YGLB never was an ALOP airfield, and in my opinion, the circumstances under which the local council became the titleholder to the property, as a result of a bequest, has, in my opinion, raised serious issues as to whether the way control of the property had been transferred to the current operator is valid.

What I can say, with a lot more certainty, is that the present operator has no control above ground level, unless he establishes at least Class D airspace, and build and mans a licensed control tower with suitably rated ATC personnel.

Clearly, that is not going to happen. In any aircraft using YGLB are not complying with the rules relevant to operation at an airfield in Class G, the remedies are obvious.

Tootle pip!!

[Slatye]

LeadSled - interesting. I was aware of some of the controversy about the sale of the airport (complaints that the buyer wasn't taking care of it or the people using it) but I didn't realise that there had been questions about whether it was actually legitimate. I'll do more research on that.


Creampuff - at the moment it looks like the skydiving is doing very well (in that they're almost always using the Bandeirante rather than the C182s). Not much chance of that suddenly failing, unless a lot more competition appears.

[dhavillandpilot]

The bandit doing sky diving drops will eventually come to a grinding halt. Think in terms of engine cycles probably 3 to the flight hour. Then he has to fund two overhauls

If as I suspect he is doing hot loadings then talk to your friendly CASA rep about the safety aspect and the legality

[Slatye]

dhavillandpilot - sorry, I'm not fully up-to-date with the terminology. Is "hot loading" loading passengers with the engines running? If so, I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen (at least it's never happened while I've seen it).

I would have thought that overhauls on the engines were already covered in the budget; surely the operator would have to be sure of the economics of operating the plane before spending so much money on it. Is it common for people to skip this?

[VH-XXX]

Slatted, hot loading is definitely the done thing and also hot refueling with approval. What's not approved is hot re-fueling with nobody in the aircraft.... Saw that at another airport, different operator.

[hillbillybob]

yeah, was wondering what the issue with hot loading would have been, without it I would have thought that doing PJE operations in turbines would become very marginal due to the number of engine cycles

[Up-into-the-air]

The following relates to the "owner"/ "operator" of YGLB - JF, who is Director of GFTC:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/468812-goulburn-flight-training-centre.html