Goulburn: final death throws.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2014 at 07:00. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
as for the 650Kg limit on aircraft, there is no safey case there.. just granting someone competitve, or uncompetitive advantage over someone else.
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!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Solution is actually on page 1
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8503577
Seriosuly. Power to the people.
This is the apathetic problem in GA that allows this BS to happen.
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8503577
Seriosuly. Power to the people.
This is the apathetic problem in GA that allows this BS to happen.
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
If as I suspect he is doing hot loadings then talk to your friendly CASA rep about the safety aspect and the legality
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit more info!!
The following relates to the "owner"/ "operator" of YGLB - JF, who is Director of GFTC:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ng-centre.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ng-centre.html
