Equally, I think I could safely say that the Society members are also offended in the extreme by comments about illegality and danger in our operations.
The members should neither be offended nor surprised that people have made comments about perceived dangers and illegalities in their operations to date. Just one simple example;
the willful and continued operation of a 60t aircraft into a 8t strip that caused impact damage to the flight strip on 8 seperate occasions! Each occasion required strip closure and repairs to be effected. Their operations should have been curtailed immediately after the first damage was discovered and it was encumbent on both HARS, the airfield operator and the airport manager to act in the
best interest of the public, other airport users and the HARS membership and none of them did.
IMHO, this is a clear derilection of duty of care by all three agencies and the aircrew who knowlingly risked their aircraft, crew and the public by continuing these operations. As if that were not enough, they then started operations onto runway 08/26 which is unrated and in even more appaling condition than the main one causing similar damage to this runway.
ICAC is now asking questions about the cost of these repairs and the authority of the airport manager to waiver the costs to HARS and have the public pick up the tab. The rules clearly state that airfield repairs will be levied against the offending organisation and the $50,000+ bill was picked up by the community!
