PDA

View Full Version : Illawarra Airport thread


Woomera
6th Sep 2005, 09:55
I have removed the Illawarra Airport thread and it will stay so.

Enough is enough, let's move on shall we.

And to clear the air on a matter I am advised from a trusted source.

The Connie from DAY 1 in Oz has been maintained as a Class A a/c to the CASA[USAF] maint schedule. It's also been a Class 0 a/c; end of story.

Woomera
24th Sep 2005, 09:51
I was taken to task for my comment above regarding the HARS Constellation and the Permit Index number under which the aircraft should and currently carries and which I would like to clear up.

I recieved a PM from what I considered to be a trusted source which suggested that the aircraft was categorised as Permit Index 0 "and thus there are no area or route restrictions applicable". It seems that it is currently so but was not always??
This was an issue that seemed to be generating some heat in the Illawarra threads.

By way of explanation and as far as I understand it.

The Index Number, which is asessed by the CASA Maintenance Review Board (MRB) is particularly important as it defines how and whether an aircraft may be operated over built up areas.

Advisory Circular AC 21-25(2)

4. BACKGROUND
4.1 This AC sets out how manufactured aircraft that are not of type certificated civil design, or are no longer supported by a current manufacturer i.e. historical aircraft, replica aircraft and special purpose aircraft, may be flown as a limited category aircraft by the application of appropriate safety conditions. These safety conditions were previously included in the now repealed CAR 134 Permit to Fly for Historical and Ex-Military aircraft.
4.2 An in-depth review of historical and ex-military aircraft in Australia was carried out between 1993 and 1996, in conjunction with industry, in which a rationale was agreed by the review team for determining a Permit Index for specific types of aircraft so as to minimise the risk to third parties.
4.3 The philosophy agreed to by the Authority/Industry review team, and accepted by the Board of the CAA, CASA’s predecessor, endorsed by the Program Advisory Panel in February 1997, for determining the Permit Index is based on the aeroplane’s stalling speed, design philosophy and maintenance complexity.

Suffice it to say the AC published on the CASA site provides the following Permit Index number for the aircraft.

LOCKHEED C-121C, Weight MOW 60327.7 Permit Index 2 MRB Approval Date TBA. As I understand it Permit Index 2 does not permit the aircraft to be flown over built up areas.

AC 21-25(2) go here for the full story (http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c25.pdf)

I have been sent copies of some documentation including copies of the Special Certification of Airworthiness No. BK/10793/02, for VH-EAG Lockheed C-121C "Constellation" in the LIMITED
both have Page 1 dated 02/June 1999 and signed by a Steven V Dines under Instrument of Appointment no.70/99.

One, apparently an older version Notes at the bottom of the Special Certificate of Airworthioness;
"this certificate is subject to conditions listed on the annex dated 02/06/99 attached to this certificate and which forms part of this certificate"
that is the same issue date as the Special Certification of Airworthiness No. BK/10793/02 and the ANNEX Pages 1 through 3 carries the signature of Steven V Dines under Instrument of Appointment no.70/99.


The other has an identical Page 1 dated 02 June 1999 save that the Note at the bottom of Page 1 now reads;
"this certificate is subject to conditions listed on the annex dated 15/04/04 attached to this certificate and which forms part of this certificate" the "new" ANNEX Pages 1 through 3 carries the signature of Steven V Dines under Instrument of Appointment no.342/01.

The ANNEX entries are identical save for a new paragraph inserted in the later version to whit;

Pursuant to CAR(1988)262AM(10)(a) and in accordance with the Permit Index assesment charts charts in AC21.25(1), I hereby assign a Permit Index of '0' to this aircraft and thus, there are no area or route restrictions available.

As far as I can tell, the possibilty of that assesment hangs directly on the answers only two issues,

1 Is there a Direct Civil Equivalent. does this mean as Design Philosophy 1 and to what amendment of the existing Certification rules.

2 Maintenance Level 1; ditto the above

I don't profess to be anything like an expert on these issues.

Is anyone able to describe to me how an aircraft listed in the CASA tables as Permit Index 2 be reclassified as Permit Index 0

As a matter of interest the L39 and all of the MIGs are Permit Index 3.

I have also been sent copies of correspondence from CASA dated 11 March 2004 which refers directly to the aircraft as an Index 2 type and discusses the possibility of flight over certain areas under certain conditions.

The final para;

As noted above the table at Attachement 3 to AC21.25 lists the Constellation as Permit Index 2 however by following the flow chart at Attachment 2 you may be able to demonstrate the aircraft is eligible for a different permit index number. Please be aware until CASA or an authorised person does assign the aircraft a permit index of zero or one then it is prohibited from operations over the built up area of a city or town.

From another CASA letter 06/04/2004, different author
as the Super Constellation the HARS a/c is ex militaryhas a direct civil eqivalent as an airliner, if maintained to certain standards it could be assigned as a permit index zero aircraft with no restrictions on flight over built up areas, at the option of the owner. my italics and bolding

I am also advised that the "new" strip upgrade got the pavement up to 20 tonne std ??, which begs the question regarding the operation of a 60 tonne type.

There's a few more issues regarding other aircraft types but this will do for the moment.

Sunfish
25th Sep 2005, 08:23
One of the most interesting things for this fish is that I had the pleasure of working for Ansett in the70's. At that time there was what I would call a "give and take" attitude towards safety between CASA and its predecessors and airlines.

By this I mean that we jointly worked out what "safe"meant and then built the systems that monitored "safe" and then agreed when action was necessary. To be specific I built a systen that monitored the defects by ATA chapter by fleet against a Poisson distribution, so that we(and CASA) could tell when we had a problem.

So beside the previous posts, how do we know that the Connie is "safe"? As opposed to "legal?"

doesn't look good
25th Sep 2005, 09:12
Sunfish,
this is neither safe nor legal. The limited category regulations were developed using overseas experience in particcular the FAA.
Dines does not have the authority to do what has done so it is not legal it certainly is not safe.

His authority is to issue AOC's in line with the regulations. What he has been doing is over ruling the regulations and the MRB board. The AAT decision was clear on these points with Top Gun.
The regulations also limit the number of passengers on board to six, Dines just grants Connie a full load he does not have the authority.

Woomera i guess most of us were happy when connie stopped crashing through a 7 tonne runway. it has been reported, but i cannot yet confirm, that it still doing considerable damage when landing on the new strip. Yes this is irresponsible.

There is also a report that it suffered an engine failure whilst on the ground last weekend. Can this be confirmed.

:O :uhoh: :yuk:

COLLIE
25th Sep 2005, 12:55
Last Sunday, Connie did a day of joy flights with heaps of punters onboard. This council is issuing pavement concessions for operations 3 times over the approved rate with paying passengers onboard (read commercial operations). (And yes, it returned once with an engine shutdown for some reason).:*

I know this subject has been done to death, but surely something is not right here?:mad:

Wunwing
25th Sep 2005, 23:59
Hardly an engine failure

The Connie did 3 runs on the Sunday. As per normal ops procedures, a full engine run up was done prior to each takeoff.
During this runup each spark plug is checked on the 'scope by the Flight Engineer. All 144 of them.

It is normal for 1 plug to be out on an engine ( 1 out of 18 cylinders and 36 spark plugs) and there is a clearing procedure which normally works. If 2 plugs are found out on 1 cylinder, there is a mandatory, instant engine shutdown. This is what happened on Sunday. The aircraft was never airborne and returned to blox where 2 plugs were changed and all OK for next runup and flight.

Hardly an engine failure, just an aircraft being checked properly as per the approved manual and being operated in a safe proffessional manner.

As a matter of interest this was quite normal occurrence when I worked on these aircraft in the 60s, but it certainly doesn't make them unsafe. Just a different kind of operation to todays jets.

Feather #3
26th Sep 2005, 01:46
Perhaps someone could get a Civil Engineer familar with Pavement Concessions to do a thesis on the subject so that there'd be greater understanding.

Maybe it would be worth looking at the difference between maintaining an a/c to [the old] Class A vs Class B standards.

Finally, wouldn't it be nice if somebody actually congratulated an organisation which successfully operates/maintains/restores 21 vintage types from a Connie to a Tiger Moth on the job they do with volunteers and sponsorship alone?

Oh, sorry.....NIMBY:mad:

G'day

Fris B. Fairing
26th Sep 2005, 03:15
Feather #3

Finally, wouldn't it be nice if somebody actually congratulated an organisation which successfully operates/maintains/restores 21 vintage types from a Connie to a Tiger Moth on the job they do with volunteers and sponsorship alone?

Well you won't get it from the usual suspects on this thread. This is "Tall Poppy Central". Perhaps if the habitual malcontents could tell us about the museums they built up from nothing we could all learn something.

I'm happy to recognise true achievers. Congratulations HARS!

Woomera
26th Sep 2005, 09:26
Wunwing
Thank you for shedding some light on this issue. Thank God for the turbine as we now know it, but those who were there when they were first introduced will agree, they were in their own unique way similarly "difficult".
But nothing beats the sounds of those big turbocompound radials in full song.


Feather #3 and for anyone else interested, the following sites are instructive and hopefully will help with a better understanding of that subject for those concerned about it ;

Overview on Aircraft Pavement Maintenance (http://www.defence.gov.au/im/policy/technical/aircraft_pavement/maintenance.htm#PavementConcessionManagementSystem)

CHAPTER NINE — OPERATING STANDARDS FOR LICENSED (http://www.casa.gov.au/aerodromes/rpa/Chap09.pdf)

Shellharbour Airport Information (http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?page=222#function)

Class A aircraft means an Australian aircraft, other than a balloon, that satisfies either or both of the following paragraphs:

(a) the aircraft is certificated as a transport category aircraft;
(b) the aircraft is being used, or is to be used, by the holder of an Air Operator's Certificate which authorises the use of that aircraft for the commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (1) (c).

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 39
Maintenance required by approved system of maintenance

(1)
The holder of the certificate of registration for a class A aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's approved system of maintenance is carried out when required by that system.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2)
A person must not use a class A aircraft in an operation if there is not an approved system of maintenance for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note A system of maintenance is approved under regulation 42M.

(3)
An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.


Class B aircraft means an Australian aircraft that is not a class A aircraft.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 41
Maintenance schedule and maintenance instructions

(1)
The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2)
A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3)
An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 42CA
Maintenance schedule — primary, intermediate, restricted or
limited category aircraft

(1)
The maintenance schedule for a class B aircraft certificated under subpart 21.B or 21.H of Part 21 of CASR in the primary, intermediate, restricted or limited category (except an aircraft mentioned in subparagraph 21.189 (1) (a) (ii) of CASR) is the approved maintenance schedule developed in consultation with CASA during the certification process.

(2)
The maintenance schedule for an aircraft mentioned in subparagraph 21.189 (1) (a) (ii) of CASR is the approved maintenance schedule developed, in consultation with CASA, by the applicant for the special certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft under regulation 21.189 of CASR.

(3)
For this regulation, an aircraft is certificated in a particular category if it was manufactured in accordance with a type certificate in the category, or if a certificate of airworthiness in the category is in force for the aircraft.


Perhaps you are able enlighten the usual suspects around here as to which maintenance schedule the aircraft is maintained.

Congratulations to an organisation which successfully operates/maintains/restores 21 vintage types from a Connie to a Tiger Moth on the job they do with volunteers and sponsorship alone :ok:

This thread was and is not intended to be crtitical of the organisation, this is PPRuNe, a place where amongst other things we learn from each other and discuss our mutual problems.

Fris B. Fairing
Credit is given where it is due and brickbats where it is not, clearly there are some issues regarding the Illawarra airport that are still unresolved, perhaps by a process of education here and elsewhere we can.

It's a part of being good neighbours.

Feather #3
26th Sep 2005, 09:40
"Connie" has been maintained as a Class A aircraft since she arrived in Oz [well, even before she left the US of A......knowlegable spectators at Pima asked why the guys were doing so much work on the old girl as they could fly her with less. The reply was they wanted to fly her home over the Pacific. "WHAT?? You guys are going to FLY her all that way?? You Aussies ARE mad!]

Thanks for the heads-up on the other stuff.

G'day ;)

doesn't look good
26th Sep 2005, 09:49
woomera
you are spot on. I would also like to congratulate HARS on its achievements. the spirt of the people who give their time free to this endevour should be recognised. The times i have been there they have been fantastic.

The aircraft they have saved are indeed a integral part of the aviation history of our country and need to be preserved. i do not believe this is in question and people who now come here and make that point are welcome but it states the obvious. what they do not do is answer the questions raised or resolve the problems. which include

why was a 60 tonne aircraft allowed to crash through a 7.5 tonne pavemnt for three years?

why was a permit index two plane flown over built up areas and why are some still doing it?

Why did their illustrious leader lie to assist in getting another operator thrown off site?

why did they allow themselves to get involved with a dubious planning process?

It is the failure to properly go through this process that has now led to the problems.

was this failure because people knew of the unsuitability of AP for the HARS purpose and thought they could just force this through? or was it an honest mistake? what can be done now?

It is too late for bullshit and bluster. If a proper and normal planing process had occured instead of the fast track stupidity all these problems would have been discussed solutions found or another more suitable location found.

how do they intend to restore planes there when they will not be able to test fly them out of AP?

i also think wunwing made the point perfectly his description magnificant. what it also says is LIMITED CATEGORY, PASSED THE SELL BY DATE PRESERVE WITH CAUTION.

it might be good to see and smell, however it should not be flying charters or site seeing tours of Wollongong thems the regs sorry for a limited category aircraft.

Wunwing
27th Sep 2005, 23:13
OK DLG ,where did I say that Connie was past its use by date etc?What I did do was try to explain how an aircraft with large radial engines is SAFELY operated. Just because something is different to your own experience (or lack of it) does not make it unsafe.
I assume you are also calling for all the DHC2 Beaver aircraft in the country to be scrapped as well. They were built from 1947 and have a radial fitted. So most are far older than the L1049.
Similarly all the DC3s and how about the C580s in NZ. Not only older than Connie but fitted with ex L188 engines, clearly suspect.
I am waiting with bated breath for your provision of accident statistics showing that these ancients are regualrly falling from the sky.

COLLIE
27th Sep 2005, 23:28
Wunwing,
You have missed the point entirely!
The debate here was more about the manner inwhich the Connie has been operated than the fact it is operating at all.
The Connie is a Limited Category aircraft that was, up until recently, a PI2 aircraft. There are rules and regulations that clearly govern its operations and these rules were being frequently broken and some continue to be broken.
The examples you give above are not good comparisons at all as there are many of these aircraft operating and they do not carry heaps of punters on any one flight and nor do they have the capacity to do so and finally, they are not 60 tonne aircraft operating from 20 tonne strips.;)
It really is a L O N G bow you draw but makes for good reading nonetheless!:\

Wunwing
28th Sep 2005, 01:30
Collie
I didn't miss the point at all. DLG's post covers a number of things.
He stated amongst other things that the Connie is "past its use by date". I am not commenting on his other opinions but disagreeing with his comments on the Connie's use by date.
In my (experienced) opinion the Connie, if flown and maintained to the CASA approved ops and engineering manuals, is as safe as any other aircraft in our skies. At least it doesn't have a computer to have a glich although it does have a couple of Flight Engineers to keep everyone honest.
DLG disagrees with me. On what grounds does he think it unsafe? Not opinions but facts please.
Of the 5 Connies currently or recently flying name one dangerous incident in the last 10 years?
I also add that Air North in Alaska, have been operating a large fleet of DC7s ( same age, same engines) in very difficult conditions for a number of years on scheduled freight runs. The FAA seems to have no problem with that and they haven't cleaned up any Eskimos yet.

gaunty
28th Sep 2005, 04:39
scheduled freight runs. The FAA seems to have no problem with that and they haven't cleaned up any Eskimos yet.

I don't think you'll find many if any RPT pax would be tempted on to one unless there is absolutely no other way to go, or are aircraft tragics like me looking for a ride on one. And I don't believe the FAA would license a pax operation, at least not in any way that could be economic

Is that DC7 still operating Punta Arenas to Antartica??

doesn't look good
28th Sep 2005, 11:05
Wunwing some of the facts you asked for. please go to the site an enlighten ones self.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=332

Accident database
» all 111 hull-loss occurrences
» all 113 occurrences in the database (hijackings, incidents)


Hull-loss Accidents: 98 with a total of 1032 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 10 with a total of 31 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Criminal occurences (hull-loss, excl. hijackings): 1 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 2 with a total of 0 fatalities

I do not understand how anybody could argue this aircraft is not passed it use by date. great piece of history nice to see. It is however a limited category aircraft today full stop. The fact it is now claimed Connie is well maintained does not alter the fact it operates in the limited category only perhaps the PI and this is debatable.

By any modern assessement unsafe. Of course there have been no very recent accidents, although crahing 5 inches through a pavement would usually be classed as a serious incident, there are only 5 flying and then infrequently.

:bored: :hmm: :yuk:

gaunty
28th Sep 2005, 13:18
Hmmm average 5.5 hull losses per year just for the Constellation would certainly frighten the horses.

DC7 2.7, DC6 4.65pa for the same period, spose it could be held that the combined losses of the Douglas would be the equivalent to the Connie but then you would have to get it to a %age of fleet average for it to make any sense.

But the point is, any way you slice it we have come a looooong way since then and there is real justification for that placard displayed in all of these historical types.

I still think the Diggers and Dealers flight however it was funded and permitted was unjustified and a breach of duty of care by the passengers in so far as the companies for which they were responsible.

Regardless of the skills, care and maintenance condition of the aircraft those passengers were exposed to a significantly higher level of risk and I'll guarantee their key man and personal insurance was void for the duration. They may of course have made special arrangements with their insurers, but I'd be surprised.

COLLIE
28th Sep 2005, 14:20
Put in a better perspective perhaps; the Connie had a hull-loss attrition rate of over 20% which places it around the 2nd or 3rd worst accident rate aircraft ever produced. (I think from memory the worst was the electra with a whopping 70% rate!!!)
Compare those figures with the 747 with a 1% rate, and it really is an exceptionally scarey claim to fame.

Wunwing; interesting to note that there is not one Connie in the world flying anything more than freight on anything like a regular basis whilst the likes of the DC3 are still extensively used for hauling passengers in several nations throughout the world and continue to gain the appropriate permits today. Oh, and have you ever wondered why there are only 5 flying Connies in the world today? Simple really; I think the rest crashed!

Absolutely agree with Gaunty; the recent Diggers and Dealers flight was an exercise is irresponsibility and stupidity!:uhoh:

Feather #3
28th Sep 2005, 21:34
dlg

Can't get into the website to read the data [just won't open, even on a Google ref.]

Over what period were the stats mentioned, please? If it's the period up to about 1963-65, you certainly have a case. However, things went decidedly downhill after that.

The a/c fell into the hands of those whose financial wherewithall to maintain them went out the window, let alone ability. I don't know if you're a devotee of the late Stephen Piercy's "Propliner" books, but you'd be reluctant to walk under the wing of some in those shots, let alone step on board.

A worthy comparison would be the K/C-97 in USAF service. Another major complicated engine [P&W R-4360], but a reputable operator with a variety of crews.

My contention, therefore, is that once the type [and other pistons for that matter] was lost to the mainstream operators, the more complicated they were, the greater "fall from grace" in the accident stats.

Your DC-3 comments are valid for that a/c; shes' a rugged simple old beast whose engines [either variety, although mostly P&W now] are equally relatively simple. Expensive today, but an engine for a Dak doesn't cost US$120,000 to replace.

You might like to know why "Connie" doesn't have a full CofA. CASA [in the guise of their predecessors] felt that the 5 years "lost in the desert" didn't provide an adequate paper trail to give her a full rego. The aspersions that she's some sort of mobile danger to the community do a great dis-service to those who maintain and fly her!!

G'day ;)

Wunwing
28th Sep 2005, 21:41
Collie
Your accident statistics are a bit out and your L188 figures are in fairyland, but I will have to wait until I get home to get the actual figures. Most of the Connie accidents were in the 1950s, when airlines were pushing the payload/range envelope. By the end of the 1970s Connies were very safe considering the 3rd level ops they were involved in. Most of the attrition was at the hands of Boeing and Douglas who traded in the Connies and then broke them up to prevent them competing on the secondhand market. Lockheed themselves did that as well, to prevent competition with the L188.The 1049 was actually designed to take a propjet and 4 were built with propjets.If a major refit programme had got going they may have changed the face of aviation a bit in the 60s and 70s
There are still quite a few Connies surviving. The reason there are only a few flying is actually the hull shape. The smallest diameter hull section area is where the upper deck cargo doors are. In these days of palletised cargo this limits the height of pallets and the aircraft bulks out before weighing out. This makes them uneconomic for freight. However as I pointed out earlier, there are still a number of DC7s operating as freighters. DC7 and the DC4 and 6 for that matter (still a number of them around as well) are a better bet because for a similar cost they have a constant diameter hull section and work well with pallets.
As for DC3s still flying pax and the Connies not pax. I think you will find that what we are talking about here is a commuter size aircraft in todays world (DC3) verses a long haul airliner. The economics are still marginally with one, but against the other. Straight commercial decision, nothing to do with safety.

gaunty
29th Sep 2005, 02:38
Feather #3 the stats were up to 1973, I'm having the same trouble getting on to the site but last night it was working OK,

You may well be right, anecdotaly you sure are, but I recall a preponderance of US Navy aircraft in the stats. When I can get on the site I'll do a stat analysis on the date.

The aspersions that she's some sort of mobile danger to the community do a great dis-service to those who maintain and fly her!! I hear what you say but I don't think that should be read as a reflection of the skills, experience and ability of those who maintain and fly her, I for one don't and I imagine any thinking person in full knowledge of the facts as to whom could argue otherwise.

IMHO the issue is the aircraft herself although the Queen of the Skies in modern safety and efficiency as it was known in days of yore it is no longer so beyond nostalgia.

I had the pleasure some weeks ago of spending a day with a mate who is into vintage and post vintage cars at one of their rallies. Great fun careening around the course, fascinating machinery, great nostalgia, there was even a mint Rover P8, my grandmother drove one and a smelled new Austin A70, my fathers first new car. My fond memories of them as a small child were modified a little by a drive of both. Both excellent in their day.

When I slipped back to my late model AWD car with SIPS, ABS, TRACS, WHIPS, 37? airbags, 5 speed lockup auto, computer run distributorless 5 cylinder 2.5 turbo returning 7.5l/100km highway and 10.1l/100kmh city cycle and six steak knives I decided that it had been a really great day, but I was happy to be back to the real world free of brake fade, scary suspension, bicycle like wheels, cranky ignition, noisy and intractable gearboxes and wheels bolted direct to the body, with the hope that the enthusiasts who made it possible would invite me back next time.:ok:

BTW I found in the bits you collect over the years a "Lockheed Super Constellation Pocket Handbook" circa 1959.

I can't recall how it came in to my posession but it is signed on the inside cover by "Rus Bomanjie 1049 + Transit servicing".

It is full of humorous but amazing cutaway drawings of the aircraft at the head of each chapter. Schematics, systems diagrams and descriptions, checklists, weight and balance.

"This brief summary has been prepared to familiarise sirline personnel with features, systems and characteristics of the airplane"

I pull it out every now and then to do a "Walter Mitty", you may already have one, but it may be of more use to you or your org as a training aid or just part of the memorabilia than gathering dust on my bookshelf.

If you would like to have it please let me know to where I can send it.

Feather #3
29th Sep 2005, 04:42
Gaunty,

Thanks for the offer, but I've received one from another source. Hang onto it!! May help fund a walking-frame when sold on E-bay one day [joke!!:O ]

Umm......you balance the argument very well with the vintage motor racing scene. OTOH, if operated sensibly within their envelope, the vintage racers work just fine. So, I'd suggest do vintage aircraft.

From the acknowledgement sheet to the placarding, I'd doubt anybody who flies on our a/c have any doubt that their not getting on some modern airline a/c certified and flown to RPT standards. Statements about mis-leading our flying visitors and Society members are highly specious.

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. Does it occur to any of them that one reason CASA don't take any action against us [and they DO read this forum!] is that we are operating within the law? Aspects of this law and agreements we have with CASA they may not like, but to vilify us "out of Court" is decidedly "off". Indeed, one reason you'll rarely find anybody who knows the facts replying here to these accusations is that one is on a "hiding to nothing". There's no accountability or redress [despite this thread and its forebears being shutdown repeatedly.]

Thanks for the chance to at least put an alternative viewpoint.

G'day ;)

doesn't look good
29th Sep 2005, 09:42
Feather #3 at last maybe we can get a sensible discussion on these matters. The answer to this mystery may well be that CASA is talking through both sides of its mouth.

Maybe we should take one point at a time.

CASA have stated very clearly, on the record, the documents are with Woomera, that Connie and many of the other HARS planes are PI 2 and prohibited from flying over built up areas. The AC also states that Connie, Neptune, DC3 are PI 2.

We are now aware that last year the AOC for Connie was changed and the certificate now says PI 0 although it is unclear that Dines has the authority to do this( see the AAP Top Gun judgement). I have witnessed personally and there have been many reports of Connie and the other HARS planes flying over built up areas, at time low on approach to AP. Some Photographs are also posted on the HARS website. Is this denied or does HARS believe that their aircraft, Connie before the change of PI, and the Neptune’s and DC3’s are and were allowed to fly over built up areas.

CASA has written and stated this is not allowed and they have granted no exemptions to HARS.

Who is not telling the truth or where is the confusion. Perhaps if we sort this one out we can move to the next and put these matters to bed once and for all. The reason that some persons are casting aspersions is that CASA is clearly indicating that HARS are breaching air safety regulations. I agree with you there is confusion as no action is being taken. This leads to annoyance and threads like the one that says one rule for some. If there some secret deals then that could also explain things.

ASKARI
30th Sep 2005, 02:32
These are the figures applicable to the hull loss rates for the Connie:

Hull-loss Accidents: 98 with a total of 1032 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 11 with a total of 31 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Selection of incidents: 0 with a total of 0 fatalities



Sorry, don't know how to import the graph but it is well worth the look!

gaunty
30th Sep 2005, 03:43
ASKARIthat is interesting but too simplistic and would need to cover ALL the accidents in similar types of the period.

The point is as Feather #3 points outUmm......you balance the argument very well with the vintage motor racing scene. OTOH, if operated sensibly within their envelope, the vintage racers work just fine. So, I'd suggest do vintage aircraft.

The importance of HARS, to the community at large, having a legitimate and secure home can not be underestimated.

I guess when it is all washed up, if the airstrip was permanently upgraded to 60t, and I suspect that hangs on the willingness of the Council to compete for HARS business on proper and economic terms, there would not be a problem. Why was this not negotiated in the first place.

Index shmindex, I understand that it is possible to construct a safe path for the aircraft PI 0, 1, 2 or 3 to which they must strictly comply.

If that is not reasonably possible then they must go elsewhere.

Whatever process is used it is clear "potentially contentious issues" nowadays whether it is done totally in good faith or not the "old boys club", "nod and a wink" and the "mates" club" does not work anymore and causes the form of angst seen here.

I suspect that if a full briefing and open discussion with the community including those on the airport during the whole transfer process was not applied, then I'm not surprised at the angst.

My experience in other areas dealing with enthusiasts suggests that the temptation to try and "get in under the radar" for fear of "kicking a sleeping dog" always backfires.

This is a perfectly understandable and natural reaction for any group of enthusiasts, who have difficulty understanding why others don't share their peculiar enthusiasm, "anoraks" and "train spotters " spring to mind. That comparison might start a bit of harumphing in the HARS ranks. It was not meant to demean their organisation or the "anoraks", but point out that both are equally entitled to their individual passions. Why else would "anoraks" enter an international airport through the drainage system at great risk to themselves to get that "perfect shot".

I don't recall seeing Statements about mis-leading our flying visitors and Society members are highly specious. but if there are then they are clearly misinformed, as you know it's a legal requirement. Having said that I would be briefing my members not to make any comment or representation that could have the effect ot minimising or mitigating the intent of message in the placard, it is there for a reason. "Shallow end no diving" isn't an invitation to say "well it is a bit, but if you dive in a certain way it'll be OK."

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. with respect, disdain simply inflames negative responses, calm, factual, rational education and responses do not. Again with the greatest respect, it is HARS or any other similar organisations responsibility to show their fellow community they can and will be good community citizens not the other way around.

Go HARS but if you can't make it work with the owners of ShellHarbour Airport and the community you have to go somewhere else, if you are not to be limited and are going to achieve your long term success. Is it safe to assume that Connie wont be the last biggish aircraft in the planning stage and it is likely that it will not be possible for them to achieve the PI O that appears to be possible with Connies unique background effort and pedigree.

asac
30th Sep 2005, 11:04
DLG
You mean CofA or Special CofA not AOC. Apart from that what you say is correct.


Gaunty
You must know somebody at CASA. You are spot on in your analysis. Attempted to get under the radar and have now been caught out. You cannot over estimate what a major problem this is.

Feather #3
there are no special agreements with CASA. Hars have to obey the rules just the same as any other operator. Officers who may have indicated otherwise do not have the authority to do so despite what they might have told you.

ASKARI
30th Sep 2005, 14:05
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!:\

wylie_cyote
3rd Oct 2005, 01:27
Askari, You are 100% correct in your above post. Despite all the gumflapping, the operations should have been stopped immediately it was discovered that these operations were doing serious damage to the flight strip; end of story.:* and they should have been stopped immediately by either:
* Airport Manager (council)
* HARS or
* CASA
All three groups could be guilty of criminal negligence and I think they are all damned lucky that nothing untowards happened!:mad:

Wunwing
3rd Oct 2005, 04:31
Askari DLG and others.
If we are examining Connie accidents we must compare apples with apples.
Thumbing through my copy of Classic Airliners Lockheed Constellation by Jim Winchester I have come up with the following figures in the period 1953 to 1965.
There were 318 MIlitary 1049s (C121 etc) and 312 Civil 1049s delivered and by the end of 1965 most 1st level operators had sold off their 1049s.
Therefore it is valid to look only at this period, as beyond that there were a number of 1049 operators that redefined the coyboy outfit.It is also valid to only look at 1049s and civilian operators as the US military were using their C121 for many unusual opertions including flying into war zones.I am not sure for example if the fact that a C121 was hit by a Phantom tells us much about the HARS Connie expected safety level.
During that period there were 37 hull losses with 730 killed on L1049s. Of those accidents only 5 could be put down to aircraft defects that may have been uncontrollable( mainly prop problems), the rest were the usual CFIT and midairs. Mostly put down to poor skills and a different era prior to simulators.
All in all the Connie appears to be a lot better than the DC6/7 etc of the era. I suspect that 5 hulls over 12 years due to design problems and mech failures is good even by todays standards, although our modern level of training probably makes most current failures survivable.
All up from this review I think that the Connie was and is pretty safe.

gaunty
3rd Oct 2005, 04:57
Wunwing All up from this review I think that the Connie was and is pretty safe.
I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But ASKARIs point remains regardless of whose and what type of aircraft it was.

The simple test is, were this damage caused by any other aircraft of the same weight in commercial, or any other operation for that matter, what would have been the resulting action, from CASA and the Council.

Wunwing
4th Oct 2005, 08:02
gaunty
Actually at least 2 posters to this site do disagree and on this subject.
doesn't look good made a number of inaccurate observations on page 1 and so did collie. Now that I have the actual figures I am answering their comments.
It was claimed that Constellations had 110 hull losses and Collie claimed L188 losses of 70%. Actually there were 10 hull losses of L188s out of 170 built during the period of 1959 to 1970 and my earlier post covers the L1049s. At least 5 of the L188s were prior to identifing the engine mount problem.
To quote Jim Winchester "In regular airline service the Constellation was one of the safest post war propliners."
A number of posters say they are giving us the facts. Inaccuracies like these bring into question the accuracy of their other "facts" and so it is valid to examine all information posted , not just some of it.
There are people out there who for whatever reason want to close down HARS and anything associated with it. If they are going to criticise HARS on PPRUNE to promote their aims it is up to us to ensure all information posted is accurate.

COLLIE
4th Oct 2005, 10:03
Wunwing, the statistics offered were evidently directly downloaded from a statistics website about the poor flying records of the constellation....the figures are factual and accurate from that site.
Despite all the above, there is little to nothing you can say or do that will negate the last post from Askari which highlights probably the lions-share of the issues facing HARS. The inconsiderate and selfish manner that HARS have conducted their operations from the IRA in the past is quite appalling and certainly without any regard for fostering an existence in communal harmony with other airfield users or the general public at large.:mad:
As to the suggestion that there are groups/people who want to see HARS closed down - baloney! The common thread throughout all these posts has been the questionable level of special treatment offered exclusively to HARS through waivers of charges/repairs/sweetheart deals/landing charges etc etc etc. I know of not one person who is driven to see the closure of HARS as a legitimate organisation on the field and I take offence to your suggestion otherwise!:*

doesn't look good
4th Oct 2005, 11:02
Dammed statistics. I thought figures off an Aviation safety site would be a safe bet. I guess I was wrong. If you reckon only 5 were lost because of failure you’d better write in and tell them that they got it wrong. Each loss is identified. Easy to call people cowboys and discount losses.

http://aviation-safety.net/database...pe.php?type=332

“One of the safest post war propliners”. I guess this says what we all know and translates to operates in the Limited category today. That was really my only point with the data. Then and now.

Your point of simulators and better training is wonderful. I guess you again make the point for me. Or are the Connie pilots using a Connie simulator. Yet again I am only saying limited category.


Collie you get back to the matters at hand. Did you know that in the middle of the period when Connie was landing and breaking through the 7.5 tonne pavement it took up full loads of passengers and landed then, thank god without serious incident, pavement disintegrating under it. It was called fund raising and CASA turned the other way.

I guess this also raises question 3. The regulations covering limited category aircraft say 6 passengers maximum. Connie is carrying full loads. Who has the authority to overrule the air safety regulations? Does anybody? Can Dines? Is there any limit on the ability of a CASA authorized person to overrule air safety regulations if he wants to? What do air safety regulations mean if they can be over ruled for convenience?

Question 4 even today the CofA says Connie can only fly passengers back to the airfield that the plane originally departed from. Did CASA give a special exemption to fly to Kal? That flight appears to have violated the CofA.

Finally nobody wants HARS closed, not even me. I just want somebody to explain to me how all these things can be allowed to happen and why nobody in CASA will answer a straight question on this matter. Perhaps Wunwing you could start.
:sad: :ooh: :8

Animalclub
5th Oct 2005, 03:54
I'm ignorant... but wasn't the L188 the Electra?

CARDIA
5th Oct 2005, 08:58
HARS and the Airport Manager have made it very clear to everyone that they will use what ever tactics they need to to stop anymore stuff appearing on this subject. ;) They have agreed to use as much misinformation and open hostility if need be to close down this thread so anything eminating from wunwing or his clones needs to be treated with sceptisism and caution.:*
They are very worried that the continual reference to the airfield damage will (has) lead to unwanted snooping and investigation as there seems to be too much interest at the moment in what money was spent, where and under what authority. One very worried Airport Manager at the moment as there are a LOT of questions being asked and very few (acceptable) answers being given.

Woomera
5th Oct 2005, 09:18
This or any other thread is closed on our terms and only for trangression of the rules.

And in case anyone is tempted to try and have a thread closed by said transgressions should know we have much experience in these matters.

We have been there before in much more fraught situations.

It usually results in the offender being banned.

LewC
6th Oct 2005, 01:17
Cardia.Maybe someone has at last stumbled across Section 435(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.Briefly,this Section provides for Councillors or Council employees found to have caused a financial loss to ratepayers as a result negligence to be forced to make good the financial loss.The process is known as "surcharge".The action has to be initiated by the Local Government Department and of course being infested with "public servants" that outfit is usually reluctant to act,nevertheless if enough ratepayers become aware of how much stupidity might have cost them then sufficient pressure might be applied to overcome their inertia.

CARDIA
6th Oct 2005, 10:00
LewC,
You too are correct. I think more than 1 person has stumbled upon the relevant Local Government Act. I understand that the DLG may well be looking into these very issues as we speak.;)
There is a lot more to come in the next few weeks.....I will keep everyone posted as best I can.
Cardia

wylie_cyote
8th Oct 2005, 12:56
Looks like Curley and Barney are in for a pretty rough week or two (and not before time!):*
A whole pile of questions are on there way from a government agency covering:
*unauthorised expenditure
*Lying
*Misleading council and the public
*falsifying official documentation/memos/letters
*code of conduct issues
*breeches of the tendering protocols, and
*defamation issues.
Larry is AOL so won't be available to rally the troops for a rescue mission - interesting to watch how the 'W' twins wiggle their way out of this little messup!:ok:

CARDIA
9th Oct 2005, 08:02
Whoever it was who coined the phrase "There is no honour amoung thieves" surely must have had Shellharbour Council in mind when they thought up this saying.

The Mayor has recently gone overseas on holidays. The 'W' twins are now telling people that he is travelling on 'free' or 'scammed' tickets in an effort to generate trouble for their comrade in absentia! Seems that their illustrious leader has become a bit(or lot) of a liability in the survivor stakes and the twins are taking advantage of his absence to prepare the masses for his very soon departure (with a little bit of a push from them)!

Others knowledgeable within council also claim that the newly-elected Deputy has been seen trying out the BIG chair - and it fits nicely!:ok:

YIPYIO
9th Oct 2005, 23:49
Hey Cardia,
No chance those tickets had QANTASLINK stamped all over them is there?:E

CARDIA
12th Oct 2005, 06:08
Several meetings back, we inadvertently left a mobile phone recorder in the chamber and managed to get a pretty significant insight into the functions of council especially when the doors get closed off!
After several complaints about council minutes not being true and proper records of the machinations of council, we have taken to reviewing the minutes against the transcripts and the difference is very often remarkable to say the least. It appears the minutes are vetted extensively by by the GM and sanitised to put council in the best possible light, and we can assure you that many items discussed are either turned around completely to reflect other outcomes contrary to what has been said and by whom or just blatant fabrications of what has or has not been said.
Before anyone accuses us of inappropriate behaviour, when there is the possibility of criminal enterprise or intent happening, then it can be appropriate to use whatever means possible to expose this type of behaviour.
Yesterday we again recorded a most disgusting session of council which was witnessed by many people. Speakers at public participation were gagged and ridiculed with senior council officers standing and voicing personal abuse and threats at members of the public gallery. Council was essentially run like a schoolroom with key personnel stifling or denying even the most basic of human rights including Freedom of Speech from the gallery and councilors. Questions from councilors concerning the airport and its operations were fielded and answers forthcoming were intentionally designed to mislead the council orwere just plain wrong.
The behaviour of this council was so disgusting that we are now having the record transcripted and it will be available to any person who requires it.
Anyone interested in seeing the most disgusting abuse of position imaginable, please pm me soon for a transcript of proceedings from last night.
Cardia

wylie_cyote
12th Oct 2005, 11:50
It might come as no surprise, but last nights meeting was also attended by a representative of a Government agency - I have no doubt they would not have been impressed with the whole farce so it will be interesting to see what eventuates?:*

Cardia; PM me a copy when available please!:ok:

Sunfish
12th Oct 2005, 21:39
If you want to control things always write the minutes of any meeting yourself.

'AEROWASP' HELICOPTERS
13th Oct 2005, 09:03
Cardia,

Check you PMs. I would appreciate a copy of the transcript when it is available too please.

ASKARI
13th Oct 2005, 09:59
Evidently at the other night's council meeting, the airport manager was asked two questions about Connie by a councilor.
First one was about the damage done to the runway with the airport manager claiming that the connie has done no damage to the runway but did qualify his statement by stating the NEW runway. (Good evasive tactics!) The second question was how much HARS pays in landing fees. Response was evidently that they pay the same rate as everyone else. For the Connie that is $420 per landing!
Not sure whether things have changed, but when HARS first moved to the airport they were given a 'special' rate of $450 per annum for landing fees so unless they volunteered to change the rate, I wonder what happened or is it possible that the manager has again mislead council?
:\ For his sake, I certainly hope he hasn't as there are far too many eyes and ears hanging on their every word now!:mad:

Pitch and Break
14th Oct 2005, 13:39
TopGun was in the local rag this week and on local television (Win4) lastnight claiming that they will be recommencing ops from the Illawarra Regional Airport before Christmas. Claim they are having trouble getting a new machine (just how much damage was done to ATD in the Goulburn dingle?) however, council claims they are continuing operations using the dragonfly and yaks and that the drangonfly cannot be used out of Wollongong.
This is all well and good but why is the website down and why can't people get in touch with anyone on the phone? Only tried the website lastnight and still no joy?:uhoh:

doesn't look good
23rd Oct 2005, 09:30
Well we have waited nearly two weeks for a reply from Wunwing or Feather #3 to the questions posed. We have received no answers. Woomera has the documents and I think the questions raised and the silence from those who claim to know the truth tells us all the answers. CASA needs to hang its head in shame and keep its fingers crossed. Perhaps it should also speak to the PM before he signs a cheque for $250k of public money.

:O :O :O

ASKARI
23rd Oct 2005, 12:36
The last month must certainly have been the greatest annus horibalus for Shellharbour Council.
:ok:
So far this month they are the recipients of:
*An enquiry into the money spent at the airport on repairs,
*An enquiry into the inappropriate and allegedly fraudulent representation of the AVO legal system by a councillor to silence other councillors,
*An investigation into Code of Conduct breeches by Deputy Dog eminating from the last council meeting,
*An investigation into Code of Conduct breeches and abuse of the public by GM eminating from the last council meeting,
*Ten questions asked in State Parliament (answers in Nov) about the stacking of council committees, and
*The imminent release of the council transcripts which I believe will see the possible dismissal of one Councillor and at least one council officer for inappropriate behaviour and serious breeches of the Code of Conduct rules.
All in all, 13 complaints lodged, 4 investigations underway and the involvement of the Ombudsman, Department of Local Government AND ICAC yet again!
Also is rumoured that at least another 2 council staff have had a gutfull and are preparing to roll-over with some facts and hard evidence being made available through letter drops and other means......these issues may finally see their way into the legal system and certainly not before time either.
:uhoh:
Final issue, council has been objecting to the release of certain documents about individuals in the community through FOI provisions......can anyone believe one of their reasons is that the people mentioned in the document may find them defamatory? Call me naive, but has something gone wrong with our society when a measly old council can get protection from such blatant attacks on its citizens?:mad:

Aquaboy
25th Oct 2005, 08:43
Surely the new Premier would have his minister’s fully deal with this situation as he needs all the brownie points that he can acquire due to the Labor Parties flailing popularity. They are only tight till the water starts to lap their heals while the boat sinks like the Titanic!

wylie_cyote
25th Oct 2005, 13:12
Doesn't Look Good,
You won't hear from Wunwing and Feather #3 anytime soon. Appears things have got a tad hot and they might be writing some cheques shortly to the Shellharbour Community for services rendered!:ok:

ASKARI
27th Oct 2005, 10:44
Can you believe it! After last council's meeting fiasco where the standin Mayor behaved like Attila the Hunn, council has decided to BAN ALL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION from hereonin.:*
In a nutshell, council intends to silence the public outright......all statements will have to be submitted to council by 12.00 on the day of any meeting when it will be distributed to councillors for consideration at that meeting. Questions will not be able to be asked of the author nor will they be able to speak on ANY matter!
This is an absolute travesty of basic human rights to speak and be heard and this council MUST be dismissed for their absolute disregard for their constituents!:\
This is a council in crisis unable to account for their actions and are now proposing the most dictatorial and disgusting methods to silence ANYONE who dares speak against them!
THE GLOVES ARE WELL AND TRULY OFF:mad:

COLLIE
28th Oct 2005, 12:25
Askari, This is a firmly entrenched labour council with them holding sway. I understand this proposal is to be put before council next wednesday evening and this meeting should be attended by anyone within cooee who is interested in seeing a dictatorship in full swing!:mad:
I understand that representations have been made (on this very matter) to various ministers of the crown to have this council turfed for their unconstitutional approach to their duties and responsibilities to their electorate. I also learned only today that certain State Parliament Labour Members (not elected to council)attend local caucus meetings held prior to EVERY council meeting employing a very strong voice on matters due to be considered by council - how then is it possible for the truly elected representatives of the community (including those councillors controlled by caucus) to have access to fair and transparent local government procedures and outcomes when the whole process is flawed and corrupted?
No wonder nobody has had any success through their local members of parliament and the respective Ministers when the whole sorry mess means dropping the can on their comrades?:\
It has been said time and time again; but this council must be subject to an immediate administrative review with serious consideration initiated toward administration!
The Ringmaster has lost control and the clowns are running the circus.........it can only end in tears!:E (Let's just pray that nobody let's the lions escape!)

PROPSWINGA
28th Oct 2005, 23:42
Sources are confirming that the wait might not be too long now. After the last meeting, the GM is in serious trouble for abusing and threatening a member of the gallery with an un-called-for assault on the public. He threatened her with legal action if she could not substantiate her claims which she didn't make in the first place. As to the Airport, those issues are now before a DLG review phase with serious outcomes expected for the council and its senior officers. On yet another issue concerning the airport, recently received FOI documentation confirms that senior council officers have lied and mislead council on several very serious issues and these matters are again before ICAC, DLG and the Minister responsible whilst more information is coming to light almost daily about sweetheart deals and questionable business dealings between council officers and local businesses concerning the Illawarra Regional Airport.
Stay tuned as the fat lady hasn't sung yet!:ok:

CARDIA
29th Oct 2005, 08:36
To all ppruners who have asked for transcripts, please check your PM's. They will be ready later this week and will be dispatched to all interested parties.:oh:

the end
29th Oct 2005, 22:10
In the next few months the final stages of the Shellcove development will be put to council and approved. All debate and examination by the public of what is going on will be stopped. Prepare for a Xmas approval with nobody about. Prepare for more delegated authority. From day one the council has known about the toxic nature of the waste at the old tip that is to be dug up. The cost of proper removal, treatment and disposal would make the development impossible. The intent is to dig out as little as possible move it in open trucks and dump it in another hole without proper treatment. The cost of proper treatment has been estimated to be $20 million. If you want to bring this council down look in this direction and bring in the EPA and other agencies. FOI documents talk to the Sydney press. This final stage of the Shellcove development is the big pay day for many people if it does not happen then there with be big trouble for some people. The right faction is seriously out of control and getting desperate. Be careful this is big.

PROPSWINGA
31st Oct 2005, 19:11
Seems there was an investigation some time ago concerning ownership and operation of the restaraunt known as the Eastgate and formerly Eagles at the Airport. It has always been alleged that this facilitiy was owned/operated by a local businessman in association with the airport manager. Evidence has now become available that clearly confirms the relationship and business deals that were in place at the time and it is now alleged that certain punters have lied to ICAC and other investigative agencies.:\
This relationship goes far deeper than is comfortable for this council and the community as the partner is the same owner of the organisation that was awarded the $M airport upgrade that did not go out to tender and was handed over on a silver platter!:E

CARDIA
5th Nov 2005, 04:48
To all those who attended this months council meeting, take comfort in the knowledge that at least 3 councillors from the labour camp were extremely uncomfortable with the decision to vote for the cessation of public participation in council meetings. They were only doing as they were directed by our illustrious Larry.
As for the cooling off period for public participation; the leader of the pack has privately informed all senior managers that public participation in the flesh will never be allowed again. He feels quite comfortable that during the next 3 months he will convince council that speakers at council meetings are an unnecessary evil and that paper submissions are the way to go. He will wheel out his usual report to the council claiming that this practice is fairer for all and will be backed to the hilt by Larry and his band of merry men (who will do as they are told naturally).
Whoever said Labour was all about the people certainly never had this council in mind when they made that statement!
:\

doesn't look good
6th Nov 2005, 07:24
For many months now the pages of pprune have documented the incompetence of SCC and the stupidity of what is going on at Albion Park airport. The unwillingness of SCC to put in place a proper planning process for the airport and the problems this is leading to for the users. Some of what has been uncovered was always known by the council and these problems have been the reason that a proper process has not and cannot be put in place.
The first problem uncovered was the encouragement of HARS to relocate to YWOL without any reference in the DA or any other document of the limited category aircraft status of the HARS planes and the restriction that flowed. This in effect means that YWOL was unsuitable for the relocation of HARS because of the built up areas surrounding the airfield. It is not clear if CASA was always aware of the problems or have just been forced into turning a blind eye and damage control to cover up past incompetence and improper approvals from their officers. This then moved on to the runway upgrade mess after it was published that the runway was literally crumbling under the weight of the HARS planes. Now the latest; the aviation cluster. Again no discussions about limitations at the planning stage just a “this is a great idea” and “the government is giving us money”. In fact no proper discussion or planning. Now the problem;

It has been suggested that YWOL is unsuitable for some of the businesses being encouraged to come to YWOL. It has been suggested that the air safety regulations state that planes that have been rebuilt (the HARS planes) and other new aircraft should not be allowed to conduct initial flight testing out of YWOL because of the proximity of the houses around the airfield. This is again very important as it has recently been announced that the government, one would have thought with CASA approval, has allocated $250k to HARS for the refurbishment of historic aircraft at YWOL and other aircraft builders have moved or are moving into YWOL after the aviation cluster donation. It would be very embaressing for the PM if it came to pass that public money had been donated for an activity that would breach air safety regulations.

Can anybody confirm that there is such a regulation?

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE WANT NO MORE VICTIMS OF SCC.
:( :O :confused:

COLLIE
6th Nov 2005, 11:44
Cardia, I heard today that your observation about labour councillors is indeed correct. Sources confirm that some councillors have had enough of being dictated to and intend a rebellion against both their elected and non-elected bosses and I say; GO FOR IT!:ok:
Must be hard to keep up the pretences of representing your constituents when all you are doing is being manipulated like the proverbial puppet-on-a-string; there is at least one balding councillor in there that still has the string attachment points clearly visible!
DLG, You too have some valid points worthy of consideration especially where public safety is concerned. Some people are already asking rather pointed questions about how one operator at the airport is intending to test fly his product without breaching safety regulations!:mad:
Propswinga, Glad to see that issue comes up again....the investigations were incomplete but I understand there is now new information available thanks to some staffers? Any news on that front?:oh:
The End; Touche!:uhoh: You have hit the nail on the head! It is one of the worst kept secrets in council that the timing of the cessation of public participation is so that some very sensitive items can pass through council with as few questions as possible.
These items have also been timed to be passed during the relatively quiet xmas period when most public interest is elsewhere.:* If nothing else, you have to give this council top marks for their ability to manipulate the system to serve their own needs!
Finally, I have heard there is a petition doing the rounds seeking community support for a vote of no confidence in both Larry and Curley - any reader is encouraged to sign it, and in true Labour Party form, if you have a few relos that have passed on; stick their name on it too!:ok:

doesn't look good
7th Nov 2005, 07:00
This thread has from time to time talked about the disgraceful behavior of the local rag referred to as the mockery and its less than honorable reporter for Shellharbour. If anybody believes what is written here is not the truth they should look into what happened last weekend in the mockery.
On the Friday the mockery wrote an article where it stated that the victimized aviator from Shellharbour, Peter Holstein, was in fact a person who spoke frequently at council and tried to paint him as a nuisance who was part of the reason public participation had to end. This was not true and simply an attempt by the journalist to discredit Mr. Holstein.
On Saturday a retraction was printed. Verity should start reporting the facts and stop misleading the editor. His stories so far have been biased and a long way from the truth.
ICAC, DLG and other bodies please take note of this.
Mr. Editor why has Verity still got a job?


:ooh: :( :*

COLLIE
10th Nov 2005, 03:58
Last ouncil meeting, council approved the cessation of public participation at council meetings. This proposal was put forward by the GM citing the publics' attempt to hijack the public participation process as his reasoning behind the move.
The next day, 4 councillors submitted a reccission motion on the decision which effective 'sets aside' this decision until it is revisited by the council as a whole. (Standard practice actually.)
Well, now the GM and Mayor have decided that the decision will be revisited in the normal form however, the decision of council is to be upheld no public participation will be allowed at the next meeting despite the fact that the decision that cancelled this has been subject to a reccission motion......go figure?
To top all this off, at the meeting where public participation was outlawed, the GM presented to council a report and spoke on the matter personally. In his address, he informed everyone that his council was pretty unique in the scheme of things as they were one of the only councils in the state that allowed public participation.....well guess what (?) a check of over 60 councils finds that only 2 so far do not allow public participation!!!
So just were did Attilu the Hunn and his band of miscreants find their information? Your guess is as good as mine!:\

overboosted
10th Nov 2005, 10:14
I hope I am not pre-empting anyone here, but a very reliable source close to the right people has today confirmed that this council will be in administration within the next 4 months.:* This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing:
Good A chance to ditch some of the councillors and staff who have been bleeding the system to death for way too long and a chance to review all council's recent decisions (away from the stoolies)!
Bad A slap in the face for those councillors and staff who have attempted to do the right thing by their community!:\
Anyway you look at it; it is almost over for this scandalous council and certainly not before time.:ok:

ASKARI
11th Nov 2005, 19:46
Appears TopGun is a spent force. Know of several enquiries from irate ticket holders trying to get a refund with NO LUCK!
Appears the boss has pulled the pin on the operations, Cheif Engineer has walked with a pile of money owed to him personally and many ancillary operators looking for some funds too including for maintenance and hangarage. Saddest part is the 350+ punters that look like they've lost on average $1500+ each.....and this slimy council keeps telling people that all is ok and they will be back in the air come Christmas.....thank goodness nobody can make contact and possibly loose even more hard-earned dosh to this mob!
Oh, and just as an aside; the little incident at Goulburn reported here first, was such a little incident that it is alledged that the aircraft was a write-off!

ASKARI
22nd Nov 2005, 11:56
Tonight, I had the misfortune of witnessing the most disgusting example of democracy in action in the little backwater of Shellharbour, NSW. At the monthly council meeting tonight, I watched as the Mayor ejected a member of the public from the gallery for smiling! :* Can you actually believe it? A member of the public gallery smiled and the Mayor removed him from the gallery! (Not a word or noise was uttered by the ejectee)
These council meetings are usually attended by one security guard available however tonight saw 4 in attendance......this is at a council meeting that has NEVER seen any type of behaviour that would warrant such a response....except of course unless the mayor and his trusty henchmen intended to stir up some form of trouble. (Smiling was about the best they could extract from the gallery.)
In the Mayoral Address, reserved for the end of the meeting, the soggy old bag of wind used his priviliged position to abuse members of the public for daring to circulate a petition of
NO CONFIDENCE in the mayor which has gained considerable support from the general public over the last few days with several thousand signatures already gathered.
On the issue of the airport, some very serious matters concerning alleged corruption is again in the spotlight with appropriate agencies finally taking the matter seriously!
Stay tuned....these matters are a long way from over and any outcomes will be published here first!

Pitch and Break
24th Nov 2005, 10:16
Shellharbour City Council is now officially the most complained about council on record! (It is Official!)
Additional, and until recently, undiscovered alleged issues about the airport and certain unacceptable business dealings have come to light and have been forwarded to the appropriate agencies best positioned to investigate such matters. A retired council staffer has come clean and has a lot to say about certain dealings and certain senior council officers; proving to be the veritable mine-field!
Despite requests from the public and independent councillors, Curley is refusing to issue any information about the cost to the community for a recent legal action (AVO) against the mayor. He is claiming that the public have no right to know how much this action cost for his community-funded legal representation. (He's kidding right???)
These matters are promising to come to a head when they are again tabled in state parliament next week.......it could be Administrators at 40 paces!:ok:

overboosted
24th Nov 2005, 10:34
This little gem was uplifted from the old blow-hard's ramblings on councils website:
I have been very disappointed to hear that some locals are not happy with Council’s vote last meeting to have a cooling off period for the public participation component of Council meetings. I must reiterate that Council is NOT cancelling public participation nor have we ever stated this. The ability for the community to speak at Council meetings – either for or against an item – is a privilege which should be fiercely protected. We live in a society which affords us the freedom of being able to voice our opinion without fear and I am proud this council is one of only a handful in the state which offers public participation at council meetings. Unfortunately in recent months, the process of public participation has been abused. Residents can be assured that council is not trying to stifle public debate – we are simply reviewing the process of the public participation to ensure it returns to being a fair and equitable vehicle for both supporters and opponents to be involved in the decision making process. The community is now being given the chance to make comment and suggestion on how this can be achieved. I would hope the people who are protesting against our cooling off period will also contribute constructive ideas. Written submissions should be forwarded to Council by 4pm on Wednesday 30 November 2005. Submissions should be addressed to the General Manager, Shellharbour City Council, PO Box 155, Shellharbour City Centre NSW 2529 or delivered to 1 st Floor, Lamerton House, Lamerton Cres, Shellharbour City Centre.
Larry...would you like to explain how you come to the conclusion that the public participation process has been abused when the public have been participating in exactly the manner required by council's own rules for participation? AND, how do you explain your claim that your council is one of only a handful in the state offering public participation when the truth is more like 90% of councils in NSW allow public participation in this same form?
Is there going to be a time sometime soon when you people will stop the lying to the community and come clean on ALL the local issues including the alleged corruption regarding the airport?
:\ Why don't you do it BEFORE the administrator is appointed and save the community (and your cronies) a whole lot of grief and unnecessary cost?:mad:

Foyl
26th Nov 2005, 09:46
Re Top Gun, on 22/09 Propswinga wrote:

All over bar the shouting! Their website is down and nobody is taking their calls on the freebee number!

On 11/11 ASKARI wrote:

TopGun Gone! Appears TopGun is a spent force. Know of several enquiries from irate ticket holders trying to get a refund with NO LUCK! Appears the boss has pulled the pin on the operations, Cheif Engineer has walked with a pile of money owed to him personally and many ancillary operators looking for some funds too including for maintenance and hangarage. Saddest part is the 350+ punters that look like they've lost on average $1500+ each.....and this slimy council keeps telling people that all is ok and they will be back in the air come Christmas.....thank goodness nobody can make contact and possibly loose even more hard-earned dosh to this mob!

Hate to say this guys, but the website appears to be running fine, and somebody put the ad in today's Sydney Morning Herald (page 37 of Spectrum). So what gives? :confused:

No association with the company, just intrigued.

ASKARI
26th Nov 2005, 18:58
Foyl,
Thanks, you are quite correct BUT that does not distract from the fact that my earlier post was correct. The website was down and they were not taking/answering calls....perhaps they have had a reprieve? If they are back up and running; good luck to them!:ok:

CARDIA
27th Nov 2005, 04:14
It appears that the airport and the misuse of council-owned property is firmly back on the agenda with outsiders sniffing around for information concerning some past dealings with the airport restaurant. One senior council staffer has been put on notice not to speak with anyone outside of council concerning these matters under fear of dismissal. Reported that the meeting with Barney on the matter was not very cordial and she is not a happy lass!
On the matter of ADMINISTRATION: the general feeling around here is now not a matter of IF but WHEN. The amount of effort being put into hiding information from everyone indicates that maybe they know more than they are telling with the top of council going to great efforts to make sure there are no smoking guns left lying about to be found.
Working here at the moment is a major joke with senior staff being directed to obtain information on certain members of the public by any means possible; and be warned; anything they can find will be used against the public in the most vile manner possible. These people mean business and they intend to use any and every trick in the book to silence any opposition.
And as if that is not enough, 2 of their favoured councillors are also on the outer having also spoken up against councils behaviour. It is probably adviseable that Mr B and Mr L start looking for some others passtime activities as they are earmarked to be dropped as members of the annointed few....and that is straight from Larry!:\
Anyone want a job? There could be some hot prospects available down this way real soon.:ok:

CARDIA
11th Dec 2005, 07:59
Shellharbour Council is presently under an External Review of all their dealings over the past 24 months. Of particular interest is the goings-on at the Illawarra Regional Airport and some of the questionable decisions with TopGun, HARS and the upgrade!:* Team is also reviewing complaints from other locals......could this be the beginning of the end for our shonky council or is this toooooo much to expect?:ok:
Don't bother asking any of the councillors about the present investigations....they have not been informed by the monkeys driving this council!:mad:

ASKARI
28th Dec 2005, 12:33
Shellharbour City Council has had there first week under external review by the Department of Local Government. (They now have stopped for the Xmas period). The review is due to recommence very soon and is expected to continue for upwards of another 3 weeks.
The GM has informed councillors that the review is purely routine but this is very clearly not the case as the review has been directed by the Director General to establish if there is any cause for concern with council's adherence to procedures, code of conduct etc. Several councillors have been interviewed however it is extremely unlikely that the team will interview members of the public at this stage.
It is understood now that the review may lead to a recommendation for amalgamation of Shellharbour City Council with Wollongong City Council. It is alleged that a plan is in place to oust the present Mayor and appoint another less contraversial one with a firm adgenda to review more than a few employment contracts....could be that Johnny's new IR Laws might get an airing sooner rather than later.:\ Yahooooo!:ok:

kasey
28th Dec 2005, 20:57
Askari,
Trying to PM you, but your mailbox is full,

Kasey

ASKARI
1st Jan 2006, 21:34
Kasey,

All empty now!

criticalmass
16th Jan 2006, 06:19
I believe the Illawarra Mercury of 10th January this year had an interesting article by William Verity about some recent leases assigned or renewed, also news of a $500,000 development for (I think) the air cadets. First sod has already been turned on that one, methinks.

Only saw the article somewhat briefly and wasn't able to memorise all the facts and figures quoted but it made interesting reading.