The Oaks Airport (Sydney) Under Threat *URGENT*

[carlholden]

The Oaks Airport, Sydney's last remaining WW2 Airport, is under threat from a proposed 115' (35m) Mobile Phone Tower, to be built within the circuit area, adjacent to the north east of the airport.
We believe this will be a deadly hazard to Aviation and Airport Users.
The Oaks Airspace/Airport is extensively used for training, and has been since World War 2.
We are presently working on restoring the Airport, for the benefit of Aviation in the Sydney basin and bringing Tourism to The Oaks and Wollondilly (more on our plans later).....
This Tower will jeopardise existing operations and will restrict (or even close) our opportunities for the future.
We are URGENTLY seeking any help/assistance/suggestions/legal views etc., especially "Expert Opinions" that can help us make it clear to local authorities what a risk this proposed Tower poses and what a mistake it would be to let it be built.
The Oaks Airport represents a great resource for Aviation around Sydney. We can't let it be compromised !
Carl Holden
Airport Manager
President Burragorang Chamber of Commerce (The Oaks)
Please visit our website www.TheOaksAirport.com (http://www.TheOaksAirport.com)
Email: ch(at)theoaksairport.com
Office/home phone is (02) 4647-5555

[ZEEBEE]

yes it's a wonderful spot and would be a disgrace to see it diminish or even disappear.

Surely the antenna can be positioned in alternate locations where it doesn't pose a threat ?

Mind you, I'm sure some of the "local newly landed gentry" would be quite happy to see anything that restricts use of the airport, so I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some lobbying behind the scenes to achieve just this sort of discouragement to aviation. :(

Camden..you're next :mad:

[Trojan1981]

Do you mean The Oaks is the last of Sydneys airports built during WW2?
Are you restoring the airport so that it can take more traffic? I have done quite a bit of flight training at THK when flying from Camden. I often found that when I got back to Camden someone had called and complained about the noise!
I always followed the circut proceedures as instructed and was only ever flying a Citabria or C-182.

Someone seems to have it in for aviation down there.

[Ultralights]

i have always thought to myself, if i had enough cash, i would buy the Oaks and build it into a Airpark,
it would be the Only airpark in the Sydney basin, create local jobs, and keep the airport in tact, as it would be set up as a body corporate with airpark property owners having an equal share in the runway complex. and would require a vote of all parties to change that situation.

[carlholden]

The Oaks Airport is the last remaining WW2 Airport left in Sydney. It was built 1941/42 as a "dispersal" aerodrome, so in the event that Sydney, Bankstown or Camden were attacked bombed/shelled airccraft could fly to The Oaks and "hide".

As the Airport is the highest Airport in Sydney, and farthest distance from the GPO, I would assume that that gave it some strategic advantages.

Aircraft hides were constructed off the 5,000 foot, 150 foot wide bitumen runway that graced the Airport. These can be seen on the 1943 Survey map, under HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS on our website.

[carlholden]

Thanks "Ultralights". What you suggest is well within our range of options.
As more airports are closed or restricted around Sydney, there is a desperate need for a "friendly alternative".
As someone who helped form the AUF, and ran an Ultralight (now 'Recreational') School at The Oaks over 3 decades, this Airport represents the only future opportunity for Recreational flyers to learn and fly in a non-towered environment in Sydney.
It can also represent an opportunity for Recreational and GA pilots to hangar their aircraft at an Airport that they can have their input into management of.

[carlholden]

Thanks "zeebee". There are plenty of other better locations, that are away from the Airport and houses.
We previously suggested to Council that Telstra look at erecting their Tower on a high point, on the ridge line just to the north of the Township. Their propagation survey came back showing that the antenna on the high point would have far less coverage that the antenna placed on the lowest point (next to the airport, in a valley).

I just can't understand it.

This must be the only antenna in history that covers a greater area if placed at the bottom of a valley, compared to the top of the surrounding hills ?

[satmstr]

Carlholden, Education is the key for the complaining residents. Offer them a ride in a Aircraft and you might be surprised. But i am sick and tired of these people complaining when the airport has been there before they have and most moved into the area knowing there is a airport there:mad:. In regards to the mobile tower, i assume this has to go through Council to be approved. Have you spoke to any Councillors about the threat and safety to light aircraft that the tower imposes. Also i think if i remember right that they have to show the plan for public opnion for the proposed building of that tower. If so maybe try and get some reply from the local pilots and also maybe go around camden and bankstown trying to get more support.

Anyhow just a suggestion

[Ultralights]

thurther to my airpark plan, 90% would be sold to airpark owners, each property having hangar and taxiway access, and the rest will remain for commercial operators, flying schools etc. and just general hangarage. and being 2 parallel strips, one could be used for circuits, and arrivals and departures of training operators exclusively, and the other for other ops, and residents.

get a plan together, get it to council and show them just how much the will loose in rates from airpark residents and the evil developers fees if the airport is shut down due to tower installation. not to mention tourist $$, local economy boost for builders/etc, and job created by employees of the operators in the airpark. Im sure a cashed up LAME would love to run his maint business in his own hanger attached to his home!

if this were to happen, i for one would be the first to hangar my aircraft there, and even consider a satellite school from our Bankstown Ops.

why no one had the forsight to do something like this at YHOX is beyond me. or then again, Schoies is still intact. just overgrown.. any cashed up airpark developers?

[carlholden]

Thanks "satmstr". Since we started our operations way back when (mid 80's), we have been very mindful of the local Community, as (for those viewing this that aren't aware) the Town is built right next to the Airport on the side of a hill, with the Airport at the bottom of the valley.
You can land at the Oaks and walk into town within a few minutes.
We have been mainly operating low noise, high technology aircraft (for their day) that have a low noise signature (esp. on climbout) since we started, and do what we can to avoid flying over the Town.

Our relations with the local community are good. Am planning to improve that to "excellent" shortly....

[carlholden]

Thanks "ultralights". The Tower is going to be built on land owned by Council, and I understand this will result in around $12,000 per year rent. Could this be seen to be a conflict of interest ?

I have already done what you suggested, but we need a lot more help. Hence this post on PPRUNE.

We need to get the entire Aviation Community to get behind us.
Please read the letter from Allan Bligh AOPA at the top of our website www.theoaksairport.com (http://www.theoaksairport.com)

[peuce]

I have no idea of the layout of The Oaks aerodrome ... but, perhaps you could suggest they put the tower smack bang in the middle of the aerodrome ... won't be a circuit area obstacle then ... would it? Control Towers get built in the middle of aerodromes !

[YPJT]

Looking at those drawings it would appear that the exsiting buldings and powerlines would present a far greater transitional infringement than the proposed tower.

[Tiger35]

From the diagram it appears that the tower is located outside any take-off and approach areas specified in Casa regs.

If that is the case, then what hazard can it present if the pilots comply with the regulations and use sound airmanship?

From a quick look at Google Earth it appears that there is a town near the tower, playing fields, trees, power lines along the road near the threshold, so what extra hazard can a tower present?

I bet the people in the houses just to the north-east of the runway don't want you flying over there either.

Do you still fly Carl?

Which airport do you manage?

[Tiger35]

I thought Bankstown was used during WWII?

And I think it is still used today.

Oh, and so was Sydney, and Richmond and probably a couple of others too.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a campaign hey Carl?

Are you running for council again Carl or is it preselection for a local seat this time?

[Tiger35]

From a quick search of the council records from the last meeting they have approved the DA for this tower.

If they have a conflict of interest with the tower being on their land, and on land shared with the local fire brigade, with their own radio mast, then surely you have a conflict of interest in pushing the rights of the airfield that you say you own and manage ahead of the interests of the community who appear to want better phone and internet coverage.

[carlholden]

The Oaks Airport was built specifically and as a direct result of WW2, for use as a training and dispersal aerodrome. Of course, Sydney, Bankstown and Camden existed prior to WW2 and were used during the war.

Of all the aerodromes built around Sydney directly as a result of WW2 activities and needs in those dark days, The Oaks Airport is the last one left.

We need your help and support, not a hand to close us down.

All Pilots need to be mindful of the special responsibilities we have as "custodians of the air" and not be a party to attempts to close or wreck any aspect of Aviation, but to encourage and grow it.

I have never run for Council and can't work out where you are headed and why.

My aim here is to seek and enlist help and support in fighting a powerful campaign to erect a Communications Tower, to make profits for a Telco, that is an obvious threat to Air Safety and an Aerodrome that is part of Australia's fast disappearing aviation heritage, where I ran a Flying School over 3 decades.

[snoop doggy dog]

There is some bloody idiots on Pprune :ugh:

"The Oaks Airport is the last remaining WW2 Airport left in Sydney. It was built 1941/42 as a "dispersal" aerodrome, so in the event that Sydney, Bankstown or Camden were attacked bombed/shelled airccraft could fly to The Oaks and "hide"."

The man stated his case earlier.

You need signitures carlholden to send to the people renting the space and media to get your momentum going forward. So if you want them, you need to put something on this site, that is easy for Ppruners to access and sign :ok:

Have not flown at the Oaks, however, I am sure it is a place where budding young pilot wunna bees can get some good flying experience, at a very good price :)

I know where I am that there would be plenty of fellas signing up ;)

All the best to you mate

[YPJT]

There is some bloody idiots on Pprune And just who would you be refferring to with that comment Mr sdd?

No one is questioning the virtue of Mr Holden's cause to make sure the airport can be restored and continue to operate but to say that "The tower is a deadly risk to air safety and this decision will cost jobs, investment, tourism dollars and future prosperity" is a bit of a long bow to draw. (quote taken from article in news links provided above)

As Tiger 35 said above. The tower does not infringe on either the takeoff or approach surfaces. It infringes the transitional serfice by about 1.5% for code 3 and above aircraft and is under the infringement for code 1 and 2.

The tower only has to be moved about 50m laterally from the rwy centreline to put it outside the transitonal.

[Tiger35]

HI YPJT,

I don't think you can get Code 3 into The Oaks.

The airfield is in the middle of a small valley.

I've been there a couple of times and I am surprised there is an airfield there at all, but good luck to the guys who love the place.

No matter how much we hate the major Telcos who appear to be putting the mockers on our aviation activities, there must have been an Aviation study done by someone with qualifications, for council to approve the DA. Are you aware of such a study provided to the council? Who did the study for council?

On the Sydney Rec Flyers website there is mention that you have to climb the "airstairs" to get decent mobile coverage. Maybe there is a customer demand in THE OAKs that outweighs the interests of aviation. There is also a diagram showing left hand circuits off RWY 34 which is away from the town and the tower.

Surely where there is a Telstra tower there must be an Optus tower nearby.

When was the last time you flew from the Oaks Carl?