Comments / Assistance for Grass RWS Op's Please

[3dextra]

Local council are trying to stop RWS ops - Have been using this grass safely for 30 years . Don't know why it is suddenly an issue ?


I know a lot of other airports with grass RWS that councils are happy to accommodate - Really don't see the problem


Any suggestions or comments please ?

[Stationair8]

Likewise grass runways that were used by various aircraft from C152 through cabin class twins was deemed to be unsafe by a local council, funny that CASA had no problems with said grass runways.

Apparently council consultant deemed they were an OH&S issue!

Funny any these days of airport security, ASIC cards and fluoro vests, some airports allow car clubs to use the airfield for events such as time trails etc!

[4Greens]

Much easier to land a tail skid fitted Tiger Moth on a grass strip.

[3dextra]

Thanks all .


I have operated J3 cubs - Tiger Moths - Decathlon and Pitts S2A from this spot for a long time ( 30 years ) and now it suddenly becomes an issue ?
Very strange ? Especially when so many other airports happily have RWS ops .


It stems from one council employee who is not a pilot trying to make a stand and issuing a NOTAM - Is this what we should expect at other airports in the future ?

[QDMQDMQDM]

Where is this?

[aroa]

Better for taildraggers all round.:ok:

Time to tell these non experts to FOXTROT OSCAR !!:ok::ok:

And to advise the Council that plonker is making it LESS safe and that grass landings will continue in the interests of safety.....which is the prime consideration with airport ops.

AND the PIC decides regarding the landing...NOT a non aviating OH&S tosser.

Time to wave the Eureka flag and show the baseball bat.:ok:

[j3pipercub]

Ah yes, the over zealous non pilot public servant trying to justify their position. Nevermind the fact that grass ops/RWS OPS is perfectly safe and has been conducted for decades, it doesn't fit with their understanding of some obscure definition and all hell breaks loose. Seen it at a few places now.

May I ask where? If it's nearby I'll have to cross it off the list of places to drop in and pick up gas/go for the $100 hamburger.

j3

[Capt Fathom]

May I ask where? If it's nearby I'll have to cross it off the list of places to drop in

No!
Just continue to use the grass strip...
No doubt they'll eventually make it unusable, but until then....

[YPJT]

If you think local governments and their airfields are difficult to deal with, try it with mining companies.

[Mach E Avelli]

The problem is the way we have followed the Yanks with litigation for every scratch, ding or dent on our persons or property.
Local Councils often don't have a resident expert who knows enough about grass runways and whether the surface remains safe after heavy rain, or when it has not been cut for so long, etc. So the soft cock option is simply to opt out.
This attitude is everywhere. Try asking the NSW coast guard whether conditions are suitable to cross a river bar. The operator may waffle with a caution about the possibility of breaking waves etc but he/she will never say yes or no. The best you could get is that a 50 foot trawler just made it without reported incident. But even that much information is unlikely because it could induce you to thinking it is OK for your tinny.
Hypothetically, suppose the airport published a standing NOTAM stating that the condition of the grass was not monitored and pilots used at their own risk. Along comes some cashed up bogan/doctor/lawyer in his shiny new plastic fantastic. On landing the nose wheel drops into a rabbit hole and the whole shebang inverts, killing the passenger and mutilating the pilot. Who ya gonna sue? 'At your own risk' is a meaningless caution in law, it seems.
The authorities who run public services are not to blame - the law makers are. And the unwashed public because so many won't accept the consequences of their own actions.

[TrailBoss]

And the unwashed public because so many won't accept the consequences of their own actions.

Well said. A comment that is only too true.:ok:

[Howard Hughes]

The problem is the way we have followed the Yanks with litigation for every scratch, ding or dent on our persons or property.
I think it's more the threat than the actual prosecution of action, but whatever it is, we sure have become 'risk averse'!

[3dextra]

QD - It Is the once user friendly airport at Hervey Bay

[3dextra]

Capt Fathom ....They cant make it unusable - It is the RWS and must comply with MOS 139 .... therefore must be smooth and free of obstacles.
They have issued a NOTAM though saying aircraft movements are restricted to " prepared surfaces " - I can't find a definition of " prepared surface " and when I asked for clarification was told it was in the CASR'S and AIP and I need further info to call CASA ? - Still cant find it tho - even emailed Air Services - I think he means sealed surfaces ? ?

[3dextra]

Mach E
The resident experts used to be local pilots that had a fair idea of what they are doing - Now the expert isn't even a pilot ?

[thorn bird]

Bankstown airport is on the verge of being closed by Development sharks.
You sure your grass runway is not converted by a developer?
Seems Minister Truss is open to any offer by development sharks ( for the right donations to party funds of course)

[allthecoolnamesarego]

3dextra,

Why don't you become the local expert? Collect all the data about grass strips, and present it to the council.
Ring the council and ask to speak to the person in charge of insurance and get the documentation regarding their legal worries. Deal in facts, not hearsay.

The only way to 'beat' them is to do the leg work and give them a solution. The council would prefer to take the easy route and stop grass strip ops because they don't have a vested interest in it.

Take it on yourself and give the council the answer you want.

[3dextra]

Thanks - Have been doing as you suggested , but they are digging heels in and putting heads further in the sand - as well as moving the goal posts -


There are always more wild statements trying to baffle us with B/S which would be intended as a smoke screen to throw us off - but its far from over

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Good to hear you're giving it a go. The aviation community needs peylike you to fight the going fight. We can't let 'them' destroy our aviation infrastructure any more.

Good luck. Sorry I can't offer much more than best wishes. :ok:

[compressor stall]

The issue here - and in many places - is explained if you think from the public servant's perspective.

If you as a public servant don't screw up, you can plan for retirement (or at worst a big payout). If you do your job 200% better than the guy next to you, you get no reward. There is no incentive to increase productivity.

If a public servant can see the slightest bit of risk in being sued if an aircraft comes a cropper on a grass strip, then he'll try and stop it. What's in it for him to let it happen? 10,000 happy grass takeoff/landings a year won't see him retire ritcher. The threat of legal action from the one cockup might see him passed over for the next level up promotion or axed and retire a lot poorer.

It's the system we have. Those working in the government have no incentive to let these things happen, and indeed have an incentive to NOT let them happen. :ugh:

Governments fly from risk in anyway they can. There's no reward in it for them.

[3dextra]

Thanks Comp Stall ... although ......what if there is a mishap on the sealed runway ? ?


Dangerous bizness this flying game ! Maybe we should all quit ? ?


Oh .... then the desk drivers would be out of a job too .


Still make you wonder why so many other airports have grass ops without problems ? Must be a different breed of desk drivers at those locations ? ?

[compressor stall]

what if there is a mishap on the sealed runway ? ?

Well done, now you're understanding how CASA think...

[Progressive]

Try talking to them in terms they understand......get stats on the number of aircraft using grass and the cost to maintain vs number of aircraft using pavement.

A cost per landing for each should show that the increase in traffic on pavement resulting from closure of the grass is a costly exercise. Then emphasis that this would increase accident risk for some aircraft.

The more money + more risk argument will change their minds.

[3dextra]

Thanks Pro G ,
Have tried that - The area in question costs them nothing - other than the routine mowing that happens anyway .


It is a nice piece of grass ( about 900 metres) in perfect condition - been used for a long time .


Hard to fathom the logic .... or lack of ? ?

[cogwheel]

3D... You use the term RWS. Please clarify if you are referring to the grass strip each side of a prepared runway(RWS) or to a grass runway strip that does not have an associated runway? As a former ARO the reason for its closure of the latter would usually be maintenance costs, perceived lack of use or a lack of understanding of why it is there in the first place. Sure risk may be an issue, but landing a bug smasher with a good x/wind might be more of a risk??

I believe to progress this with the support it needs, you need to let us know the location and if you have sought assistance from AOPA or the RFACA?

There are a lot of folk in PP world that may have the background experience Etc that may assist your cause - to do this, we need the location please.

Cheers

[3dextra]

Thanks Cog W - yes it is the RWS - and the location is YHBA as per previous - sorry I thought that was shown ? - Im a bit new to this ?


Maintenance costs in this case are zero .... It would be hard to find a better piece of grass - as I have been trying to explain to the non pilot council employees ... all that is required is the routine mowing .


Happy that you picked up on the " lack of understanding " part tho !! that nails it !


I have logged about 22, 000 landings of which about 8000 are on unprepared surfaces - Thought I had a fair understanding of what is suitable ?


We are now dealing with the airport " Technical Officer " and the " Executive Manager of Corporate Business " if that gives you an idea of what we are dealing with ?


All of these exec's ... and its not even a busy airport ? ?





Had not considered AOPA or RFACA tho . Thanks 3D

[cogwheel]

3D - You may have left your run a bit late as the cross strip is no longer listed in ERSA. Google maps shows it marked with large white crosses.

Your case would have to put forward reasons for reopening the strip as in theory it presently does not "officially" exist. In such a case a survey would have to be conducted, at a cost to council. You should research as to why it was closed and what consultation took place. The aero club may be able to help there?

Good luck

[3dextra]

Not sure if you are with me Cog .?


There has never been a cross strip - it almost happened but got canned - Which is why we use the RWS as we have done for decades - Just like at Temora - Kingaroy - Gympie - Redcliffe - Narromine - Tocumwal etc , to name a few.

[PLovett]

If its a council owned airfield then the reason for closing a runway will be cost. Maintenance costs will not be zero, in fact, cannot be zero and most councils these days are cash strapped. Its the old cost-benefit thing at work.

[3dextra]

PL - The issue isn't about maintenance costs - Its about bureaucrats not understanding grass ops .


Can you elaborate your theory on the maintenance costs please ?


Am I missing something ? , as the area is already mowed regularly and has to be mowed to be in accordance with MOS 139 - Mowing is all that is required that I can see - we don't need it top dressed , fertilised , or irrigated ?

[Fieldmouse]

3dextra, I'll have a crack at that, although it's not my airport and I'm not privy to the back-story.

There is an increase cost to maintain a RWS suitable for aircraft operations. It needs to meet MOS139 chapter 13 standards for aircraft operations and requires an inspection and reporting regime.

A RWS that doesn't support aircraft operations, ie - most of them, can be allowed to let the grass grow a little longer, and the rabbit holes to be ignored and the soft spots remain soft, and most of all does not normally need it's condition to be monitored or reported.

The Ersa entry says no charges are laid for GA below 2000kg, so I'm thinking that G.A hasn't exactly bought themselves a seat at the table for what is hoped to become a busy RPT airport operating narrow bodies.

Is there a FOD issue from the GA grass ops that the airport operator is struggling with I wonder.

However I absolutely agree that facilities at airports are hard won and should never be surrendered lightly so keep up the fight.

[3dextra]

Thanks F mouse - we will keep the fight up .


The airport already has the inspection and reporting - would only take em a minute to run 800 metres of grass ? - They should welcome the extra work to help pass the time ? ?


The only thing I can see is " possibly " a few additional ground markers but looking at 139 it would be minimal if any - I would even offer to paint them every 5 or 10 years or so if it helps ?


I think the airport has reached its limit for the amount of viable RPT flight for a while - its not busy and I can't see that changing .


FOD ? No I don't think so - maybe a few grass seeds ?


Honestly , you would be hard pressed to find a better piece of grass , outside of a golf course .


As I mentioned ...been using it for 30 years - even with a CASA FOI on board .


Its just bureaucracy gone nuts - They tell me RWS ops is against CASA regs and then .........give me a list of places with RWS ops ? ? Go Figure


Then another one tells me they cant find evidence of RWS ops - my ERSA must be out of date and my youtube videos have been altered ?

[Fieldmouse]

The rules for marking U/S runways recently changed and its lots of 36m crosses at $2k a pop now, and no-one except the capital city guys had those.

If the RWS is closed often, it would require the same treatment and then its a pain the airport can do without, particularly if the income and the overall operation doesn't change.

There also used to be a technicality that if a RWS was U/S then the associated RWY was U/S, but I thought that interpretation was pulled.

You know the new rules mean it's better for an airport to reduce any grass runways to 18m wide, to avoid a whole bucket load of new unserviceability marking requirements. Dumbbells and Notams are no longer enough.
Good old CASA. Always making things better.

Anyway, good luck. :)

[cogwheel]

3D - I would like to clarify exactly what you are talking about pls.

There is only one RWS at present, and that is beside the sealed runway 11/29 and that is subject to the NOTAM below (plus any other grass areas) If what you are talking about is strip 02/20 (or thereabouts), no matter what is physically there, it does not formally exist, otherwise it would, be included in the ERSA entry.
To exist, it must be subject to a survey, amongst other things, which would be a cost to Council, plus of course ongoing maintenance which has already been mentioned. If you want a grass strip for 02/20, then you would have to put up a safety/financial case to Council that would justify its creation and it would help if you had support of CASA, AOPA, RAoz, RFACA etc. Have it done by somebody or group that knows all the issues and can put up a good case. Council would at least have to listen. It would also help to have some public support.

Have you spoken to the CASA aerodrome person responsible for the location? The NOTAM below would have had to have crossed his/her desk.

HERVEY BAY (YHBA)
C15/15
THE OPERATION OF ACFT IS RESTRICTED TO PREPARED RUNWAYS, TAXIWAYS AND APRONS
AMEND ERSA
FROM 09 302321 TO PERM

The way this reads, you are precluded from running off the runway, which is what the RWS is there for... All 150m of it!!

Don't rush in - Prepare your case well - good luck, you will need it!

[zanthrus]

Is not the mown grass either side of the bitumen part of the said prepared runway?

[3dextra]

cog - The cross strip has never existed - The issue is the RWS that has been used for 30 years + - So we are wondering why it is suddenly an issue .


Have spoken to 2 CASA aerodrome inspectors and quite a few instructors - ATO's - some pilots cant grasp the concept of RWS and CASA sidestep it saying it is up to the council -


That is the problem - council have suddenly adopted this kneejerk reaction and don't want to talk about it - hence we are trying to get some support in case this mentality spreads to other airports.

[3dextra]

Thanks zanthrus - Technically the mown area is the RWS but as you say , in some documents is considered part of the runway .

[cogwheel]

3D - I see you are talking about the flight strip of 11/29.

Yes there are many locations where light aircraft regularly operate from the runways associated grass surface, u/l's Tiger Moths, Auster and the odd C150 etc.

You should take it up with CASA again, as this has unintended consequences for many other locations and operators. The NOTAM wording is very poor to boot!

The RWS is there for a purpose and other than VASIS or distance to run markers should be clear and suitable for use, especially for acft under 1000Kg

[3dextra]

cog - I am curious about the under 1000 kg reference - Can you tell me if that is something you have seen somewhere plz ?


You are right about the NOTAM - very poorly worded - I haven't seen " prepared surfaces " before - I asked them for a definition of that and was fobbed off .


Asked Air Services and they didn't know either ?

[cogwheel]

Re 1000kg. Just my thoughts on what type of acft / pilot might want to use the grass. Most acft above that wt would be OK on the sealed surface.