Barwon Heads Refuses FunFlight

[rs480]

I have just been advised that Eddie Edwards on behalf of the owners of Barwon Heads Airport has refused to allow the Geelong Aero Club to host FunFlight at the Barwon Heads Airport this year.:yuk:

FunFlight is purely volunteer-run and established to provide children touched by adversity, with joy and inspiration through the exhilaration of flight.:D

The Geelong Aero Club has been involved in FunFlight for a number of years with members only too willing to donate their time and the use of their aircraft, but not this year.:mad:

I wonder if all the Airport owners were consulted prior to making this decision as there are a number including Edwards that are Geelong Aero Club members.:confused:

Edwards and Brooks have decided to punish the Kids because the Geelong Aero Club won’t curtail to their unassociated unreasonable demands.:ugh:

Edwards also states local politicians (Henderson and Ramsay) have requested the vehicular traffic to the airport from the highway be reduced for safety.:mad:

I find this statement strange as the Airport owners received a $651,000 before GST Government Grant (conditional that the Airport is open for Public Use for 5 years) to seal the runway and install a PAL system to allow 24hr 365 day use to expand the aviation business conducted from the Airport and then the local politicians (Henderson and Ramsay) require the vehicular traffic to be reduced????:eek:

It’s a sad day in aviation when a charity is refused help because of personal vendettas.:E

[Duck Pilot]

I done some flying for Funflight last year with the Canberra Aero Club. I seem to recall that the Funflight organisers put some conditions on the pilot requirements which made it a little challenging for some volunteer pilots. Could this be the case here.

Having said this Funflight is an excellent concept and should be supported by those who can afford to provide their time and aircraft.

[pol]

I done some flying for Funflight last year with the Canberra Aero Club. I seem to recall that the Funflight organisers put some conditions on the pilot requirements which made it a little challenging for some volunteer pilots. Could this be the case here.

Having said this Funflight is an excellent concept and should be supported by those who can afford to provide their time and aircraft.

No the Pilots credentials are ok

[theinsider]

Word is that i heard tonight is its not on behalf of the owners of Barwon Heads Airport rs480 just 3 people Edwards, Brooks and Westerink i dont know how these 3 people have taken control of the airport with so many partners involved how can this be possible?? i actually thought Edwards had sold his share when he got sacked from the board of GSA 3 or 4 years ago? any one care to enlighten me it all seems really below the belt to me if it is true, and how could it even be legal to do it in the first place there is 20 owners isn't there ?

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/barwon-heads-airport-spat-leaves-sick-kids-grounded/news-story/e9251b9e60e7dba05134bce779b3046b

[metalman2]

Called into barwin recently with some other pilot mates for a look, had some angry old bloke come storming up to us yelling at us to get off the field , I mentioned we were all pilots and were just having a look. Our angry old fart proceed to start yelling for us to p**s off or he'll call the cops......unusual PR tactics, but it does help with flight planning and deciding where to buy fuel

[Sunfish]

Flew in there once, it had a "strange" atmosphere - two or three people there who seemed to be talking in code about some private matter. Chilly reception, won't be going back.

[Capn Bloggs]

Nice, friendly, welcoming ERSA entry, I see...

[Squawk7700]

Nice, friendly, welcoming ERSA entry, I see...

They also claim to own all airspace within 1nm of the airfield according to their website.


PLEASE NOTE
As of the 15th May 2013 landing or entering the circuit at Barwon Heads Airport is now captured via an audio and camera system.
"Aircraft Movements" can be defined as a circuit, touch and go, missed approach, departure or arrival. Essentially any Airborne Activity within 1nm of the field.

[fujii]

From their welcome page:

fees and any other chargers are to be deposited into the cash box...

How you get a horse into a box I don't know.

[Stanwell]

I have heard...
The three characters mentioned above, Larry, Curly and Mo, can be summed up in three words:
Hicks with Attitude.

[KittyKatKaper]

"Aircraft Movements" can be defined as a circuit, touch and go, missed approach, departure or arrival. Essentially any Airborne Activity within 1nm of the field. would also include an overflight at 5000'.

I think it's rather lazy to make people go to a website instead of having that information in their ERSA entry.

[Band a Lot]

Looks like a bit of creative accounting to obtain a grant.

No Cookies | Geelong Advertiser (http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/major-runway-repairs-take-off-at-barwon-heads-airport/news-story/546d6334a4167741b41f545eeff177fc)

[olm8tyrone]

Looking at some post histories, some of the users here having being using their accounts solely to whinge about brs since the days of dial-up internet. If it's not about the airport management it's about the skydiving operators. You should all give yourselves a pat on the back for being fine and upstanding contributors to aviation whlist the very people you are knocking have contributed to aviation. Just look at the new infrastructure at the field. And just to be balanced I wholeheartedly agree that the chaps ought to make some effort into having a useful ERSA listing and could do away with the ridiculous 1nm airborne activity statement. It's also possible to collect landing fees without sounding like a mafia kingpin.

[Sunfish]

olm8, you protest too much. Judging by the facts presented here and your response to them, can I be forgiven for thinking that this operation is totally private - run for the benefit of people unknown who would rather not have any outsiders, let alone the general public, make use of their playpen? That includes such charity events as fun flight. Your comment about the motives of Geelong aeroclub members "filling their tanks in return for a quick joy flight" is just plain mean and worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge.

The writings of the airport information and terms and conditions on the website remind me of the scribbling of the proverbial East German border guard. While i liked the implied threat in the form of audio and camera recordings, I especially liked the claim about payment for any aviation activity within 1nm of the field and the mandatory 'administration charge" of $50.00 "if we have to chase you for money" is laughable in its illegality. In fact such threats are counter productive to safety as they may encourage some pilots overflying not to make radio transmissions in the vicinity of your field.

Rest assured I won't be visiting although I will make a point of overflying should I do a scenic flight down that way. I will also make it a talking point - least memorable airstrips, when in suitable company.

P.S. The Geelong advertiser article is factually incorrect:

Barwon Heads Airport is the only public use general aviation airfield on the Bellarine Peninsula and is Geelong’s only general aviation airfield.

it obviously isn't public and general if it is PPR. I fail to understand how a private, commercial operation can qualify for a government grant. I wonder if the auditor general might explain this to me?

To put this another way, unlike any other airport i can think of, it sounds to me like Barwon Heads airport would be no loss to aviation and a great benefit to the community if it was redeveloped as a housing estate.

[ACMS]

Within 1 nm of the field, BS. They cannot control airspace 1 foot above their runway.

Next time I'm around I'll do a fly by at 500'.

[Cloudee]

Just don't claim to be doing a training approach or they can get you in Victoria even if you don't land.


AERODROME LANDING FEES ACT 2003 - SECT 1 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to provide that an aerodrome operator may fix a fee for—
(a) an arrival, departure or parking of an aircraft;
(b) a training flight approach by an aircraft;
(c) carrying out any directly related activity or service.


AERODROME LANDING FEES ACT 2003 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/alfa2003191/)

[outlandishoutlanding]

Well, CAR166A says you must join the circuit, so:

- do one trip around the circuit (without descending to land)
- leave

[Sunfish]

Victoria can't make laws about aviation, it ceded aviation powers to the Commonwealth circa 1921. it can make laws about commercial aviation land use, But not in the air. if an activity or service is provided by those on the ground, fair enough. if I do a practise approach with no service activity or cost incurred from the ground no fee, in my Opinion anyway.

[Band a Lot]

2 questions

Anyone know current rates charges for said private airstrip?

http://www.mav.asn.au/about-local-government/local-government-finance/Pages/council-rates-property-valuations.aspx

Anyone know current rates charged for airspace?


"Class G: This airspace is uncontrolled. Both IFR and VFR aircraft are permitted and neither require ATC clearance"

How airspace is managed | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/services/how-air-traffic-control-works/how-airspace-is-managed/)

[cowl flaps]

Olm8tyrone,- I must agree with Sunfish and say that methinks thou protesteth too much also !
Your continued posts in the two threads will see you 'trip up' shortly, I'm sure.

[Band a Lot]

Sunfish- laws are not important in a power struggle! nor are local pollies, they are easily eaten by Fatter Pollies.

I would fly the kids - than risk a rezone if I was a silent owner, or is that what I want?

[LeadSled]

Sunny,
Victoria can (unfortunately, and so can every other state) make certain rules for aviation.
The Commonwealth power is very limited legally, based on the treaty making powers, most recently the High Court "Franklin Dam" case.
In short, aviation is states rights, a very messy situation, with a long at at times very amusing history --- Look up the two Goya Henry cases.
Reg Ansett, among others, was a prolific litigator on the subject.
Also, S92 can come into it, remember East-West operating Sydney-Melbourne via Albury.
In Queensland, aircraft are caught up in motor traffic regulation, via the definition of a "vehicle" in the Queensland Crime Act.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Leady, I don't think you are quite correct this time. Some states ceded power to the Commonwealth, others did not. West Australia didn't and I don't think Queensland or NSW did either.

That, by the way, is why Ansett had to run separate airlines in WA and NSW - because the state governments demanded it as a condition of operation of the interstate flights.

We had to occasionally tread some very fine lines to avoid state interference from time to time. The classic was when Fokker offered $1 million to upgrade Broome runways if we would buy the new Fokker instead of the BAE146 (the new Fokker was weight limited for Broome on hot days). We got that surpressed very fast before the State government heard about it or they would have dictated that we buy Fokkers again and taken the money.

We have had one or two stoushes in Victoria about aviation but they all revolve around commercial land use, quiet enjoyment of private property, etc., etc. there has never been any suggestion that Victoria can dictate what happens when you are airborne.

Lindsay Fox still lands his helicopter in his back yard at Portsea and no one can stop him. It was especially galling for one protester who now finds her house to always be on the approach path for Lindsays place.

[Old Akro]

Lindsay Fox still lands his helicopter in his back yard at Portsea and no one can stop him.

Lindsay Fox does this because his lawyers - Minter Ellison - proved pre-existing rights. Basically, if there has been an activity on a property for a length of time, it has rights to maintain that activity. A number of other people land helicopters in their back yards on the same basis on the back of Lindsay's precedent.

However, the same legal tenant that guarantees us all the ability to garage cars on our properties applies to aircraft. And in the future drones, etc. This precedent dates back to legal judgments made in the horse & cart era. It is, however untested for aircraft (including helicopters). One day someone will test it and inevitably win and the flood gates will open.

Establishing pre-existing rights is cheaper & easier than setting legal precedent, so anyone that can goes the pre-existing rights route.

[Sunfish]

Right then, the windsock goes up tomorrow!