GA Gate

[ICDIT]

Not sure if or how you may be able to help but would like to get some feedback from pilots.
Have been looking at an innocuous problem both regional airports and pilots experience accessing the General Aviation (GA) gate, particularly for the itinerant pilot.
As there is no standardisation of access through this gate across all airports and that federal regulations require all that go airside must be authorised as well as in possession of an ASIC, very interested in pilots reaction if there was a means by which using an App on their smart device be able to gain access through a technology equipped designated GA gate at any airport across Australia.
Have been working on a solution for both airports as well as pilots to make the movement through the GA gate as easy as possible without the need for airport management direct involvement.
Before semi-retirement was working with the aviation industry for over 10 years looking at this problem and now have a solution but need to gauge the interest of pilots.

[The name is Porter]

How much will it cost? Yet another user pays fee? Apart from the ASIC there's a 'special' card for Moorabbin that costs & a 'special' card for Essendon that costs, bit over it all.

[neville_nobody]

Surely the cheapest and easiest solution would be to RFID ASIC cards with a scanner at the GA gate. If needs be you just activate your card prior to departure and it has 24 hours access. To go write an App then to put it on a phone to then charge people to use seems a bit excessive.

[Sunfish]

GA gate? - like operating mon to fri 9 to 5 ? Authorised? WTF does an ASIC denote if not authorisation?

If any further barriers are placed between pilots and flying pilot numbers will decrease even more.

we already have: - intrusive over the top medicals. $$$$

- intrusive ASICS. $$$$$

- Three monthly map renewals $$$$$$

- BFR $$$$$


...........and that is before we even fly one hour! And you want to now require every pilot to carry a charged iPhone with a proprietary App and presumably a subscription? Go away!

[Spode]

Where I fly there is either a code you need on the inside of the gate or you need a coded ASIC. Since not everyone has an ASIC that can be coded, an app that makes an iPhone work like any coded card may be useful, for any gates anywhere. But this may be what the security people everywhere don't want, or even possible. Overall I want the gate to just be open.

[Hasherucf]

I don't think you need another layer of identification. I find the biggest hassle at airports I work at are the security staff. Most have got huge ego's due to their perceived position of power. Currently I work two internationals and a domestic so I have 2 drivers sides and 3 RFID's card to access airside on top of my ASIC card. Sure I would love to consolidate cards!

[RatsoreA]

Most have got huge ego's due to their perceived position of power.

Could not agree more! I go to several regional airports where the security/ARO/management want 6 hours of supervised driving before given an airside driving permit, and 4 hours on top of that, at night, if you want to do it at night, to drive 150m from the gate to the GA park. And the bulls$it excuse is, we are different to every other airport and much busier, so you have to be shown every thing... Bollocks. Somehow having 6 RPT flights over a 24 period is 'busy' and pilots can't be trusted to drive around with crashing into everything...

YPJT was good. A quick written assessment, ten minutes of familiarisation behind the wheel with the ARO, and you're good to go.

But, back to topic, I'd pay $0.99 for an app that got me where I need to go, but it will never happen, the current circus generates too much $$ for non flying entities to give up such a cash cow.

[youngmic]

ICDIT,

I applaud your efforts for trying to address this issue, it is just one of the many issues that compound to squash GA.

I am not sure what level of regional airport you are targeting, most smaller country airports that have any security (many don't and seemingly have no issues) rely on a simple key coded access using typically the CTAF or other local frequency, but you no doubt know that.

I understand some FIFO airstrips in the west can be more restrictive.

Your idea is not a bad one, but without knowing the specific airports you are targeting it is difficult to comment as there are differing levels of security requirements based on the type of operations conducted at the airport.

Certainly as far as country airports with no more than low capacity RPT Ops go I would favour the simple key code access system that has proven to be pretty effective.

Mildura in Victoria is an interesting case, they have numerous daily high capacity RPT Ops connecting with capital city airports. Yet access airside is as simple as entering a monthly changed discreet key code for the gate. The code can only be obtained either directly from the ARO or from the airside sign on the inside of the gate you leave via. I am not aware they have had any significant security issues or unlawful interference with parked aircraft.

This system strikes me as the optimal balance, simple, cheap and to date effective.

On a positive note, how about this.

Port Lincoln SA has a dedicated clean modern GA terminal off the side of the RPT terminal, access to it and airside is via the AWIS #'s. Inside are table chairs, fridge, kitchen sink, microwave, tea/coffee and milk, clean toilets even a separate room with a bunk bed and clean linen.

Dedicated for GA flyers.

Amasing what can happen when the ARO responsible has done some time working for a FBO at a busy airport in the US and learns first hand how it could be and should be. And he's chuffed and proud when folk use it and appreciate his efforts.

[Ascend Charlie]

Go to Hervey Bay and see the little despots in action. I used to fly in there regularly in a chopper, and because of the lousy way the taxiways and GA parking was set out, we had to park way over on the western end of the hardstand, past the terminal. The GA gate was 200m east of the terminal, but if we walked across the RPT hardstand, the security dudes would gallop over and inform us of our grievous sin.
After tracking clear of their area and getting to the GA gate, it was then the same hike back landside to the terminal to use the toilets and try to get a coffee. Once that was done, attempting to exit the terminal by asking the attendants to open the door was a huge effort. Despite being in company uniform, ASIC displayed correctly, and the chopper visible through the window, the Jobsworths would make us wait until after the RPT had done its turn around , loaded the pax and doors shut before they opened the doors for us.

Totally unnecessary horsefeathers.

[ICDIT]

Thanks for the initial response and ask that you tell your friends as we need as wide a response as possible.
We have observed this issue for a very long time and the object is to lessen the burden not increase it. And yes there will have to be a cost but our objective is to make that as palatable as possible and shared with the airport. This is still early days so looking forward to working with not against you.

[Flying Binghi]

Yep, and lets not forget that all this security is thanks to islam..:hmm:






.

[De_flieger]

Hi ICDIT, I think there might be a few issues - you may already have considered them, and have solutions available, but here are some of my thoughts.

If your planned system is in place, whoever has the phone with the app, has access. Someone has a phone with the security credentials, and they can get airside, without dealing with airport security or showing their ASIC to the ARO or anything like that - while that might be the aim of your app, it has downsides too, you have to have some method of preventing other unauthorised users from getting the app and installing it, possibly with faked credentials. Issuing and revoking these credentials will require some infrastructure. This is before you get into the realm of attempts to break the coding in the app, or spoof the communications method.

If you are counting on this system to provide real-time access control or denial, checking against a central server that the carrier is authorised to enter at the time of entry will only work where the phone is charged and has network coverage (either on the phone, or the gate controller, depending on the design) to confirm that access is allowed. There are plenty of places out there that dont have network coverage, or only have Telstra, which could be a hurdle. How are you planning on using the app? Tap the phone against a reader? Enter a user specific PIN into the phone? Send a text to a designated number? The text method relies on network coverage. In other cases that dont directly use the mobile telephone network, what communications technology will you use, and is it fitted to a significant majority of phones? If your plan involves getting a large number of people to upgrade their phones it wont be practical, and any solution has to work with both Apple and Android/etc phones.

Thinking about the more remote airports that still have security gates, but typically have noone present most days of the week, a high-tech powered gate at remote airports may be vulnerable to weather or vandalism, where a mechanical push-button lock isn't, and will require power, maintenance and most likely some form of network connection to check whether the phone requesting access is allowed to enter the airport. This network connection could be the most problematic, hypothetically if it breaks, at remote ports this most likely wont be discovered until the next pilot tries to get back to their aircraft, and it may be a week or two until the repairs can be made after Farmer Joe inadvertently cut a cable or the radio transmitter is hit by lightning, so there still needs to be a backup method such as the currently existing push-button locks. If the backup method still works and has to be kept, it'd be hard to argue to add an extra layer of technology and expense at so many remote airports. There's a few of the things I'd consider in the planning of your idea :)

[YPJT]

Remember it is the airport operators who approve what system of access control they have for their individual airports based on what works for them and more importantly, what the department will approve. Some airports already have very good systems of individual code issue or common code storage that can be accessed without any hassle at all.

Recently a few individuals thought it would be clever to post gate codes in the public notes section of the aerodrome listings within Oz Runway. No doubt done with the best intentions and could be argued, undoubtedly without success, that there was no lessening of the security outcome.

For the itinerant arrival, yes it can be a bit troublesome the first time until you know the procedure. The airports themselves usually have a system in place so they are not continually having to let people in and out of the gate.

[mikewil]

The airports themselves usually have a system in place so they are not continually having to let people in and out of the gate.

Tell that to Adelaide airport. The workers inside the GA terminal aren't even allowed to open the gate for an ASIC holder. You need to make a phone call and wait for the security car to come and open it even though there are key holders right there who could easily provide access.

[RatsoreA]

If your planned system is in place, whoever has the phone with the app, has access.

My phone can pay for stuff at eftpos terminals with my thumbprint. Someone can steal it and try and use it, but without my thumb, it's a big ask.

No system is going to be perfect. In the same way that firearms laws only make life hard for law abiding firearms owners, and no inconvenience to a criminal, airside access is only a pain in the a$$ for people that already have a right and reason to be there.

If someone is determined enough, they are going to get in, and do what they want, and nothing short of a shoot on sight policy for anyone crossing the fence will stop that.

As for reception, I haven't been to a place that has security gates and ARO's/security but no phone reception in ... well, it's never happened, and I go to a LOT of remote places in Australia.

Airside security/access is a terrible, expensive joke at the expense of pilots, crew and the travelling public, and the sooner it all gets wiped and a system based on common sense gets implemented, the better. But enough of what I would do on my first day of my reign as a benevolent(ish) supreme ruler of the universe...

[BEACH KING]

ICDIT,

I applaud your efforts for trying to address this issue, it is just one of the many issues that compound to squash GA.

I am not sure what level of regional airport you are targeting, most smaller country airports that have any security (many don't and seemingly have no issues) rely on a simple key coded access using typically the CTAF or other local frequency, but you no doubt know that.

I understand some FIFO airstrips in the west can be more restrictive.

Your idea is not a bad one, but without knowing the specific airports you are targeting it is difficult to comment as there are differing levels of security requirements based on the type of operations conducted at the airport.

Certainly as far as country airports with no more than low capacity RPT Ops go I would favour the simple key code access system that has proven to be pretty effective.

Mildura in Victoria is an interesting case, they have numerous daily high capacity RPT Ops connecting with capital city airports. Yet access airside is as simple as entering a monthly changed discreet key code for the gate. The code can only be obtained either directly from the ARO or from the airside sign on the inside of the gate you leave via. I am not aware they have had any significant security issues or unlawful interference with parked aircraft.

This system strikes me as the optimal balance, simple, cheap and to date effective.

On a positive note, how about this.

Port Lincoln SA has a dedicated clean modern GA terminal off the side of the RPT terminal, access to it and airside is via the AWIS #'s. Inside are table chairs, fridge, kitchen sink, microwave, tea/coffee and milk, clean toilets even a separate room with a bunk bed and clean linen.

Dedicated for GA flyers.

Amasing what can happen when the ARO responsible has done some time working for a FBO at a busy airport in the US and learns first hand how it could be and should be. And he's chuffed and proud when folk use it and appreciate his efforts.
I generally don't have much trouble getting in and out at most places, as you generally run across someone local who will give you the keypad code..or it is listed on the back on the gate.
YBAS is an absolute bastard of a place to get airside access. Maybe it's because of Pine Gap. I go to Alice for the last 5 years for the Finke desert race, and generally cop some small delays waiting for security, or local someone will let you in....no real drama. However a couple of months ago I was left waiting at the gate for nearly 2 hours for the "security" bloke to let me in. You have to call a number on the gate and request access and they attend and open the gate. When I called for the first time, I got some bloke at his home who wondered why the call came through to him. He wouldn't give me the code (understandable) and told me to keep try ringing the number as someone else should answer it. Meanwhile some local charter bloke who was preflighting his a/c told me through the fence to piss-off and ring the number as he wasn't going to open the gate (maybe understandable). After calling the number 5 times every 15 minutes and reaching the same bloke at home each time..he was starting to get the ****s. I had a 5 hour easterly flight in front of me that was starting to look like it was going to end with NVFR. At his point we reckoned the pubs were about to open and we should stay another day, but our plans were dashed by some other kind aviator who let us in as he was exiting the gate.
I fail to see any problem with simply publishing the keycode on the back of the gate

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

WTF does an ASIC denote if not authorisation?

It only denotes that you have undergone a standardised identity check. (It's what the "I" means). It has no authorisation purpose at all. You are required to demonstrate a need to be in an area requiring identification by ASIC card as well. That is a point that is often misunderstood by ASIC holders. It does not give the holder carte blanche.

[Sunfish]

No, No and No. All such a system does is add ANOTHER LAYER of difficulties in accessing airside. Airport owners will embrace it as a labour saving device; 'no access App then no entry, period". This is analogous to the single point rental reference system where real estate agents now require that prospective renters sign up (at their own expense) for a standardised application form.

The outcome will be one more barrier to simple free access to airports.

First issue: lost or stolen phone - "call during working hours Monday to Friday" you are now grounded until Monday morning 9.00am etc.

Second issue: we make this compulsory at pilots expense and transfer the security costs for GA aircraft onto pilots and aircraft owners.
9
Third issue: Cost - which will slowly escalate as the system is adopted.

To put it another way, it is exactly the same as what has been done To accomodation renters it puts the entire cost of the application/security back on them - plus of course a commission to the f*&*ing blood sucking leaches who dreamed the system up in the first place.

To put it yet another way the complexity of suchansystem will increase the cost of security and reduce access to airports.

To put that yet another way, as a free replacement of the ASIC card or an RFID access all areas card then we are talking,but as an additional layer - no way.

[YPJT]

Sunfish,
can't see it happening mate. Airports already have systems in place that suit their local risk context and that are approved by the department.
Introducing something that will incur expense just because it is convenient for pilots I cannot imagine being too high on their agenda

Traffic,
:D well done. A point far too many individuals don't get at all. The airport decides who and under what circumstances a person can go airside. An ASIC just means they can, if they choose, allow you unescorted access.
Had one smart alec once try it on at a screened port with the comment "tell the ground staff that as I have an ASIC I can go airside whenever I want". I don't remember if I was more amused or pissed off with the arrogance and stupidity.

[Sunfish]

YPJT, you are an airport owner. I come along and say "If you install my system for free at the GA gate, neither you or your staff will ever have to worry about GA security access again, and especially not out of business hours. The whole system is approved by transport security. It even generates lists of who has been coming and going for you for free.

Airport owner signs up. A solar powered "gate guardian" with either fixed wireless or cable internet access is installed at the GA gate. Maybe with a keypad or key lock for police and emergency service use only.

You, mr. Pilot are told that the "new", "convenient" way for you to access this airport is via a subscription App for your iPhone or Android phone, but wait, there is more. After an initial Three months period, the new "Gate Guardian" system is the ONLY way you can get airside access!

We roll out the system to all regional airports and voila! We sit back and rake in annual subscription income from the pilot community! This is the "as a service" business model - you keep paying again and again for what should have been a one time charge ..for a gate key. for example.

To put that another way; "&*^k writing the CTAF frequency on the inside of the gate! THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE!!!!

[youngmic]

Traffic is er was,

Re. ASIC

It only denotes that you have undergone a standardised identity check. (It's what the "I" means). It has no authorisation purpose at all. You are required to demonstrate a need to be in an area requiring identification by ASIC card as well. That is a point that is often misunderstood by ASIC holders.

As an ASIC holding pilot my reason for being airside is largely any reason I deem legitimate and justifiable. This could include, I wanted to pick up that empty chip packet blowing across the apron or I wanted to see what ply tyres the owner of the Mooney parked over yonder has chosen to use.



Airports...places where pilots land and take off in their aircraft, they weren't built so some folks could find something seemingly meaningful to fill in there day guarding. That came along after when we realised it may be of benefit at some airports.

That is a point that is often misunderstood by some airport caretakers.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

As an ASIC holding pilot my reason for being airside is largely any reason I deem legitimate and justifiable.
It's not actually, it's the airport operator who is required by law to apply and enforce access control, so it is up to them to decide if your reason is legitimate or justifiable. If they don't consider it either, you'll be the one explaining yourself to the higher authorities.
Airports operate under rules and regs just as much as pilots do. Just like you, they may not want to, but they have to. That is a point that is almost always misunderstood by some pilots, who seem to think that they get to pick and choose which rules and regs apply to them.

[Awol57]

The regs actually state Lawful reason. I have no idea what the actual definition of Lawful is, but I am sure there is a definition somewhere.

[Jabawocky]

Beachie spot on mate.

And YSGE now has crap gates and codes.....due hoons on the strip at night. Or some other good reason.

50% pilot decline in 5 years. I may not be a pilot by Friday :-0

[youngmic]

Traffic is er was or someone else able to post the law referred to here?

It's not actually, it's the airport operator who is required by law to apply and enforce access control, so it is up to them to decide if your reason is legitimate or justifiable.

I cannot imagine a police officer removing me from airside as a pilot bearing an ASIC. More likely the airport officer calling the police in to enforce such a law (if it exists) would likely find him or herself looking for a new job in the near future.

Awol57

The regs actually state Lawful reason. I have no idea what the actual definition of Lawful is, but I am sure there is a definition somewhere.

Law can be complex but I would hazard a guess that it would mean something that in itself is not illegal.

[YPJT]

I also agree with Beech King,
Having the code somewhere where it can only be viewed from airside, is changed regularly and is accessed relatively easily by pilots has proven the best way to go.

Sorry Sunfish, the CTAF is not a code, except for the lasiest of airport operators. Surprised the regulator lets them get away with it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Laws? Have a wade through the Aviation Transport Security Regs.

I cannot imagine a police officer removing me from airside as a pilot bearing an ASIC.

I can, if you don't have a legitimate reason for being there. Just being a pilot (or anyone else) with an ASIC does not make you authorised.

From the Regs: unauthorised person, in relation to a place or thing, means a person who:
(a) is not authorised by the owner or person in control of the place or thing to have access to the place or thing; and
(b) has no other lawful reason to have access to the place or thing.

So if the "owner or person in control of the place or thing" considers you not authorised, and since they are legally required to ...control access at the airport... and must ...deter and detect unauthorised access into the airside area by people..... I guess they could have you removed.


find him or herself looking for a new job in the near future.

Probably standing beside the pilot looking for a new job after his boss fired him for losing his access privileges, or for having his ASIC withdrawn for misuse.

[The name is Porter]

youngmic, don't argue with ex government workers on defined benefits. They have no concept of how the real work functions. They are a big part of the nanny state and love rules and regulations.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I take it that that shot was aimed at me, and yes while I have worked for the government, it was 25 years ago. I have not worked for the government for far longer than I ever did. I have, however, worked in aviation all my life and it is an industry that is defined by rules and regulations. I'm not saying that I like all of them, or that I think some are ridiculous or not, but I don't get to pick and choose which ones apply to whatever task is at hand, so if I choose to ignore one and get nailed for it, the problem is mine. Some posters can whinge all they want, but all they come across as is petulant and self-entitled.

[youngmic]

youngmic, don't argue with ex government workers on defined benefits. They have no concept of how the real work functions. They are a big part of the nanny state and love rules and regulations.

Can't argue with that.



Probably standing beside the pilot looking for a new job after his boss fired him for losing his access privileges, or for having his ASIC withdrawn for misuse.


The only person that I know to ever have an ASIC pulled (for not wearing/displaying) had a temporary ASIC issued by the same office within a few hours to cover the period his ASIC was suspended.

Gold!!

[mostlytossas]

Agree with Sunfish entirely. If introduced it would be yet another cost borne by the user (pilots). In any case it is totally unnecessary and like purchasing a hammer to crack an egg. Simply putting the gate code airside as is done at many country airports is all that is required.In fact with a bit of imagination it could even be on the public side too in case you forget to write it down.eg "for access enter the local PAL freq" or area,ctaf,NDB etc and even rotate them often.Any pilot will know what it is but the general public not a clue.

[Cloudee]

Ceduna had a good system for visiting pilots last time I was there. You put in any four numbers to get out and then those same four numbers will work again just once to let you back in.

[Capt Fathom]

It is just so typical of the over-regulation we suffer in this country. Everyone wants a piece of us, and everyone else wants to put us in our place.

We are no longer the lucky country! It is appalling. :{

[ICDIT]

Surely the cheapest and easiest solution would be to RFID ASIC cards with a scanner at the GA gate. If needs be you just activate your card prior to departure and it has 24 hours access. To go write an App then to put it on a phone to then charge people to use seems a bit excessive.
neville_nobody (http://www.pprune.org/members/72185-neville_nobody) you're correct and if that was possible then the situation would fix itself. However due to bureaucracy, which appears to be the center of most comments, there are at last count 46 issuing authorities plus 9 issuing airports and each have their own issuing requirements.Hence the challenge.

[youngmic]

Ceduna had a good system for visiting pilots last time I was there. You put in any four numbers to get out and then those same four numbers will work again just once to let you back in.

Such a shame they went and locked the terminal to all but REX. Sometime after doing that they demolished the old but functioning toilet block out the back. Sometime after this they realised there was now no toilet out side the locked terminal. So they quickly slapped 3 sheets of old colour bond to the back of the shiny new terminal to tap into its plumbing. The bare concrete floor runs wet from the hastily plumbed in plastic basin, there is no light as there is no power and not even a door handle. Picture a tin long drop with a single flushing loo.

This is what greets you at either the start or finish of a long Nullarbor crossing.

[mostlytossas]

Facilities provided by airport owners is another issue all together. In my view if the airport is free to use then they do not need to provide any although many do. My gripe is where they charge a landing fee (sometimes quite a hefty fee) and provide nothing for it. As a minimum I would expect fixed tiedowns in a cleared parking area,clean toilets,a crew room with at least a few chairs to sit out bad weather,a pay phone especially if out of mobile range.Phone numbers for local cabs,accomadation etc.I know there are publications showing all this but if you did not expect to have to drop in may not have taken it along.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

and provide nothing for it

Except for the runway/s you landed and took off from, the taxiways you used arriving and departing, the apron/parking area you occupied while on the ground, the runway lights you may have used, the windsock, the fence to keep the wildlife at bay, the beepback unit if provided, the line marking, apron markers, strip markers, the grass mowing, wages for maintenance, the costs of meeting the airports regulatory requirements, etc etc... no, nothing. The aviation fairies provide all of those.

[mostlytossas]

Actually the tax payer (you and me)pays most of it in the way of council grants. The remainder being picked up by the rate payer. And why? So the town can enjoy the benefits of a modern 1st world society such as access to air ambulance etc.If they dont want this then close the airport. I have no issue with the fee just if they impose one then provide some basic facilities.

[no_one]

We are no longer the lucky country! It is appalling.

Captian Fathom,

Australia is very much still the lucky country, its just that most people don't read beyond the headline. Have a read of the original quote from Donald Horne who came up with the lucky country phrase. Does it sound like the rule makers who dream up aviation/security regulations in OZ?



Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.

[Dexta]

Actually the tax payer (you and me)pays most of it in the way of council grants. The remainder being picked up by the rate payer. And why? So the town can enjoy the benefits of a modern 1st world society such as access to air ambulance etc.If they dont want this then close the airport. I have no issue with the fee just if they impose one then provide some basic facilities.
Please don't make the mistake of believing every country airfield is owned and operated by the council. We have TO PAY the council many thousands of dollars for the privilege of running an airport. We provide a sealed strip, two grass strips, PAL, lounge, good clean toilets, snacks etc and we still get people who bitch about a $10 landing fee!
Remember that there are private airfields all over the country that get no government or council grants and have to recoup the cost of maintenance somehow.

[mostlytossas]

Yes I know there are many private airports around the country that get no funding and to the ones like yours good on you too.I would be happy to pay the $10 to use it. You sound like you provide good facilities, and no doubt make visiting pilots welcome. It would likely be worth more than $10 to do so too.All power to you!
Unfortunately there are many that provide next to nothing but still want the user to pay.

[youngmic]

Dexta,

Please don't make the mistake of believing every country airfield is owned and operated by the council. We have TO PAY the council many thousands of dollars for the privilege of running an airport. We provide a sealed strip, two grass strips, PAL, lounge, good clean toilets, snacks etc and we still get people who bitch about a $10 landing fee!
Remember that there are private airfields all over the country that get no government or council grants and have to recoup the cost of maintenance somehow.

:ok::D

At the risk of further thread drift;

I occasionally here comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.

But as you pointed out many are private such as Goolwa, can I ask how you do it with out compromising commercial in confidence details. I would imagine that $10/landing is not much unless the airport is particularly active which I suspect Goolwa is.

I am sorry to hear the Council charges you to provide an airport, I can understand the charge for rates, but would have thought they would more than compensate with some form of an operating budget back to you.

Does your airport get regular visitation from RFDS flights transferring local community members to Adelaide or offer fire bombing access or water facilities?

If this is something that you feel is to sensitive for a general forum I understand.

[Lead Balloon]

... comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.What the staff of the Council run airports and the Council often overlook is that when those freeloading GA losers lob into the airport, they occasionally also lob into a local taxi, motel, pub, restaurant, general store etc, all of which contributes to "the general revenue" of "the community".

It's like putting toll gates on the roads through a town, on the grounds that the Council has to dip into general revenue to maintain the roads. See how much money the Council's rolling in when everyone decides to drive somewhere else.

[Sunfish]

Lead Balloon is right. Flying is economic activity and has what's termed a multiplier effect in that every dollar spent directly on flying generates about eight dollars of further activity.

However Governemnt inefficiencies in regulation reduce the aviation spend and hence economic activity - this is why I have been banging on about the "jobs, investment growth" mantra. properly implemented, a stimulation program not only pays for itself, it generates huge returns for the community.

You can get some idea of the impact of economic improvement by looking at Narromine during Ausfly, or any other town having a show, festival, etc.

Now imagine that the skies around Australia are buzzing with happy GA flyers - the increased activity is a win for the whole community jobs,growth and investment.

The killer of course is Government (mis)regulation which is killing the flying and hence the aforesaid jobs growth and investment.

To put that another way, during a Two week safari to northern SA, I would have spent more on food and accommodation, etc then the aircraft hire.

[Dexta]

Dexta,



:ok::D

At the risk of further thread drift;

I occasionally here comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.

But as you pointed out many are private such as Goolwa, can I ask how you do it with out compromising commercial in confidence details. I would imagine that $10/landing is not much unless the airport is particularly active which I suspect Goolwa is.

I am sorry to hear the Council charges you to provide an airport, I can understand the charge for rates, but would have thought they would more than compensate with some form of an operating budget back to you.

Does your airport get regular visitation from RFDS flights transferring local community members to Adelaide or offer fire bombing access or water facilities?

If this is something that you feel is to sensitive for a general forum I understand.
Fortunately landing fees only make up a small portion of our income, if we had to rely on landing fees alone then no-one would land here! The $10 covers aircraft 600kg and under (mostly RA-Aus) but they are the ones who complain the most. Our main rate is $14 per tonne + GST, BUT we often waive it for many reasons (like buying fuel, getting maintenance, etc). We manage by being creative with our assets, like hiring out the main runway for vehicle testing (hence why PPR is important) by the hour. Also the Airpark will provide us with security to keep the airport running for well into the future. But the council wants about $1,000,000 from us to pay for local infrastructure! This is despite the fact they will get council rates, more tourism etc etc etc. But we are nasty capitalist pigs for wanting to develop an airport and must be punished for the greater good.
We do get RFDS in here (transferring mainly from Victor Harbor) and we have water facilities and infrastructure for the CFS - but until the CEO of the council needs the RFDS or his property is on fire they do not see us as an asset but as a nuisance.

[thorn bird]

"but until the CEO of the council needs the RFDS or his property is on fire they do not see us as an asset but as a nuisance."

Dexta, the preverbal nail on the head.

Somewhere some how we as an Industry failed in the PR war to annunciate the value to communities that having a local airport brings.

I recall years ago, attending a public meeting called by one of the local serial noise complainers to protest the regulator was going to allow jet operations at the airport. Someone pointed out that jets were always allowed access to the airport, the fact was light jets were so quiet they just hadn't heard them.

Through apathy we have let the serial complainers gain the high ground and capture the public perception that there is no value in having an aviation industry.

Our regulator actively denigrates the industry to promote their malfeasant actions, which does not help.

The industry as a whole would appear to have a serious PR problem.

I ponder why the cost of committing aviation in Australia is so high?

Some say we are perceived as just a bunch of rich people indulging our hobby.

Boating could be perceived in the same light, however councils will spend millions to provide facilities to encourage boating while milking aviation for every cent.

Do our regulations pertaining to airports compare with other jurisdictions?
If ours are more onerous, which considering other regulations concerning aviation in Australia seems likely, then we are just perceived as a cash cow.

I don't know how we can overcome this, somehow we need to change the public perception that aviation has no value.

[CHAIRMAN]

unauthorised person, in relation to a place or thing, means a person who:
(a) is not authorised by the owner or person in control of the place or thing to have access to the place or thing; and
(b) has no other lawful reason to have access to the place or thing.

The key I believe here is authorised by the owner'.'
Usually these days the owner is the local Government Council, and they draft the access rules.
The aerodrome I operate from has a set of Local Govt Laws and Bylaws which govern access and use of the aerodrome by persons. These laws have been changed on occasion, and drafted following consultation with local operators and our Aerodrome Chamber o Commerce.
Consequently we have a reasonably workable aerodrome, unlike the cluster c..k you have to put up with.
Maybe you can get the Local laws changed if you want to.

[youngmic]

Dexta,

Thanks for the response and feed back, it appears to me that Goolwa has survived and whilst a long time since last landing there, appeared to have prospered through hard work and entrepreneurial leadership.

It seems to me that right at the moment there is a note in the air about the state of GA, questions are being asked and conversations becoming animated through frustration.

Fortunately there are folk doing something about it, the air park concept has merit far beyond what we are as yet to realise.

GA, at least at the private level must be a social pursuit, it is this that will drive vibrancy, air parks marry beautifully to this concept.

From your response it appears the local Council now has you over a barrel you are well established and too committed to turn back, it will take either a light bulb moment, a massive bluff or change of Councilors to redress the extortionist amounts being levied upon you.

Perhaps this serves as guidance to others heading down this path, first establish a link with the importance of your airfield and access to RFDS/Fire Bombers, tourism or whatever it may be and the Councils way of thinking. Before becoming an entrenched cash cow.

I am staggered at the amount you are paying, given that you are the only link for the Fleurieu Peninsula, Victor and Goolwa for an aero medical service it beggars belief you are not receiving some form of government assistance or relief.

Whilst this notion is not feasible I wonder how the state government would feel if you up and closed and effectively denied that region access to the RFDS. Me thinks this would grab their collective attentions.

[The name is Porter]

Except for the runway/s you landed and took off from, the taxiways you used arriving and departing, the apron/parking area you occupied while on the ground, the runway lights you may have used, the windsock, the fence to keep the wildlife at bay, the beepback unit if provided, the line marking, apron markers, strip markers, the grass mowing, wages for maintenance, the costs of meeting the airports regulatory requirements, etc etc... no, nothing. The aviation fairies provide all of those.

More 'A' grade horse****. Who provided it? The taxpayer 'provided' it, not the council, not the government. Where do you think government gets every cent it spends FFS? All those clowns did was facilitate the works department or contractors. Now they've brainwashed clowns to think that user pays is fair, YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT, and you are still paying for it. The clowns that depend this tripe should get out more.

[Lead Balloon]

Hear! Hear!

Freeloading GA losers are actually taxpayers. They pay lots of tax. Lots.

[rutan around]

unauthorised person, in relation to a place or thing, means a person who:
(a) is not authorised by the owner or person in control of the place or thing to have access to the place or thing;So who decides what the owner or person in control of the place or thing can authorise or not authorise. Some of the people are are sensible and decent human beings but unfortunately the position seems to attract a certain type who revel in the only power they have ever had . With IQs flat out exceeding double figures the power goes straight to their head.

What happens if I rock up to an airport with a t-shirt saying:-

VOTE NO for
DUMP
&
MELANOMA

and I'm denied access because I offend his political views? Can he legally deny me access?

Airports a part of the transportation system and and shouldn't be political footballs . New restrictions that slow down operations at Airports should not be allowed unless a very good case can be mounted to show their absolute necessity. If that proof is shown then all stakeholders should be involved in working out the least disruptive way to implement the new security measures.

Blind Freddie can see that most of this stuff is introduced without any consultation with the people who have to try to make silly often pointless security work. It is quite obvious that no sensible uniform user friendly system was ever worked out for the security gate system. I shudder to think how many millions of man hours have been totally wasted on the current gate system.

[Flying Binghi]

Why are Australian pilots subsidizing the defence against islamic nutters ?

Our current clustafeck of a prime minister is inviting the inciters of terrorism to dinner whilst we pilots/aircraft operators have to pay money to defend against terrorism threats.




.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What you guys seem to forget is that the airport owner is just trying to conform with rules and regs forced on them from external sources as well. If they didn't have to have all this security rigamarole do you think they would? They are subject to OTS inspections, audits, non-compliance, show cause etc etc just as much as you bag CASA for. Meeting security obligations forced on them is a huge impost. The regulator doesn't care who pays for it, as long as it is met.

The taxpayer 'provided' it, not the council, not the government.
It's probably been 25 years since the goverment divested itself of the messy busy of running airports and handed them over to local councils to run, often without much in the way of guidance or help in the ongoing running of them. Since that time, almost all of the facilities that were handed over have probably passed their working life and have had to be replaced, upgraded or experienced heavy maintenance. Where do you think that money has come from? A simple thing like a runway reseal can run to 6 figures easily. That's a lot of $10 landing fees. The fact is that most small airports are heavily subsidised by their local community in one form or another, who apart from the tenuous "air ambulance" needs, are not going to see much, if any, return for their dollar. The majority will almost certainly never use any facilities their money goes towards providing.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised".

Whatever the case, it all seems to me to circle back to the point that if Australia was indeed an "innovation nation" and any government an "infrastructure government", there would be a lot more government investment in aerodrome infrastructure.

Everyone seems to be overlooking one key aspect of the 'loser pays' principle and the selling off or 'divestment' of aerodrome infrastructure. Suddenly a whole lot of highly paid 'executives' and 'managers' had to be funded off the back of these assets. After all, but for their brilliance (with the corresponding price tag), how would it be possible to run an aerodrome so efficiently?

It's just the good ol' Australian game of cost-shifting between the levels of government, which game has, surprisingly, nothing to do with any objective principle of efficient provision of services or infrastructure and everything to do with political expedience.

As for the security requirements, I've come to realise that it's a stroke of genius to create a system that, in practice, has no coherent or consistent connection with the objective threats, but the flaws in which us losers have no interest in highlighting in case the jobsworths redouble their efforts to reinforce the facade, to our inconvenience and no one else's. Any bad guys who try to use logic to penetrate the aviation 'security' system would be completely bamboozled. The lunatics are going to ignore the 'system' in any event. I therefore dips me lid to OTS. :ok:

[mostlytossas]

Agree with Mr Leadie.Another few points I would like to add is when these airports were handed over to councils it almost always came with a lump sum for future maintenance.There is no doubt the federal govt screwed the councils over as it was never enough,but,that said did they invest it and use it for what it was intended for? Hell no it was in most cases used as general revenue for other non aviation purposes.
Secondly when the runway needs resurfacing this is nearly always funded mostly by a goverment grant.The council in most cases has neither the funds or expertise to do it themselves. And who causes it to need resurfacing? Not GA. Heavy aircraft such as RPT and military thats who. So they should pay for it.Same goes for security. What threat to the nations security a C172 or Warrior poses I have no idea. So we all have to pay for fences and locked gates,screening etc for what? A lock only keeps an honest man out. Anyone who wanted to cause trouble only needs a $20 bulk cutter from Bunnings and turn up out of business hours and can have a free run at it as the fences are only wire mesh FFS!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised"

And I think you are completely missing the point if you think that an itinerant user of infrastructure such as an aerodrome is not being heavily subsidised. The operator of an airport a few posts ago said that landing fees alone do not cover the costs. So someone else is paying the rest , thus the provision of the airport facilities to that GA user is subsidised. That is how most councils refer to their funding models for their airports, as a subsidy.
Back in roughly 2004, an Airports Association report to Parliament on the effects of the governments withdrawal from the ALOP some 10 years earlier (ie ceasing of 50-50 funding) found it had immediately rendered most small aerodromes uneconomic to their local councils with the doubling of running costs, and many were struggling back then to keep them operating. I used to go to AA Annual conferences in the late 90's, and I remember how bleak things were. Yes, some money was provided for future needs, but now after 25 years, most of that has gone (and in most cases, it was spent on the aerodrome, not elsewhere). Any capital works, such as reseals, were always beyond the means of most councils, but they are still expected to contribute something towards them (and you don't need heavy traffic for a reseal to be required. Bitumen ages. In fact the worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it). There were very, very few profitable, or even break even, small airports in 2004. I doubt many would be in a better situation today. Costs have only gone up, and traffic down. The fact that most are still open more likely expresses how much local councils do recognise the value of an aerodrome to their community , irrespective of the facilities they provide.

[rutan around]

In fact the worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it).In that case every T/O and landing I make is providing a service for the airport owner. In future I will send them a bill every time I land for say $10 - $15 :D

[Lead Balloon]

The worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it).And what are the quickest ways to deter traffic?

1. Charge usage fees

2. Impose security requirements and procedures that are inconvenient and are not justified by the risk.

On 1, note I did not say "landing" fees. There are aerodromes out there that charge fees if you merely put a plan in the system to fly there, even if you never fly there in fact. And that includes not even flying in the vicinity of the place, much less overhead or landing. They've just set up software to match filed plans to regos and produce a usage charge. I then have to dispute the charges.

As a consequence I will never go to places like YTWB, YORG, YGLB (and I could go on....) ever again.

You could also look to more innovative ways to use the infrastructure. Places like YWWL and YCTM rent out a runway for things like classic car club events.

By the way: Are you aware of any public hospitals, public schools, public bus services etc that turn a "profit"? What, precisely, do we pay taxes for? General Aviation has been scammed into believing that it must grow its own bowl of rice and that's all it deserves.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Rutan, no probs, send them a bill, just discount it from the bill they send you for what it actually costs to provide the airport.
Lead, no worries, that's your choice as a consumer to refuse to use any airport you wish. No one will shed a tear if you don't go there. Its a discretionary choice. Other uses for the infrastucture, fine, hope some work, but I can imagine the whinging from the fraternity because they couldn't use it because the "money-grubbing council" had rented it out to a "bloody car club fer chris' sake" when they wanted to go there.
As for your other analogies? Good choices. Sucking on the public teat has left us with a broken health system, a broken education system, and a broken public transport system. Two are provided by the state, haemorrhage money like there's no tomorrow and cut services/close facilities at the drop of a hat if there's not enough funding ( and we still have co-payments, Medicare Levy, private health insurance etc on top of our taxes), and if you have ever used a private hospital or school, well how was your bank balance after that? Because they do have to return a profit, and what that service actually costs is not pretty. As for your "public" bus, almost always provided by a private contractor of some description (who is making a profit, or he wouldn't do it), said profit subsidised almost completely by the taxpayer, and when the money runs out, services get cut, or the price paid by the actual user goes up. Sure we pay taxes, but look at the country, and our current state of finances. The place costs more to run than we pay. There's no free ride at just about any level.
Back to the original post, if you want to make access easier, lobby the government to review the security regs. Don't bag the airport who has no choice but to implement regs they don't want either.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask again: What, precisely, do we pay taxes for?Lead, no worries, that's your choice as a consumer to refuse to use any airport you wish. No one will shed a tear if you don't go there. Its a discretionary choice.Gee, thanks for that.

And do you think that attitude is going to help?

There's still some discretion as to how security obligations are complied with. Some places treat itinerant GA as an irritating low priority. Others don't. That's a choice, not a difference in obligations.

Here's how aerodrome maintenance decisions are made in a first world nation that recognises the importance of aviation infrastructure:Ruling prevents the city from shutting down SMO through 2023.

The FAA has ruled that the city of Santa Monica must keep Santa Monica Airport (SMO) open through 2023, dealing a significant blow to officials who want it gone.

In a ruling released Monday, the FAA denied an appeal of an earlier decision and maintained the city is required to keep the airport open because it accepted federal grant money for airport improvements.

Santa Monica received $1.6 million for planning and airport development in 1994. Projects funded by the grant were completed in 1996. However, the city applied for and received an additional $240,600 in 2003. The FAA maintains that its agreements with grant recipients last for the life of the facility built with the money or 20 years.

The city argued the 2003 grant did not trigger the grant provisions as it shouldn’t be considered a “new” grant but rather should be part of the pre-existing agreement that would have expired in 2014.

City officials filed a motion to dismiss the case but were rebuffed in federal court in December 2015. Monday’s ruling was the city’s first appeal, with the FAA essentially acting as judge and jury. Officials said they will now continue their appeals in the federal court system.

http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-rules-santa-monica-must-keep-airport-open?cmpid=enews081616&spPodID=030&spMailingID=26256739&spUserID=NDc4NjIwNDk5OQS2&spJobID=862701283&spReportId=ODYyNzAxMjgzS0

Here the government and its regulator watch us squabble over the ever-diminishing rice bowl. :(

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Looks more to me that that was a ruling on a point of legal or accounting order, rather than because the FAA particularly thought SMO was an important piece of aviation infrastructure. If grant money hadn't been involved, do you think the FAA would have been involved at all?

As for taxes, we all pay them, you can keep living in your fantasy socialist world where the state takes care of you and everything is provided free of charge, and the rest of us will live in the real world.

I'm done with this.

[Lead Balloon]

All of the taxi drivers, motel owners, pub owners, general store owners and tourism businesses near the aerodrome you manage, TIEW, thank you for discouraging us freeloading (Socialist) GA losers from cluttering up your aerodrome and the local area. :ok:

[runway16]

Please don't make the mistake of believing every country airfield is owned and operated by the council. We have TO PAY the council many thousands of dollars for the privilege of running an airport. We provide a sealed strip, two grass strips, PAL, lounge, good clean toilets, snacks etc and we still get people who bitch about a $10 landing fee!
Remember that there are private airfields all over the country that get no government or council grants and have to recoup the cost of maintenance somehow.

But hold it a minute, do I recall that if I drive through that country town do I then get a charge for driving on the council maintained road, use the public toilets, park on Main Street, and of course put something into the local economy by buying fuel and food?

[Lead Balloon]

Socialist!