Unfriendliest airport for GA in Australia?

[Dick Smith]

I was planning a flight to Queensland and thought I would drop into Miles (YMLS) and spend some money in the local area, however I noticed in the ERSA it has the following points:

1. Restricted OPS – PPR FM AD APR all non scheduled OPS.
2. AD charges apply due to limited PRKG PPR 48 HR PN FM AD OPR for all ACFT.
3. Avdata fees apply.
4. AD code 2C.

Can you imagine if a shopping centre had similar rules for going into their parking area to spend some money? It would be crazy.

Is this Australia’s most unfriendly airport or are there others?

Please note, it is not as if it is privately owned – this is a council owned airport. You would think they would be encouraging people to come to the area.

[Lead Balloon]

At least it has a toilet - or at least ERSA says so. YPPF doesn't have any public toilets any more, even land side. Western Downs Regional Council is merely among many others who treat the local airport as a business unit and are going to learn the really hard way that, on its narrow accounting methodologies, it will never make a 'profit'.

[Ironpot]

Use Chinchilla - was in there a few weeks ago and pleasantly surprised how nice & friendly it was.

[Lead Balloon]

Mildura's been working hard to marginalise GA. (Of course we all have at least $20,000,000 of public liability insurance, noting the airport's interest, in accordance with the airport's terms of use, don't we?)

[Squawk7700]

YMLS might be council owned, but appears that they have outsourced management to this mob: https://amsaustralia.com (https://amsaustralia.com/)

[KRviator]

Mildura's been working hard to marginalise GA. (Of course we all have at least $20,000,000 of public liability insurance, noting the airport's interest, in accordance with the airport's terms of use, don't we?)That's better than the Gold Coast. They require $35,000,000 US Dollars worth of "Aviation Hull, Third Party, Passenger, Cargo & Mail Liability and Premises Liability including War Third Party Liability" insurance.

Warnervale has been PPR for yonks as well, despite also being owned by the Council. Their airport charges are astronomical too. When I was based on the Central Coast, it was cheaper to fly past Warnervale to Archerfield, do an hour of circuit training there, land, refuel, and fly back to the Coast than it was to fly 10NM and do an hour of circuits and refuel at Warnervale.

YMLS might be council owned, but appears that they have outsourced management to this mob: https://amsaustralia.com (https://amsaustralia.com/)But AMS show both Miles and Chincilla as under their management. What's the difference there, as noted by Ironpot?
​​​​

[Lead Balloon]

$35,000,000,000 USD insurance required? At least they’re providing comic relief, albeit inadvertently.

[Roy Nolland]

Maybe PPR entry is due to what appears to be limited apron space and a cursory measure to avoid a sudden influx of unexpected aircraft causing congestion.
Out of interest Dick, did you make a call to see if it would be ok? Personally I've never been knocked back by an airport saying PPR in their ERSA entry. Mine site strips though are a different beast. You need to have at least 10 space shuttle landings in your log book and $1.2Bn liability insurance.

[phlegm]

Moorabbin's landing fee for visiting GA aircraft is up to $65 or $70 now, which is ridiculous. Not to mention all the attempts to replace hangars with non-aviation related buildings.

[Dick Smith]

Why would 48 hours prior notice be required for a parking position?

Lets say there is plenty of parking available and you have only decided that day to go to the airport. But you can't.

Its now become a new requirement for other airports.
Ayers Rock requires 24 hours prior notice and Mt Isa 48
Probably lots more.

And you need to have a Julia Gillard jacket to go to Wynyard.

[triadic]

The airport runway is the most important main street in any town..

This title has been around for some years and is from the USA. see these links:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/1582249/

or this one

https://thatbaldwinguy.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/the-airport-runway-is-the-most-important-main-street-in-any-town/

[Clinton McKenzie]

From a judgment in the USA in a case where the local council was trying to grab the airport land:Not only is general aviation important to the national infrastructure, but it serves a critical role as the cradle of aviation. The security and economic vitality of the United States depends on this laboratory of flight where future civilian and military pilots are born. Airports such as Solberg blossomed in an era when local young men turned their dreams of barnstorming into air dominance in World War II and led this country into its golden age. These dreams still live in our youth, and general aviation endures as the proving ground for future pilots from all walks of life.

Finally, there is a certain freedom that defines general aviation. Men and women throughout history gazed longingly at the soaring effortless freedom of birds, pondering release from the symbolic bondage of gravity. Only here can a man or woman walk onto some old farmer’s field and turn dreams into reality. As Charles Lindbergh once said: “What freedom lies in flying, what Godlike power it gives to men . . . I lose all consciousness in this strong unmortal space crowded with beauty, pierced with danger.”

Thus, general aviation airports serve a myriad of public purposes. The record substantiates the importance of general aviation and Solberg Airport’s role in particular. The Defendant offered documentary and testimonial evidence, which this Court found persuasive in its determination of public purpose. The objective evidence demonstrated that general aviation generates over a billion dollars in revenue and creates thousands of jobs across the state [of New Jersey]. It has a substantial economic impact on communities and contributes directly to local business transportation capability. The evidence also demonstrated that New Jersey’s general aviation infrastructure provides many health, welfare, and social benefits: emergency medical services, schools, fire and emergency services, law enforcement, tour operators, and traffic surveillance directly benefit from general aviation airports.

[Ixixly]

I think like some others have said this isn't to try and scare people off but to prevent congestion at the Airport and a quick call to ascertain that all is good would be fine so very unlikely they'd knock you back. Unfortunately, they can't put in "Please give us a ring before you come on in" and have to keep to more "official language" like this that sounds unfriendly.

I remember many moons ago heading into Uluru as we couldn't make Alice Springs due last light, ERSA entry had me all kinds of scared with all the requirements for prior notice etc.., security rolled out as we were pulling into a parking spot and waved us to a different spot so I was getting a bit worried at this point we'd get a yelling at, fined or what have you. Turns out it wasn't marked but was a preferred spot for RFDS and the security was the nicest bloke I've met at an Airport, could not have been more helpful and accommodating!

[Asturias56]

"From a judgment in the USA" - it's a sad fact that outside of N America the vast majority of the population sees anything aviation as a rich mans toy I'm afraid

[Lead Balloon]

Looking at ERSA and the satellite photo for YMLS, it seems they've built a very nice runway and a very nice apron for 3 x ABV 5,700KG aircraft, with only one taxiway on and off the runway to that apron. I can therefore understand why they want to know who's coming and when, because everyone has no choice but to mix it at that taxiway choke point and apron.

If only they'd included a second taxiway - it only needed to be gravel - off to a patch of parking on grass or gravel at the northern end of the apron. The cost in addition to the works already done would have been rounding error numbers. That would give all us nobodies in bugsmashers a way stay out of the way of the ABV 5,700KG aircraft that have no choice but to use the apron and paved taxiway.

Plenty of places out there have signs and ERSA entries about where itinerant aircraft under 5,700KG must not and may park, and most of us are demonstrably capable of complying, without adult supervision.

[TimmyTee]

+1 for Mildura. Same bloke who escorted me off the tarmac due to no ASIC wouldn’t let me back out to my own plane +4hrs later. No ASIC No Coach or something like that..

[Lead Balloon]

Let's face it: You're a potential threat to western democracy, TT.

It was only a few years ago that the Mildura airport had to be pulled into line for presuming to 'ban' sport aircraft from 'its' airspace. Even CASA had to do something to 'protect' us, in the face of Mildura airport's pretentions to an airspace dictatorship. But once we're on the ground, we're the playthings of the airport...

[thunderbird five]

TIMMY - curious how you resolved that situation. What happened next. Or are you still stuck there?

[Lead Balloon]

I'm guessing TT found a non-terrorist (ASIC holder) from the local aviation community to do escort duties to ensure TT didn't detonate the explosives vest hidden in the back of his aircraft.

[Capt Fathom]

This came up in the Birdsville thread…..
When planning to arrive in Miles for a pit stop with your caravan in tow, do you have to give 2 days notice?
What is it with airport owners that makes them so special?

[MagnumPI]

Warnervale has been PPR for yonks as well, despite also being owned by the Council. Their airport charges are astronomical too. When I was based on the Central Coast, it was cheaper to fly past Warnervale to Archerfield, do an hour of circuit training there, land, refuel, and fly back to the Coast than it was to fly 10NM and do an hour of circuits and refuel at Warnervale.
​​​​

Just to correct you on this. Warnervale (Central Coast Airport) is not PPR - refer ERSA. Yes, it is still owned by the Council.

After lobbying by the Aero Club and the local aviation community, the landing fees are more reasonable - although still prohibitive for circuits if you're an itinerant aircraft:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1236x554/screen_shot_2022_04_29_at_9_27_46_pm_9bf833d82990feafa22ab98 b4394a8339798b430.png
The Aero Club is run by friendly, approachable people who are most welcoming of visitors.

[MagnumPI]

That's better than the Gold Coast. They require $35,000,000 US Dollars worth of "Aviation Hull, Third Party, Passenger, Cargo & Mail Liability and Premises Liability including War Third Party Liability" insurance.
​​​​

This has not been my experience flying in/around YBCG. Is this for aircraft under 5,700kg who are visiting? Where is this requirement published?

[Mach1Muppet]

Moorabbin's landing fee for visiting GA aircraft is up to $65 or $70 now, which is ridiculous. Not to mention all the attempts to replace hangars with non-aviation related buildings.
This is honestly disgusting, how can they ask that much when hangarage fees/air services for users of the airport are already exorbitant

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What is it with airport owners that makes them so special?
Because they have to deal with GA pilots?

Miles was very busy during the gas field construction boom. Every man and his dog was running there. F70's, Dash-8's etc. I think at one stage aircraft were routinely holding on the runway waiting for parking to become available. Not so much, if at all, now. I see on the satellite imagery there's only two spots on the NE end of the apron with GA sized tie downs. There appears to be no other parking. They probably haven't changed their ERSA entry from when they were busy. Perhaps they have no idea that their conditions of use are considered "onerous" because the people who go there abide by them. I mean, if you require prior notice, and everyone who goes there has sought it, what would make you thing that people don't like doing it? It's not like people would be calling them and telling them they're not going to visit because they don't want to give the required notice.
Dick, you are planning a flight. Therefore the requirement to give prior notice can surely be accommodated? So what's the problem? Give them a call, get permission, and then "drop in" as you are planning to. It's hardly killing the spontaneity if you were going to do it anyway.

[redsnail]

I don't know the airports in question nor the ramp space available or the traffic loads. Perhaps there could be congestion and no way of resolving it if folks came in randomly?

There's several Greek Island airports that I fly to and ooh boy, if you don't let them know your planned arrival time (PPR) you won't be coming in. Reason? Comparatively small ramp for the jet traffic. The FBO etc doesn't have enough suitable tow bars (or a universal tug vehicle) to turn you around and if all the airline traffic is there, you don't have to space to turn around.

Of course, the airports mentioned above just might be operated by belligerent grumpy folk who don't realise what an airport is actually for. ;)

[Sunfish]

I vote for Mildura, its run by Nazis. Wentworth is much nicer. Both strips are now sealed, the club has tea, coffee, frozen pies and a microwave and honesty box.

[Lead Balloon]

Because they have to deal with GA pilots.And there we have it.

GA pilots are an inconvenience. That is the message sent. Pure and simple.

It may well be that everyone’s a nice bloke and PPR has never been refused, but having to ask for permission in the first place, and then having to pay a fee for the privilege, sends a message.

The airport operator’s preference, and the preference of many other airport operators, is that we just stay away. Then the inconvenience to them of having to “deal with GA” doesn’t arise. But I’d suggest that if you contacted the motels in the area, the pubs in the area and the tourist venues in the area, the preference would be different; especially if the ‘gas field construction boom’ is now bust.

It seems to me that YMLS was built/upgraded with only one thing in mind, and that’s not surprising in Australia, where narrow, short-sighted goals are the priority. But as I said earlier, if they’d just added a gravel taxiway off the runway to a gravel/grass parking area to the north of the apron, us GA nobodies would be little-to-no inconvenience. Or the gas field companies should have bought the lot and shut it off to all ‘outsiders’ except in emergencies. But ERSA says the operator is the regional council. It’s a council-provided public facility.

(A lot of hard work was done by a lot of people to restore Warnervale to some semblance of sanity. The sacking of the entire local Council helped.)

(Yes, Sunfish, methinks Wentworth has plans of attracting lots of activity away from Mildura. Unfortunately, Wentworth has started out with a usage fee, but it will eventually learn, as other councils have learnt, that it will cost more to collect the fees than the fees collected, and local businesses would prefer that council make landing and staying at Wentworth as attractive as practicable.)

[Lead Balloon]

This has not been my experience flying in/around YBCG. Is this for aircraft under 5,700kg who are visiting? Where is this requirement published?Here’s what the Gold Coast Airport Conditions of Use (https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5a6fdb26e7053c00010b268f/5ba0434b54a6875afb6709b2_GCAPL%20Conditions%20of%20Use%20201 8%20%28002%29.pdf) say about insurance: 4.2 The Aircraft Operator

An Aircraft Operator must also comply with the following matters as amended from time to time:

…

4.2.4 GCAPL’s reasonable insurance policy requirements set out in Clause 14;

… “Aircraft Operator” is defined to mean:

Aircraft Operator means the person whose name appears on the Aircraft Register as the operator of the Aircraft, the holder of the Certificate of Registration with respect to the Aircraft or any person who, with the authority of the holder of the Certificate of Registration for the Aircraft and the written acceptance of GCAPL, operates that Aircraft when it arrives at or departs from the Airport as the case may be;The definition of “Aircraft” covers e.g. private aircraft:Aircraft means and includes fixed wing Aircraft, helicopters, balloons powered or un-powered and their parts and accessories, equipment and stores;And those “reasonable” insurance requirements are:

14. Insurances

14.1 The Aircraft Owner and Aircraft Operator’s insurances

The Aircraft Owner and Aircraft Operator must maintain with the appropriate insurers and on terms approved by TAPL (which approval may not be unreasonably withheld) in the Aircraft Owner and Aircraft Operator’s:

14.1.1 Aviation Hull, Third Party, Passenger, Cargo & Mail Liability and Premises Liability including War Third Party Liability (AVN52E) for any aircraft an amount of not less than:

10,000kg or less MTOW: US$25M

Exceeding 10,001 kg but not exceeding 28,000 kg MTOW: US$60M

Exceeding 28,000 kg but not exceeding 100,000 kg MTOW: US$200M

Exceeding 100,001 kg but not exceeding 170,000 kg MTOW: US$500M

Exceeding 170,001 kg MTOW: US$1.5B,

for any one occurrence but in respect of AVN52E any one occurrence and in the annual aggregate.

…… all of which cover is put at risk by the “indemnities and releases” given by the Aircraft Owner and Aircraft Operator in clause 13.

(Insurance companies I’ve spoken to about these kinds of airport terms of use get a great laugh out of them as well.)

So KRviator might have been wrong in stating USD35 million. It looks like it’s ‘only’ USD25 million for aircraft 10,000kg MTOW or less. Or maybe there’s been a change, of which I’m not aware, to the Gold Coast Airport Conditions of Use.

But either way, it’s a joke. Might as well say USD1 frillion. Try getting cover that satisfies the stated requirements, for a light aircraft. And nobody at GC airport is enforcing the requirements anyway.

[KRviator]

Just to correct you on this. Warnervale (Central Coast Airport) is not PPR - refer ERSA. Yes, it is still owned by the Council.Fair enough, you're correct on this one. The last time I flew in there, it was PPR - I haven't bothered going back there since and so had not noticed that requirement was remove.. I'd rather give any landing fees to the owner of Somersby and land there than the CCC who managed to get themselves into over $500M debt through financial mismanagement - but that's another topic....Though you did leave off my favourite "Warnervale airport fee" $121.80 for "Refuelling on Council Land". NFI how they manage that one, but its' in CCC's schedule of fees and charges.
The Aero Club is run by friendly, approachable people who are most welcoming of visitors.On this, I completely agree with you. I did my last AFR with the CCAC and apart from being shocked at how poorly the C150 performs compared to the RV, had nothing but pleasant interactions with all their staff. :ok:

This has not been my experience flying in/around YBCG. Is this for aircraft under 5,700kg who are visiting? Where is this requirement published?In the Gold Coast Airport Conditions of Use (https://assets.website-files.com/5a6fdb26e7053c00010b268f/615e7f086307435d902d8787_Queensland%20Airports%20Limited%20-%20Conditions%20of%20Use%202022.pdf) document, chapter 14. And its' for aircraft under 10,000kg, and if you are "a user" of the GC airport. Or Townsville, Mount Isa or Longreach too, apparently.

EDIT: I see LB has replied while I was typing this, but used $25M, that was the "old" rate from Jan 2020. The "New rate" from Jan 2022 is indeed, $35M USD.

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks for that update, KR: I shall be contacting my broker immediately, to increase my cover from USD25 milliion to USD35million! He does like a good laugh now and then.

[MagnumPI]

Fair enough, you're correct on this one. The last time I flew in there, it was PPR - I haven't bothered going back there since and so had not noticed that requirement was remove.. I'd rather give any landing fees to the owner of Somersby and land there than the CCC who managed to get themselves into over $500M debt through financial mismanagement - but that's another topic....Though you did leave off my favourite "Warnervale airport fee" $121.80 for "Refuelling on Council Land". NFI how they manage that one, but its' in CCC's schedule of fees and charges.
On this, I completely agree with you. I did my last AFR with the CCAC and apart from being shocked at how poorly the C150 performs compared to the RV, had nothing but pleasant interactions with all their staff. :ok:

In the Gold Coast Airport Conditions of Use (https://assets.website-files.com/5a6fdb26e7053c00010b268f/615e7f086307435d902d8787_Queensland%20Airports%20Limited%20-%20Conditions%20of%20Use%202022.pdf) document, chapter 14. And its' for aircraft under 10,000kg, and if you are "a user" of the GC airport. Or Townsville, Mount Isa or Longreach too, apparently.

EDIT: I see LB has replied while I was typing this, but used $25M, that was the "old" rate from Jan 2020. The "New rate" from Jan 2022 is indeed, $35M USD.

Yeah the Council, pre-administration, had really lost the plot. Whilst that refuelling fee is in their schedule, in practical terms anyone filling up with Avgas from the bowser at Warnervale is filling on Club owned land so the charge doesn't apply. :8

That insurance requirement at YBCG is outrageous. Nearly certain when I've flown in there that the ACFT have not have that level of insurance, and the requirement doesn't appear in ERSA or on the fees and charges section of their website - how absurd that it is buried in chapter 14 of a ridiculous Conditions of Use document.

[Lead Balloon]

YBCG is not on its lonesome with those insurance requirements, though USD35 million for a bugsmasher or balloon is the highest I've seen so far.

But the most significant implication I see is that the people who come up with these requirements are cut off from a thing called 'reality'. If, in reality, the requirements were a reasonable mitigation mechanism for the actual risk, and if a corresponding insurance product were actually available to meet the requirements including cover for the indemnities and releases given by aircraft operators, the requirements would actually be enforced.

That's because insurance requirements are meaningless unless they are enforced by, for example, requiring production of certificates of currency of the required insurance before the airport is used. In the case of YBCG, one of the requirements is that the terms of the policy of insurance have to be approved by the airport operator first. So even assuming I can find a broker who won't collapse with laughter when I ask for USD35 million cover, I have to get them to send me the proposed terms of their insurance cover so I can send those to YBCG for approval. And what happens if YBCG objects to some of the terms and does not approve them? A couple of years of negotiation? At least that would give me time to sell some of my children's organs to come up with the premium.

If I do USD35 million damage to YBCG with my C152 and I don't have the insurance, who pays for the USD35million damage? I don't have USD35 million stashed in my mattress.

This disconnection from reality manifests itself in other behaviours of some aerodrome operators.

[Lead Balloon]

And the same insurance requirements apply at Longreach, Mount Isa and Townsville as apply at Gold Coast: Queensland Airports Limited Conditions of Use (https://assets.website-files.com/5b74bf05cf70820e5b1a40a3/62538dec4292a10b78828a9e_Queensland%20Airports%20Limited%20-%20Conditions%20of%20Use%202022.pdf).

Yep: USD35 million minimum cover (the terms of which have to be approved by Queensland Airports Limited) for your 10,000KT or less MTOW aircraft to use Longreach, Mount Isa, Townsville or Gold Coast.

Planet Earth calling Queensland Airports Limited. This is Planet Earth calling Queensland Airports Limited. Do you read Planet Earth, Queensland Airports Limited?

[KRviator]

I got bored this arvo, too wet to do any gardening and I didn't feel like taking the RV out for a bath in the passing showers so I found the following insurance requirements from relevant airport 'conditions of use' documents, all applicable for anything likely to be flown by your average weekend warrior. A lot of these documents also require you to note the relevant airport operator as having an interest in the policy too. The list is not exhaustive, I CBF'd going through every airport nationwide, but as a general guide it's eye-opening...

In descending order from those that made me snort my cuppa over the keyboard, we have:

LAUNCESTON (!) being the clear winner with $50,000,000 AUD :eek: :ugh: (Though their definition of "Operator" in their CoU define it as "any airline that uses the facilities.....")
Gold (-plated??) Coast, Townsville, Mt Isa & Longreach all require: $35M USD
Sydney International: $25M USD
Alice Springs, Darwin & Ayres Rock: $30M AUD
Albury, Bankstown, Cairns, Camden, Canberra, Essendon, Hobart, Jandakot, Karratha, Mackay, Rocky & Port Hedland: $20M AUD
Moorabbin: $10M AUD
Archerfield & Parafield: NIL Required, so far as I could see! :ok:


$50,000,000 third-party to fly into Launy....$35M (USD, too!) to lob into Mt Isa for fuel enroute to Darwin in a 700Kg RV, or a sub-600Kg Jabiru? They've got rocks in their heads. But again "We may deny you use of the facilities...yadda yadda" if you fail to produce proof when asked. Given the vast majority of vehicular CTP policies only give you $20M third-party coverage it's got me stuffed how some airports think they need such extraordinary indemnities.

And that's before you even touch on any landing or parking fees at any of these places...

I found another lovely little tidbit in Cessnock's Operational Polict & User Guidelines (https://www.cessnock.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/hptrim/governance-adopted-policies-codes-controlled-documents/governance-council-policy-controlled-documents/council-policy-_-a3.3-cessnock-airport-operational-policy-and-user-guidelines-_-adopted-council-12-december-2007-_ccc-website-doc.pdf)
"All refuelling is to be done at fixed fuel facilities at the North-Eastern end of the airport. Aircraft are not permitted to refuel from drums, portable bowsers, or portable tanks". Guess that means no more taking jerry cans of Mogas to refuel the Tecnam there at the Flying Club hangars, you've gotta use the Avgas bowser, even if Rotax say Unleaded is the preferred fuel, too bad! :ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

And, so far as I can tell, nil required for that not-so-sleepy hollow, Ballina.

One of the many amusing aspects of this is how these kinds of ridiculous insurance requirements can ‘backfire’ on the clever suits that come up with them.

Imagine that a negligent bugsmasher pilot collides with an RPT aircraft on the tarmac at one of these aerodromes with USD35 million cover required. Lots of personal injury, death and property damage done. Alas, old mate in the bugsmasher only had AUD5 million in cover, contrary the terms of use of the aerodrome (of which terms he wasn’t made aware). A lot of people are writing big cheques and bearing big pain and loss for stuff that isn’t their fault. Those people could sue old mate’s estate for the delta between AUD5 million and the actual damage, but old mate’s estate is worth 1 (Australian) cracker.

Who else to chase for money? Well let’s think about it. If QAL had enforced QAL’s own insurance requirements, old mate wouldn’t have been using the aerodrome in the first place unless he had the required cover. If QAL had done its job, either the accident wouldn’t have happened because old mate wouldn’t have been there, or there would have been complete cover to respond to old mate’s liability arising from the accident. QAL’s partly at fault! QAL has insurance and deep pockets – well, at least deeper than old mate’s estate. So…

As I said above, insurance requirements are meaningless unless those who impose them enforce them. And they can 'backfire'. Enforcing USD35 million for anything 10,000KG MTOW or less? Tell 'em they're dreamin'.

[Sunfish]

There is nothing in Cessnocks ERSA entry about self organised refueling. I any case, all they will notice if they looked at my aircraft during refuelling would be the whirring noise of a Bosch electric fuel pump and a gradually deflating twenty litre collapsible resting on the passenger seat.

Anyway, I have an ASIC :P

[KRviator]

There is nothing in Cessnocks ERSA entry about self organised refueling. I any case, all they will notice if they looked at my aircraft during refuelling would be the whirring noise of a Bosch electric fuel pump and a gradually deflating twenty litre collapsible resting on the passenger seat.

Anyway, I have an ASIC :PDon't need an ASIC at Cessnock, Sunfish but you DO need a hi-vis vest - though it doesn't need to be a reflective vest for night ops. Go figure...

But....where would such a vest-wearing 'operational' requirement be found, do you think? The EnRoute Supplement that all pilots should reference as part of their preflight planning, IAW the AIP? You'd think that'd be a good place for it. But no, it's certainly not in the ERSA. Nosiree, it's also buried in Cessnock's Operational Policy & User Guidelines (https://www.cessnock.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/hptrim/governance-adopted-policies-codes-controlled-documents/governance-council-policy-controlled-documents/council-policy-_-a3.3-cessnock-airport-operational-policy-and-user-guidelines-_-adopted-council-12-december-2007-_ccc-website-doc.pdf). Because it's not as if pilots foreign to Cessnock will know to look there, or even that the damn policy exists...:ugh:

[Head..er..wind]

This came up in the Birdsville thread…..
When planning to arrive in Miles for a pit stop with your caravan in tow, do you have to give 2 days notice?
What is it with airport owners that makes them so special?

Go to Goulburn; meet the owner there and it will take you a few seconds to get the answer!

[grunaubaby]

Brilliantly written

[Capt Fathom]

Go to Goulburn; meet the owner there and it will take you a few seconds to get the answer!

Can you give the answer now? It will save me a trip! :E

[Matt48]

Council run = short on commercial smarts.

[Lead Balloon]

Hmmm, I don’t think it’s really about “commercial” smarts but rather “strategic” smarts in relation to aerodromes and GA.

No council I know runs the public toilets in the town park as a “commercial” venture or “business unit”. Those toilets will cost more to establish and maintain than they will ‘generate in fees’. The toilets are nonetheless established and maintained as a public facility which makes the town a ‘nicer’ place to be and, therefore, visit.

For some reason, many councils can’t see an aerodrome as being just another public facility which is of substantial intrinsic value without ‘generating fees’ or ‘breaking even’ as a ‘business unit’. Aerial fire fighting base. Aeromedical evacuation facility. Supplies can be flown in and out when the town is cut off by floods or fires. Courier and mail service hub. And another means to attract visitors with $$ to the local area.

The Temora Council had the strategic foresight to and is now reaping the benefits of actively encouraging the use and expansion of the Temora aerodrome. The Aviation Museum chose to set up there, for a reason. Does the Temora Council charge landing fees for itinerant general aviation? No. Do aerodrome usage fees for Temora aerodrome ‘cover the costs’ of maintaining the aerodrome? No. But is the aerodrome a strategic asset that generates millions in revenue for the Temora township each year? You betcha!

(And the insurance requirements imposed on itinerant GA aircraft using the Temora aerodrome? Nil.)

[runway16]

So I see high airport landing and usage fees.

The question I have to ask what do those same councils charge the limes of the Grey Nomad with caravan in tow, or the double B semi truck going through town. Do they have to pay a traversing fee or is there blatant discrimination going on here?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

And another means to attract visitors with $$ to the local area.
You mean the same visitors who whinge about spending $$ on a landing or usage fee?

No council I know runs the public toilets in the town park as a “commercial” venture or “business unit”.
And yet Temora charge a family $13 a time (or $605-$726 a year) to use the town swimming pool.

For some reason, many councils can’t see an aerodrome as being just another public facility which is of substantial intrinsic value without ‘generating fees’ or ‘breaking even’ as a ‘business unit’. Aerial fire fighting base. Aeromedical evacuation facility. Supplies can be flown in and out when the town is cut off by floods or fires. Courier and mail service hub. And another means to attract visitors with $$ to the local area.
Because for many councils they are none of those things. They are just high cost assets (liabilities) used directly or indirectly by very few of the ratepayers. Of any of those points, they may maintain the aerodrome for the aeromedical potential, but that is going to be a very infrequent use, and not something that they aren't going to try and offset some of the costs of 365 days a year maintenance to provide.

[Lead Balloon]

You mean the same visitors who whinge about spending $$ on a landing or usage fee?We don't whinge about it. We just don't visit. That's the point.

If a council wants to charge my friends and I $10 to land/park when what we intended to do was spend around $2,000 in the local area over a weekend, the local businesses miss out. We go elsewhere.And yet Temora charge a family $13 a time (or $605-$726 a year) to use the town swimming pool.And if you check the council website for Temora (and e.g. Cowra), they specify a landing/usage fee for their respective aerodromes. Both councils came to understand that charging the fee was 'silly' (see reason above).

Because for many councils they are none of those things. They are just high cost assets (liabilities) used directly or indirectly by very few of the ratepayers. Of any of those points, they may maintain the aerodrome for the aeromedical potential, but that is going to be a very infrequent use, and not something that they aren't going to try and offset some of the costs of 365 days a year maintenance to provide.Then "many councils" aren't very strategic thinkers are they? That's a problem. That "very infrequent use" could be the difference between life and death for someone, or a town being immolated or not. The local pool's not much help when someone needs to be medivac'd to a city hospital. I suppose it's a good source of water to fight bushfires, but the most effective aerial fire fighting aircraft need fuel and a good runway when they're chockas. I'm always happy when they're sitting on standby, less than a 100 metres from my property, on 'catastrophic fire danger' day.

One way in which we 'encourage' our local council to be a little more 'strategic' is to provide data, based on aviation visitor spend in the local area, as to what would be lost if the Avdata snakeoil were to be purchased by council. The twice a work-day courier service company told council they would simply stop coming if fees were introduced. And we also inform the local businesses what would happen. Effective so far.

[KRviator]

That's the problem, LB.

Many naysayers will poo-poo the idea of "saving" a $20 landing fee and $10/night parking charge, but it's not about the $$ - if it was, we wouldn't fly a light plane. Pilots tend to be (mostly) level headed, able to see through a ruse and don't like being taken for a ride. That $20 landing fee is maybe 2% of what we'd spend for a weekend away when you factor in accommodation, tucker & drinks, But it's also 20 minutes, or 50NM of fuel in the RV. It's the difference between going to Tamworth or Armidale, visiting Narrabri or Moree, or Gunnedah, or even Maroochydore vs Caboolture, Redcliffe or Caloundra if we wanted to go up to Queen-P's-Land.

$20 is stuff all in aviation-speak, but that's not the point. I don't like being taken for cash cow, or treated differently from Ma & Pa Kettle in their 4-tonne Landcruiser and 3.5-tonne caravan just because I want to arrive in my 750kg RV. Yes I have a plane. No, I'm not "rich". Ma & Pa Kettle probably have more disposable income than I do, yet they get a free pass (and often, free camping for their van with Council's allowing free-camping in their showgrounds and the like!) for their vehicle that weighs 10x mine...

And I don't believe in supporting Council's that feel that way.

[Bosi72]

Does anyone have a photo of the last page of Avdata invoice ? The page with all prices squeezed onto the a4 page. That was the most ugliest invoice I've ever seen in my life.

[Lead Balloon]

That's the problem, LB.

Many naysayers will poo-poo the idea of "saving" a $20 landing fee and $10/night parking charge, but it's not about the $$ - if it was, we wouldn't fly a light plane. Pilots tend to be (mostly) level headed, able to see through a ruse and don't like being taken for a ride. That $20 landing fee is maybe 2% of what we'd spend for a weekend away when you factor in accommodation, tucker & drinks, But it's also 20 minutes, or 50NM of fuel in the RV. It's the difference between going to Tamworth or Armidale, visiting Narrabri or Moree, or Gunnedah, or even Maroochydore vs Caboolture, Redcliffe or Caloundra if we wanted to go up to Queen-P's-Land.

$20 is stuff all in aviation-speak, but that's not the point. I don't like being taken for cash cow, or treated differently from Ma & Pa Kettle in their 4-tonne Landcruiser and 3.5-tonne caravan just because I want to arrive in my 750kg RV. Yes I have a plane. No, I'm not "rich". Ma & Pa Kettle probably have more disposable income than I do, yet they get a free pass (and often, free camping for their van with Council's allowing free-camping in their showgrounds and the like!) for their vehicle that weighs 10x mine...

And I don't believe in supporting Council's that feel that way.
Exactly. Hear! Hear!

[Cedrik]

The beginning of the end was when the Commonwealth gave away airports. Bit by bit it all just got too hard, lovely little puddle jumper sold because I couldn't afford it. Put the CASA factor in and it became frustrating as well as expensive. Throw in extortionate councils and petty officials at regional airports the whole experience became not worth the effort.
Private GA is for the well off and people after a tax break, no longer for people on an average wage. The good times will never come back.

[Ironpot]

Does anyone have a photo of the last page of Avdata invoice ? The page with all prices squeezed onto the a4 page. That was the most ugliest invoice I've ever seen in my life.
https://avdata.com.au/airport-charge-rates

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I don't like being ......... treated differently from Ma & Pa Kettle
But you are different. They don't have to provide a dedicated facility that no-one else can use to enable Ma & Pa Kettle to visit
Ma & Pa Kettle probably have more disposable income than I do, yet they get a free pass (and often, free camping for their van with Council's allowing free-camping in their showgrounds and the like!) for their vehicle that weighs 10x mine...
You know why? Because there's many more of them. Who do you think makes up the vast majority of visitors to these small regional centers? I'll give you a hint. It's not 1 or 2 GA flights a month (if that). Even Temora, with their generous "no landing fees for itinerant aircraft" , only average around 20 non-local landings a month. They can afford this because they have the commercial agreements with their training organisations, ag operators, and the museum. The vast majority of the visitors to Temora drive there. If Temora introduced landing fees and say, half GA said *F*ck that!", and don't go, it really makes no difference to them. Conversely, if Upper Cumbaktawest says "Hey, we've abolished fees" and movements double, from hardly anything to twice hardly anything, it doesn't make any difference because no one wants to go there anyway.

[Sunfish]

Regarding local councils, guess how many grey nomads would turn up in their country towns if the main streets are wall to wall parking meters and the rest of the streets are signposted “permit only”? That’s right, not many would visit after the word got around. Why? Because parking fees are “grudge purchases” like insurance and fuel. You never get a good feeling from a grudge purchase, unlike buying chocolate. A lot of people bitterly resented grudge purchases and will go far out of their way to avoid them.


Given that parking fees are grudge purchases, you have to factor in the opportunity costs to arrive at the full cost of a decision.

Opportunity costs represent the potential benefits that an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another. Because opportunity costs are unseen by definition, they can be easily overlooked.

‘In airport terms, these are the aviation visits you don’t get, the aircraft related businesses that go elsewhere and the people who don’t migrate to your town because they have an aircraft and your Council decided to levy fees.

‘’When you total up these potential costs, it is no surprise how financially short sighted money grubbing through landing fees can be. aFor example an over night stop for me generally involves dropping approximately $400 into the local economy (accomodation $150. Car hire $90, Dinner and refreshments $50, refuelling $100 - $300). Mildura will never see that money, Wentworth (perhaps - they have landing fees), Kerang or Swan Hill will.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It's still a numbers game though. You over estimate GA's importance to the local economy in sufficient numbers that would make any difference vs visitors arriving by other means. I would hazard a guess that most small aerodromes are mainly just a fuel stop on the way to somewhere more interesting.

[Squawk7700]

It's still a numbers game though. You over estimate GA's importance to the local economy in sufficient numbers that would make any difference vs visitors arriving by other means. I would hazard a guess that most small aerodromes are mainly just a fuel stop on the way to somewhere more interesting.

Like Dubbo for example. I've been through there so many times and only usually ever purchased fuel and kept moving. Due to the landing fees many now fill up at Narromine and keep going. Of about a dozen stops at Dubbo I'd say I've only ever been into down once due to weather or daylight.

[tossbag]

Geesus, is it that hard to see the benefit to the whole community of an aerodrome asset? Only one or two GA movements per month, so stuff them, we'll charge them a fee that is ridiculous and doesn't have a hope of doing anything for the good of the aerodrome. The whinge comes from idiots brainwashed by 'user pays' when that same idiot is paying some of the highest taxes in the world. Those rich pilots should pay their fair share! Interesting, I don't know too many rich pilots.

But when it's a one off visit from an RFDS or air ambulance to pick up a loved one involved in an accident and get them to city medical care they'd be the first to whinge if their loved one couldn't be picked up because the aerodrome is ******.

[MagnumPI]

A few years ago I flew into Dubbo in a 172.

Wanting a coffee and to use the bathroom, I had to walk outside the AD via a security gate, and then in the front terminal entrance. Upon getting to security, the conveyer belt was switched off, and four - yes, four - security pelicans were sat down on their phones. They had to switch the belt on to 'screen' me even though I had flown in and was wearing an ASIC. The next RPT flight was at nearly four hours away!

[Vag277]

I strongly suggest that you all read these reports. The value of a small local aerodrome is overstated by many in GA and the costs of maintaining are not understood.
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AAA-regional-airport-study-final-report-September-2016.pdf
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Connecting-Australia-The-economic-and-social-contribution-of-Australian-airports.pdf

[Sunfish]

Vag…..quite right, and CASA micromanagement and over regulation precludes local GA businesses from starting and growing, thus exacerbating the revenue shortfall. AAA are victims of CASA too.

[Lead Balloon]

I strongly suggest that you all read these reports. The value of a small local aerodrome is overstated by many in GA and the costs of maintaining are not understood.
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AAA-regional-airport-study-final-report-September-2016.pdf
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Connecting-Australia-The-economic-and-social-contribution-of-Australian-airports.pdf
Are you able to summarise the methodology used in these reports to calculate the "value of a small local aerodrome"?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I think what Vag277 is trying to say is that the economic value to the local community of sporadic visitors using small local aerodromes is of much less importance than the ability to provide critical services to their community such as aeromed, emergency response etc. As can be seen from the report. small local airports almost always operate at a considerable loss, but this loss is borne by the community as the cost of having such a facility available for those needed operations, even though it means other services required by the community suffer. Thus, I have absolutely no problem with a council wanting to charge itinerants landing and parking fees, because they aren't really providing it for them. The ability for Capt Joe Bloggs to drop in for fuel (far more likely than staying the night) is just a by-product of the airport being available to service the community . Any extra that they can garner to offset and assist in providing an essential service to their community is justified imo, and ultimately allows them to spend the equivalent dollar elsewhere on necessary community services.
Rather than begrudging landing fees, GA should be thinking of it as their contribution to helping the local community. By staying away for the sake of $20 you are guaranteeing that that apron won't be extended, or that that pothole will not get filled in.

[Lead Balloon]

So typically Australian. Aviation for the purposes of private travel is just a marginal irritation and not to be encouraged. Aerodromes aren’t there for them.

Before ALOP, aerodromes were there for everybody at no cost. That's because Australia still had some inkling of the importance of private aviation along with other forms of general aviation.

I don’t stay away for the sake of $20. I stay away because I’m not welcome.

[tossbag]

By staying away for the sake of $20 you are guaranteeing that that apron won't be extended, or that that pothole will not get filled in.

Good luck extending an apron or fixing a pothole with 20 bucks.

You'll bring more money into the local economy therefore a greater economic benefit by dropping fees and having people want to stay the night, grabbing a pot and parmy, grabbing a cab each way to the airport etc.

Part of my flight planning is landing fees where I want to overnight - refuel.

This 'user pays' bull**** is a pox on the community. It's a pleasure flying in countries that see aviation as critical infrastructure that benefits all.

[Vag277]

In 2020 there were 72K camper vans and 669K caravans registered in Australia. By comparison GA is nothing. Our comparative contribution to regional communities is negligible so is not relevant.

[Lead Balloon]

Presumably your "our" is a reference to just us mere private pilots flying for pleasure? If not, what are you including in "GA"?

And your word "contribution" is a little vague. Do you mean "economic" contribution? If not, what do you mean by "contribution"?

[Clinton McKenzie]

I have an interest in a property with a hangar and aircraft at YCTM. The local council has – to its credit – established an ‘Aerodrome Advisory Committee’ as a forum to listen to users’ perspectives and to run ideas up the flagpole or foreshadow proposals. The Committee was formed in the wake of a meeting that the Council called when it was proposing to implement fees based on the Avdata system. I am on the Committee. As a consequence of these meetings, we got to see Council’s annual expenses and income for the aerodrome.

The first issue to become stark is that the single largest expense – around 25% - is ‘general rates’. That is, rates Council charges of itself and pays to itself. Whilst this may be standard accounting practice, it does not represent an actual out-of-pocket cost to Council.

Then I discovered that some of the original aerodrome land handed to Council has been fenced off for agricultural use. The agricultural users pay a fee to Council for that use. I asked whether the fees those people pay to Council for use of that aerodrome land get accounted for as income from the aerodrome? No.

Then I asked whether the proceeds of the sale of subdivided blocks of land, which were originally part of the aerodrome handed to the Council then sold freehold by the Council, were accounted for as income from the aerodrome or set aside for the maintenance of the aerodrome? No.

Do any of the rates paid by the people who bought those blocks and put hangars on them appear as income from the aerodrome? No. (And as the Council casts about trying charge someone – anyone – fees, the latest proposal is to charge those ‘locals’ and not itinerants for aerodrome use. *sigh*)

For a while the ‘main’ windsock – the ubiquitous PAL illuminated jobbie from the Jurassic Period with the circle below for dumbbells/crosses – was jamming. The defect could easily have been repaired by the engineering firm less than 50 metres away. (I saw the defect ‘up close and personal’ – as I occasionally climbed a ladder to free the sock.) The Council instead decided to replace the whole pole/sock/lighting assembly at a cost of $10k plus (exact amount to be seen in the next set of figures made available to the AAC). I’m not criticising the people who made the decision to replace the whole thing. But if the Council’s really concerned about the costs of the aerodrome, why not repair at a 10th of the cost of the replacement? (And before someone pipes up with speculative reasons, please don’t…)

Then appeared some brand new ‘industrial strength’ mower tractor attachments. They do a fantastic job! Word on the grapevine is that they were purchased “for” the aerodrome and will be accounted as a cost to the aerodrome. But are they used to mow only the aerodrome? No. (But I stress here that I need to do some digging to find the facts, first hand.)

Then someone who’s been around here for a very long time, including when the aerodrome was given to Council by the Commonwealth, asked: “What happened to the million dollars given to Council at that time by the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of the aerodrome?” Shrugs all ‘round. “Probably went into general revenue.” Oh.

The Council has plans to subdivide more blocks of original aerodrome land and sell them freehold in an ‘air park’ arrangement. That’s a good idea. But….. I asked where the proceeds of those new sales would go – now that Council understands that aerodromes cost money to maintain and those blocks of land, like the earlier ones sold, were given to Council as part of the aerodrome. Lots of humming and frowning. “Maybe we’ll use it to fund the development of land at […a location that has nothing to do with aviation..].” Oh.

The biggest surprise was how small the delta between measured annual expenses and measured income is: A number of thousands that can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands. The local community is getting an absolute bargain. It may not be appreciated by many in the community, but that’s the fact. (Nobody complained when the firefighting aircraft were positioned on standby and the area was under extreme threat of fire. When the wet set in, nobody was complaining about the aerial agricultural operations that could only be carried out from a sealed runway. Plenty of noise complaints which, fortunately, the Council dealt with on a common sense basis.)

I have said publicly, and will continue to say publicly, that the Council’s suggestion that YCTM aerodrome isn’t paying its own way is not true in fact. And that’s just on tawdry dollars in and out. I’m not suggesting corruption; I’m just stating that when expenditure and income are accounted for in the way Council accounts for YCTM, it is always going to look like it’s making a ‘loss’.

I don’t think YCTM is on its lonesome. I recently attended a fly in at an aerodrome where the local council was proposing to impose landing fees. I spoke to the local aeroclub president and went through the kinds of issues we’re dealing with at YCTM. And at one point he paused and said: “Hang on a sec’. Part of this aerodrome has been fenced off for agricultural use!” Best to start digging, old mate!

Some people in Council continue to be hell bent on trying to make up the on-paper shortfall in fees somehow but, as I keep telling them, the fees will cost more to collect than will be collected. That lesson has already been learned the really hard way at many other places. I'm resigned to watching Council learn the same lesson, despite being forewarned.

I’m going to conduct a simple test. I’m going to offer to relieve Council of the financial burden that YCTM has apparently become for it. I’m going offer to take the aerodrome land off Council’s hands, at the price Council paid for it, and take over responsibility for operating it and all associated costs. And so generous am I, that I won’t ask for $1million to fund maintenance. Does anyone believe my offer will be accepted?

In any event, Cootamundra is a great town in walking distance from the aerodrome. Please drop in and stay for a while. The good news is that Council is currently pursuing a proposal to impose aerodrome usage fees on us ratepaying locals, but not on visitors. So you’re welcome!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

You'll bring more money into the local economy therefore a greater economic benefit by dropping fees and having people want to stay the night, grabbing a pot and parmy, grabbing a cab each way to the airport etc.
None of that pays for the airport though. It lines the pocket of the hotel owner, the publican, and the cab operator, all of whom are already in situ, and would be anyway if one or two GA through didn't come through.

It's a pleasure flying in countries that see aviation as critical infrastructure
It is seen as critical infrastructure in this country. That's why so many aerodromes operate at a loss. It's extremely rare to see one close.

[Vag277]

LB
Read the reports to find the answer. The importance of small regional airports is widely recognised. The problem councils have is the cost, especially where there is no or little RPT based revenue. That is why landing fees are imposed. Locations like Temora benefit from the large number of vehicle based visitors to town for many reasons, including the museum. Visiting aircraft are small volume for most of the year.

[tossbag]

None of that pays for the airport though. It lines the pocket of the hotel owner, the publican, and the cab operator, all of whom are already in situ, and would be anyway if one or two GA through didn't come through.

'Lines the pocket' of the hotel owner, who employs a barmaid or two and a cleaner.

It's a pleasure flying in countries that see aviation as critical infrastructure
It is seen as critical infrastructure in this country. That's why so many aerodromes operate at a loss. It's extremely rare to see one close.

Operates at a loss, or provides a critical service to the community, especially in times of need:

- Clinics because doctors and nurses WILL NOT move to regional areas.
- Bushfire and Flood Relief.
- Medevac.

Charging an itinerant aircraft $20 to land is patently ridiculous, it does NOTHING to contribute aerodrome works, except to piss the itinerant off, make them choose another aerodrome to grab fuel and POSSIBLY spend the night.

Aerodromes aren't seen as critical infrastructure, apart from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. They are seen as a hindrance and a money pit, that is until the Mayor's son, daughter or wife need a Kingair to Sydney for emergency medical treatment.

Money pit, unless the aerodromes are correctly accounted for in the manner that Clinton described above. The soft and passive corruption that Australia tolerates will never allow that accounting to occur of course.

[Cedrik]

Good post Clinton

[Lead Balloon]

Locations like Temora benefit from the large number of vehicle based visitors to town for many reasons, including the museum. Visiting aircraft are small volume for most of the yearLet me take the liberty of tweaking that for you.

Temora benefits from a large number of vehicle based visitors for many reasons, mainly the museum’s air displays. The air display days provide the perfect excuse for the bike club and the car club to organise a rally to Temora, and for other travellers to visit and stay there. They don’t rally to visit and stay at Wallendbeen or Stockingbingal or Barmedman or Ardelethan (nice though all those towns may be).

And most of those Temora air display activities constitute … general aviation. Most of the maintenance is done by volunteer maintenance engineers with …. general aviation backgrounds. New general aviation businesses have been established at Temora.

I get it that, in Australia, it’s convenient for those in the bureaucracy to downplay the economic value of general aviation by perpetuating the impression that general aviation just a diminishing bunch of whinging private pilots at the margins. But fire fighting is general aviation. Medevac is general aviation. Search and rescue is general aviation. ‘Crop dusting’ is general aviation.

Where do the pilots who fly those aircraft start out? Where do the engineers who keep those aircraft come from? We drive small flying schools into the ground with charges and regulatory over-kill, and charge rents and fees that deter investment in other aviation-related businesses, such that many aerodromes are ghost towns most of the time, just begging to be turned into warehouses and DFOs. We can bring in pilots and engineers from overseas on visas, so we should just get on with it.

What a lucky country.

[KRviator]

EDIT: I don't know why 'Prune automatically embeds a FB post - I can't do anything about it sorry. And I know the bottom link is the thread title. 'Prune - again - automatically parses the title instead of the actual URL like the other one. NFI why...

= = =

Speaking of landing fees, I saw on FB that Upper Hunter Council has their new Operational Plan (https://upperhunter.nsw.gov.au/f.ashx/documents/meetings/2021/Full-DPOP-2021-22-Final.pdf) out for public comment, which incorporates the landing (and other) fee structure for Scone Airport - Pages 323 & 324 have the airport fees... Tell you what, you wouldn't want to be going there for a weekend! ~$25 landing fee and around $75 in parking if you stayed for 48 hours with an average bug-smasher.. $100 before you've spent a dollar in town I think is pretty pi$$ poor.

You might also care to note that Upper Hunter Council also provide - at no charge - 48 hours free camping for caravanners only a few minutes walk from the center of town, complete with a dump point, for any Grey Nomads. Again, why is one lot of tourists actively supported with no-cost facilities yet others aren't?

For anyone that wants to put their two bob in, either email [email protected] or go via snail-mail to: General Manager, PO Box 208, Scone NSW 2337. Here's what I'm putting in, so feel free to copy, paste and tweak it as required - but for fuxake put something in to try to put a stop to these ongoing bloody fees. It only takes one Council to abolish landing fees for private fliers that'll in turn provide an example to others.

I am writing to oppose the proposed fee structure for Scone Memorial Airport, as contained in Council's proposed DPOP.

It is observed Council proposes to carry over casual landing and parking fees for visiting aircraft, with slight increases commensurate with inflation.

I cannot support landing or fees for light "general aviation" (GA) aircraft, that is, the type often owned and flown by visiting private pilots and that typically weigh less than 3,500Lbs / 1,500Kg. These aircraft would be subject to a landing fee in the $20-25 range for each landing in addition to a parking fee of approximately $75 should they spend two days in Scone before returning home leading to over $100 in "Council fees" just to visit town as a tourist.

It is noted Scone does not currently have metered parking for residents or visitors to town, not any toll or "entry fee" to town for visitors arriving by road, such as the 'Grey Nomads" in their 4-Tonne Landcruiser towing a 3.5-Tonne caravan, indeed Upper Hunter Shire Council even provides camping and sewage dump point facilities completely free of charge to these visitors, to encourage such tourists to the region, and I applaud Council for doing so.

However, your attention is drawn to commentary on pilots forums PPRuNe1 and RecreationalFlying2 where visiting pilots clearly state they actively avoid airports that charge a landing fee, either through being made to feel unwelcome when compared to caravanners, or finding 'better value' in visiting a town whose airport is free to use.

When viewed against airports such as Temora or Narromine, it is observed neither of these airports charge fees, yet both offer far superior facilities than that found at Scone, ie Temora has multiple runways, their Aviation Museum has child-friendly play areas, there is accommodation available on the airport for pilots and their passengers in addition to the Museum itself being superior to Hunter Warbirds in terms of facilities, physical size and the provision flying days, as well as the number and nature of aircraft on display. Narromine, like Temora, offers more flexibility in terms of runways, has both a gliding club and aero club on the field as well as an aviation museum and accommodation located on the airport.

When considering how we may attract visitors to both Hunter Warbirds or Scone itself, who naturally have a choice of what town they visit, it is noteworthy to consider that for a pilot taking off from Bankstown, Scone is 25 minutes closer than both Temora or Narromine (using a cruise speed of 140Knots), however, the addition of landing and parking fees renders Scone the more expensive town to visit, especially when one considers that once you land at Scone, there are few transport options into town, unless you are already aware of the taxi's operating hours, or Upper Hunter Rideshare, you will be forced to walk several km into town.

In short, the extension of landing and parking fees for visiting aircraft renders Scone Airport both uncompetitive in a financial sense, and unwelcoming in a tourist sense, to visiting recreational pilots and their passengers. However, it must be noted that I do not oppose, and in fact actively support, landing and parking fees for aircraft that are registered to a commercial entity, for they are using a Council asset in the course of their business and as such, should be expected to reimburse Council. But for aircraft below 3,500Lbs and registered to an individual, I urge Council to scrap the landing and parking fees as a way of attracting more visitors to the region. What little money Council would lose in landing fees from such an endeavour would be more than made up by the increase in income to local businesses.

In closing, I draw your attention to Cr R. Campbell's comments from the December 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting where he said emphatically stated "We want this airport to be used much much more in the future, and if we're going to just, just do it uh and then just think we haven't had a strike here since whatever it was we're looking back, let's look to the future, we want as many planes as can come in more planes in the future that's going to make it the usage of the airport much more worthwhile."

Abolishing landing fees for privately-owned GA aircraft would go a long way towards achieving this, with the attendant benefits for the town as a whole.

Sincerely,
The KRviator.

1. https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/646418-unfriendliest-airport-ga-australia.html
2. https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/37859-recreational-aircraft-landing-fees-feedback-needed-please

[Clinton McKenzie]

I’d suggest also trying to point out that the cost of attempting to collect the fees will outweigh the fees collected. Lots of councils have worked that out, the very hard way. (Air Services worked out that it cost more to chase chicken feed airways charges from myriad intermittent users in light aircraft than it cost to send out and pursue the invoices, so gave up trying to chase any user for charges under $500 (if my memory serves me correctly.) And that’s an organisation which is unambiguously out to make a profit.)

One of the reasons the Council operating YTCM decided not to take up Avdata’s proposed system is that I explained how it worked. When “Alpha Bravo Charlie” is sent an Avdata invoice charging a fee for use of YCTM and no fee is paid, it’s Council that is owed the money and Council that has to pursue the debt and prove that ABC used YCTM and enforce the charge. (Solution: Pay money to set up security cameras! There’s ABC, caught dead to rights. Great! Now commence recovery action for $12.50 and commence proceedings if it’s not paid. …)

Better paradigm and message: An aerodrome is a very valuable community asset because it provides very useful capabilities for the local community. Fund and nurture it on that basis. And if the occasional private aircraft pilot and friends pulls in and visits the town, that’s icing on the cake. Maybe the pilot will one day fly an aircraft that puts out a local fire that was threatening your home, fertilises the crops on your farm, transports you or one of your loved ones to life saving medical treatment or deters and defeats people who’d like to invade and kill you. Or maybe the pilot did that in a previous life and now just wants to enjoy flying without being hit with a bunch of parking tickets.

BTW: The council operating YCTM also gets income from the throughput of the Avgas bowser…

[cooperplace]

.
n. It looks like it’s ‘only’ USD25 million for aircraft 10,000kg MTOW or less. O

What's with these guys not accepting good old AU$??

[Lead Balloon]

The people who come up with these ideas probably have MBAs from a US university. Smartest guys in the room.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

An aerodrome is a very valuable community asset because it provides very useful capabilities for the local community. Fund and nurture it on that basis
They do. That's why it's still there.
Maybe the pilot will one day fly an aircraft that puts out a local fire that was threatening your home, fertilises the crops on your farm, transports you or one of your loved ones to life saving medical treatment or deters and defeats people who’d like to invade and kill you. Or maybe the pilot did that in a previous life
And thus has never had to pay a landing fee himself. The invoices got sent to the boss. Who paid them.
And if the occasional private aircraft pilot and friends pulls in and visits the town
but is actually far more likely just to refuel and leave.
and now just wants to enjoy flying
But that involves infrastructure that someone else has to provide and maintain. If I want to enjoy golf, I have to pay to use the golf course. If I want to enjoy car racing, I have to pay to use the track. But of course, flying should be free. Why? What makes your hobby so special compared to all the others people enjoy?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Golf courses and car race tracks have yet to prove themselves very valuable as pieces of defence capability, in their own right.

But I've tried. A wise mentor of mine advised me that you can lead a horse to water but you don't have to suck through its arse to make it drink.

[Vag277]

What is the justification for use of the aerodrome at no cost?

[tossbag]

The same as you use a road for 'nothing.' That's right, it's not nothing is it: rego, fuel excise, consolidated revenue, fines, council rates. You don't think you pay enough already? Add the bull**** of 'user pays' yet another tax.

Of course 'user pays' is not applied to EVERYTHING is it, otherwise you'd be paying for the kiddies to use local park facilities. I don't use the park facilities the indignant say, I don't have children the righteous say, they should pay, my council rates shouldn't be used for those facility repairs and how about the bludgers that come in from other council areas and use them????

User pays bull****. Universally applied to whatever service is 'provided' that they can get away with applying it to.

[Clinton McKenzie]

It is so typical of bureaucrats, isn’t it tossbag?

Private pilots are people who’ve apparently spent their lives successfully avoiding paying any kind of tax or charge and not making any other contribution to public infrastructure, now selfishly using aerodromes at ‘no cost’.

What is the justification for use of a primary school at ‘no cost’? Where do poor people get off, sending their children to get a ‘free’ education? Maybe it’s because we’re supposedly an advanced civilisation where education has an intrinsic value measured not just in dollars. It’s funded as a public good, out of the common wealth.

(I know: Private aviation has no intrinsic value. The skills and knowledge and capability are completely worthless to society. It’s just self-indulgence.)

The ALOP aerodromes were our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) land given to local councils with a large wadge of our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) money to be salted away to fund upkeep. Councils used it for other stuff. And that’s our fault, apparently.

I invested at YCTM because the Council had an enlightened understanding of the real value of the aerodrome. I pay rates. I spend lots in the local area. There’s a throughput charge for the Avgas bowser that goes to Council. And now Council wants to charge me a new fee because I’m using the aerodrome at ‘no cost’!

My preference is that Council charge only us ‘locals’ new fees because I do not want to deter visitors to YCTM. I want as many people as possible to use YTCM at ‘no cost’, because I know the real value of private aviation. And I’ll demonstrate to Council that which I’ve told them over and over again: The cost of collecting the fees will outweigh the fees collected. I’ll just reduce my Avgas purchases at YCTM and fill up at YTEM instead, such that the throughput charge I would otherwise have happily paid at YCTM outweighs the new fees I’m charged. Even bean-counting bureaucrats should be able to understand the folly. (There's a metaphor about using honey rather than vinegar to achieve a desired outcome.)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Golf courses and car race tracks have yet to prove themselves very valuable as pieces of defence capability, in their own right.
That's a pretty long bow to be reaching for, and a pretty spurious rationale as to why you should get to use it for free. It that's the best you can come up with, you're clutching at straws.
The ALOP aerodromes were our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) land given to local councils with a large wadge of our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) money to be salted away to fund upkeep
You do know how ALOP worked right? The Govt used to provide to local councils 50% of the funding required to maintain aerodromes in the Plan. Then between roughly 1988-1993, the Govt began unilaterally transferring their responsibilities 100% to the local councils, with provisos as to continuing operation as an aerodrome and restrictions on land use etc. the "large wadge" ($78M spread over 234 aerodromes) of taxpayers money was in the form of grants sufficient to offset operating losses (see, it was recognised at the time they were bottomless money pits - which is why the Feds wanted out) during the transfer of ownership and were generally considered sufficient to cover the net losses for the next 10 years. So essentially, that "large wadge" ran out 20 years ago, and councils have been covering 100% of the losses ever since. The grants were never expected to cover costs in perpetuity. If the council blew the funds immediately on other things within their remit, then they've been paying for the airport for 30 years out of their own pockets. So I don't buy into this ALOP hand-wringing. It's ancient history, and it's effects were over years ago.
This is from a Parliamentary Committee roughly 10 years after ALOP ceased discussing the effects: Aviation Report (https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=trs/aviation/report/chap4.pdf) They knew they were in trouble 20 years ago.
Private aviation has no intrinsic value. The skills and knowledge and capability are completely worthless to society. It’s just self-indulgence.
In it's most literal sense, yes. I don't know why you think society owes you something, or you have stepped outside the realms of ordinary, just because you can fly.

[Sunfish]

Care to think about the cost of a kilometer of two lane highway? ....And the associated maintenance costs.

Aerodrome maintenance is insignificant compared to road costs and the wear created by a GA aircraft is insignificant compared to a B double.

[Clinton McKenzie]

In it's most literal sense, yes. I don't know why you think society owes you something, or you have stepped outside the realms of ordinary, just because you can fly.That’s because in your lucky country, you’re comfortable that ‘someone else’ will always provide most of the country’s defence and commercial aviation materiel and capability. In your world, private aviation contributes nothing to that capability. There is an existential reason for civil aviation being part of the ‘cultural DNA’ of the USA. Experimental and general aviation in the USA are part of a fundamental foundation of the USA’s ongoing capability to design, construct, maintain and crew some of the best if not the best transport category civil aircraft and airborne defence systems on the planet.

Myriad aerodromes were part of Australia’s defence capability in WWII. Of course, there won’t be another set of circumstances in which Australia will have to try to be self-sufficient for more that a few weeks, will there. You can relax: Some other country will always come and save you.

I'm not 'owed' anything. I just don't like paying twice for something for which I've already paid, or being treated like I'm some kind of self-indulgent fringe dweller.

You evidently didn’t read, or if you did you didn’t understand, that the way in which the YCTM Council accounts for aerodrome expenses and income artificially exaggerates expenses and excludes actual income generated by aerodrome land. It’s only making a “loss” because actual money actually generated by actual aerodrome land is actually excluded as income. Unless and until I see the actual books and financial management practices in relation to any aerodrome, I don’t believe the claim that it’s making a loss. I’m sure the people making the claim will be able to point to a list of expenses and income, but it’s rarely the whole story. And often there's a strong incentive to paint the aerodrome in as worst possible light as it can be.

[tossbag]

It is so typical of bureaucrats, isn’t it tossbag?

And the user pay zealots who continually effing whinge about what they shouldn't have to pay for. I put one child through school but you put 6 through, you should pay more, I'm subsidising your children etc

(I know: Private aviation has no intrinsic value. The skills and knowledge and capability are completely worthless to society. It’s just self-indulgence.)

Somebody best advise all those pesky, bludger private pilots that cart around those in angelflights.

[Clinton McKenzie]

CASA's doing its level best to scaremonger 'community service flights' into the ground, too.

[Pinky the pilot]

There was a whisper going round my neck of the woods a while ago that one local Councillor (non-Aviation minded) wanted to introduce landing fees to all aircraft at the two airstrips in the area.

He was firmly told by fellow Councillors in words that could not be misinterpreted or misunderstood in any possible way to ''Fuggeddabowdit!":=

(I think the term actually used was something along the lines of STFU.:eek:)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Care to think about the cost of a kilometer of two lane highway? ....And the associated maintenance costs.

Aerodrome maintenance is insignificant compared to road costs
A kilometre of road can be used by anybody. A kilometre of aerodrome which must be maintained to a higher regulated and audited standard irrespective of whether it is in use or not, cannot. Do you have to put lights down either side of that kilometre of road if someone wants to use it at night? Do you have to mow the grass out to a certain distance either side of the road and keep it mowed before it is legal to use it? Do you have to produce and maintain a manual about how that kilometre of road is used? Do you have to publish nationally any change in the status of that road? Do you have to appoint, train, retain, and perhaps pay for a staff member or members who's sole function is to look after that single kilometre of road? Of course not. It again is a spurious argument.
you’re comfortable that ‘someone else’ will always provide most of the country’s defence and commercial aviation materiel and capability.
Joe Bloggs in his Cirrus doing a quick jolly around Port Phillip Bay is contributing to this how?
USA’s ongoing capability to design, construct, maintain and crew some of the best if not the best transport category civil aircraft and airborne defence systems on the planet.
I would suspect that having a truly massive military-industrial complex would have a little more to do with it.
Myriad aerodromes were part of Australia’s defence capability in WWII.
Eighty years ago in a completely different technological environment. Not that you're clutching at straws, but.......
I don't understand why you continue to conflate your reluctance to pay landing fees, with the future defence of this country? If you think the existence of such aerodromes is such a national necessity, pay the f*cking fees and help keep them open. Consider it as doing your bit.
I just don't like paying twice for something for which I've already paid,
What have you already paid for? Your taxes stopped paying for aerodromes 30 years ago, If you fly to another aerodrome outside your council area, you certainly haven't paid for any works done in the last 20 years that the ALOP grants didn't cover.
Somebody best advise all those pesky, bludger private pilots that cart around those in angelflights.
That's why I said "in it's most literal sense".Jim Bloggs taking someone to hospital because otherwise they can't get there, that's one thing. Joe taking taking his quick flit around the bay, doing the bare minimum to maintain currency, is just indulging his hobby. I would hazard there's a lot more of the latter in private flying than the former.

[Sunfish]

That's why I said "in it's most literal sense".Jim Bloggs taking someone to hospital because otherwise they can't get there, that's one thing. Joe taking taking his quick flit around the bay, doing the bare minimum to maintain currency, is just indulging his hobby. I would hazard there's a lot more of the latter in private flying than the former.

Two weeks ago I decided to return to my old haunts and headed for the Dig Tree.

Preparation involved the purchase of 150L of unleaded from the local servo ($270), sundry bits and pieces like a new phone charger, emergency water and food, spare oil, fuel and oil filters just in case a tool roll and tie down kit. Travel via waypoints YSHT, YECH, YKER, YSWH, YWTO to YBHI. Two stops for comfort breaks and a sandwich.

Three nights in Broken Hill and two days car hire plus meals. ($1000).

Three very very wonderful days and nights at YARK - Arkaroola.( Accomodation food and fuel about $900). if you haven't been there put it on you bucket list! Doug Sprigg, as always, is the perfect host. Arkaroola is a very special place....and then two inches of overnight rain and Three around Innamincka put paid to going further North. The trip back took two days and cost about $600.

Total spend at least $2770, it would have been more if the airstrip wasn't flooded at the tree because I was planning YINN and YTIB on the way home. = Now this is just one old fart going away for a week. I dont have time to do the trip in a landcruiser these days (i'd still be stuck because the roads are closed, but that is another matter).

Now consider some of my friends and acquaintances - Mum Dad and two kids in a C182 who want to see a lot of Australia but are time poor or the retired couple in their Bonanza who like a luxury getaway every now and then - they were going IFR back to YMMB from YARK in an afternoon! There are plenty of people who have money to spend, are time poor and want to go special places where Qantas doesn't fly. Both of those acquaintances will spend three or four times what I spend.

GA travellers hemorrhage money into local communities everywhere they go - and those places aren't necessarily frequented by grey nomads with caravans and the majority of the aviators spending doesnt show up directly in Council accounts.

However to do any of this travel, you need the GA infrastructure to support it. Engineers, spare parts, fuel, airports. I am relatively self sufficient. In a certified VH registered aircraft you are less so, You need the infrastructure and every time an aviation business closes, anywhere, perhaps because of a bloody minded council raising rents, our options and freedom of action just got reduced because we have one less supplier.

Now when you consider the above and the barriers that the Government through CASA and local government put in the way of private pilots, you just might get a sense of the economic potential of even this small part of GA if we could only unlock it..

[tossbag]

How dare you, you privileged, white, boomer, male, owner of inner city real estate that has increased exponentially in value, mysogynist, sexist, racist, pilot (what have I missed?) How dare you expect basic services, how dare you expect a runway to be the same as a highway, you elite prick!

[Pinky the pilot]

How dare you, you privileged, white, boomer, male, owner of inner city real estate that has increased exponentially in value, mysogynist, sexist, racist, pilot (what have I missed?) How dare you expect basic services, how dare you expect a runway to be the same as a highway, you elite prick!

Very good parody there, Tossbag!:ok: Exactly the sort of rant I'd expect from a card-carrying member of the Greens Party!:D

Except that the rants I have heard from the above mentioned Watermelon Party members didn't bring up any mention of inner city real estate ownership, mainly because that is exactly what they were! ie Owners of inner city real estate.

It's great to have a 'social concience' when you are better off financially than the rest of the sweating masses!:rolleyes:

[tossbag]

Pinky, every socialist/communist do gooder in this country, like Cannon Brookes, Turnbull, Forrest et al, coincidentally have made their fortune first, then turn into a zealot, go figure

[gerry111]

Pinky, every socialist/communist do gooder in this country, like Cannon Brookes, Turnbull, Forrest et al, coincidentally have made their fortune first, then turn into a zealot, go figure
All's not lost just yet, tossbag. I'm sure Twiggy's still a pretty shrewd capitalist!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

How dare you expect basic services, how dare you expect a runway to be the same as a highway,
But it's not a basic service, and it's not a highway. It's like saying the council has to provide a golf course, just because you want to play golf. It's a piece of privately owned infrastructure that the owners have every right to charge a fee for the use of if they so desire, much as should the council decide to provide a council owned golf course, they're going to charge you a fee to use it. I don't like paying for the use of the council swimming pool or putting money in a parking meter any more than the next rate payer, but I don't throw my dummy out of the cot ranting "it's so not fair, I've already paid for all this" when I do. Or is it only selective? When you go to Byron Bay, do you also bitch about paying at the parking meter (and they are literally everywhere), and refuse to, on the basis you're bringing so much money into the town?

[KRviator]

But it's not a basic service, and it's not a highway.Quite right. But it is still an entry point into the town. And if you want me to visit, don't charge me such high fees unless you charge everyone else who enters town. Afterall, ratepayers fund (most) roads in their LGA's.
I don't like paying for the use of the council swimming pool or putting money in a parking meter any more than the next rate payer, but I don't throw my dummy out of the cot ranting "it's so not fair, I've already paid for all this" when I do. Or is it only selective? When you go to Byron Bay, do you also bitch about paying at the parking meter (and they are literally everywhere), and refuse to, on the basis you're bringing so much money into the town?When the Council has paid parking, then paying for parking on their aerodrome is fair, IMHO. But not if they have no paid parking in their LGA - because they are being selective in who they charge. Why charge aircraft ("to maintain the airport and cover the budget to do so" in your words) when the road budget for most Council's is significantly higher than the aerodrome budget? When you go to the Council swimming pool, do you pay for parking in the pool carpark - or do you just pay an entry fee for the pool?

Would it not make more sense to have toll roads and paid parking to offset the expenses incurred in maintaining the Council road network? Of course. But most regional Council's don't. Why? Because they know full well it'd be political suicide to introduce paid parking at Temora, or Narromine, or Scone - but those rich pilots who dare fly in? They're fair game at most airports.

[neville_nobody]

Pinky, every socialist/communist do gooder in this country, like Cannon Brookes, Turnbull, Forrest et al, coincidentally have made their fortune first, then turn into a zealot, go figure

Yes that's the way it usually works out because once you become really rich you want to protect your wealth at all cost second to none. So your allegiances to anything including country are thrown out the window. Once you're at the top of the tree Socialism is probably the best way of protecting your wealth as it stops any type of educated middle class kid inventing something that is a threat to your business or wealth. It also reduces the availability of health and various other technologies/luxuries to the middle classes. And if you are invaded by say a Communist Country you can either leave to another country or just join the upper echelons of the invaders and preserve your wealth while the middle classes are destroyed.

[neville_nobody]

When the Council has paid parking, then paying for parking on their aerodrome is fair, IMHO. But not if they have no paid parking in their LGA - because they are being selective in who they charge. Why charge aircraft ("to maintain the airport and cover the budget to do so" in your words) when the road budget for most Council's is significantly higher than the aerodrome budget? When you go to the Council swimming pool, do you pay for parking in the pool carpark - or do you just pay an entry fee for the pool?

Would it not make more sense to have toll roads and paid parking to offset the expenses incurred in maintaining the Council road network? Of course. But most regional Council's don't. Why? Because they know full well it'd be political suicide to introduce paid parking at Temora, or Narromine, or Scone - but those rich pilots who dare fly in? They're fair game at most airports.

It's a very Australian thing but governments in this country seem to hate aviation and I have never really understood why. Whether that is a full blown conspiracy or just the nature of bureaucracy I don't know. Most likely the latter however it is everywhere. It is almost like governments in this country do not want any aviation activity to exist at all. Roads and railways are the only "approved" form of transport and they will subsidise those inefficient forms of transport forever regardless of cost, be it environmental or monetary.

[tossbag]

But it's not a basic service, and it's not a highway. It's like saying the council has to provide a golf course, just because you want to play golf. It's a piece of privately owned infrastructure that the owners have every right to charge a fee for the use of if they so desire, much as should the council decide to provide a council owned golf course, they're going to charge you a fee to use it. I don't like paying for the use of the council swimming pool or putting money in a parking meter any more than the next rate payer, but I don't throw my dummy out of the cot ranting "it's so not fair, I've already paid for all this" when I do. Or is it only selective? When you go to Byron Bay, do you also bitch about paying at the parking meter (and they are literally everywhere), and refuse to, on the basis you're bringing so much money into the town?

mmmm, yeah, Byron Bay is not really my scene.

[tossbag]

All's not lost just yet, tossbag. I'm sure Twiggy's still a pretty shrewd capitalist!

None of the new found socialists complete with their new found conscience ever pull stumps on the wealth generation.

For the record, I don't care how much wealth a hard working person makes, when it comes with the sanctimonious bull**** it's on the nose.

[Clinton McKenzie]

As usual, TIEW, you paint the narrowest and most negative picture of private aviation you can. People going on a “quick flit around the bay, doing the bare minimum to maintain currency, is just indulging his hobby.” Are you able to explain how you know what every private pilot does each and every time he or she goes flying? And now you presume to tell me how to spend my money.

Sounding a bit arrogant to me, TIEW.

In a group I follow a question recently came up about what someone described as a ‘zipper’ in the wings of the Sabre at Temora. (Coincidentally, I fitted an upgraded VHF to the aircraft when it was being refurbished at 2AD.) The ‘zipper’ is a piano hinge. Same system used on the wings of the Bonanza I used to fly. Same system used on the cowling of the RV9A I currently fly. Same system used on the Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. And…same system used on tens of thousands of other in-service military aircraft.

I know this is going to sound really corny to some in the lucky country, but the experimental aviation sector in the USA has the capability to build B52 bomber airframes. Same techniques as used to build many ‘light aircraft’. Most of the people who fly those military aircraft in the USA start out in private aviation. That’s one of the reasons why experimental and private aviation is not seen as a fringe dwelling indulgence in the USA. They are encouraged and nurtured. The USA doesn’t have the luxury of relying on anyone else to defend it. And the USA knows that aviation capability can’t be created overnight.

What military aircraft could Australia build from the ‘ground up’? Who cares, someone else will build them. Pilots? Import them too. Kick back and relax.

The current ‘received wisdom’ is that Australia has the capability to sustain a fight for about two weeks. Plenty of time for someone else to step in and save us. Private civilian aviation is just an unnecessary indulgence.

[tossbag]

Clinton, you're wasting your time mate, he/she knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing. Go to Byron Bay you elitist and pay some airport parking why don't ya.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No, I just think that the argument that local aerodromes charging a landing fee has resulted in this country being unable to build indigenous 5th generation fighter aircraft is a particularly stupid one. In the years preceding the end of the ALOP scheme, we weren't exactly an aviation powerhouse, so nothing has changed. You think Russia or China or anyone else likely to attack us has a massive military because they have a healthy GA sector? You think the RAAF is struggling for pilot applicants because noone applying already has their PPL?
Private civilian aviation is just an unnecessary indulgence.
To probably 99.99% of the Australian population, that's exactly how it's seen. To Bruce and Sheila, standing around their backyard barbie, looking up at Sunfish fly over on his way to YARK, do you think that they think he is performing some function vital to the future history of this nation? That's if they even look up. No one gives a sh*t about whether you have to pay landing fees or not, or whether you feel hard done by.

[aroa]

Someone mentioned the airstrip is privately owned. That may be so for some, but the Council run airstrip is actually a Shire asset in which each ratepayer who all fund the council have a a1/25,000 th share, or whatever the population base for the shire is
Owned in effect by we, the people. Not that the non airfield wise or non aviationist, control freaks in the council would acknowledge.

A ratepayer in town will drive his $100k flash Landcruiser on local roads , along with the hordes of $200 RVs visitors..no fee.
The $50 k homebuilt owner, airfield hanger ratepayer or fly in visitor uses the strip… fees.
Discrimination?

In some places these fees are obscene amounts, locally, chicken sh*t…but with Avdata, council get practically bugger all, so the income for the strip hardly benefits at all.

As the airfield is not seen as a vital piece of local infrastructure, they don’t spend millions on it annually as with parks, ponds and gardens. Mow the grass, fix the odd pothole, and whinge about the cost.

Its a worry.

[le Pingouin]

The difference is every resident can use the road be it on foot, by bicycle, or other vehicle of their choice. Very few can use the aerodrome. What percentage of residents have ever been on a flight from the local aerodrome, let alone park an aircraft there?

[Sunfish]

Penguin: Very few can use the aerodrome. What percentage of residents have ever been on a flight from the local aerodrome, let alone park an aircraft there?

And he answer is (drum roll): About a tenth of what the numbers should be if we had FAA style regulation and an informed council.

The "user pays" argument spirals downward as an ever decreasing number of aircraft owners are asked to share a steadily increasing burden.....until the owner of the last hangar gets a bill for the entire cost of the strip and is bankrupt.

You need to look up the definition of a "Public Good".

And another thing..... I am continually surprised at the number of people I meet who say: "Oh I had a pilots licence once, but I let it all lapse - didnt use it enough" or "I took flying lessons 30 years ago but never got the licence". These are a broad cross section of society from suburban mums to submariners.

Makes you think what we could have if we dreamed bigger,

[le Pingouin]

I'm not the one who needs to look it up - it's those who want an aerodrome with reasonable fees who do, so they can try to convince the council and other ratepayers.

[Vag277]

Sunfish et al

The regulations have nothing to do with people's interest in flying for fun. Those not involved are unaware and if made aware are potentially frightened off by the uninformed scare monger fraternity.
I live in an area with many public and private GA supported aerodromes.The opposition, based on noise complaints and "why are we paying for this thing we don't need", is constant from local residents and ratepayer in general. They do not care about a few score jobs on site, they see no community benefit.The EMS service is provided by helicopters operating out of an industrial area and they complain about noise from the EMS helicopters. They certainly do not want to pay for aerodromes that do not have RPT ops. There are a few notable exceptions but even Temora has community noise complainers.

Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics

[aroa]

What is the ‘public good’ of NOT having an aerodrome.?
Joe Blow who might never have been there, might be thankful it was when RFDS lobbed in to fly him off to life saving medical care.
Those that complain about passing noise don’t mind the water bomber when it dumps on the bush and saves their house.
Pollies fly in, Police services too. AG operators. RAAF drop in to collect Air Cadets, FIFO mine ops, Air taxis, rotary and fixed wing maintenance shops that employ people, a gliding club…all of benefit to the town.

Sunny is right. If aviation wasn’t swamped with the unnecessary, incomprehensible complexities and bs by CAsA, there would be the environment to flourish like in the US. And many more aerodrome users.
Alas.
I have heard the comment many times,..Started to learn, or got a ppl but went away because of the BS and the hurdles..eg ASIC nonsense for one.
Those that persist with home building, restoring, and flying by whatever means, do so because of the freedom flight and the machinery…In spite of CASA not because of it.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I note that no one is predicting that the YCTM council will take me up on my offer to relieve council of the burden of operating and maintaining the aerodrome. All council needs to do is transfer the remaining original aerodrome land to me at the same price council paid for it, and I will take on responsibility for operation and maintenance.

Why wouldn’t council jump at the chance to rid itself of the burden of operating and maintaining something whose benefit is not justified by the expense? If it’s all downside for council, the business case for divestment writes itself, surely.

I’ll be paying real rates for the land, rather than council charging itself in a ‘zero sum gain’ accounting transaction. I’ll be the one spending money and I won’t be charging landing fees or parking fees. (I will, as the council does, charge a ‘throughput’ margin on the Avgas bowser. And of course I will be getting the income from the fenced off land used for agriculture, which income doesn’t appear on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. And of course I will be getting the proceeds of the sale of further subdivided blocks of land, which hasn’t in the past appeared on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. I suppose I could give ‘crying poor’ a go, but I doubt many would be sympathetic.)

Any member of the public may currently use YCTM aerodrome as an aerodrome. Same as any other public aerodrome. No requirement to be a pilot or to have any other qualification. And i’m not talking about just medical patients.

To fly for fun, you have to learn to fly. To learn to fly, you have to find a flying school. Many aerodromes that used to have a flying school no longer have one. I learned to fly at a place that had 6 flying schools. Now it has none. Anyone who says that that outcome has nothing to do with increased regulatory complexity nor aerodrome charging regimes should consider a career in a government bureaucracy. Ditto those who think modern military aerospace capability somehow no longer depends on a long and wide logistics tail requiring facilities and skills that are slowly atrophying in Australia.

[Sunfish]

Vag: Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics

I think your opinion is understandable but misguided. Firstly, some councils do "get it" about aviation and they are going to make a meal, economically, out of those that don't. just as at least one country has done the same by being 'aviation minded".

There are three effects you need to consider:

The first is the multiplier effect. conventional economics estimate that one skilled job producing goods and services supports about eight unskilled service industry jobs - coffee shops, supermarkets, retail, gardening and so on. The multiplier effect is not inconsiderable, so it is not hard to understand that a flying school with say four or five instructors, or a similarly sized aircraft maintenance facility is contributing to the existence of at least four times that number of unskilled jobs in the service industries. So that is reason number one to support and encourage economic activity at your airport - it provides jobs in the general community. Do I need to explain how that is beneficial to council?

The second is infrastructure. Contrary to your belief, military aviation does rely on some but not all of the same service industries that civil aviation does. How do I know this? Because even way back in my working days there were many companies that did military work as well as civil, especially in sophisticated repair and overhaul. Then the military also relies on some but not all of the same consumables and spares as civil aviation the supply chains are long because of where we are and the preponderance of American suppliers. And Yes, last time I looked at a Hornet (which was long ago), some of the sheet metal was stretch formed and supplied with an index hole at each corner. It was fitted exactly the same way as an amateur builder does today - clecos and back drilling, So don't fall for the line that military aviation is different. It isn't. Furthermore drones also use a lot of conventional GA technology. And on top of that GA - experimental often uses some cutting edge electronics and materials as well.

As it is now, I struggled to find Australian sources for aviation tools and consumables and spent a small fortune (at least $4000) on pre covid freight costs on everything from tools to instruments and hardware. try finding short stub drill bits #30 for a right angle air drill. try getting an Australian company to make an aviation hose assembly. What infrastructure we have left is already under threat.

The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better. The more industries that cluster together, the more they attract customers from other airports. hence if your council doesnt support your local airport, its businesses and the service jobs they support will migrate to an industry cluster somewhere else, supported by a council that 'gets it".

A classic opportunity: Point Cook (YMPCK) is the oldest continuously operating airbase in the world. it is also the home of the RAAF museum and has (had?) workshops and a huge body of volunteers who developed expertise restoring old aircraft. ...And across the Bay YMMB - all aviation businesses under pressure to close or leave. Same at Tyabb including considerable vintage aircraft restoration and maintenance capability. The vision: develop YMPCK as the Australian centre for the preservation, restoration, maintenance and operational flight instructional base for historic aircraft by migrating unwanted businesses out of Tyabb, YMMB and elsewhere. Yes, I know it ain't going to happen, but its a pity.

On a national level, look at NZ aviation - its gone from arguably a situation worse than ours to thriving. They "get it".

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

This would be the same thriving industry that had their main manufacturer insolvent last year?

[Sunfish]

What do you suggest Traffic? Sit around and whine?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It seems to be what some sections of GA do best?
The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better.
That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.

[43Inches]

Apart from the historical importance of Point Cook, it has very little going for it. local community hates it with more and more development encroaching on it's boundaries. Then you have silly CASA requirements like a warbird can not fly over a populated area, for whatever stupid reason. If you wanted to try to turn it into a warbird hub it would be a constant struggle to keep it there. Tyabb has it's own problems however apart from a vocal minority the community is pretty accepting of the airport, unfortunately the opponents are also rich developers so they keep at it. Both airports are close to the coast especially Pt Cook, with means salt and corrosion issues for long term parking. Temora is really the best place for the warbird scene to build a hub with it already set up there.

[Sunfish]

It seems to be what some sections of GA do best?

That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.

But Coles and Woolies are BOTH at the shopping centre. Hotelling is why you find hungry jacks, KFC and Maccas clustered. Consumers like choice. That is why we have open air markets and historic localities in old cities for goods such as jewellery, leather goods, even electronics, etc. It is also partly why we have medical industry clusters like the Parkville strip.

43 inches is right about YMPCK it is too late. The real estate creeps have been telling prospective buyers around Point Cook: “Oh the airbase? I hear it’s closing next year”. They have been lying about that for at least 15 years. I remember angry residents with airbase protest signs on their front lawns circa 2005.