Illawarra Regional Airport Two
Join Date: May 2005
Location: coast
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARE YOU SERIOUS??
Mr Aquaboy,
Are you serious,Your telling us that some six years back,after Mr Aerowasp had a checkride in a jet, the airport manager come up to Mr Aerowasp in a drunken state after drinking at the airport restaurant and started to abuse him and his staff, for WHAT breaching his D.A (HOW?),
Obviously Aerowasp's staff are witnesses to this?
Then you say the airport manager after being evicted from Aerowasps office stood outside yelling you don't know who your dealing with and while his a##e points to the ground
he will never let Mr aerowasp renew his hangar lease again!
(CHARMING), Was this on the managers day off too?,using
his so called authority in a druken state!
If all of this is true people this is nothing more than a
PERSONAL VANDETTA!!
MR BATOR........
Are you serious,Your telling us that some six years back,after Mr Aerowasp had a checkride in a jet, the airport manager come up to Mr Aerowasp in a drunken state after drinking at the airport restaurant and started to abuse him and his staff, for WHAT breaching his D.A (HOW?),
Obviously Aerowasp's staff are witnesses to this?
Then you say the airport manager after being evicted from Aerowasps office stood outside yelling you don't know who your dealing with and while his a##e points to the ground
he will never let Mr aerowasp renew his hangar lease again!
(CHARMING), Was this on the managers day off too?,using
his so called authority in a druken state!
If all of this is true people this is nothing more than a
PERSONAL VANDETTA!!
MR BATOR........
Dear Mr PPruNe Towers,
So you're able to make a better-informed assessment of this topic's promotion within the pages of this forum and its continuation, please consider this...
Wollongong, until recently, was a small (almost community) airport which needed improvement work and serviced a fortunate group of people operating ultralight, light aircraft and more recently, the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society. Over the years, like many, the airport has also been encroached by residential development.
It would be fair to say that a good cross-section and all age groups within the aviation community are having their interests well-served by the airport's existence.
Unfortunately, it would also be obvious (to me at least) that this particular group of people would not be capable, on their own, to support and justify the continuation of this airport (purely at a business level) when the pressure on the administering authority to make greater financial gain by closing the airport in favour of urban re-development, would be significant.
I have no actual information to base this statement on, but it's fair speculation as the concept of airport closures in this environment is not new - within our same geographical area, this recently occurred at Swansea (with plenty of coverage in this forum) and pressure would exist on similar closures through population growth rates.
The single point giving me the greatest amount of difficulty about this topic, is that the airport's administering organisation has moved away from all recent trends and supported the continuation of the airport through capital investment and a significant upgrade in its efforts to sustain the airport's viability.
This topic, rather than providing any recognition of the positive aspects of this, has continually criticised the authority and the airport in, it would seem, the pursuit of a small group of people's interpretation of justice at any cost.
Should I be questioning the methods or mistakes of the authority? Do issues as significant as this one, ever exist in 'black and white' terms? I'd suggest it falls into that category and if some interpret this as apathy, I accept the criticism. I continue to add though, that beliefs in my apparent apathy might be more credible had I jumped in after 5 posts rather than 250. The affected people have received fair and resonable coverage of their case.
I've speculated that many of the contributors to this forum would exist within the group opposed to the airport's continuation and I maintain that belief on the basis of the contentious arguments put here about safety, security and inadequacy. To those contributors who are not opposed to the airport, but are endeavouring to bring about justice through this forum, you may achieve your result at the ultimate price of airport closure.
If the topic is to focus on the behaviour of the SCC, rather than the merits of the Illawarra Regional Airport, then please give it a new, more appropriate title.
If the new title would (accurately) decribe personal accounts of dealings with local government, why does it belong in a forum connected with aviation and the professional pilots supporting it?
Rob, please take the time to give this due consideration and make a qualified call on its merits. "Too bored" is an over-simplified view.
So you're able to make a better-informed assessment of this topic's promotion within the pages of this forum and its continuation, please consider this...
Wollongong, until recently, was a small (almost community) airport which needed improvement work and serviced a fortunate group of people operating ultralight, light aircraft and more recently, the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society. Over the years, like many, the airport has also been encroached by residential development.
It would be fair to say that a good cross-section and all age groups within the aviation community are having their interests well-served by the airport's existence.
Unfortunately, it would also be obvious (to me at least) that this particular group of people would not be capable, on their own, to support and justify the continuation of this airport (purely at a business level) when the pressure on the administering authority to make greater financial gain by closing the airport in favour of urban re-development, would be significant.
I have no actual information to base this statement on, but it's fair speculation as the concept of airport closures in this environment is not new - within our same geographical area, this recently occurred at Swansea (with plenty of coverage in this forum) and pressure would exist on similar closures through population growth rates.
The single point giving me the greatest amount of difficulty about this topic, is that the airport's administering organisation has moved away from all recent trends and supported the continuation of the airport through capital investment and a significant upgrade in its efforts to sustain the airport's viability.
This topic, rather than providing any recognition of the positive aspects of this, has continually criticised the authority and the airport in, it would seem, the pursuit of a small group of people's interpretation of justice at any cost.
Should I be questioning the methods or mistakes of the authority? Do issues as significant as this one, ever exist in 'black and white' terms? I'd suggest it falls into that category and if some interpret this as apathy, I accept the criticism. I continue to add though, that beliefs in my apparent apathy might be more credible had I jumped in after 5 posts rather than 250. The affected people have received fair and resonable coverage of their case.
I've speculated that many of the contributors to this forum would exist within the group opposed to the airport's continuation and I maintain that belief on the basis of the contentious arguments put here about safety, security and inadequacy. To those contributors who are not opposed to the airport, but are endeavouring to bring about justice through this forum, you may achieve your result at the ultimate price of airport closure.
If the topic is to focus on the behaviour of the SCC, rather than the merits of the Illawarra Regional Airport, then please give it a new, more appropriate title.
If the new title would (accurately) decribe personal accounts of dealings with local government, why does it belong in a forum connected with aviation and the professional pilots supporting it?
Rob, please take the time to give this due consideration and make a qualified call on its merits. "Too bored" is an over-simplified view.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Coast
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ultra,
Please don't waste our time and your negative mentallity here,
A person like you would do well at Shellharbour City Council, I hear their looking for a new mayor and general manager real SOON!!
Mav..........
Please don't waste our time and your negative mentallity here,
A person like you would do well at Shellharbour City Council, I hear their looking for a new mayor and general manager real SOON!!
Mav..........
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CENTRAL SYDNEY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like a moth to the flame
Ultra,
You really are starting to sound desperate. What is your problem? The exposure of the victimization of Aerowasp? I suspect 95% of the industry deplores what has is happening to Aerowasp, it could happen to anyone at AP. The accounts of the poor quality of the runway upgrade? Are these not true? The reporting of the breaches of air safety? The reporting of the poor state of security at the air field? Not true? This should be a major concern. The reporting of the serious incident on Sunday? Why are these not aviation matters. Why are all these subjects not worthy of discussion? Why do you think you have the right to call time?
If you don’t like it stop reading the thread. At worse there are 20 people in Shellharbour reading this outside the aviation industry. It appears the person who reads it most is the GM who keeps referring to it as a concerted internet attack. Pprune must have hit the big time up there compared with Google. Rob please put up your advertising rates.
You seem obsessed with closing this down mainly because of the Aerowasp complaint but I sense another reason. Pleases tell us why? Does the truth hurt that much? I have seen few posts stating that anything posted here is not mostly correct.
You now attempt the blackmail approach. If you keep complaining the airport might have to close. Sounds pretty desperate to me sounds like you might me Larry, Curly or Barney or at least a close associate. If you believe the people who are not behaving responsibly at the air field should be protected then I think most people in the industry would welcome your departure from it.
Finally another point that might upset you. The council has never got a proper approval to upgrade the runway. This seems to be the rat bags biggest objection. Instead of cheering a pro airport council everybody reading this should shudder. This means that at any time the rat bags (if they get the money) can appeal the upgrade to the courts and potentially get it deemed unlawful. What happens then to all the operators who move into the airport in good faith? They find they cannot run their business if they have aircraft over say 12 tonnes. This is a possible outcome and legal advice when i looked at getting a hangar there. Beware. And ultra please do not complain, the unsuspecting victims of the council deserve to know.
You really are starting to sound desperate. What is your problem? The exposure of the victimization of Aerowasp? I suspect 95% of the industry deplores what has is happening to Aerowasp, it could happen to anyone at AP. The accounts of the poor quality of the runway upgrade? Are these not true? The reporting of the breaches of air safety? The reporting of the poor state of security at the air field? Not true? This should be a major concern. The reporting of the serious incident on Sunday? Why are these not aviation matters. Why are all these subjects not worthy of discussion? Why do you think you have the right to call time?
If you don’t like it stop reading the thread. At worse there are 20 people in Shellharbour reading this outside the aviation industry. It appears the person who reads it most is the GM who keeps referring to it as a concerted internet attack. Pprune must have hit the big time up there compared with Google. Rob please put up your advertising rates.
You seem obsessed with closing this down mainly because of the Aerowasp complaint but I sense another reason. Pleases tell us why? Does the truth hurt that much? I have seen few posts stating that anything posted here is not mostly correct.
You now attempt the blackmail approach. If you keep complaining the airport might have to close. Sounds pretty desperate to me sounds like you might me Larry, Curly or Barney or at least a close associate. If you believe the people who are not behaving responsibly at the air field should be protected then I think most people in the industry would welcome your departure from it.
Finally another point that might upset you. The council has never got a proper approval to upgrade the runway. This seems to be the rat bags biggest objection. Instead of cheering a pro airport council everybody reading this should shudder. This means that at any time the rat bags (if they get the money) can appeal the upgrade to the courts and potentially get it deemed unlawful. What happens then to all the operators who move into the airport in good faith? They find they cannot run their business if they have aircraft over say 12 tonnes. This is a possible outcome and legal advice when i looked at getting a hangar there. Beware. And ultra please do not complain, the unsuspecting victims of the council deserve to know.
Last edited by doesn't look good; 1st Jun 2005 at 21:32.
Ultra, I suggest that what you are saying has a certain surface of rationality, however there are deeper issues here.
No one is arguing against the idea of developing a sustainable airport at Illawarra, nor the idea of an aerospace cluster of businesses or whatever. These are noble objectives.
Now lets cut to reality.
Point one: There are plans to develop Archerfield, Moorabbin, Point Cook, Essendon, Bankstown, Illawarra, Jandakot and Parafield and any other signifigant airport.
These plans sit in the drawers of municiple authorities, property developers, State Governments and merchant banks. The persons concerned can tell you to the nearest thousand dollars what the land is worth in an undeveloped, semi developed and fully developed state.
They can also tell you what enabling legislation, regulation and zoning changes are required. Together with an outline project plan and timeline.
All of these plans, and there are multiple ones for each airport, are there on a "what if" basis against the day that the political climate would allow the closure of any of these airports.
All airport charges are related to the return on investment required to match the returns that would be generated by property development less a discount for community perceptions of the utility of the airport
No, I'm not joking and I'm not paranoid either. Its the job of property developers to do these plans so they are not caught flat footed.
Now if there is a major accident at any of these airports involving loss of life to people underneath the flightpath, then there is going to be an immediate push for any or all of these airports to be closed "as a danger to the community".
To put it another way mate, one more Partenavia through the fence at Essendon, a lighty crashing on a brand new house near Point Cook, let alone a Connie going through the fence at Illawarra and your airport will go.
Against this background, one has to expect that airports will be managed professionally else they will disappear.
It is alleged that the management of Illawarra airport is both unsafe and unprofessional. Examples include:
1) Alleged safety violations by HARS and a failure to meet its supposed community and financial projections.
2) Alleged promotion of fast jet thrill rides that may be not be legally possible from this airport.
3) An alleged vendetta against an apparently profitable and sustainable operator.
4) An alleged botched runway upgrade, and understrength pavement for the aircraft using it that is regularly damaged by operations. (One wonders, if it really has not been approved whethe Qantas can legally fly to it?0
5) Alleged safety violations involving a car and a helicopter.
6) Apparent replacement of viable operators with non viable or trivial operators.
Given these matters, one has to wonder if Illawarra regional airport is actually being set up to fail financially so that there is community support for its closure and conversion to more "profitable" uses.
So yes, Ultra, we are concerend because the alleged activities (or lack of them) threatens the viability of the airport itself. Sitting around watching the slow motion train wreck is one option, but it is not the best one from an aviators point of view.
On a final note, I will bet $5 to the charity of your choice that the desired outcome of the mayor's visit to Sydney is an inquiry into the airport. The purpose of the inquiry of course is to blunt and suppress criticism. The terms will be narrow, it will be conducted by a Labor "Mate" in private with no public scrutiny or participation possible and the outcome will be a predetermined whitewash. The results will be announced on a "suitable" day - (good friday, boxing day, Anzac day, Christmas, any time when the public is not looking) and the culprits will be long gone by then anyway.
I suspect Mr. Aerowasp's only hope is a very quick injunction to prevent his eviction.
No one is arguing against the idea of developing a sustainable airport at Illawarra, nor the idea of an aerospace cluster of businesses or whatever. These are noble objectives.
Now lets cut to reality.
Point one: There are plans to develop Archerfield, Moorabbin, Point Cook, Essendon, Bankstown, Illawarra, Jandakot and Parafield and any other signifigant airport.
These plans sit in the drawers of municiple authorities, property developers, State Governments and merchant banks. The persons concerned can tell you to the nearest thousand dollars what the land is worth in an undeveloped, semi developed and fully developed state.
They can also tell you what enabling legislation, regulation and zoning changes are required. Together with an outline project plan and timeline.
All of these plans, and there are multiple ones for each airport, are there on a "what if" basis against the day that the political climate would allow the closure of any of these airports.
All airport charges are related to the return on investment required to match the returns that would be generated by property development less a discount for community perceptions of the utility of the airport
No, I'm not joking and I'm not paranoid either. Its the job of property developers to do these plans so they are not caught flat footed.
Now if there is a major accident at any of these airports involving loss of life to people underneath the flightpath, then there is going to be an immediate push for any or all of these airports to be closed "as a danger to the community".
To put it another way mate, one more Partenavia through the fence at Essendon, a lighty crashing on a brand new house near Point Cook, let alone a Connie going through the fence at Illawarra and your airport will go.
Against this background, one has to expect that airports will be managed professionally else they will disappear.
It is alleged that the management of Illawarra airport is both unsafe and unprofessional. Examples include:
1) Alleged safety violations by HARS and a failure to meet its supposed community and financial projections.
2) Alleged promotion of fast jet thrill rides that may be not be legally possible from this airport.
3) An alleged vendetta against an apparently profitable and sustainable operator.
4) An alleged botched runway upgrade, and understrength pavement for the aircraft using it that is regularly damaged by operations. (One wonders, if it really has not been approved whethe Qantas can legally fly to it?0
5) Alleged safety violations involving a car and a helicopter.
6) Apparent replacement of viable operators with non viable or trivial operators.
Given these matters, one has to wonder if Illawarra regional airport is actually being set up to fail financially so that there is community support for its closure and conversion to more "profitable" uses.
So yes, Ultra, we are concerend because the alleged activities (or lack of them) threatens the viability of the airport itself. Sitting around watching the slow motion train wreck is one option, but it is not the best one from an aviators point of view.
On a final note, I will bet $5 to the charity of your choice that the desired outcome of the mayor's visit to Sydney is an inquiry into the airport. The purpose of the inquiry of course is to blunt and suppress criticism. The terms will be narrow, it will be conducted by a Labor "Mate" in private with no public scrutiny or participation possible and the outcome will be a predetermined whitewash. The results will be announced on a "suitable" day - (good friday, boxing day, Anzac day, Christmas, any time when the public is not looking) and the culprits will be long gone by then anyway.
I suspect Mr. Aerowasp's only hope is a very quick injunction to prevent his eviction.
Last edited by Sunfish; 31st May 2005 at 22:26.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultra,
Just a couple of points you might like to consider before employing your scare tactics to have this thread shut down:
Airport Closure
Shellharbour City Circus ARE NOT the owners of the airport - they are meerly the custodians. Under the provisions where these airports were handed to local governments for administration, sale of the airports CANNOT be affected without permission from the Minister. As with the case of Goulburn, this is not that easy to achieve and any sale MUST be proved to benefit the community.
Airport Income
Might come as a surprise, but council has just ditched THE ONLY COMMERCIAL OPERATOR on the airport paying full commercial rates! HARS is fully discounted with cheap rent and even cheaper landing fees. The AAP receives their rent back annually as a grant from council. The truth is the airport has been a charity basket case for years and through mismanagement and maladministration, has been a huge impass on the community for years.
Airport Upgrade
The community has been questioning the council for ages about how the upgrade was done in the manner it was - that's all. In this community, not unlike heaps of others in this state, that are so over-regulated by local councils, that you can't f**t without undertaking an EIS first, the upgrade seemed to circumvent all the normal processes applied by council. No tender, no EIS, very limited consultation etc etc etc. People want answers why this was allowed to happen and that's all. Anyone who questions the requirement for an EIS needs to understand that the upgrade has significantly changed (potentially) the fundamental role of the airport. The upgrade, had it been properly done, would have allowed significantly larger aircraft to operate from the airport thereby changing significantly the use and role of the airport without community consultation or consideration.
Council Administration
SCC is run like a mini empire with the King and Queen sitting at the head dictating to their subjects........and quite frankly, the community (including the aviation community) have had a gutfull! We have a GM and Mayor continually on the television, radio and in the papers whinging about all the bullies picking on them.......and seem totally oblivious to the bullying tactics employed by them for the past 10 years! They will employ any tactic to return to the slippery tactics of the past....including putting dead rats in their own letter boxes! As with Miss Corby, the evidence conveniently disappeared without finger printing, DNA testing or video evidence!!!
Please stop trying to scare the community with your absurd claims!
Just a couple of points you might like to consider before employing your scare tactics to have this thread shut down:
Airport Closure
Shellharbour City Circus ARE NOT the owners of the airport - they are meerly the custodians. Under the provisions where these airports were handed to local governments for administration, sale of the airports CANNOT be affected without permission from the Minister. As with the case of Goulburn, this is not that easy to achieve and any sale MUST be proved to benefit the community.
Airport Income
Might come as a surprise, but council has just ditched THE ONLY COMMERCIAL OPERATOR on the airport paying full commercial rates! HARS is fully discounted with cheap rent and even cheaper landing fees. The AAP receives their rent back annually as a grant from council. The truth is the airport has been a charity basket case for years and through mismanagement and maladministration, has been a huge impass on the community for years.
Airport Upgrade
The community has been questioning the council for ages about how the upgrade was done in the manner it was - that's all. In this community, not unlike heaps of others in this state, that are so over-regulated by local councils, that you can't f**t without undertaking an EIS first, the upgrade seemed to circumvent all the normal processes applied by council. No tender, no EIS, very limited consultation etc etc etc. People want answers why this was allowed to happen and that's all. Anyone who questions the requirement for an EIS needs to understand that the upgrade has significantly changed (potentially) the fundamental role of the airport. The upgrade, had it been properly done, would have allowed significantly larger aircraft to operate from the airport thereby changing significantly the use and role of the airport without community consultation or consideration.
Council Administration
SCC is run like a mini empire with the King and Queen sitting at the head dictating to their subjects........and quite frankly, the community (including the aviation community) have had a gutfull! We have a GM and Mayor continually on the television, radio and in the papers whinging about all the bullies picking on them.......and seem totally oblivious to the bullying tactics employed by them for the past 10 years! They will employ any tactic to return to the slippery tactics of the past....including putting dead rats in their own letter boxes! As with Miss Corby, the evidence conveniently disappeared without finger printing, DNA testing or video evidence!!!
Please stop trying to scare the community with your absurd claims!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: out and about
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUCKLEY'S ?
Applause for 'Pitch and Break'. . . . there speaks a voice of reason and moderation . . . .
. . . . . . but for all that and all that, where will reform come from ? Who can suggest a course that will lead to the investigation and overturning of deeply entrenched favour and privilege?
For without that, this thread may as well be themed with Bob Dylan -
****ing in the wind.
. . . . . . but for all that and all that, where will reform come from ? Who can suggest a course that will lead to the investigation and overturning of deeply entrenched favour and privilege?
For without that, this thread may as well be themed with Bob Dylan -
****ing in the wind.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CENTRAL SYDNEY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saviors???
One subject that I did not mention in my last post that I think is worthy of mention as Sunfish brought it up is Top Gun. How dumb are the management at the Circus. If there is one thing that is going to get the community screaming it is noise.
Now this is dumb enough but to do this and spend $30,000 of public money defending the decision at court whilst being full aware that there was a pending AAT decision that would effectively shut them down at Bankstown and AP must be an act of complete incompetence. I wonder if Barney told the Mayor about this before the mayor spent the money.
Noise levels recorded at the nearest homes were over 90 decibels. Ultra this is an example of the management incompetence actually bring the airfield into focus for all the wrong reasons and hastening its demise.
As for the encroachment of houses around the airfield who has been responsible for most of this encroachment in the past decade. Answer Larry, Curly and Barney at the circus. Are these people really our saviors or are they trying to close the place down. They spent the minimum possible on the upgrade. They have brought the place into disrepute. They will be the cause of an Inquiry that will expose the big problems. Do you think the Catalina on the weekend helped us? 200 feet over peoples house with an engine failing. The airfield probably was 200 feet from closure.
Now this is dumb enough but to do this and spend $30,000 of public money defending the decision at court whilst being full aware that there was a pending AAT decision that would effectively shut them down at Bankstown and AP must be an act of complete incompetence. I wonder if Barney told the Mayor about this before the mayor spent the money.
Noise levels recorded at the nearest homes were over 90 decibels. Ultra this is an example of the management incompetence actually bring the airfield into focus for all the wrong reasons and hastening its demise.
As for the encroachment of houses around the airfield who has been responsible for most of this encroachment in the past decade. Answer Larry, Curly and Barney at the circus. Are these people really our saviors or are they trying to close the place down. They spent the minimum possible on the upgrade. They have brought the place into disrepute. They will be the cause of an Inquiry that will expose the big problems. Do you think the Catalina on the weekend helped us? 200 feet over peoples house with an engine failing. The airfield probably was 200 feet from closure.
Last edited by doesn't look good; 1st Jun 2005 at 21:34.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would the airport manager that I mentioned in an earlier post threaten to evict a “recreational jet pilot” and commercial operator over jet noise, and around three years later welcome a commercial jet operator onto the airport with open arms??? Both jets have AROUND the same DB with the earlier marginally louder, but the effects upon the community is the same?
Maybe, just maybe the present operator should have donated some green to the cause and this would have curbed his political problems!
Maybe, just maybe the present operator should have donated some green to the cause and this would have curbed his political problems!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MELBOURNE CENTRAL
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an absolute beatup!
A friend mentioned this site to me last night suggesting i should have a read; and I must say I am shocked! A few years back, I learned to fly with the guys at Wollongong and I have got to say, I find everything written here to be not possible. I have now worked with 4 operators and have never seen a more stringent application of the rules and concern for safety than when I was learning with the guys at Wollongong. I know the CFI takes great pride in their flawless safety record and have watched as he has torn strips off others for doing something stupid or dangerous, and not just people from his own organisation either!
I cannot believe that he has done the thing with the car and doubt very much that the story has any thruth to it at all. On the other side of the coin, if it had been me, I would have landed, shutdown and reefed the fool out of the car by the shirt collar and busted his snout!
I cannot believe that he has done the thing with the car and doubt very much that the story has any thruth to it at all. On the other side of the coin, if it had been me, I would have landed, shutdown and reefed the fool out of the car by the shirt collar and busted his snout!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: coast
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collie,
I too learned at Wollongong with Aerowasp and agree with you entirely. Peter and Gavin run one of the most professional training organisations at least on a par with the best in the country. I remember Peter firing an instructor on the spot when he decided to take a few libertys with the training syllabus that he considered unsafe. At the time, I thought he was a bit harsh with the guy but with hindsight and a few years flying under my belt, I now consider his actions were very justified on this occasion and an indication that he would not accept anything short of professionalism from anyone associated with his school, and that includes students as well. Can you recall how often he mentioned the "A" word during your training?
Does this really sound like the type of person who would chase the airport manager with a helicopter? I doubt it very much (and I agree with you; I would have decked the clot!)
I too learned at Wollongong with Aerowasp and agree with you entirely. Peter and Gavin run one of the most professional training organisations at least on a par with the best in the country. I remember Peter firing an instructor on the spot when he decided to take a few libertys with the training syllabus that he considered unsafe. At the time, I thought he was a bit harsh with the guy but with hindsight and a few years flying under my belt, I now consider his actions were very justified on this occasion and an indication that he would not accept anything short of professionalism from anyone associated with his school, and that includes students as well. Can you recall how often he mentioned the "A" word during your training?
Does this really sound like the type of person who would chase the airport manager with a helicopter? I doubt it very much (and I agree with you; I would have decked the clot!)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CENTRAL SYDNEY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody seems to agree about who was at fault with the car incident. Why did the Connie pilot give the version he did and why did he report it to the GM not CASA?
The Iskra incident is interesting. Since the Comming of Top Gun the council has been denying there ever was an incident. I wonder why. The files have gone. Is this part of the document shredding Cardia spoke about.
The Iskra incident is interesting. Since the Comming of Top Gun the council has been denying there ever was an incident. I wonder why. The files have gone. Is this part of the document shredding Cardia spoke about.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the circus
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what???
Is it really suggested here that about three years ago the Airport Manager threw a military jet fighter off the airport because it was too loud and disturbed his dinner and three years later he puts his support behind another military jet fighter coming to the airport and says there is no noise problem? Is this for real. I hope the DLG and ICAC are monitoring this because this is contrary to what everybody has been told.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oztrailier
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The infamous ISKARA incident
A few years back, the owner of Aerowasp did an Iskara endorsement from the Illawarra Regional Airport. The airport manager turned up at his business drunk claiming that the pilot was in breach of his DA for flying the aircraft. It was pointed out the absurdity of the claims and the guy was ejected from the premises amoung threats of closure and physical threats as well. (The entire episode is well documented and was the initial catalyst for the break down of relations between these two people). The airport manager later claimed that he had received some noise complaints and that he had a responsibility to investigate such complaints and had decided that the interests of the public were to be vigorously defended. Funny how all of a sudden, the interests of the public don't appear to be a consideration any longer?
On a similar vane, appears the council is about to be taken to task about just this issue. Another operator using aircraft with a similar or better sound signature than the L39 (and same Permit Index) is about to submit a DA for operations from the airport as well. It will indeed be interesting to see how council handles this issue as to allow it would almost be suicidal (for council) yet to not-approve the proposal could end up in an expensive and long court battle over what could be seen as discrimination or protective trade practices. Interesting times ahead I think!
On a similar vane, appears the council is about to be taken to task about just this issue. Another operator using aircraft with a similar or better sound signature than the L39 (and same Permit Index) is about to submit a DA for operations from the airport as well. It will indeed be interesting to see how council handles this issue as to allow it would almost be suicidal (for council) yet to not-approve the proposal could end up in an expensive and long court battle over what could be seen as discrimination or protective trade practices. Interesting times ahead I think!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't Look Good There is a very good reason why the connie pilot supported council on the car/helicopter incident and why he now looks like a goose! HARS is dependent on the support of the airport manager for their very existence on the airport. It is only a matter of time before people start to question what happened to all the broken promises from HARS (these promises formed the very basis of HARS proposal to relocate to the airport over 3 years ago):
$21M museum/hangar/maintenance complex,
$15M per annum in generated income/turnover;
15 employees.
Reality:
$1M shed
2.5 acres of all-but free land presently used as a scrap yard
$450 landing fees per annum for all their aircraft (whilst the other operators pay $1650 p/a for each single and $3300 for a twin!)
A dsigraceful collection of demountables positioned hotpotch all over the outside of the airport.
Nil generated income/turnover
Nil employees.
The recent proponents for hangars on the airport had to prove their capability to meet their commitments/promises so what happened to HARS?
Anyone would have to question why the incident with the car drew a response from the connie pilot to council and not to the ATSB or CASA? I suggest that he was invited to respond to council in an attempt to shore up a case against the helo operator. Unfortunately, I think the whole episode might just blow up in their collective faces!
$21M museum/hangar/maintenance complex,
$15M per annum in generated income/turnover;
15 employees.
Reality:
$1M shed
2.5 acres of all-but free land presently used as a scrap yard
$450 landing fees per annum for all their aircraft (whilst the other operators pay $1650 p/a for each single and $3300 for a twin!)
A dsigraceful collection of demountables positioned hotpotch all over the outside of the airport.
Nil generated income/turnover
Nil employees.
The recent proponents for hangars on the airport had to prove their capability to meet their commitments/promises so what happened to HARS?
Anyone would have to question why the incident with the car drew a response from the connie pilot to council and not to the ATSB or CASA? I suggest that he was invited to respond to council in an attempt to shore up a case against the helo operator. Unfortunately, I think the whole episode might just blow up in their collective faces!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self restraint
COLLIE & Darth Vadar,
The emotional response you have suggested is exactly the reaction the Airport Manager was trying to provoke with his deliberate, unsafe and irresponsible actions, and which would have given him the ammunition he was after to close the business
Fortunately the Helo Operator used the self restraint he is noted for and acted in the professional manner you refer to and did not snot the SOAB
The emotional response you have suggested is exactly the reaction the Airport Manager was trying to provoke with his deliberate, unsafe and irresponsible actions, and which would have given him the ammunition he was after to close the business
Fortunately the Helo Operator used the self restraint he is noted for and acted in the professional manner you refer to and did not snot the SOAB
Last edited by AVateher; 2nd Jun 2005 at 16:03.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CENTRAL SYDNEY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have received several PMs from people about the status of the runway and the advice I received. My advice to all those considering moving to AP is ask to see the approval for the upgrade. There isn’t one. You will be told it was not needed. Then decide if you believe it or get your own advice.
Pitch and brake.
You forgot to mention the $50 - $100k of rate payers money that was spent on repairing the runway after the Connie repeatedly crashed through it (free concessions). You forgot to mention that instead of HARS creating jobs the circus is actually creating them for HARS. You also forgot to mention that the upgrade was not supposed to cost the public 1cent. Sponsors were going to pay for it. Thus far $1,275,000 of expenditure has been admitted to. You may have noticed in the papers this week that there is more to be spent again. If you count the missed investment, the lack of job creation, the council investment and the lost revenues from the land, the projections of benefit from this project to the council and the area are about $10 million plus out at this point. Who at council has been held responsible? Just put the rates up.
Whilst I keep saying, and I mean it, that I support the upgrade I absolutely detest the lies and deceit, the threats and blackmail, the victimization and bullying that are surrounding this.
The Connie pilots untrue report to the GM about Aerowasp to assist eviction is probably the most white feather deed i have seen in my 35 years associated with this industry.
Cardia. They have worked out who you are. Or at least they think they have. If you think they will forgive and forget dont fool yourself. It took 5 years to get Aerowasp and the pursuit was relentless. Once this is over watch out.
Pitch and brake.
You forgot to mention the $50 - $100k of rate payers money that was spent on repairing the runway after the Connie repeatedly crashed through it (free concessions). You forgot to mention that instead of HARS creating jobs the circus is actually creating them for HARS. You also forgot to mention that the upgrade was not supposed to cost the public 1cent. Sponsors were going to pay for it. Thus far $1,275,000 of expenditure has been admitted to. You may have noticed in the papers this week that there is more to be spent again. If you count the missed investment, the lack of job creation, the council investment and the lost revenues from the land, the projections of benefit from this project to the council and the area are about $10 million plus out at this point. Who at council has been held responsible? Just put the rates up.
Whilst I keep saying, and I mean it, that I support the upgrade I absolutely detest the lies and deceit, the threats and blackmail, the victimization and bullying that are surrounding this.
The Connie pilots untrue report to the GM about Aerowasp to assist eviction is probably the most white feather deed i have seen in my 35 years associated with this industry.
Cardia. They have worked out who you are. Or at least they think they have. If you think they will forgive and forget dont fool yourself. It took 5 years to get Aerowasp and the pursuit was relentless. Once this is over watch out.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QantasLink Commences Ops Monday
QantasLink on television last night - commence operations Monday and that IS a great thing for the community (about the only positive step out of this whole debarcle). BUT the boss did indicate that at present they were projecting about 50% capacity for the runs on all indicators and that is with a flurry of excitement for the newbee! Towards the end of Impulses excursion into the Illawarra, the numbers dropped off considerably to about 1 out of three flights empty.....how long does anyone expect that QantasLink will run empty machines around without revenue? Historically, I think the omens are not good!
Onto the three vacant hangars at the airport (brand new, one to be completed later). Appears council has been VERY selective in their venture with the hangars. The trike chap applied for a hangar proposing very similar money etc as everyone else and he did not even get a reply or response.....he has quite a big operation and has been in business on the airport for 8 years! You have to ask yourself WHY? Basically, if the hangars remain vacant without patronage, council will give one to HARS and one to TOPGUN.......will con the public into thinking they are doing the right thing by utilising the hangars and earning revenue as planned........but really its all smoke and mirrors!
The community should be calling for an immediate Commission of Enquiry into this scandalous council and demand the sacking of senior management and the Mayor.....nothing less is acceptable!
One final issue that seems to have slid past without comment...can anybody explain what gives with the CB hangar and facilities? How come one operator on the field was allowed to install his own personal fuel bowser thereby circumventing the need to purchase fuel commercially like everyone else...what does he pay to council and as his hangar has been there for over 20 years, did that revert to council ownership like the others?
And isn't the owner the very same person responsible for the shoddy upgrade that he just got a cool $M for?
Onto the three vacant hangars at the airport (brand new, one to be completed later). Appears council has been VERY selective in their venture with the hangars. The trike chap applied for a hangar proposing very similar money etc as everyone else and he did not even get a reply or response.....he has quite a big operation and has been in business on the airport for 8 years! You have to ask yourself WHY? Basically, if the hangars remain vacant without patronage, council will give one to HARS and one to TOPGUN.......will con the public into thinking they are doing the right thing by utilising the hangars and earning revenue as planned........but really its all smoke and mirrors!
The community should be calling for an immediate Commission of Enquiry into this scandalous council and demand the sacking of senior management and the Mayor.....nothing less is acceptable!
One final issue that seems to have slid past without comment...can anybody explain what gives with the CB hangar and facilities? How come one operator on the field was allowed to install his own personal fuel bowser thereby circumventing the need to purchase fuel commercially like everyone else...what does he pay to council and as his hangar has been there for over 20 years, did that revert to council ownership like the others?
And isn't the owner the very same person responsible for the shoddy upgrade that he just got a cool $M for?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: wild west
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hanger
Yipyio,
Let me assure you it is the same treatment for all. Council has told the DLG and ICAC that it is policy to put these types of council properties out to tender when the lease expires to ensure they maximize the returns for their ratepayers. I am sure you will find that this lease has also been put out to tender on several occasions as per the council procedures.
You certainly will not find that Aerowasp was the first and only company that this policy applied to. The fact that a council officer has used aircraft from this facility will also have no bearing on the treatment of the hangar.
Let me assure you it is the same treatment for all. Council has told the DLG and ICAC that it is policy to put these types of council properties out to tender when the lease expires to ensure they maximize the returns for their ratepayers. I am sure you will find that this lease has also been put out to tender on several occasions as per the council procedures.
You certainly will not find that Aerowasp was the first and only company that this policy applied to. The fact that a council officer has used aircraft from this facility will also have no bearing on the treatment of the hangar.