Skydiving resumes at Barwon Heads?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish 24 Dec. This thread
Thinking of flying to Barwon Heads to see a mate in the area. Does this mean that one should stay away from this particular airfield? Exectly what breaches have occured apart from dropping through cloud?
Sunfish 1 March. This thread
I have a mate I wish to visit at Barwon Heads, but I will definitely NOT be flying into that airstrip until I know that this nonsense has stopped.
Sunfish 16 March. This thread
As for me, the Barwon Heads CTAF is off limits until such time is it can be demonstrated that its likely occupants, with or without aircraft attached, are obeying the rules.
Numerous other posts from Sunfish in this thread.
Yet…
Sunfish 22 Feb. "This time wankers" thread.
Worse Sunfish this afternoon.. Gives his CTAF call (119.00) Barwon Heads, on 119.90 (freudian slip) and is reminded that this is YMMB ground freq
Damn those digits! Stupidity and inexperience= 1, professionalism= 0)
Oh to sound like a skygod(assuming factual information).
Is the Emperor wearing new robes?
C.
Thinking of flying to Barwon Heads to see a mate in the area. Does this mean that one should stay away from this particular airfield? Exectly what breaches have occured apart from dropping through cloud?
Sunfish 1 March. This thread
I have a mate I wish to visit at Barwon Heads, but I will definitely NOT be flying into that airstrip until I know that this nonsense has stopped.
Sunfish 16 March. This thread
As for me, the Barwon Heads CTAF is off limits until such time is it can be demonstrated that its likely occupants, with or without aircraft attached, are obeying the rules.
Numerous other posts from Sunfish in this thread.
Yet…
Sunfish 22 Feb. "This time wankers" thread.
Worse Sunfish this afternoon.. Gives his CTAF call (119.00) Barwon Heads, on 119.90 (freudian slip) and is reminded that this is YMMB ground freq
Damn those digits! Stupidity and inexperience= 1, professionalism= 0)
Oh to sound like a skygod(assuming factual information).
Is the Emperor wearing new robes?
C.
Nup Cinders, but I admire your forensic skills. I presume you know the bay area. To impress my friends with my considerable flying skills (Not!). I like to take them on a little "around the bay" cruise.
This takes me to overhead YMAV from YMMB via the coastal route, then over Corio bay via Point Henry to Leopold. Leopold is right on the edge of the Barwon Heads CTAF and thats where I turn East for Queenscliffe and the Rip.
As taught, I give a position on the BH CTAF frequency overhead Leopold. I've heard another aircraft using the BH strip but their voice procedure was so bad and their mike was so stuffed I couldn't make out exactly what they were doing.
I've heard the para guys at Nagambie setting up for a drop with calls on the area frequency to ATC etc. and taken avoiding action they seemed perfectly responsible and organised.
However, like most pilots I have a horror of a mid air, and I'm not going near BH unless I know that the operator is responsible, and it sounds from the evidence to date that he may not be.
This takes me to overhead YMAV from YMMB via the coastal route, then over Corio bay via Point Henry to Leopold. Leopold is right on the edge of the Barwon Heads CTAF and thats where I turn East for Queenscliffe and the Rip.
As taught, I give a position on the BH CTAF frequency overhead Leopold. I've heard another aircraft using the BH strip but their voice procedure was so bad and their mike was so stuffed I couldn't make out exactly what they were doing.
I've heard the para guys at Nagambie setting up for a drop with calls on the area frequency to ATC etc. and taken avoiding action they seemed perfectly responsible and organised.
However, like most pilots I have a horror of a mid air, and I'm not going near BH unless I know that the operator is responsible, and it sounds from the evidence to date that he may not be.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: higherup
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boney (the BUCKETMOUTH)
A video with the DIRT DARTS dropping thru cloud on that particular Sunday has been handed to CASA, guess that confirms “Qs” statement.
What have you to confirm your dribble?
We know who’s sad and pathetic!
pol
A video with the DIRT DARTS dropping thru cloud on that particular Sunday has been handed to CASA, guess that confirms “Qs” statement.
What have you to confirm your dribble?
We know who’s sad and pathetic!
pol
I didn't make any reference to VFR or IFR pilots, all I said is that if it is safe to fly a plane through cloud then it is just as safe to fly your body and a parachute. I think we all know that the V in VFR means visual.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: higherup
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi "Q"
I have just read two directions from CASA and they went like this
Instrument number CASA 131/05
I,JAMES MARCOLIN,Acting General Manager, General Operations, Aviation Safety Compliance, a delegate of CASA,make this instrument under regulation 152 of the CIVIL Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) 1988)
Specification-parachute operations in the vicinity of Barwon Heads aerodrome
1 Revocation
Instrument CASA 36/04 is revoked.
Note Instrument CASA 63/04, which purported to revoke Instrument CASA 36/04, was held by the AAT on 22 December 2004 to be invalid
2 Application
This instrument applies to a person who is:
a. a member of the Australian Parachute Federation Inc or the Australian Skydiving Association; and
b. authorised to make a parachute descent by an authorisation in force under regulation 152 of CAR 1988.
3 Specification
A parachute descent may not be made within 4.8 kilometres of Barwon Heads aerodrome, Victoria (location indicator YBRS, reference point South 30deg 15.5’, East 144deg 26.0’
Instrument number CASA 130/05
I,JAMES MARCOLIN,Acting General Manager, General Operations, Aviation Safety Compliance, a delegate of CASA,make this instrument under subregulation 92 (2) of the CIVIL Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) 1988)
DIRECTION- PARACHUTE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF Barwon Heads aerodrome
1 Revocation
Instrument CASA 34/04 is revoked.
Note Instrument CASA 63/04, which purported to revoke Instrument CASA 34/04, was held by the AAT on 22 December 2004 to be invalid
2 Application
This instrument applies to the pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in an operation involving the descent of parachutists.
3 Direction
The Pilot must not allow a person to exit the aircraft to conduct a parachute descent within 4.8 kilometres of Barwon Heads aerodrome, Victoria (location indicator YBRS, reference point South 30deg 15.5’, East 144deg 26.0’
Signed
Jim Marcolin
Acting General Manager
General Operations
Aviation Safety Compliance
6 April 2005
WHAT A SHAME LAUGHING BOY IS SHUCH A NICE FELLOW
pol 
I have just read two directions from CASA and they went like this
Instrument number CASA 131/05
I,JAMES MARCOLIN,Acting General Manager, General Operations, Aviation Safety Compliance, a delegate of CASA,make this instrument under regulation 152 of the CIVIL Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) 1988)
Specification-parachute operations in the vicinity of Barwon Heads aerodrome
1 Revocation
Instrument CASA 36/04 is revoked.
Note Instrument CASA 63/04, which purported to revoke Instrument CASA 36/04, was held by the AAT on 22 December 2004 to be invalid
2 Application
This instrument applies to a person who is:
a. a member of the Australian Parachute Federation Inc or the Australian Skydiving Association; and
b. authorised to make a parachute descent by an authorisation in force under regulation 152 of CAR 1988.
3 Specification
A parachute descent may not be made within 4.8 kilometres of Barwon Heads aerodrome, Victoria (location indicator YBRS, reference point South 30deg 15.5’, East 144deg 26.0’
Instrument number CASA 130/05
I,JAMES MARCOLIN,Acting General Manager, General Operations, Aviation Safety Compliance, a delegate of CASA,make this instrument under subregulation 92 (2) of the CIVIL Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) 1988)
DIRECTION- PARACHUTE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF Barwon Heads aerodrome
1 Revocation
Instrument CASA 34/04 is revoked.
Note Instrument CASA 63/04, which purported to revoke Instrument CASA 34/04, was held by the AAT on 22 December 2004 to be invalid
2 Application
This instrument applies to the pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in an operation involving the descent of parachutists.
3 Direction
The Pilot must not allow a person to exit the aircraft to conduct a parachute descent within 4.8 kilometres of Barwon Heads aerodrome, Victoria (location indicator YBRS, reference point South 30deg 15.5’, East 144deg 26.0’
Signed
Jim Marcolin
Acting General Manager
General Operations
Aviation Safety Compliance
6 April 2005
WHAT A SHAME LAUGHING BOY IS SHUCH A NICE FELLOW
pol
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday
Just finished reading it, CASA very slow but quite methodical one wonders what dribble dancing boys rabbit will dream up to counter this document, maybe something like the previous fairy tales they dished up a while ago, anyway things been a bit boring lately I need a good laugh.
Cheers Q
Just finished reading it, CASA very slow but quite methodical one wonders what dribble dancing boys rabbit will dream up to counter this document, maybe something like the previous fairy tales they dished up a while ago, anyway things been a bit boring lately I need a good laugh.
Cheers Q
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rovoke?
Hello.
Doesnt Revoked mean they are taking it away or withdrawing the initial directive? And doesnt the second part mean that the AAT made the replacement instrument invalid.
Hang on.
Doesnt that mean it is good for skydivers?
Hang on, hang on, does that mean you guys changed teams?
Think there may have been some mix up.
C.A.
PS. We all know QNIM and pol are the same person. Dont give away ammunition. Maybe use a new title that we havent seen so as not to be as obvious. Just an idea!
Doesnt Revoked mean they are taking it away or withdrawing the initial directive? And doesnt the second part mean that the AAT made the replacement instrument invalid.
Hang on.
Doesnt that mean it is good for skydivers?
Hang on, hang on, does that mean you guys changed teams?
Think there may have been some mix up.
C.A.
PS. We all know QNIM and pol are the same person. Dont give away ammunition. Maybe use a new title that we havent seen so as not to be as obvious. Just an idea!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: higherup
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C.A.
If you could understand what was written you may stop making foolish statements.
In previous forums on skydiving pol, QNIM and others were named (miss that did we)
You also missed the NEW INSTRUMENT NUMBERS CASA 130/05 and 131/05
as well as the APPLICATION and DIRECTION of these orders.
If you’re going to tell a tale best to check all the facts first and relate the entire story not selected excerpts and you won’t look such a dickh**d.
pol
If you could understand what was written you may stop making foolish statements.
In previous forums on skydiving pol, QNIM and others were named (miss that did we)
You also missed the NEW INSTRUMENT NUMBERS CASA 130/05 and 131/05
as well as the APPLICATION and DIRECTION of these orders.
If you’re going to tell a tale best to check all the facts first and relate the entire story not selected excerpts and you won’t look such a dickh**d.
pol
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To CA - suggest you read the instruments again.
Obviously in your excitment with point 1 you didn't get to 2 and 3 as thats what is now in place.
and by the way I've worked it out that QNIM and pol are different people.
This morning I have also read the instruments and the grounds for issuing them. very very interesting!!
Quotes from CASA docs
"The facts and circumstances set forth above, provide reasonable grounds to believe that Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly and Skydive City have engaged in conduct that constituted a serious risk to aviation safety"
"The facts and circumstances set set forth above, provide reasonable grounds to believe that Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly and Skydive City are each unwilling and unable to comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations in the conduct of parachute descents"
"Further, the facts and circumstances set forth above, indicate that aviation safety will be threatened if parachute operations are allowed to be conducted at or near BHA or within the Barwon Heads area, having regard to the high number of conflicting situations between parachutists and aircraft, the strong wind conditions and the very confined nature of the BHA and the location of the drop zone"
"In the event that parachuting activities continue at or near Barwon Heads Aerodrome, I (CASA officer) believe that an accident will occur, including a collision between a parachutist and an aircraft, primarily because of the conduct of Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly, and Skydive City Pty Limited in participating in or allowing parachute descents to be made through cloud"
Question to CASA and the Australian Parachute Federationand its members.
With the above comments and the seven pages of incidents listed, why are McWilliam and Bayly still allowed to be involved in parachuting.
Look forward to hearing from the parachuting members.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy parachuting but do we need these people bringing this sport down.
Obviously in your excitment with point 1 you didn't get to 2 and 3 as thats what is now in place.
and by the way I've worked it out that QNIM and pol are different people.
This morning I have also read the instruments and the grounds for issuing them. very very interesting!!
Quotes from CASA docs
"The facts and circumstances set forth above, provide reasonable grounds to believe that Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly and Skydive City have engaged in conduct that constituted a serious risk to aviation safety"
"The facts and circumstances set set forth above, provide reasonable grounds to believe that Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly and Skydive City are each unwilling and unable to comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations in the conduct of parachute descents"
"Further, the facts and circumstances set forth above, indicate that aviation safety will be threatened if parachute operations are allowed to be conducted at or near BHA or within the Barwon Heads area, having regard to the high number of conflicting situations between parachutists and aircraft, the strong wind conditions and the very confined nature of the BHA and the location of the drop zone"
"In the event that parachuting activities continue at or near Barwon Heads Aerodrome, I (CASA officer) believe that an accident will occur, including a collision between a parachutist and an aircraft, primarily because of the conduct of Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayly, and Skydive City Pty Limited in participating in or allowing parachute descents to be made through cloud"
Question to CASA and the Australian Parachute Federationand its members.
With the above comments and the seven pages of incidents listed, why are McWilliam and Bayly still allowed to be involved in parachuting.
Look forward to hearing from the parachuting members.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy parachuting but do we need these people bringing this sport down.
Interesting, the orders prohibit the dropping of skydivers within 4.8 kilometers of BH. Presumably this means he can find another drop zone and continue his allegedly unsafe practices.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooops
Hi All
Mental note to self, dont post after too many brews! Sorry to all.
Pol, appologies to you. Rs is your other title, my mistake. Sorry. But yes it will be interesting to see the court process this all again.
JW, Thankyou for showing my misguided thought process. Have to get that checked out!
C.A.
Mental note to self, dont post after too many brews! Sorry to all.
Pol, appologies to you. Rs is your other title, my mistake. Sorry. But yes it will be interesting to see the court process this all again.
JW, Thankyou for showing my misguided thought process. Have to get that checked out!
C.A.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercman
I do believe Instrument number CASA 131/05 precludes the ASA from conducting parachute descents within 4.8 kilometers of Barwon Head’s aerodrome.
This restriction is not because of any wrongdoing by the ASA, it is a direct result of one rogue operator and his chief instructor who are unwilling to comply with the regulations and treat everyone on and around the Barwon Heads aerodrome with contempt.
CASA have said there must be separation between aircraft and parachutists, banning parachute operations at this aerodrome has achieved that and if this is used as a model to attain the desired result it may have wide ramifications in the industry.
My suggestion is that all DIRT DARTS should have a jolly good look at what is happening at Barwon Heads, why it is happening and who is to blame, because it is not enhancing the image of skydivers.
In any other industry the rotten apples would have been removed by the controlling body, but in this case the APF continue to support these rotten apples to the detriment of the industry WHY?
Rs480
I do believe Instrument number CASA 131/05 precludes the ASA from conducting parachute descents within 4.8 kilometers of Barwon Head’s aerodrome.
This restriction is not because of any wrongdoing by the ASA, it is a direct result of one rogue operator and his chief instructor who are unwilling to comply with the regulations and treat everyone on and around the Barwon Heads aerodrome with contempt.
CASA have said there must be separation between aircraft and parachutists, banning parachute operations at this aerodrome has achieved that and if this is used as a model to attain the desired result it may have wide ramifications in the industry.
My suggestion is that all DIRT DARTS should have a jolly good look at what is happening at Barwon Heads, why it is happening and who is to blame, because it is not enhancing the image of skydivers.
In any other industry the rotten apples would have been removed by the controlling body, but in this case the APF continue to support these rotten apples to the detriment of the industry WHY?
Rs480
Last edited by rs480; 11th Apr 2005 at 05:03.