Avalon CLOSED to GA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avalon CLOSED to GA
I have just been told by a GA operator that Avalon is closed to GA. Is this new or has it taken time to filter down???
Airport closed is one thing, but being in class G airspace I suppose it will become popular for:
1. a waypoint in a nav to anywhere;
2. a good place to practise precautionary search and approach;
3. NDB approaches;
4. GPS approaches
and any number of things between 500' and 10,000'
Airport closed is one thing, but being in class G airspace I suppose it will become popular for:
1. a waypoint in a nav to anywhere;
2. a good place to practise precautionary search and approach;
3. NDB approaches;
4. GPS approaches
and any number of things between 500' and 10,000'
Last edited by impulse coupled; 27th Oct 2005 at 10:05.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice in the 24 Nov 05 issue of ERSA that Avalon is identified as a "Security Controlled Airport" which could be interpreted as a backhand banning of GA. Of course there is a subtle difference between closing (sic) an airport and closing airspace.
VT
VT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, they have no right to the airspace and can only charge for, or refuse, a landing.
I think GA should show how it feels, I will be adding AVALON to my list of regular waypoints!!!
I think GA should show how it feels, I will be adding AVALON to my list of regular waypoints!!!
can only charge for, or refuse, a landing
Impulse,
I'm sure that Bracks' revenue collectors, sorry that should read Impartial Courts, would be delighted to have a test case to sink their teeth into
Federal law says that 10% error is allowed in speedometers in cars, but the $200+ million per year raised from reducing that to <2% hasn't deterred Bracks one iota
I'm sure that Bracks' revenue collectors, sorry that should read Impartial Courts, would be delighted to have a test case to sink their teeth into
Federal law says that 10% error is allowed in speedometers in cars, but the $200+ million per year raised from reducing that to <2% hasn't deterred Bracks one iota
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
It isn't about error etc, it is about control. Airspace is managed under the CAA. Vic Govt has no control. But yes, who can afford the court case, so play alphabet soup instead!!!
'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000'
It isn't about error etc, it is about control. Airspace is managed under the CAA. Vic Govt has no control. But yes, who can afford the court case, so play alphabet soup instead!!!
'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000'
I think you're missing one very important factor.
Avalon is privately owned by Lindsay Fox. You haven't been able to fly in there for quite some time since Jetstar arrived because there are no longer and GA facilities and you can't just rock up in your 172 to a secure field and stroll in for a coffee.
Keep at 1,500ft AGL, fly over it and don't go in there; that's about all you can do about it. No prec searches below 500ft otherwise the boys from u know where will come visit you. End of story.
Avalon is privately owned by Lindsay Fox. You haven't been able to fly in there for quite some time since Jetstar arrived because there are no longer and GA facilities and you can't just rock up in your 172 to a secure field and stroll in for a coffee.
Keep at 1,500ft AGL, fly over it and don't go in there; that's about all you can do about it. No prec searches below 500ft otherwise the boys from u know where will come visit you. End of story.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avalon is NOT built up, so why can't you fly a practise approach even to 100'.
It is simply a CTAF-R. So, provided you stick to the rules for operating in a CTAF-R you can do anything there you would at any other except land.
It is simply a CTAF-R. So, provided you stick to the rules for operating in a CTAF-R you can do anything there you would at any other except land.
Easy... Here are the facts:
Avalon is not a CTAF; it is currently an MBZ, when it is not Class C airspace by Notam or short notice.
You can't land at an airfield on which you are not authorised unless it's an emergency.
If you fly low (eg 500ft) over an airfield that is clearly marked on a VTC/VNC (particularly with Qantas / Jetstar) traffic you are in breach of CAO's and will find yourself with a "please explain" or "show cause."
If you fly a low approach, eg, prec search (and are not authorised to do so by the airport operator) below 500 ft you are technically in breach of the regulations and as a result subject to 50 penalty points at a cost of $110 for low flying. It's in the CAO's; pretty simple stuff.
'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000' - ERR- No!! it would be 1,500agl or you'll be zooming into a 767 or a340 at circuit height; not pretty and creates a mountain of paperwork and court expenses if you are lucky enough to survive, if you could in fact call that lucky...
Also, by the way, "Security Controlled Airport" refers to the new ASIC passes and associated security. Check the ERSA, as there will be a few others in there that are SCA's.
Avalon is not a CTAF; it is currently an MBZ, when it is not Class C airspace by Notam or short notice.
You can't land at an airfield on which you are not authorised unless it's an emergency.
If you fly low (eg 500ft) over an airfield that is clearly marked on a VTC/VNC (particularly with Qantas / Jetstar) traffic you are in breach of CAO's and will find yourself with a "please explain" or "show cause."
If you fly a low approach, eg, prec search (and are not authorised to do so by the airport operator) below 500 ft you are technically in breach of the regulations and as a result subject to 50 penalty points at a cost of $110 for low flying. It's in the CAO's; pretty simple stuff.
'Piper 2, 10 miles, overflying for Barwon 1000' - ERR- No!! it would be 1,500agl or you'll be zooming into a 767 or a340 at circuit height; not pretty and creates a mountain of paperwork and court expenses if you are lucky enough to survive, if you could in fact call that lucky...
Also, by the way, "Security Controlled Airport" refers to the new ASIC passes and associated security. Check the ERSA, as there will be a few others in there that are SCA's.
Coupler guy says:
"That is opinion, please point me to the actual Reg where you read that. CTAF-R is CTAF-R and the type of traffic is irrelavent."
Squarker the non-opinionated guru says:
Ummmmm.... ok if you want. I'll drag out the CAO's book tomorrow. I don't speak in opinions unless stated, eg, IMHO.
FACT - AVALON is an MBZ, not a CTAF, CTAF-R or otherwise. But then again, I could be wrong as the last time I flew through there was at 8:30am this morning on my way to work.
FACT - Flying below 500ft even on a prec-search is in breach of the CAO's is a 50 penalty point offence; without permission.
FACT - Flying at 1,000ft over an airfield, particularly Avalon may not be a direct breach of the CAO's, however, given that it is "Avalon" it would be a act of gross negligence.
That's it. If you don't agree; find a lawyer that will agree, then try and convince a judge to agree with the both of you.
"That is opinion, please point me to the actual Reg where you read that. CTAF-R is CTAF-R and the type of traffic is irrelavent."
Squarker the non-opinionated guru says:
Ummmmm.... ok if you want. I'll drag out the CAO's book tomorrow. I don't speak in opinions unless stated, eg, IMHO.
FACT - AVALON is an MBZ, not a CTAF, CTAF-R or otherwise. But then again, I could be wrong as the last time I flew through there was at 8:30am this morning on my way to work.
FACT - Flying below 500ft even on a prec-search is in breach of the CAO's is a 50 penalty point offence; without permission.
FACT - Flying at 1,000ft over an airfield, particularly Avalon may not be a direct breach of the CAO's, however, given that it is "Avalon" it would be a act of gross negligence.
That's it. If you don't agree; find a lawyer that will agree, then try and convince a judge to agree with the both of you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact
Avalon is NOT Class C or D. Therefore flying over it at any legal height is just that, legal. There is no CAR that says otherwise.
Flying below 500', moot. If on finals then why is it not legal to 'go around'???
As for negligence, that is IMHO rubbish. If you use your radio and ALL traffic uses correct procedures, then it is not negligent. Should any traffic be using abnormal procedures with other a/c in the circuit area (i.e SI App) then that pilot is negligent, not the transiting or practising traffic.
The 'rules' say 'overfly at 1500'. Where is the problem there???
Please don't confuse being negligent to causing inconvenience.
Airpace around a CTAF-R is NOT owned by the landowner or the prime user (in this case JetScab). If JS want C type opertions they should submit to C or D airspace. Simple.
Avalon is NOT Class C or D. Therefore flying over it at any legal height is just that, legal. There is no CAR that says otherwise.
Flying below 500', moot. If on finals then why is it not legal to 'go around'???
As for negligence, that is IMHO rubbish. If you use your radio and ALL traffic uses correct procedures, then it is not negligent. Should any traffic be using abnormal procedures with other a/c in the circuit area (i.e SI App) then that pilot is negligent, not the transiting or practising traffic.
The 'rules' say 'overfly at 1500'. Where is the problem there???
Please don't confuse being negligent to causing inconvenience.
Airpace around a CTAF-R is NOT owned by the landowner or the prime user (in this case JetScab). If JS want C type opertions they should submit to C or D airspace. Simple.
Coupler wrote a load of incorrect crap facts.
Squarker writes the following:
Never assume that everyone has an operational radio.
Don't fly though a circuit at 1,000ft, that IS negligent.
Flying below 500ft is illegal without permission, fact, I know, trust me. 50 points & $5,500. Try and prove otherwise in court.
Avalon is an MBZ. This CTAF-R crap and landowners is totally irrelevant and when Avalon is active is IS CTA. Sorry I'm not sure, it becomes either class D or C when it's active; I'll have to check, however it CERTAINLY is not a CTAF of any description.
That is all.
Squarker writes the following:
Never assume that everyone has an operational radio.
Don't fly though a circuit at 1,000ft, that IS negligent.
Flying below 500ft is illegal without permission, fact, I know, trust me. 50 points & $5,500. Try and prove otherwise in court.
Avalon is an MBZ. This CTAF-R crap and landowners is totally irrelevant and when Avalon is active is IS CTA. Sorry I'm not sure, it becomes either class D or C when it's active; I'll have to check, however it CERTAINLY is not a CTAF of any description.
That is all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Squark misquotes me.
I said 'overflying at 1500' is what the regs say', 1000' is irresponsible, not illegal (unless in the circuit, when it is legal). 500', moot, it isn't built up and is fully legal in the circuit for an ultralight (read the regs).
MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times
Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R.
As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs
I said 'overflying at 1500' is what the regs say', 1000' is irresponsible, not illegal (unless in the circuit, when it is legal). 500', moot, it isn't built up and is fully legal in the circuit for an ultralight (read the regs).
MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times
Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R.
As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs
Get your crap together; your arguments are falling apart:
It's not a runway or an ALA unless you have permission to land on it, or to fly low over it, thus:
"As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs "
- Sure, when I get hold of them. It's the one that says "an aircraft must not fly below 500ft unless" Penalty - 50 penalty units.
Coupler writes:
[MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times ]
- No, they are not dead and right now at this point in time there is no such thing as a CTAF-R and they are not implemented. Until this time, Avalon REMAINS as an MBZ.
Coupler writes:
"Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R."
Absolutely INCORRECT. Avalon FREQUENTLY is Class C airspace for any number of operations which you are obviously not aware.
Don't try arguing with someone who flies through there to work EVERY morning, rain hail or shine! I know "just a little" about Avalon.
It's not a runway or an ALA unless you have permission to land on it, or to fly low over it, thus:
"As for below 500' on final to a runway, I await your quoting of the regs "
- Sure, when I get hold of them. It's the one that says "an aircraft must not fly below 500ft unless" Penalty - 50 penalty units.
Coupler writes:
[MBZ are dead, they become CTAF-R, get with the times ]
- No, they are not dead and right now at this point in time there is no such thing as a CTAF-R and they are not implemented. Until this time, Avalon REMAINS as an MBZ.
Coupler writes:
"Avalon is ONLT EVER CTA when the airshow and some other stuff is on. NORMALLY is was MBZ is CTAF-R."
Absolutely INCORRECT. Avalon FREQUENTLY is Class C airspace for any number of operations which you are obviously not aware.
Don't try arguing with someone who flies through there to work EVERY morning, rain hail or shine! I know "just a little" about Avalon.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circuit Height
Think someone needs to find out what circuit height the jets would be flying at, I would have thought 1500ft above aerodrome level. So overflying at 1500ft AGL would not be that smart an idea, hey?
Yeah, anywhere from 1,000 - 1,500 ft, but when they do circuits it's "generally" class C, so not a huge issue, but certainly something to be aware of.
Luckily the tower is not just open on "Airshow days" otherwise they'd have heaps of problems.
Luckily the tower is not just open on "Airshow days" otherwise they'd have heaps of problems.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Ops at Avalon
Qantas have been doing circuit ops a few days week at Avalon throughout this month and I can't remember the tower being open once during this period for there circuit training.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas circuits at AV
Couple of times in the last 2 months I've flown over on a Saturday.
Both times either 1 or 2 QF doing circuits at 1500'AGL
(both times I prudently overflew at 2500)
MBZ procedures applied.
Last time I saw C-class active at AV was last week.
DIVOSH
Both times either 1 or 2 QF doing circuits at 1500'AGL
(both times I prudently overflew at 2500)
MBZ procedures applied.
Last time I saw C-class active at AV was last week.
DIVOSH