Barwon Heads Airport Closed
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, it might surprise you, but the 3 ring circus has nothing to do with the skydivers, they came along later. You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****. For the benefit of Peter, the 3 ring circus has long referred to the triangle of airports that make up the local CTAF. Since most of you haven't been around all that long, you may not know. In any case, I might point out that the incumbents at Barwon Heads were warned well in advance of lukey boys antics and lack of control, yet they chose to allow him in and to take his money. Sorry guys, you bought the whole thing on yourselves........
Rest assured I have no sympathy for either side.
Rest assured I have no sympathy for either side.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: higherup
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porch monkey
I must clarify this situation
The Guy’s didn’t choose to take him on at all.
The Airport owner (one person) did.
The Guy’s as you put it and I’m one, got caught up in the **** fight because they reported the breaches of safety regulations.
There have been many mentions of the three ring circus in relation to the dirtdart saga at BHA and seeing the other Airports are not involved maybe the three clowns mentioned in the AAT decision fit the bill.
pol
Oh as for the wiz, who would bother?
I must clarify this situation
The Guy’s didn’t choose to take him on at all.
The Airport owner (one person) did.
The Guy’s as you put it and I’m one, got caught up in the **** fight because they reported the breaches of safety regulations.
There have been many mentions of the three ring circus in relation to the dirtdart saga at BHA and seeing the other Airports are not involved maybe the three clowns mentioned in the AAT decision fit the bill.
pol
Oh as for the wiz, who would bother?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will note that I have refrained from the individual attack, as I well understand that many of you were not there when certain decisions were made - Fair enough. Whether the circus bit fits the skydivers or not wasn't my point, I was clarifying my use of the "3 ring circus" quote in it's original context. As I said, I don't have any favourites in this, certain people were warned about it, but sadly, chose to ignore and both sides have suffered as a consequence..........
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geelong
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have pretty much got it right POQL and I endorse what you say in relation to the Parachute Federation, They have played a major part in this mess by doing nothing and surely must now act to ensure that no other airfield in faced with this operator who will not follow the regulations and has a history of setting his own rules.
I also believe porch monkey has got it right. The early references to the three ring circus on the various threads did relate to the three airfields in the CTAF area but has later been referenced to the parachute operation, and yes I understand the owner was warned of McWilliam but a month of abiding to all the regulations and showing that he could fit in was accepted with the dollars that were promised.
History now shows it was a disastrous decision that was made for all using the airfield, and only recently Frank Connell a hangar owner agreed to allow McWilliam to continue to use his hangar to conduct his parachuting business.
A decision again made for the greedy dollar.
Hopefully for all concerned this debacle on an airfield with great potential for recreational flying will be in the past and the developments being suggested will go ahead.
I also believe porch monkey has got it right. The early references to the three ring circus on the various threads did relate to the three airfields in the CTAF area but has later been referenced to the parachute operation, and yes I understand the owner was warned of McWilliam but a month of abiding to all the regulations and showing that he could fit in was accepted with the dollars that were promised.
History now shows it was a disastrous decision that was made for all using the airfield, and only recently Frank Connell a hangar owner agreed to allow McWilliam to continue to use his hangar to conduct his parachuting business.
A decision again made for the greedy dollar.
Hopefully for all concerned this debacle on an airfield with great potential for recreational flying will be in the past and the developments being suggested will go ahead.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez POL, RS480, PQOL,inthefluffystuff and all the other names you post under.
I am happy for you that you have whatever it is you think you achieved, but...... every time someone you have some sort of problem with, farts, picks their nose or whatever, another Barwon heads thread appears and then there is all the crap you dribble about public safety to make it legitimate. (yeah, lets hear about your safety record then shall we....... you know of what I speak of
)
a rational (yeah I know, you wouldn't know what that is) discussion is fine and even a plan of action resolved, but you clowns all just bitch and moan and carry on about the same crap in every thread, and then descend into personal insults with anyone that either disagrees with you or calls you for what you are. you had your win, and good onya..... so get over it. Its no wonder the dude smacked some of you around. I'm sure a saint would be driven to distraction with you bunch of mouthy clowns and belt you as well.
Come on Tailwheel, do the right thing........ and that isnt the same as what you did last time I mentioned something on one of these ridicules threads they keep posting.
I am happy for you that you have whatever it is you think you achieved, but...... every time someone you have some sort of problem with, farts, picks their nose or whatever, another Barwon heads thread appears and then there is all the crap you dribble about public safety to make it legitimate. (yeah, lets hear about your safety record then shall we....... you know of what I speak of
)a rational (yeah I know, you wouldn't know what that is) discussion is fine and even a plan of action resolved, but you clowns all just bitch and moan and carry on about the same crap in every thread, and then descend into personal insults with anyone that either disagrees with you or calls you for what you are. you had your win, and good onya..... so get over it. Its no wonder the dude smacked some of you around. I'm sure a saint would be driven to distraction with you bunch of mouthy clowns and belt you as well.
Come on Tailwheel, do the right thing........ and that isnt the same as what you did last time I mentioned something on one of these ridicules threads they keep posting.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After sitting quietly and watching this crap go on for so long, I must say that P.M. and W.O.Z. are both 100% on the money. One of the rings of this circus did warn the BWH gang not to touch L.Mc with a barge pole many moons ago, but look what happened. Was all the money worth it??? I dont think so. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the Drop Zone to start up again under the rule of someone else. As we all know, the demise of any good airport is the callibah of the Muppets running the Aero Club.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes yes PLEASE!!! Ban it, ban them all. Once upon a time I had some sympathy for Barb and co but after 3 years of bitching and insults and over use of massive bold type about some little victorian backwater, it is getting rather tiring. No one cares. Go team McWilliam!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lara, VIC.
Age: 67
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just ignore it.
If the posts re BHA are such crap, then why not just ignore them. Silence is a potent tool. The fact that this thread keeps going means it is generating interest. Remember that other people are entitled to a viewpoint other than yours.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz
My Opinion is that you arrive at this site to see what can be done to stir the pot a bit, why if you are so against this site come here to even look at the posts. I know it is your freedom to do so as it is mine but hey I have this mouse button and press it and bingo it is gone.
Why do you say to a poster (Pall) that he is not so anonymous, his comments do seem rational to me? anyhow powww and im gone!!!
My Opinion is that you arrive at this site to see what can be done to stir the pot a bit, why if you are so against this site come here to even look at the posts. I know it is your freedom to do so as it is mine but hey I have this mouse button and press it and bingo it is gone.
Why do you say to a poster (Pall) that he is not so anonymous, his comments do seem rational to me? anyhow powww and im gone!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lara, VIC.
Age: 67
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a big boy now!
Don't worry about me, I am a big boy now and don't care what others think of me.
Wiz, I agree that some of the posts re BHA can be futile and petty. Still some of those people posting still are my friends.
Keep in mind that we have endured years of safety abuses and inaction from the authorities. Now we can get on with perusing our love of aviation free of abuse and stupidity.
If BHA is a turn off for people they don't have to come there or associate with us. I still maintain that it is a friendly place to visit.
Wiz, I agree that some of the posts re BHA can be futile and petty. Still some of those people posting still are my friends.
Keep in mind that we have endured years of safety abuses and inaction from the authorities. Now we can get on with perusing our love of aviation free of abuse and stupidity.
If BHA is a turn off for people they don't have to come there or associate with us. I still maintain that it is a friendly place to visit.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: wa
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inbetweenthesheets
Inbetweenthesheets I have taken your advice and read the decision, this is my opinion. I do not think you realise what the ramifications you and your friends have made on the rest of General Aviation. Indeed this decision gives CASA the power to remove licences, frustrate contractual relationships and change airspace without true cause.
My view is that member Egon Fice did not want to hear the case and appeared to use any previous decisions including those made by his superior, Deputy Prisident S.A. Forgie and some obscure cases in immigration to limit or restrict the right for review.
In paragraph 21, Egon Fice makes reference to the resumed complaints but does not state the outcomes of any investigations. How do we know if these alleged complaints were indeed justified. Surely this is a pivotal point as parachuting activities were allowed to re-occur, and models put in place by CASA to ensure the safety of air users and members of the public.
Paragraph 23. So what, if Mrs Begg wants to build hangars in some paddock, she has clearly leased it out for parachute operations. CASA should not be used to frustrate contractual relationships, just because the owner wishes to change the use.
Paragraph 31. It would appear that CASA was happy to continue parachute operations after 29th January 2004, subject to conditions. However, after the 6th April 2005 CASA believed Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayley and Skydive City engaged in conduct that constituted the serious risk to aviation safety in relation to the previous instruments. I therefore would expect to read the results of investigations between these times, however there appears to be none other that references given to complaints and Andrew Ward allegedly seeing parachutists going through cloud. How does allowing these people to skydive in all other areas suddenly make them safe?
I find the comments made about the proposed dangers to the public at large somewhat exaggerated. Barwon Heads and Bankstown are clearly poles apart. No supporting evidence was given on risk assessment. Any aircraft has the potential to crash so should we ban all aviation? Or we can take it one step further and ban all modes of transport.
Paragraph 70. An authorised Fisheries Officer, What where fish in “them” clouds?
What makes Approved parachuting through cloud safe, apposed to unapproved? In the fine print in this case appears Mrs Begg (Para 83.)
Paragraph 90. It is my understanding that there has been “a complete breakdown of co-operation” in the Geelong CTAF for years. So should be closed down all flying in the Geelong area? Or should they all be locked up in there hangers?
Paragraph 93. All the “voluminous reports” stop out side the Geelong CTAF, why? The same pilots who drop same parachutists at other airports don’t get them same “voluminous reports”
It’s clear the rest of the world has a different view on what is conflicting traffic. It would appear Mr Marcolin from CASA summed the whole situation up, “…from what I have to date it is clear to me that CASA is being used to provide operational restrictions on a legitimate aviation activity, i.e. parachuting, for reasons other than legitimate safety grounds, albeit that this whole saga may have had it geneses based on some genuine safety concern.”
My view is that member Egon Fice did not want to hear the case and appeared to use any previous decisions including those made by his superior, Deputy Prisident S.A. Forgie and some obscure cases in immigration to limit or restrict the right for review.
In paragraph 21, Egon Fice makes reference to the resumed complaints but does not state the outcomes of any investigations. How do we know if these alleged complaints were indeed justified. Surely this is a pivotal point as parachuting activities were allowed to re-occur, and models put in place by CASA to ensure the safety of air users and members of the public.
Paragraph 23. So what, if Mrs Begg wants to build hangars in some paddock, she has clearly leased it out for parachute operations. CASA should not be used to frustrate contractual relationships, just because the owner wishes to change the use.
Paragraph 31. It would appear that CASA was happy to continue parachute operations after 29th January 2004, subject to conditions. However, after the 6th April 2005 CASA believed Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayley and Skydive City engaged in conduct that constituted the serious risk to aviation safety in relation to the previous instruments. I therefore would expect to read the results of investigations between these times, however there appears to be none other that references given to complaints and Andrew Ward allegedly seeing parachutists going through cloud. How does allowing these people to skydive in all other areas suddenly make them safe?
I find the comments made about the proposed dangers to the public at large somewhat exaggerated. Barwon Heads and Bankstown are clearly poles apart. No supporting evidence was given on risk assessment. Any aircraft has the potential to crash so should we ban all aviation? Or we can take it one step further and ban all modes of transport.
Paragraph 70. An authorised Fisheries Officer, What where fish in “them” clouds?
What makes Approved parachuting through cloud safe, apposed to unapproved? In the fine print in this case appears Mrs Begg (Para 83.)
Paragraph 90. It is my understanding that there has been “a complete breakdown of co-operation” in the Geelong CTAF for years. So should be closed down all flying in the Geelong area? Or should they all be locked up in there hangers?
Paragraph 93. All the “voluminous reports” stop out side the Geelong CTAF, why? The same pilots who drop same parachutists at other airports don’t get them same “voluminous reports”
It’s clear the rest of the world has a different view on what is conflicting traffic. It would appear Mr Marcolin from CASA summed the whole situation up, “…from what I have to date it is clear to me that CASA is being used to provide operational restrictions on a legitimate aviation activity, i.e. parachuting, for reasons other than legitimate safety grounds, albeit that this whole saga may have had it geneses based on some genuine safety concern.”
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-EFS
I suggest you sit down and read the report more meticulously, have the CASA and APF regs. handy and you may appreciate some of the following.
CASA always has had the power to remove licences and change airspace and in doing may frustrate contractual relationships.
As to doing so without true cause, I doubt that would occur and if it did the harmed party has the option to have the decision reviewed by the federal Court or the AAT.
As in any legal case the Adjudicator will refer to previous decisions that relate to the matter at hand.
In this case any previous decision relating to right for review is pertinent.
I have not seen any documentation that would support your claim
“Egon Fice did not want to hear the case”
and indeed he allowed all arguments to be heard without constraint (obviously you never attended the hearing).
With regard to para 21 we don’t have to know if the complaints were justified as it is not up to “we” to make the determination in relation to the safety of air usere and members of the public.
The incident reports are forwarded to CASA for investigation and I am sure if the reports proved to be unjustified CASA would not have acted upon them.
The proposed models you refer were just that proposed, they were found to be unworkable and neve introduced.
The airport is private property and CASA cannot dictate to the owner what uses the property will be used for.
In relation to Para 23 you state “some paddock, she has clearly leased it out for parachute operations”
Obviously you have privy to her contractual obligations, or is it an assumption, I am of the belief that the existence of a lease is to be determined in the Federal Court within the next few weeks.
Para. 31 It does appear CASA was happy to continue parachute operations providing those operations were within the regulations, but clearly Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayley and Skydive City were unable or unwilling to comply with those regulations creating a serious risk to air navigational safety and to the safety of general public.
The results of the investigations were made available to those involved; maybe you should have a look at the Magistrates Court cases for the findings.
The findings by Fice do not make it safe for these people to skydive in other areas only BHA, but to place an order to prevent them doing so is restrictive trade.
Your comment regarding the proposed dangers to the public at large being exaggerated is a little over the top, do you believe the public at large in Bankstown are entitled to be exposed to less danger than those at Barwon Heads or is it safety for one and all?
You are right in saying any aircraft has the potential to crash but does mean all that can be done within reason to prevent a disaster should not be done.
In relation to Para 70 one does not have to be a Rhode scholar to appreciate that the Chairman is alluding to the fact that a Fisheries Officer is credible and above reproach.
I relation to jumping thru cloud I suggest you read the regulations placed on organisations that have approval to parachute thru cloud; you should have done so prior to writing.
The breakdown in co-operation was between a skydiver operator refusing to comply with CASA and APF regulations and other users of the airport attempting to have all operations conducted safely.
Obviously all reports stopped outside the Geelong CTAF because that is where McWilliam and Skydive city operated.
It’s clear the rest of the world has a different view on what is conflicting traffic
I have overlooked your sarcastic little digs up to now but the above statement brings you down to the level of The Wizard of Auz.( must be in the WA water)
sheets
I suggest you sit down and read the report more meticulously, have the CASA and APF regs. handy and you may appreciate some of the following.
CASA always has had the power to remove licences and change airspace and in doing may frustrate contractual relationships.
As to doing so without true cause, I doubt that would occur and if it did the harmed party has the option to have the decision reviewed by the federal Court or the AAT.
As in any legal case the Adjudicator will refer to previous decisions that relate to the matter at hand.
In this case any previous decision relating to right for review is pertinent.
I have not seen any documentation that would support your claim
“Egon Fice did not want to hear the case”
and indeed he allowed all arguments to be heard without constraint (obviously you never attended the hearing).
With regard to para 21 we don’t have to know if the complaints were justified as it is not up to “we” to make the determination in relation to the safety of air usere and members of the public.
The incident reports are forwarded to CASA for investigation and I am sure if the reports proved to be unjustified CASA would not have acted upon them.
The proposed models you refer were just that proposed, they were found to be unworkable and neve introduced.
The airport is private property and CASA cannot dictate to the owner what uses the property will be used for.
In relation to Para 23 you state “some paddock, she has clearly leased it out for parachute operations”
Obviously you have privy to her contractual obligations, or is it an assumption, I am of the belief that the existence of a lease is to be determined in the Federal Court within the next few weeks.
Para. 31 It does appear CASA was happy to continue parachute operations providing those operations were within the regulations, but clearly Luke McWilliam, Greg Bayley and Skydive City were unable or unwilling to comply with those regulations creating a serious risk to air navigational safety and to the safety of general public.
The results of the investigations were made available to those involved; maybe you should have a look at the Magistrates Court cases for the findings.
The findings by Fice do not make it safe for these people to skydive in other areas only BHA, but to place an order to prevent them doing so is restrictive trade.
Your comment regarding the proposed dangers to the public at large being exaggerated is a little over the top, do you believe the public at large in Bankstown are entitled to be exposed to less danger than those at Barwon Heads or is it safety for one and all?
You are right in saying any aircraft has the potential to crash but does mean all that can be done within reason to prevent a disaster should not be done.
In relation to Para 70 one does not have to be a Rhode scholar to appreciate that the Chairman is alluding to the fact that a Fisheries Officer is credible and above reproach.
I relation to jumping thru cloud I suggest you read the regulations placed on organisations that have approval to parachute thru cloud; you should have done so prior to writing.
The breakdown in co-operation was between a skydiver operator refusing to comply with CASA and APF regulations and other users of the airport attempting to have all operations conducted safely.
Obviously all reports stopped outside the Geelong CTAF because that is where McWilliam and Skydive city operated.
It’s clear the rest of the world has a different view on what is conflicting traffic
I have overlooked your sarcastic little digs up to now but the above statement brings you down to the level of The Wizard of Auz.( must be in the WA water)
sheets
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have overlooked your sarcastic little digs up to now but the above statement brings you down to the level of The Wizard of Auz.( must be in the WA water)
Just had to do it huh?.Now the thread has become an almost sensible conversation, I'll take my poor grammar and spelling and go and have a look at the report.
Just for clarity, Does the operator in question have a neighboring property with a strip?. Some of the previous posts/threads indicated something along these lines.
Yes. Ahh... make that "no". It's not a runway, it's a road.... complete with tyre markers either side, and wide enough for a plane - ahh... a truck... Looks to be 20m long and about 500 or so wide.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like a couple of posts have been omitted from last night by the moderators suggesting that McWilliam relocate and giving his contact number. They were probably right in doing this!!!
Having followed this post for a long time, there have been many postings supporting McWilliam and his parachuting operation at Barwon Heads, and last night someone suggested that now is the time for his supporters to come up with suggestions and support as to where he can relocate.
The AAT have affirmed their earlier decision to ban parachuting within 2 miles of Barwon Heads and this has now put an end to McWilliams ambitions to take over the Barwon Heads airport. Co-operation may have saved his operation and he will not be given approval to operate from a road on his property next door by the local Council.
For all those supporters, Insider ACCC etc etc now is your chance to offer your support to have McWilliam operate from your prefered airport.
This we know will not happen. You were happy to support him while he operated at another airport, and you keep your airfield a safe operation, and let others take the chance.
It has been confirmed an application to Yarrawonga has seen the crew there revolt and "we do not want him here".
What McWilliam wants is a paddock somewhere where he can put an airstrip and drop dirtdarts whenever he wants. To hell with the required rules and regulations of CASA and the APF. There must be somewhere he can be accommodated??
And whilst mentioning the APF have a look at their website, They have massive problems with their new CEO, sacks all the staff, creating a massive upheavil in parachuting circles, and it appears they are now ruddrless and seeking more volunteers to run the show.
This situation should be a concern to all aviators including the parachute fraternity. Rule makers that cannot enforce the rules is a worry to all. Maybe time for CASA to withhold their hefty grant of around $100000 and take control until the APF can demonstrate they are a responsible body to take control of parachuting within Australia.
It would appear all of these problems having been created by a parachute operator who believed he was beyond the rules and regulations and has now brought problems to parachuting Australia wide.
Where is the Insider, ACCC and the rest of his supporters, he needs your help.
Having followed this post for a long time, there have been many postings supporting McWilliam and his parachuting operation at Barwon Heads, and last night someone suggested that now is the time for his supporters to come up with suggestions and support as to where he can relocate.
The AAT have affirmed their earlier decision to ban parachuting within 2 miles of Barwon Heads and this has now put an end to McWilliams ambitions to take over the Barwon Heads airport. Co-operation may have saved his operation and he will not be given approval to operate from a road on his property next door by the local Council.
For all those supporters, Insider ACCC etc etc now is your chance to offer your support to have McWilliam operate from your prefered airport.
This we know will not happen. You were happy to support him while he operated at another airport, and you keep your airfield a safe operation, and let others take the chance.
It has been confirmed an application to Yarrawonga has seen the crew there revolt and "we do not want him here".
What McWilliam wants is a paddock somewhere where he can put an airstrip and drop dirtdarts whenever he wants. To hell with the required rules and regulations of CASA and the APF. There must be somewhere he can be accommodated??
And whilst mentioning the APF have a look at their website, They have massive problems with their new CEO, sacks all the staff, creating a massive upheavil in parachuting circles, and it appears they are now ruddrless and seeking more volunteers to run the show.
This situation should be a concern to all aviators including the parachute fraternity. Rule makers that cannot enforce the rules is a worry to all. Maybe time for CASA to withhold their hefty grant of around $100000 and take control until the APF can demonstrate they are a responsible body to take control of parachuting within Australia.
It would appear all of these problems having been created by a parachute operator who believed he was beyond the rules and regulations and has now brought problems to parachuting Australia wide.
Where is the Insider, ACCC and the rest of his supporters, he needs your help.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the guy has problems following rules and regs, and is a risk to public safety, maybe its better he doesn't get anywhere to operate from.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: higherup
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Wizza
Looks like you might be on the ball at last.
But there’s more to come JUST WATCH THIS THREAD, McSkydive has filled his pants with nuggets and I don’t mean gold!!!!
pol
Looks like you might be on the ball at last.
But there’s more to come JUST WATCH THIS THREAD, McSkydive has filled his pants with nuggets and I don’t mean gold!!!!
pol