Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Busselton closed to training flights

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Busselton closed to training flights

Old 17th Oct 2009, 11:18
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,245
Busselton closed to training flights

Busselton Shire in it's infinite wisdom has decreed that flight training is not permitted without planning approval. This has allegedly been extended to operators from Jandakot and Perth airport.

"Usage of the Airport for activities associated with flight training including landing and taking off, approaches, missed approaches and touch and goes is not permitted without planning consent.

Failure to comply with this request may result in an infringement or prosecution under the Planning and Development Act 2005."

I thought that the airport was owned by by the state government and Busselton is merely the operator. I have heard this has just been imposed to appease some grumpy locals who object to the occasional bit of aircraft noise.

Full link to the media release Flight Training Stopped at Busselton Regional Airport - 8 October 2009 | Shire of Busselton
YPJT is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 11:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 450
How can they 'suddenly' discover rulings such as this? Training has been going on at Busso for years and there's been no snags until now. Has a new box of councillors been opened with their own agendas?

I hope the guys there manage to get the approvals they need but it sounds like they're going by be shovelling the proverbrial uphill before it all even starts. Guess we'll be seeing more activity at Manji and Bunbury now then.
Fratemate is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 12:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
Time for some direct questions at the next coucil meeting.........

1. Have any of you ever travelled by QF/VB/AN/JQ et al...?
2. Did you expect the crew came straight from Microsoft FS2003 ?
3. Would you be happy if they did?
4. Would you prefer pilots trained the way they have been for decades?
5. Have these same pilots been trained with GA schools initially using country airfields?

Well shut the **** up and quit the ban! Your life and you childrens life may be influenced by it!

J
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 13:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,700
Their right to ban training probably depends on who funded the airport and the navaids in the first place. If it was the taxpayer at large (as opposed to local ratepayers) they should be challenged. Should the ratepayers have funded the airport but not the navaids, they may be able to stop training landings or touch and goes on their little piece of tarmac, but how could they stop approaches to a go-around from the published MAP? To what vertical limit does a local shire control or own airspace?
Meantime, where is the NOTAM?
It's probably those bloody horse people whining about a bit of noise. The same up-your-nose mob who buy up the cheap swampland around airports, build big houses under the flight path and then lobby council to ban those infernal flying machines because they are frightening the polo ponies. A horse that freaks at a bit of noise is a danger to itself and its rider anyway. Fit only for a can of petfood. And unless they are breeding stock horses for proper mustering work, imho these anti-aviation Luddites are contributing NOTHING useful to society.
Meantime they engage in their own anti-social behaviour by inconveniencing the rest of us with their horse floats blocking the roads when we need to be on time for work/choir practice/fishing/girlfriend/pub.

Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 18th Oct 2009 at 09:43.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 14:57
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 726
I suggest someone look at the concept of 'existing use rights' under the Planning Act.

There would also have to be question mark over council's legal powers to control aviation activities decreed to be legal under Commonwealth legislation.
CoodaShooda is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 21:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 36
Posts: 417
Was there not a case a few years ago where a Council tried to impose landing / handling fees for overflight of it's airport? Even if you were doing aerial work on the Aid, this council felt it had the authority to charge you.

Only problem the aid was owned by AsA, and the council told to sod off back into it's box as their limit stops at the surface. Just as you as a landowner have no say in what Metro tunnels might be built under your house..
KRviator is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 00:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 395
MEDIA RELEASE

Flight Training Stopped at Busselton Regional Airport - 8 October
2009

Busselton Shire President, Cr Wes Hartley, has said "Today Flight Training Operators will be advised by the Shire of Busselton that the Busselton Regional Airport cannot be used for flight training unless valid planning approvals exist and that future flight training will require planning approval in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme 20".

Usage of the Airport for activities associated with flight training including landing and taking off, approaches, missed approaches and touch and goes is not permitted without planning consent.

Failure to comply with this request may result in an infringement or prosecution under the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Acting CEO Matthew Smith said "The Shire has obtained legal advice and if an organisation wishes to continue to use the Busselton Regional Airport for flight training, the appropriate application will need to be completed and submitted. The application will then need to go through the assessment process. Operators will be required to make application to the Shire if they wish to undertake flight training from the Airport."
While it's not exactly clear in it's intent, I'd say they won't allow training flights at the airport by operators based at Busselton, which I suspect they could enforce. They would need to publish the ban in ERSA to deter training organisations from outside using the airport.

In any case, they have no authority over the airspace, and have no legal authority to stop approaches and missed approaches. Unless the information was volunteered, how would they know if an itinerant aircraft was on a training flight when it landed and took off ?
Ovation is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 00:50
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up North
Age: 30
Posts: 493
i can understand how they can impose bans on touch and go's (as an airfield in the NT which was used extensivly for flight training has done this) but as for IR training, I doubt they own the aid, therefore how can the legally prevent aircraft from conducting approach training?

and incidently, how is this going to affect the aero club there?
AussieNick is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 03:19
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,245
The flying club has apparently already ceased operation. Interestingly enough the skydivers are continuing to operate with their C182 and BN2.

I think Mach E Avelli hit the nail on the head with hs summation of how this has come about.

It was Cunderdin Shire some time back that tried to impose fees for use of the NDB until it was pointed out by Airservices that they neither owned nor maintained the aid.

Apparently some operators at Jandakot have received letters also advising that no training activity is to take place. Simple, just downgrade that leg of the flight to pvt
YPJT is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 04:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chunny
Posts: 171
Worth bringing it up with A Current Affair or Today Tonight ?


- waiting for abuse -
myshoutcaptain is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 04:32
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 29
If this is allowed to continue Busselton Shire have set a precedence for many more Shires to follow.

Increase traffic at Manjimup and Bunbury will be a definite. Bunbury is already busy enough at times.
XX-ANY is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 05:15
  #12 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,102
I heard that some operators have been threatened by letter with prosecution if they use the airport for training. Apparently the rule they state applies to council owned roads tho I haven't investigated this too closely. They haven't sent me anything but the recent standards of Australia Post doesn't mean it hasn't been sent.

I think there is a bit of history if you go throught their council minutes, apparently some schools were talking of relocating down a few years back there if YPJT was closed and that spooked people, there was also apparently a consortium that were going to look at getting land down there and building another airport near there. Some well known local identities were involved, one of whom died and the project was then shelved.

Lets not forget that the bod who tried to charge people to use the NDB at YCUN, also had a touch-and-go fee for gliders . I wouldn't take their "legal opinion" too seriously!
Charlie Foxtrot India is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 07:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 174
I did my endorsement training at Busso when I joined the Flying Doc's.
In the 2 years that I worked there I retrieved many a patient out of Busso so I think the council should really consider their options before they carry out their unjust actions.

Regards the Dog
Under Dog is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 07:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 482
Does 'ownership' of the airport and it's navaids actually allow a Local Government owner to do anything but cop it sweet? My guess is that Busselton is under pressure from ratepayers under the navaid missed approach track, who object to largish/maybe all, aircraft training there at all times of night and day.

If they actually 'own' the navaid, then it could be switched off, after advising ASA and having it NOTAM'D. Then, the training wouldcease. As they don't have RPT dependant on the aid - then where's the loss? In fact, they might save outlays.

If Busselton are being charged at the same exorbitant rate for navaid calibration that Albany is, ($120,000 pa), then the savings they make would more than outweigh the fees they might be able to recoup from the navaid users.

happy days,
poteroo is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 07:57
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Does the owner of the airport also own the airspace above? I thought the airspace was owned by the federal government.
Trash Hauler is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 08:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 482
You are 100% correct about the 'airspace' ownership.

But, regardless of who owns what - the creation of 'a nuisance' inflicted on the lowly earthlings below is indefensible. Unless, of course, they moved into the area after the airport and navaid were commissioned and their Titles were amended to include this risk of noise nuisance.

Instead of heaping it onto the Busselton owners, maybe some of you should ask them for specific details.

happy days,
poteroo is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 09:46
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Left Right Out
Posts: 93
Are you kidding?

Poteroo - Instead of heaping it onto the Busselton owners, maybe some of you should ask them for specific details.

This is the nothing new!

Poteroo - how far from the airport do you live?

With a statement like that, you either live very close or have a direct benefit to be derived from the local area.

After so much local money has been spent on some sensational facilities down at the airport, there has to be some very serious questions asked here!

Why has the council suddenly done a back flip on what I would suggest is one of the most important airports in the region?

Has the on coming Gorgan project up north of WA, put too much "potential" pressure on a council that has been advised they will receive a huge windfall....not enough accom in Perth and most skilled workers want to live in the South West, so Busso will prosper.

Have the current councilors other plans for their own fortunes?

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would stand in the face of some very strong economic times to come. IF, as the state Govt. suggest, Busso is going to "the place" to live, and knowing that the "skills" from the Gorgon project equal $$$$$, and those $$$$ can equal Flight Training, and local economy $$$$$, why would you stop them from coming?

I am sure there is more to this story...the down side is the continued degradation of GA in this once fine country!
AirSic is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 01:58
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 431
AirSic

I think you'll find that Poteroo has far more connection with and understands Aviation better than most.

His point is valid. Most aircraft ARE noisy and repeated exposure does get disturbing.

I have friends involved in aviation who have moved in to close proximity to a major GA airport (because of convenience and that they said they liked hearing aircraft).
They are starting to complain and only don't do so because they understand that there was some hypocrisy in that motive.

Better to come to a consensus than go to war that no one wins.

Last edited by ZEEBEE; 19th Oct 2009 at 02:20.
ZEEBEE is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 03:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South O Equator
Posts: 216
A while back there was a group of people who were trying to get either Margaret River or Busselton a Customs and Quarantine outpost so that they could have international flights come directly into the region as there are no air services out of Perth. Would allow people to go straight to the wineries without the pesky 3-4 hour drive. Oh how times have changed!!

The new highway that was just opened takes around 45 minutes off the time to drive from Perth - Busselton which will hopefully mean that towns like Bunbury, Busselton and Dunsborough will benefit in terms of population growth. Why then would the council in it's infinite wisdom try to discourage a good and well maintained airport? RFDS use it often. Mining charters have run out of there for a few years now. As someone mentioned above, the pilots who fly those services have to stay current somewhere and BLN is the best and most convenient place around Perth.

I got the letter from the Busselton council and it mentioned that you can be banned from using the airport is you fail to comply with their new decree. I am not sure that they have the ability to enforce such a statement but I sincerely hope that they don't.
Ref + 10 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 05:32
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,705
Now now AIRSIC........(And 'Jaba'.....)

Cup of tea,.........BEX..........Good lie down......

Good argument though....

However, the press release does NOT say that Flight Training is prohibited -


It says " the appropriate application will need to be completed and submitted. The application will then need to go through the assessment process. Operators will be required to make application to the Shire if they wish to undertake flight training from the Airport."
(End of Quote)

The 'local economy' $$$$'s will be affected - they could actually benefit from frequent / steady YBLN based Training Flights.
The Shire should realise that an Airport can be the most important 'road' in town - to paraphrase the DVD 'Rwy 16 Right' theme....

It is noted from ERSA that the AD Charges are for 'ACFT ABV 2,000kgs' which would perhaps preclude MOST training acft anyway.....

However, as stated, if the pending 'Boom' eventuates and benefits the many people of the local area with the FIFO flights to the NW, then a local Flying School may well be able to operate quite successfully I would venture... and the 'local economy' benefits....

I guess the Shire, as the AD OPR, could 'mandate' Right Hand circuits off Rwy 03 so that a lesser number of the populace would be affected by the noise - if THAT is the problem...

p.s. Maybe 'they' just want to 'regulate' the training...and maybe extract an 'appropriate' fee.??

Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 19th Oct 2009 at 06:27.
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.