Archerfield Airport 2011 Master Plan Objectons

[AACCI]

We need your help urgently.

The Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (AACCI) requests all pilots and those with any connection to aviation to immediately submit an objection to the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 Preliminary Draft Master Plan (pDMP).

It is extremely important for the survival of the airport that everyone makes the effort.
If the pDMP is not stopped aviation business and aviation infrastructure on the airfield will be adversely affected. The present cross runways, fuel farms, and helicopter flights schools and helicopter training areas are all at grave risk. The safety and capability of the airfield will be diminished under this plan.

Prepare an Objection in just seconds using the Emailed Objection Automated Assistance Webpage of AACCI.

Just Click on the attached link:
http://aacci.org.au/index.php?option=com_rsform&formId=3

It is that simple to save the airport – everyone can do it.
Please retry a few times if the page takes a while to come up on your web browser.
It will also work on an Iphone and webmail systems.

Objections to the 2011 Archerfield Preliminary Draft Master Plan conclude on Friday 18th March 2011.
Please pass this email on to all of your aviation friends and friends of aviation and in any forums or posts.

For more information we refer you the Media releases of the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. - www.aacci.org.au

[havick]

done... Good luck

[John Eacott]

Also done.

Good luck

[Unregistered1]

The Archerfield Master Plan Fact Sheets and associated Technical Papers appear poorly written and lack depth. I wouldn't be too worried.

Mr Albanese has a habit of knocking back poor Master Plans.

Looks like Archerfield's may be another.

I signed the objection anyway.

[PLovett]

Ditto.....

[Jabawocky]

ditto!!

[ThePaperBoy]

AACCI,

Would you mind outlining how exactly the master plan threatens the survival of the airport? Facts, not speculation please.

If new facilities can be provided at the expense of removing some of the tired, unused areas I don't see a problem. If some of the unoccupied land is not being used for aviation business, why not redevelop it in to non-aviation commercial? All the buildings on Beatty Road are in a terrible state and only a few have historical value. Let's face it, aviation isn't coming back to any capital city in droves and other airports such as YCAB, YRED and JCW are better served to handle the growing RAA movement.

I'd rather Woolworths (for example) pay for part of the AAC budget than landing fees continuing to go up.

Why not open up YBAF to larger aircraft (such as freight forwarders)? YBBN is going to becoming very difficult for the larger GA operators in the next 10 years due to redevelopment - why not improve the YBAF facilities to encourage growth. Old mate in his Piper Arrow who flies once a month doesn't really contribute as much as a Pel Air or Toll would.

Runway 04/22 is a mess and rarely used (sure it could be upgraded, but would cost the users millions of dollars to level and seal it). I believe a runway in a more SE/NW direction is being proposed - a longer runway favouring the common SE trade winds sounds good to me. Putting a new runway in doesn't sound like they're killing the airport.

And for the record I'm not on AAC's side, rather somewhere in the middle. I just don't really appreciate the scare tactics AACCI use some times. Sorry, the sky isn't falling guys.

[ThePaperBoy]

I didn't initially click on your link because I thought that would submit the petition. I have since found this isn't the case.

Because a re-alignment of the 04_22 runways to 01_19 runways will result in the loss of existing aviation facilities and infrastructure including but not limited to, the Fuel Farms located in the centre of the airport, likely demolition of the control tower, all of the helicopter training areas – areas "Alpha and "Bravo", helicopter flying schools, and all aviation businesses on the airport north of Boundary road.

Has it been confirmed all of these facilities will not be replaced? Have they not outlined where a new helicopter training area will be? I'd be amazed if the fuel farm wasn't rebuilt somewhere. There is not enough traffic for three operators, but surely Shell will stick around for avgas and avtur. Which business are north of Boundary Road?

Because a re-alignment of the grass runways to 01_19 is unacceptable to me as a pilot user of the airport

Bullsh*t. 01/19 is totally acceptable to me as a pilot user of the airport. The only issue is EFATO, but we're in a bit of trouble no matter which way we take off. It's better than the 04/22 situation anyway. We're talking about only a 30 degree runway heading change for a better runway - this is not a big deal!

Because the proposed re-alignment of the cross runways will subject flying trainees to cross wind conditions on most occasions and would disrupt flying training programs because landing an aircraft being the most difficult part of basic flying training, can mostly only be practiced directly into wind until skill levels can cope.

We were stuffed trying to send students solo off rwy 10 anytime after about 9am because of the common SE's. What about the pilots who have learnt to fly at single runway airports - they've all learnt to deal with crosswinds anyway. The most favourable time of the morning was 6-9am because the winds were light and variable and there was very little thermal activity. Things won't change with a new runway! The only problem will be the Ekka winds when we have the wind at 270/30-40 knots - but most people don't fly on those days anyway!

Because the pDMP would impose too costly a price to existing aviation tenants, aviation service facility providers and ultimately all aviation users of the airport.

Like I said in the previous post, why not let a large corporate help fund the airport? The land is just wasted otherwise.

I'm not on AAC's side, but I think debate is healthy instead of all this "let's get the airport owner goons - they're all evil" non-sense. Yes, things will never be as good as they used to before privatisation. Sure, some people have been screwed over by previous management groups. But why not work with, not against, the airport? YBAF's situation is not as bad as what others have faced across the country. Work together for a sustainable future!

[LeadSled]

ThePaperBoy,

Sound like you work for Archerfield Airport Corporation.

Do you know what "single till" means, I don't see that AAC operates a single till accounting system, ie; show us the evidence that non-aviation lease income is used to reduce charges to aviation users

Without going into all your misconceptions/misinformation, just have a look at the actual met wind data, you comments about prevailing seasonal winds are way off base.

Tell us all, do you support the lease of the land for Pickles Auctions heavy machinery storage facility ---- right in a clearway.

As for Toll freight, and similar, what's to stop them using Archerfield now ??

Tootle pip!!

[Worrals in the wilds]

If Toll etc were to start operating out of YBAF I would expect a large horde of residents with pitchforks and flaming torches to turn up shortly after the first flight. There are enough noise complaints about Cessna circuits without chucking a bunch of night freighters into the mix. At least YBBN gets them off over the bay most of the time; Archerfield is surrounded by houses. Brisbane's shiny and upstanding freighter fleet is most active between 2300 and 0330hrs, hardly conductive to good community relationships.

The second problem with moving freight to BAF is its lack of ILS. Freight businesses trade on their rep for getting freight from A to B in any conditions. If they have to divert to ybbn every time it gets cloudy, they may as well stay there.

The third problem is that a certain amount of freight comes in on jets and gets transferred to metros (and vice versa). When they all nest at the same airport that's really easy, but if the metros went to BAF it would all have to be trucked to and from Ybbn. That adds to time, cost and lost-stuff enroute factor.

[ThePaperBoy]

I followed up my initial post with a reply, but that's gone off to the moderators as my log in is new. Hopefully it will show up shortly.

The clearways are no good anywhere at Archerfield as it stands. Off 28 and you'll die by falling off that cliff on to the road. Off 10 and you'll collect fences and cars on Beatty Road. 01/19 won't be any better, but is it really much worse?

The runway as it stands is no good for Metros or ATRs as they would be severely performance take off weight limited. They already have similar issues at Bankstown, but at least down there they have the leased land to set up proper freight facilities.

I can assure you I definately don't work for AAC and have flown approximately 2000 hours using the place as a base. None of the runways are perfect for the conditions, nor would be 01/19. The best bet would be something like 13/31, but that isn't going to happen with the surrounding buildings.

AAC are far from perfect, as is the airport. But is 'AACCI' thinking about what is best for the airport as a whole, or just his helicopter business?

Just trying to encourage debate about the master plan. My views are in the middle at the moment - I can see some of AACC's points, likewise AAC. But I still believe there is some scare tactics going on to look after individual interests.

Everyone's there to make money, why not the airport as well?

Work with the AAC, not against them!

[LeadSled]

W in the W,
Good summary of why there is little night freight (is there any?) at Archerfield, and it ain't going to change any time soon.
Tootle pip!!

[megle2]

I'm in the middle too.

I don't recall any problems operating on the long closed 18 / 36.
( the old 13 / 31 wasn't much chop ).

Thats pretty close to the 19 / 01 talked about now.
At least the approach to 01 would be parallel to the BN 01 approach.
Might make it easier for separation rather than at right angles as it is now.

The new tower was built in a hollow. Never the same after being shifted from on top of the admin building.

I'm all for a revamp but AAC ( owners ) don't seem to be up to it.
Heard the CEO on the radio the other day, sounded way out of his depth.
So I'm not surprised in how poorly they present their case.

[2b2]

without picking sides -

I believe a runway in a more SE/NW direction is being proposed - a longer runway favouring the common SE trade winds sounds good to me.

I think you'll find a shorter runway is being proposed and 01/19 won't help much with the SE winds that tend to be around 140 degrees. Very rare to get a genuine Southerly.

[captwawa]

how will IFR approaches work at YBAF with 01/19 so a PRM Approach with BN. I dont think so. you will have major issues with controlled airspace penetration if the runways are aligned in that direction. Jetcraft back in the 1990s operated in an out of YBAF until they were kicked out by the locals complaining of aircraft noise at all hours of the night.

I just dont know how a shorter 01/19 would promote aviation at YBAF.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

MAAATE....

Reur " I'd rather Woolworths (for example) pay for part of the AAC budget than landing fees continuing to go up."

I would suggest that should read 'AND' vice 'than'....because I'm just cynical enuf to think that BOTH will occur.......

Was I THAT naive / innocent 'once upon a time'.....??

[Worrals in the wilds]

Thanks, Leadsled. Just had a quick read of the introduction and vision section, and jeez is there a lot of 'nurturing'. In the words of Ralph Wiggum, 'everbody's hugging!'

I think a lot of the problem is that (rightly or wrongly) there is a perception in the Brisbane aviation community that AAC is only interested in industrial development once they can offload all those pesky aircraft. Therefore, when they come up with a plan that conveniently frees up more land for industrial use, everyone immediately files it as Deeply Suspicious.

Additionally, Archerfield has had SFA done to improve the airport in recent years. I haven't had a chance to read the masterplan thoroughly yet, but the security upgrade, drainage improvement, long term carparks and similar should all have been done twenty years ago. It's not like AAC is a particularly benign landlord or the fees are cheap.

While I'm looking at that section, twenty years for a TWY/RWY lighting upgrade? For one runway and one taxiway? Are they doing one light a week?

Archerfield should be the premier training/private GA airport in Brisbane. The fact that it isn't, that almost anyone will tell you to use Redcliffe despite its inferior facilities speaks volumes about the way Archerfield has been managed. If the AAC is facing a lack of trust within the community that may impact on its master plan approval through objections then it only has itself to blame.

Most companies in potentially unpopular business spend a certain amount of time and money protecting and enhancing their community standing. You can bet your butt that the Brisbane Airport Corporation don't sponsor the Brisbane soccer team and several northside community projects because they're nice people who like soccer. Come approval time, it helps enormously to be well thought of in their community. AAC have done nothing about PR (except periodically make people hate them more) and this is the result.

Rightly or wrongly, the general community perception is that AAC would cheerfully turn the whole thing into an industrial park with two helipads and an unused historic terminal. Whining about how their development plans are continually hampered by the big bad government (p16, Vision) just makes them look even more suss.

[ThePaperBoy]

It had been a while since I'd seen the master plan, but from the AACCI website I initially had the impression 10/28 would be closed and the only runway would be 01/19. I was also misinformed about the length of the runway too, but that was my fault. I've refreshed myself and 10/28 is here to stay.

Having 10/28 & 01/19 sounds good to me as we have runways at 90 degrees to one another. This makes it more favourable for training (there were a number of days the SE's would make it difficult to send students solo on 10 or 22 - a 30 degree change to 19 would help overcome that). The AACCI point about students being affected by crosswinds is therefore not a valid one. This is possibly the best combination of runways given we're stuck with 10/28.

Having a raised cross strip is a good thing in my book. The current grass strips are reported as being u/s 27% of the time. However, I'd love to see the stats from the last two years - I'd expect it to be somewhere between 50-75%. No one will really be too adversly affected by the closure of the fuel farm etc - and I believe AAC has plans to develop the facilities that are moved.

So, what do we lose from dropping the current cross strips and some of the vast unoccupied land around the joint? A helicopter training area for circuits. If the chamber of commerce president is still the owner of that helicopter training school I can see what this is such a big agenda item! Surely there are still other options. What happens when 04/22 is in used now? You use helicopter area C - won't this still be an option in the future?

Complaints about the noise affecting the neighbours is a non-argument. Things shouldn't change from the current state of play too much, plus pollies don't really care unless you are from Ascot.

Griffo, yes I may be a bit more naive than you, I do believe non-aviation development can assist with meeting the corporation's budget requirements. I'd rather some industrial companies help cough up with the pennies needed to run AAC than it ALL falling back on to the operators at YBAF. And let's face it, there really are not too many operators left.

A handful of flying schools, EMQ, a couple of helicopter operators and some private hangers. The aviation businesses along Beatty Road look terrible - demolish the non-historical buildings and let's rebuild over near EMQ in modern facilities. That's as long as AAC don't try to **** everyone over and send leases through the roof by doing so. Like I said, I'm in the middle - I don't trust AAC fully.

A couple of more points to me lengthy reply. I don't believe 01/19 would be an issue conflicting with YBBN. As discussed, 10/28 isn't closing, therefore this would be the main instrument approach runways anyway. The way Class D works with the contiguous airspace above, it doesn't matter which runway is in use at YBAF, if there is a jet overhead GLENN there ain't no IFR lighties entering YBAF's airspace. The new runway won't change this one bit with the current airspace.

Lastly, a mate of mine doesn't believe Toll would move to YBAF, so that ends part of my initial argument that new facilities could encourage freight forwarders. With Toll Priority, Dnata etc only down the road at Brisbane, it would make no sense for them to move across town (noise issues and runway length aside!). Same with Pel Air as the TNT building (their main freight customer) just across the fence at the GA.

Some of my original points have been proven wrong, but I don't mind. As I said, this should be a debate, not a case of lemmings going blindly off in to the sea.

[Freewheel]

So, what do we lose from dropping the current cross strips and some of the vast unoccupied land around the joint? A helicopter training area for circuits. If the chamber of commerce president is still the owner of that helicopter training school I can see what this is such a big agenda item! Surely there are still other options. What happens when 04/22 is in used now? You use helicopter area C - won't this still be an option in the future?

It's been a little while since I flew at Archer, but the area used when 04-22 is used is called area B and it's quite dodgy with a power pole stuck right out into the area near the sock. The plan I've seen will completely eliminate Area B, A and plough straight through both existing pads. So no, the plan leaves no options for helicopters whatsoever, no matter the wind.


There's been a new operator open up near there recently, I've sure they're impressed......

[Worrals in the wilds]

Complaints about the noise affecting the neighbours is a non-argument. Things shouldn't change from the current state of play too much, plus pollies don't really care unless you are from Ascot.

Where on earth did you get that idea?
Airports are more scared of noise complaints than large flocks of birds and LCC ground handlers .
Noise complaints = community action groups = political pressure = curfew =- loss of flexibility for the airport = grumpy shareholders.
It doesn't matter how posh the affected area is, either, although the margin the relevant federal member holds his/her seat by can be a factor. If the relevant federal member is also the Prime Minister be afraid, be very afraid, although that's not such an issue now.
Ask your mate if you don't believe me.

So no, the plan leaves no options for helicopters whatsoever, no matter the wind.

Really? That doesn't sound bright. I thought helicopters were a big part of the training scene at Archerfield, didn't there used to be three chopper training schools there?