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

Goulburn: final death throws.

Old 3rd Jun 2014, 03:43
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
RWY 08 / 26 is definitely grass but RWY 04 / 22 is becoming very much a composite rwy with the amount of grass that is growing through the sealed strip.

Another good example of why airports should not be privately owned.
Adsie is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 04:10
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: space
Posts: 272
Simply ignore the notam.


It is not a legal requirement and neither is all the fly neighbourly rubbish at AD's from time to time.


Find out where the AD owners house is and fly over it repeatedly changing power. 4 am is a good time! LOL!
zanthrus is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 04:51
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 32
Posts: 7
hahaha

thats hilarious!!!

either suck it up or try to do something about it!

Gotta love a keyboard warrior
Mavtroll is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 05:00
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 73
Posts: 3
What's his home phone number?
brolga is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 05:16
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
I can recall a long time ago at Camden at a local meeting when they complained about aircraft noise a local got up and said. Rudely slow low over my place I can hear them changing gears. From that point on a little rev up and down over his place was common thing to do.
yr right is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 07:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 361
CAAP 89O-1 talks about the Aerodrome Reporting Officer being responsible for raising NOTAMS for a list of specific items including a catch-all, but they all relate to Safety. I cannot see how commercial considerations can be used to raise a NOTAM. I reckon the Australian NOTAM Office should be challenged on this basis. I'd also suggest the local council should be approached by those affected on the basis of restraint of trade.
There'd be many former operators and users of YGLB turning in their graves knowing what's going on there!
roundsounds is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 08:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
Or do as the old goulburn mayor used to say as he was coming in to land.


This a me I is a coming into land.

Oh so true believe it or not.
yr right is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 19:34
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 361
Below is an extract from the Airservices Regulation 4.12:

"(3) NOTAMS are to include:
(a) aeronautical information required to be published in a NOTAM by:
(i) these Regulations; or
(ii) the Civil Aviation Act 1988 or the Civil Aviation Regulations; or
(iii) any other Commonwealth law; and
(b) other aeronautical information, of importance to safe air navigation, that:
(i) requires early publication and can be published more quickly in NOTAMS than in the AIP; or
(ii) is of temporary relevance."

Part (a) says NOTAMS are to include information required by Reg's, Act or Commonwealth Law and (b) information affecting "safe air navigation". Commercial considerations do not fit into any of the requirements to issue a NOTAM. I would suggest the airport users challenge the NOTAM Office to have this withdrawn.
NOTAM Office: 02 6268 5063
Fax: 02 6268 5044
roundsounds is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 22:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 205
The airport proposed for Lockyer Valley near Brisbane has been approved for construction. These issues are dealt with there. Own your own hangar lot. Body corporate fees less than $3K per annum and free landing/parking etc for resident aircraft if you own a lot. 4000ft of sealed runway with lights. These 'new' airports need support and council and other ripoff merchants can wither on the vine....
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 23:36
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 31
It's a sad state at Goulburn...

I arrived on the weekend as two of the owners minions were tearing across the airport in a big 4WD. The reason for the blitzkrieg excursion was to "tell-off" a local operator who had gone out in her small hatchback, with hazard lights operating, with a couple of planks of wood to assist a young woman who had managed to get a Warrior bogged on the runway. It had been bogged for some time without anyone even looking to offer a hand apparently. Now the local operator would be all of 60kgs and the woman she was helping looked about the same. The thing that was disgusting was the two minions didn't even offer a hand to the two mud-encrusted small women trying to move the fully-fueled Warrior out of a bog. They simply barked their orders and tore off...
pokeydokey is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 23:52
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 836
Was there a notam re soft wet surface ect published or were they too busy thinking up further non safety notam restrictions
megle2 is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 03:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up North
Age: 30
Posts: 493
Wont take long for people to stop flying in there and it fades into the aviation history books
AussieNick is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 04:12
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 225
Part (a) says NOTAMS are to include information required by Reg's, Act or Commonwealth Law and (b) information affecting "safe air navigation". Commercial considerations do not fit into any of the requirements to issue a NOTAM. I would suggest the airport users challenge the NOTAM Office to have this withdrawn.
NOTAM Office: 02 6268 5063
Fax: 02 6268 504
Wouldn't the non availability of a runway, for whatever reason, affect 'safe air navigation'

It is a legit Notam as far as affecting air safety is concerned. Whether or not they have a right to make the runway / runup bay unavailable is a different matter.

Last edited by InSoMnIaC; 4th Jun 2014 at 11:06.
InSoMnIaC is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 05:25
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 361
I'm not sure how the NOTAM can be "regit" given aircraft weighing greater than 650kg are not restricted in the use of the runway? I would suggest the restriction is a commercial rather than safety based issue.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 11:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
(note: I do fly out of Goulburn, using John's planes)

My understanding is that it's basically "enforced courtesy".

If you've just landed and you can either backtrack down the main runway (22/04 in YGLB) or down the grass runway (26/08), taking the grass strip means that the bigger planes (that need the main runway) can takeoff or land immediately. If you insist on backtracking down the main runway then they end up going around (possibly more than once) waiting for you to get out of the way. Same as if you meet a Rex flight at an uncontrolled airport; if it's not much trouble to help them stay on schedule then you might as well do that.

There are lots of little things like that in the sky, on the ground, and on the water. Not legal requirements, but actions that make everything flow a bit more smoothly. The NOTAM is essentially a response to people ignoring this.


Realistically, nobody cares where you land as long as you don't get in the way of the skydiving planes. Since they're only in the circuit area for a few minutes at a time, this is not really difficult.


roundsounds - I may be wrong, but I think that's the list of information that has to be included in a NOTAM, rather than the list of reasons that can cause a NOTAM to be published.
Slatye is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 11:23
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 225
Instead of concentrating on a simple typo, I would suggest you pay more attention to the meaning of my post.

It, (the Notam) is Legit because it concerns the unavailability of a Runway which therefore is safety related.

The fact that the decision to make the runway unavailable might not be safety related is irrelevant as the consequences of that decision is safety related and is rightly notamed

I am simply saying that the notam is not the problem. It is the decision behind it that needs fighting. Once that is sorted, the notam will sort itself out.
InSoMnIaC is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 11:50
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 84
If the notam is intended to stop people backtracking on the main runway, why does it:

1) Not mention anything about backtracking; and

2) Only apply to aircraft weighing less than a certain weight?
ButFli is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 12:04
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
nobody cares where you land as long as you don't get in the way of the skydiving planes. Since they're only in the circuit area for a few minutes at a time, this is not really difficult.
Thats funny, Skydive operators at numerous other aerodromes have no problem fitting in with the usual traffic wherever they are. and nothing gives them any more right to land before anyone else! unless of course commercial reasons can justify a notam...
Ultralights is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 14:06
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
and whats it got to do with a run up bay?
Hempy is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 15:43
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
ButFli - it's not just for the backtracking 04/22 scenario; that was an example. It's a general-purpose "skydiving takes priority" thing, to essentially keep 04/22 clear of very slow traffic. If the skydiving planes have priority access to 04/22 and the adjacent run-up bay (which is also where they pick up skydivers) then that's obviously good for the skydiving operation.

As for why it doesn't apply to aircraft less than a certain weight - not sure. The possible reasons I can see are (a) bigger planes tend to be faster (getting stuck behind a C172 isn't quite as bad as getting stuck behind a Gazelle), and (b) bigger planes may not be able to use the grass strip, while I suspect that anything under 650kg can.



Ultralights - presumably they've had problems fitting in with other traffic, if they went to the trouble of setting up the NOTAM. Obviously it's always possible to fit in with other traffic, but it may not be cheap or easy - especially when the speed difference is as big as it is at Goulburn (between the Bandeirante and the Gazelles).

Regarding the right to land before anyone else - I agree. It's not a right that bigger planes and/or commercial flights get to land first. However, from what I've seen (around Goulburn, Moruya, and Wollongong) it is a reasonably common courtesy.

Commercial reasons justifying a NOTAM - I would think that the owner of the airport can do more or less whatever he wants here. Closing the whole airport, requiring prior permission for any airport operations, restricting use of one runway, etc. Other airports (eg. Mittagong) require prior permission; what's been done at Goulburn seems like a less severe restriction than that.



Hempy - the run-up bay doubles as the skydive loading area. It's not great, but it's probably the only spot that avoids having skydivers wandering around on the taxiways. The obvious consequence is that there always needs to be space in the run-up bay for the skydiving planes to get in, and if someone parks right in the middle then there won't be.

Realistically, they should probably just rename that to the "skydiver loading area" and stop calling it the run-up bay.
Slatye 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.