Goulburn: final death throws.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Another good example of why airports should not be privately owned.
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
There'd be many former operators and users of YGLB turning in their graves knowing what's going on there!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home phone Number???
He only has a mobile, but some of the background is here and some of the locals have been warning of this happening since JF was mooted as a potential owner.
My information has JF and Goulburn Council being "knocked back" for a sale at least 15 years ago.
He is a "not happy Joyce" type of person.
and some other information: http://www.recreationalflying.com/th...ort-sale.2525/
My information has JF and Goulburn Council being "knocked back" for a sale at least 15 years ago.
He is a "not happy Joyce" type of person.
and some other information: http://www.recreationalflying.com/th...ort-sale.2525/
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 3rd Jun 2014 at 10:19.
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
"(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
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....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Was there a notam re soft wet surface ect published or were they too busy thinking up further non safety notam restrictions
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
NOTAM Office: 02 6268 5063
Fax: 02 6268 504
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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?
1) Not mention anything about backtracking; and
2) Only apply to aircraft weighing less than a certain weight?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.