Piston ban on Gabo Island
Thread Starter
Piston ban on Gabo Island
I read this with interest from Australian Flying.
Merimbula Operator fights Gabo Island Ban
"Hart Aviation" has recommended that only Turbine powered aircraft can safely fly into this 536 metre strip.
Which turbine powered aircraft do you think they are talking about that can safely operate off 536 metres all year round?
Merimbula Operator fights Gabo Island Ban
"Hart Aviation" has recommended that only Turbine powered aircraft can safely fly into this 536 metre strip.
Which turbine powered aircraft do you think they are talking about that can safely operate off 536 metres all year round?
In the mid seventies I flew Navajos for Australian Air Charters into Gabo to service the Light House every Thursday (when it was manned). Graham and Dot Campbell were the husband and wife team living there. We would wait all day for him to answer his mail while Dot would make us scones and jam. A very pleasant day out. We also operated an Aztec but with better brakes, the Navajo was preferred.
I fail to see why, in today's world, a piston aircraft is deemed unsafe. We didn't wear yellow vests with dangly ASIC cards or carry our license and medical, had no OZ-Runways, GPS or I-phone, just a WAC chart. So if anything it would have to be much safer today.
I fail to see why, in today's world, a piston aircraft is deemed unsafe. We didn't wear yellow vests with dangly ASIC cards or carry our license and medical, had no OZ-Runways, GPS or I-phone, just a WAC chart. So if anything it would have to be much safer today.
Recent years have seen a whole audit/safety advisor industry spring up. These firms are mostly operated and staffed with ex airline pilots who bring with them big airline mentalities. Or ex CASA types - enough said! They charge big bucks for their services. Their clients sometimes don't know enough about aviation to question their methodology.
Whatever, to justify their big fees, you can bet that the auditor/advisor will write a bucketload of recommendations none of which will be good for operators of old piston aircraft, no matter how good the individual operator's safety record may be.
The real money is with the turbines, so that is where they want to see the industry go.
If I was looking at some report that meant my charter costs were about to double, I would want hard statistics to prove that existing and cheap aircraft A had double the engine failure or accident rate of proposed and expensive aircraft B - not some weasel generalisation about turbines versus pistons.
If the charter user is taxpayer funded, all the more reason for the recommendation to be backed with hard data.
Whatever, to justify their big fees, you can bet that the auditor/advisor will write a bucketload of recommendations none of which will be good for operators of old piston aircraft, no matter how good the individual operator's safety record may be.
The real money is with the turbines, so that is where they want to see the industry go.
If I was looking at some report that meant my charter costs were about to double, I would want hard statistics to prove that existing and cheap aircraft A had double the engine failure or accident rate of proposed and expensive aircraft B - not some weasel generalisation about turbines versus pistons.
If the charter user is taxpayer funded, all the more reason for the recommendation to be backed with hard data.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The GAFA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there must be more to this than being reported. 536 meters is boat loads. Piston engine aircraft (Islanders, Cherokee 6, warrior, angel 44 etc.) operate routinely in and out of strips as short as 400m in the Torres Strait. What's the problem?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well ****, i was looking forward to flying in there, i guess having a runway thats 10 times longer than i can safely use just isnt safe enough... 
May as well throw out all those P charts, Hart Aviation know better..
May as well throw out all those P charts, Hart Aviation know better..
Last edited by Ultralights; 13th Mar 2015 at 07:48.
well ****, i was looking forward to flying in there, i guess having a runway thats 10 times longer than i can safely use just isnt safe enough...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown in there hundreds of times in a C172 and apart from some exciting mechanical turbulence when it's blowing over 25 kts, it's just as safe as any other location.
PS: If Parks still allows it, rent the spare house there for a couple of nights. It's a magical and wild place.
PS: If Parks still allows it, rent the spare house there for a couple of nights. It's a magical and wild place.
To support this decision the aerodrome owner should provide the results of the risk assessment that Hart Aviation have done to come up with their recommendation (assuming they actually done one). If there hasn't been any serious accidents or incidents at the aerodrome in piston powered aircraft, whats the justification? As the aerodrome is a State owned asset, the reasons behind the decision should be transparent and made available for all interested stakeholders.
A commercial interest maybe????????
A commercial interest maybe????????
I used to fly an Islander several times per week into a 381m strip. Daytime for public transport, and day or night for air ambulance (with flare pots until electric lights were installed). All the other island strips were less than 500m - typically 400-450m)
I guess I, the other pilots, the company, and the UK CAA were wrong to use an aircraft designed for such operations because - gasp! - it had piston engines!
I guess I, the other pilots, the company, and the UK CAA were wrong to use an aircraft designed for such operations because - gasp! - it had piston engines!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, the thinking in Parks Victoria is exclusionary and the philosophy is all about protecting, not sharing.
I was a Senior Ranger in Parks for a number of years and I have watched them progressively closing areas to the public and restricting activities since leaving them some 20 years ago.
First it was horses and cattle, then it was 4wd access, hunting, camping, and now it's flying (fly neighbourly or not at all).
Protecting the natural environment is an important objective, but closing an airfield that has been in use for 50 years or more, on an island that grazed cattle until just a few years ago, and significantly diminishing tourism opportunities in the process is just plain stupid.
Justifying it by way of what appears to be a Mickey Mouse report on the relative safety of piston and turboprop is pathetic.
Kaz
I was a Senior Ranger in Parks for a number of years and I have watched them progressively closing areas to the public and restricting activities since leaving them some 20 years ago.
First it was horses and cattle, then it was 4wd access, hunting, camping, and now it's flying (fly neighbourly or not at all).
Protecting the natural environment is an important objective, but closing an airfield that has been in use for 50 years or more, on an island that grazed cattle until just a few years ago, and significantly diminishing tourism opportunities in the process is just plain stupid.
Justifying it by way of what appears to be a Mickey Mouse report on the relative safety of piston and turboprop is pathetic.
Kaz
Thread Starter
They haven't "closed" it per-se, they have just mandated that Merimbula need to buy a Pac750....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The only excuse I can come up with is that the over water flight is dangerous in a piston aircraft.
Mr Andy Campbell has been flying there for years…….and in the Campbell family they know NOTHING about flying a piston (single for that matter) over water. Especially a long distance like that.
I might just call my good mate Ryan right now……its only 10.23pm to see what he reckos about his uncles ability to fly that far over water.
FCUKING MORONS………VIC GUBBERMINT TOO!
Gobsmackingly unbelievable
Mr Andy Campbell has been flying there for years…….and in the Campbell family they know NOTHING about flying a piston (single for that matter) over water. Especially a long distance like that.
I might just call my good mate Ryan right now……its only 10.23pm to see what he reckos about his uncles ability to fly that far over water.
FCUKING MORONS………VIC GUBBERMINT TOO!
Gobsmackingly unbelievable
Thread Starter
Circle the island until you have climbed to 500ft then glide the 500 metres to the mainland 
Folks,
It is a very interesting exercise to do a comparison of engine reliability, piston v. small turbo-prop.
The subconscious bias is always towards "turbines", because we all "know" how reliable they are. And if "they" happen to be big turbo-fans on large aircraft, that is true. For little turbo-props the picture is somewhat different.
The facts, as presented to a Regional Airlines Association meeting, some years ago, presented a totally different picture, "little" turboprops are not really more reliable than properly operated and maintained piston engines. Indeed, on unsealed strips, they are more prone to engine damage from FOD than any piston engine.
Ask the (now) Regional Aviation Association for a copy of the paper, rather than any knee-jerk reaction that "that can't be right". At the time, the paper was accepted by the NSW Tourism Task Force, when the then CASA DAS was threatening to ban piston engine aircraft from RPT.
The then DAS had much to say about "old" piston engine aircraft, he was wanting to replace 35 year old piston twins with 35 year old turbo-props, because we all know jets are much never and more modern than pistons.
When you take a look at dollars per HP per hour, up to about 7-800 HP(total, not per engine) cost wise the turbo-prop doesn't get a look in.
Whoever takes Hart's recommendations is in for a $$$ shock, for no factually demonstrable risk reduction.
Tootle pip!!
It is a very interesting exercise to do a comparison of engine reliability, piston v. small turbo-prop.
The subconscious bias is always towards "turbines", because we all "know" how reliable they are. And if "they" happen to be big turbo-fans on large aircraft, that is true. For little turbo-props the picture is somewhat different.
The facts, as presented to a Regional Airlines Association meeting, some years ago, presented a totally different picture, "little" turboprops are not really more reliable than properly operated and maintained piston engines. Indeed, on unsealed strips, they are more prone to engine damage from FOD than any piston engine.
Ask the (now) Regional Aviation Association for a copy of the paper, rather than any knee-jerk reaction that "that can't be right". At the time, the paper was accepted by the NSW Tourism Task Force, when the then CASA DAS was threatening to ban piston engine aircraft from RPT.
The then DAS had much to say about "old" piston engine aircraft, he was wanting to replace 35 year old piston twins with 35 year old turbo-props, because we all know jets are much never and more modern than pistons.
When you take a look at dollars per HP per hour, up to about 7-800 HP(total, not per engine) cost wise the turbo-prop doesn't get a look in.
Whoever takes Hart's recommendations is in for a $$$ shock, for no factually demonstrable risk reduction.
Tootle pip!!