Comments / Assistance for Grass RWS Op's Please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Comp Stall ... although ......what if there is a mishap on the sealed runway ? ?
Dangerous bizness this flying game ! Maybe we should all quit ? ?
Oh .... then the desk drivers would be out of a job too .
Still make you wonder why so many other airports have grass ops without problems ? Must be a different breed of desk drivers at those locations ? ?
Dangerous bizness this flying game ! Maybe we should all quit ? ?
Oh .... then the desk drivers would be out of a job too .
Still make you wonder why so many other airports have grass ops without problems ? Must be a different breed of desk drivers at those locations ? ?
Grass OPS
Try talking to them in terms they understand......get stats on the number of aircraft using grass and the cost to maintain vs number of aircraft using pavement.
A cost per landing for each should show that the increase in traffic on pavement resulting from closure of the grass is a costly exercise. Then emphasis that this would increase accident risk for some aircraft.
The more money + more risk argument will change their minds.
A cost per landing for each should show that the increase in traffic on pavement resulting from closure of the grass is a costly exercise. Then emphasis that this would increase accident risk for some aircraft.
The more money + more risk argument will change their minds.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Pro G ,
Have tried that - The area in question costs them nothing - other than the routine mowing that happens anyway .
It is a nice piece of grass ( about 900 metres) in perfect condition - been used for a long time .
Hard to fathom the logic .... or lack of ? ?
Have tried that - The area in question costs them nothing - other than the routine mowing that happens anyway .
It is a nice piece of grass ( about 900 metres) in perfect condition - been used for a long time .
Hard to fathom the logic .... or lack of ? ?
3D... You use the term RWS. Please clarify if you are referring to the grass strip each side of a prepared runway(RWS) or to a grass runway strip that does not have an associated runway? As a former ARO the reason for its closure of the latter would usually be maintenance costs, perceived lack of use or a lack of understanding of why it is there in the first place. Sure risk may be an issue, but landing a bug smasher with a good x/wind might be more of a risk??
I believe to progress this with the support it needs, you need to let us know the location and if you have sought assistance from AOPA or the RFACA?
There are a lot of folk in PP world that may have the background experience Etc that may assist your cause - to do this, we need the location please.
Cheers
I believe to progress this with the support it needs, you need to let us know the location and if you have sought assistance from AOPA or the RFACA?
There are a lot of folk in PP world that may have the background experience Etc that may assist your cause - to do this, we need the location please.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cog W - yes it is the RWS - and the location is YHBA as per previous - sorry I thought that was shown ? - Im a bit new to this ?
Maintenance costs in this case are zero .... It would be hard to find a better piece of grass - as I have been trying to explain to the non pilot council employees ... all that is required is the routine mowing .
Happy that you picked up on the " lack of understanding " part tho !! that nails it !
I have logged about 22, 000 landings of which about 8000 are on unprepared surfaces - Thought I had a fair understanding of what is suitable ?
We are now dealing with the airport " Technical Officer " and the " Executive Manager of Corporate Business " if that gives you an idea of what we are dealing with ?
All of these exec's ... and its not even a busy airport ? ?
Had not considered AOPA or RFACA tho . Thanks 3D
Maintenance costs in this case are zero .... It would be hard to find a better piece of grass - as I have been trying to explain to the non pilot council employees ... all that is required is the routine mowing .
Happy that you picked up on the " lack of understanding " part tho !! that nails it !
I have logged about 22, 000 landings of which about 8000 are on unprepared surfaces - Thought I had a fair understanding of what is suitable ?
We are now dealing with the airport " Technical Officer " and the " Executive Manager of Corporate Business " if that gives you an idea of what we are dealing with ?
All of these exec's ... and its not even a busy airport ? ?
Had not considered AOPA or RFACA tho . Thanks 3D
3D - You may have left your run a bit late as the cross strip is no longer listed in ERSA. Google maps shows it marked with large white crosses.
Your case would have to put forward reasons for reopening the strip as in theory it presently does not "officially" exist. In such a case a survey would have to be conducted, at a cost to council. You should research as to why it was closed and what consultation took place. The aero club may be able to help there?
Good luck
Your case would have to put forward reasons for reopening the strip as in theory it presently does not "officially" exist. In such a case a survey would have to be conducted, at a cost to council. You should research as to why it was closed and what consultation took place. The aero club may be able to help there?
Good luck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if you are with me Cog .?
There has never been a cross strip - it almost happened but got canned - Which is why we use the RWS as we have done for decades - Just like at Temora - Kingaroy - Gympie - Redcliffe - Narromine - Tocumwal etc , to name a few.
There has never been a cross strip - it almost happened but got canned - Which is why we use the RWS as we have done for decades - Just like at Temora - Kingaroy - Gympie - Redcliffe - Narromine - Tocumwal etc , to name a few.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its a council owned airfield then the reason for closing a runway will be cost. Maintenance costs will not be zero, in fact, cannot be zero and most councils these days are cash strapped. Its the old cost-benefit thing at work.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PL - The issue isn't about maintenance costs - Its about bureaucrats not understanding grass ops .
Can you elaborate your theory on the maintenance costs please ?
Am I missing something ? , as the area is already mowed regularly and has to be mowed to be in accordance with MOS 139 - Mowing is all that is required that I can see - we don't need it top dressed , fertilised , or irrigated ?
Can you elaborate your theory on the maintenance costs please ?
Am I missing something ? , as the area is already mowed regularly and has to be mowed to be in accordance with MOS 139 - Mowing is all that is required that I can see - we don't need it top dressed , fertilised , or irrigated ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question of cost
3dextra, I'll have a crack at that, although it's not my airport and I'm not privy to the back-story.
There is an increase cost to maintain a RWS suitable for aircraft operations. It needs to meet MOS139 chapter 13 standards for aircraft operations and requires an inspection and reporting regime.
A RWS that doesn't support aircraft operations, ie - most of them, can be allowed to let the grass grow a little longer, and the rabbit holes to be ignored and the soft spots remain soft, and most of all does not normally need it's condition to be monitored or reported.
The Ersa entry says no charges are laid for GA below 2000kg, so I'm thinking that G.A hasn't exactly bought themselves a seat at the table for what is hoped to become a busy RPT airport operating narrow bodies.
Is there a FOD issue from the GA grass ops that the airport operator is struggling with I wonder.
However I absolutely agree that facilities at airports are hard won and should never be surrendered lightly so keep up the fight.
There is an increase cost to maintain a RWS suitable for aircraft operations. It needs to meet MOS139 chapter 13 standards for aircraft operations and requires an inspection and reporting regime.
A RWS that doesn't support aircraft operations, ie - most of them, can be allowed to let the grass grow a little longer, and the rabbit holes to be ignored and the soft spots remain soft, and most of all does not normally need it's condition to be monitored or reported.
The Ersa entry says no charges are laid for GA below 2000kg, so I'm thinking that G.A hasn't exactly bought themselves a seat at the table for what is hoped to become a busy RPT airport operating narrow bodies.
Is there a FOD issue from the GA grass ops that the airport operator is struggling with I wonder.
However I absolutely agree that facilities at airports are hard won and should never be surrendered lightly so keep up the fight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks F mouse - we will keep the fight up .
The airport already has the inspection and reporting - would only take em a minute to run 800 metres of grass ? - They should welcome the extra work to help pass the time ? ?
The only thing I can see is " possibly " a few additional ground markers but looking at 139 it would be minimal if any - I would even offer to paint them every 5 or 10 years or so if it helps ?
I think the airport has reached its limit for the amount of viable RPT flight for a while - its not busy and I can't see that changing .
FOD ? No I don't think so - maybe a few grass seeds ?
Honestly , you would be hard pressed to find a better piece of grass , outside of a golf course .
As I mentioned ...been using it for 30 years - even with a CASA FOI on board .
Its just bureaucracy gone nuts - They tell me RWS ops is against CASA regs and then .........give me a list of places with RWS ops ? ? Go Figure
Then another one tells me they cant find evidence of RWS ops - my ERSA must be out of date and my youtube videos have been altered ?
The airport already has the inspection and reporting - would only take em a minute to run 800 metres of grass ? - They should welcome the extra work to help pass the time ? ?
The only thing I can see is " possibly " a few additional ground markers but looking at 139 it would be minimal if any - I would even offer to paint them every 5 or 10 years or so if it helps ?
I think the airport has reached its limit for the amount of viable RPT flight for a while - its not busy and I can't see that changing .
FOD ? No I don't think so - maybe a few grass seeds ?
Honestly , you would be hard pressed to find a better piece of grass , outside of a golf course .
As I mentioned ...been using it for 30 years - even with a CASA FOI on board .
Its just bureaucracy gone nuts - They tell me RWS ops is against CASA regs and then .........give me a list of places with RWS ops ? ? Go Figure
Then another one tells me they cant find evidence of RWS ops - my ERSA must be out of date and my youtube videos have been altered ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question would be how often it is closed due SWS?
The rules for marking U/S runways recently changed and its lots of 36m crosses at $2k a pop now, and no-one except the capital city guys had those.
If the RWS is closed often, it would require the same treatment and then its a pain the airport can do without, particularly if the income and the overall operation doesn't change.
There also used to be a technicality that if a RWS was U/S then the associated RWY was U/S, but I thought that interpretation was pulled.
You know the new rules mean it's better for an airport to reduce any grass runways to 18m wide, to avoid a whole bucket load of new unserviceability marking requirements. Dumbbells and Notams are no longer enough.
Good old CASA. Always making things better.
Anyway, good luck.
If the RWS is closed often, it would require the same treatment and then its a pain the airport can do without, particularly if the income and the overall operation doesn't change.
There also used to be a technicality that if a RWS was U/S then the associated RWY was U/S, but I thought that interpretation was pulled.
You know the new rules mean it's better for an airport to reduce any grass runways to 18m wide, to avoid a whole bucket load of new unserviceability marking requirements. Dumbbells and Notams are no longer enough.
Good old CASA. Always making things better.
Anyway, good luck.
3D - I would like to clarify exactly what you are talking about pls.
There is only one RWS at present, and that is beside the sealed runway 11/29 and that is subject to the NOTAM below (plus any other grass areas) If what you are talking about is strip 02/20 (or thereabouts), no matter what is physically there, it does not formally exist, otherwise it would, be included in the ERSA entry.
To exist, it must be subject to a survey, amongst other things, which would be a cost to Council, plus of course ongoing maintenance which has already been mentioned. If you want a grass strip for 02/20, then you would have to put up a safety/financial case to Council that would justify its creation and it would help if you had support of CASA, AOPA, RAoz, RFACA etc. Have it done by somebody or group that knows all the issues and can put up a good case. Council would at least have to listen. It would also help to have some public support.
Have you spoken to the CASA aerodrome person responsible for the location? The NOTAM below would have had to have crossed his/her desk.
The way this reads, you are precluded from running off the runway, which is what the RWS is there for... All 150m of it!!
Don't rush in - Prepare your case well - good luck, you will need it!
There is only one RWS at present, and that is beside the sealed runway 11/29 and that is subject to the NOTAM below (plus any other grass areas) If what you are talking about is strip 02/20 (or thereabouts), no matter what is physically there, it does not formally exist, otherwise it would, be included in the ERSA entry.
To exist, it must be subject to a survey, amongst other things, which would be a cost to Council, plus of course ongoing maintenance which has already been mentioned. If you want a grass strip for 02/20, then you would have to put up a safety/financial case to Council that would justify its creation and it would help if you had support of CASA, AOPA, RAoz, RFACA etc. Have it done by somebody or group that knows all the issues and can put up a good case. Council would at least have to listen. It would also help to have some public support.
Have you spoken to the CASA aerodrome person responsible for the location? The NOTAM below would have had to have crossed his/her desk.
HERVEY BAY (YHBA)
C15/15
THE OPERATION OF ACFT IS RESTRICTED TO PREPARED RUNWAYS, TAXIWAYS AND APRONS
AMEND ERSA
FROM 09 302321 TO PERM
C15/15
THE OPERATION OF ACFT IS RESTRICTED TO PREPARED RUNWAYS, TAXIWAYS AND APRONS
AMEND ERSA
FROM 09 302321 TO PERM
Don't rush in - Prepare your case well - good luck, you will need it!
Last edited by cogwheel; 1st Nov 2015 at 10:53. Reason: Typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cog - The cross strip has never existed - The issue is the RWS that has been used for 30 years + - So we are wondering why it is suddenly an issue .
Have spoken to 2 CASA aerodrome inspectors and quite a few instructors - ATO's - some pilots cant grasp the concept of RWS and CASA sidestep it saying it is up to the council -
That is the problem - council have suddenly adopted this kneejerk reaction and don't want to talk about it - hence we are trying to get some support in case this mentality spreads to other airports.
Have spoken to 2 CASA aerodrome inspectors and quite a few instructors - ATO's - some pilots cant grasp the concept of RWS and CASA sidestep it saying it is up to the council -
That is the problem - council have suddenly adopted this kneejerk reaction and don't want to talk about it - hence we are trying to get some support in case this mentality spreads to other airports.
3D - I see you are talking about the flight strip of 11/29.
Yes there are many locations where light aircraft regularly operate from the runways associated grass surface, u/l's Tiger Moths, Auster and the odd C150 etc.
You should take it up with CASA again, as this has unintended consequences for many other locations and operators. The NOTAM wording is very poor to boot!
The RWS is there for a purpose and other than VASIS or distance to run markers should be clear and suitable for use, especially for acft under 1000Kg
Yes there are many locations where light aircraft regularly operate from the runways associated grass surface, u/l's Tiger Moths, Auster and the odd C150 etc.
You should take it up with CASA again, as this has unintended consequences for many other locations and operators. The NOTAM wording is very poor to boot!
The RWS is there for a purpose and other than VASIS or distance to run markers should be clear and suitable for use, especially for acft under 1000Kg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cog - I am curious about the under 1000 kg reference - Can you tell me if that is something you have seen somewhere plz ?
You are right about the NOTAM - very poorly worded - I haven't seen " prepared surfaces " before - I asked them for a definition of that and was fobbed off .
Asked Air Services and they didn't know either ?
You are right about the NOTAM - very poorly worded - I haven't seen " prepared surfaces " before - I asked them for a definition of that and was fobbed off .
Asked Air Services and they didn't know either ?
