GA Gate

[mostlytossas]

Yes I know there are many private airports around the country that get no funding and to the ones like yours good on you too.I would be happy to pay the $10 to use it. You sound like you provide good facilities, and no doubt make visiting pilots welcome. It would likely be worth more than $10 to do so too.All power to you!
Unfortunately there are many that provide next to nothing but still want the user to pay.

[youngmic]

Dexta,

Please don't make the mistake of believing every country airfield is owned and operated by the council. We have TO PAY the council many thousands of dollars for the privilege of running an airport. We provide a sealed strip, two grass strips, PAL, lounge, good clean toilets, snacks etc and we still get people who bitch about a $10 landing fee!
Remember that there are private airfields all over the country that get no government or council grants and have to recoup the cost of maintenance somehow.

At the risk of further thread drift;

I occasionally here comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.

But as you pointed out many are private such as Goolwa, can I ask how you do it with out compromising commercial in confidence details. I would imagine that $10/landing is not much unless the airport is particularly active which I suspect Goolwa is.

I am sorry to hear the Council charges you to provide an airport, I can understand the charge for rates, but would have thought they would more than compensate with some form of an operating budget back to you.

Does your airport get regular visitation from RFDS flights transferring local community members to Adelaide or offer fire bombing access or water facilities?

If this is something that you feel is to sensitive for a general forum I understand.

[Lead Balloon]

... comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.

What the staff of the Council run airports and the Council often overlook is that when those freeloading GA losers lob into the airport, they occasionally also lob into a local taxi, motel, pub, restaurant, general store etc, all of which contributes to "the general revenue" of "the community".

It's like putting toll gates on the roads through a town, on the grounds that the Council has to dip into general revenue to maintain the roads. See how much money the Council's rolling in when everyone decides to drive somewhere else.

[Sunfish]

Lead Balloon is right. Flying is economic activity and has what's termed a multiplier effect in that every dollar spent directly on flying generates about eight dollars of further activity.

However Governemnt inefficiencies in regulation reduce the aviation spend and hence economic activity - this is why I have been banging on about the "jobs, investment growth" mantra. properly implemented, a stimulation program not only pays for itself, it generates huge returns for the community.

You can get some idea of the impact of economic improvement by looking at Narromine during Ausfly, or any other town having a show, festival, etc.

Now imagine that the skies around Australia are buzzing with happy GA flyers - the increased activity is a win for the whole community jobs,growth and investment.

The killer of course is Government (mis)regulation which is killing the flying and hence the aforesaid jobs growth and investment.

To put that another way, during a Two week safari to northern SA, I would have spent more on food and accommodation, etc then the aircraft hire.

[Dexta]

Originally Posted by youngmic

Dexta,





At the risk of further thread drift;

I occasionally here comments from staff of Council run airports that the nominal $10 LF falls way short of covering the cost of running an airport and the Council dips into general revenue to fund the balance. They see this as the price the community pays for the benefit of having a town airport, as Mostlytossas pointed out.

But as you pointed out many are private such as Goolwa, can I ask how you do it with out compromising commercial in confidence details. I would imagine that $10/landing is not much unless the airport is particularly active which I suspect Goolwa is.

I am sorry to hear the Council charges you to provide an airport, I can understand the charge for rates, but would have thought they would more than compensate with some form of an operating budget back to you.

Does your airport get regular visitation from RFDS flights transferring local community members to Adelaide or offer fire bombing access or water facilities?

If this is something that you feel is to sensitive for a general forum I understand.

Fortunately landing fees only make up a small portion of our income, if we had to rely on landing fees alone then no-one would land here! The $10 covers aircraft 600kg and under (mostly RA-Aus) but they are the ones who complain the most. Our main rate is $14 per tonne + GST, BUT we often waive it for many reasons (like buying fuel, getting maintenance, etc). We manage by being creative with our assets, like hiring out the main runway for vehicle testing (hence why PPR is important) by the hour. Also the Airpark will provide us with security to keep the airport running for well into the future. But the council wants about $1,000,000 from us to pay for local infrastructure! This is despite the fact they will get council rates, more tourism etc etc etc. But we are nasty capitalist pigs for wanting to develop an airport and must be punished for the greater good.
We do get RFDS in here (transferring mainly from Victor Harbor) and we have water facilities and infrastructure for the CFS - but until the CEO of the council needs the RFDS or his property is on fire they do not see us as an asset but as a nuisance.

[thorn bird]

"but until the CEO of the council needs the RFDS or his property is on fire they do not see us as an asset but as a nuisance."

Dexta, the preverbal nail on the head.

Somewhere some how we as an Industry failed in the PR war to annunciate the value to communities that having a local airport brings.

I recall years ago, attending a public meeting called by one of the local serial noise complainers to protest the regulator was going to allow jet operations at the airport. Someone pointed out that jets were always allowed access to the airport, the fact was light jets were so quiet they just hadn't heard them.

Through apathy we have let the serial complainers gain the high ground and capture the public perception that there is no value in having an aviation industry.

Our regulator actively denigrates the industry to promote their malfeasant actions, which does not help.

The industry as a whole would appear to have a serious PR problem.

I ponder why the cost of committing aviation in Australia is so high?

Some say we are perceived as just a bunch of rich people indulging our hobby.

Boating could be perceived in the same light, however councils will spend millions to provide facilities to encourage boating while milking aviation for every cent.

Do our regulations pertaining to airports compare with other jurisdictions?
If ours are more onerous, which considering other regulations concerning aviation in Australia seems likely, then we are just perceived as a cash cow.

I don't know how we can overcome this, somehow we need to change the public perception that aviation has no value.

[CHAIRMAN]

unauthorised person, in relation to a place or thing, means a person who:
(a) is not authorised by the owner or person in control of the place or thing to have access to the place or thing; and
(b) has no other lawful reason to have access to the place or thing.

The key I believe here is authorised by the owner'.'
Usually these days the owner is the local Government Council, and they draft the access rules.
The aerodrome I operate from has a set of Local Govt Laws and Bylaws which govern access and use of the aerodrome by persons. These laws have been changed on occasion, and drafted following consultation with local operators and our Aerodrome Chamber o Commerce.
Consequently we have a reasonably workable aerodrome, unlike the cluster c..k you have to put up with.
Maybe you can get the Local laws changed if you want to.

[youngmic]

Dexta,

Thanks for the response and feed back, it appears to me that Goolwa has survived and whilst a long time since last landing there, appeared to have prospered through hard work and entrepreneurial leadership.

It seems to me that right at the moment there is a note in the air about the state of GA, questions are being asked and conversations becoming animated through frustration.

Fortunately there are folk doing something about it, the air park concept has merit far beyond what we are as yet to realise.

GA, at least at the private level must be a social pursuit, it is this that will drive vibrancy, air parks marry beautifully to this concept.

From your response it appears the local Council now has you over a barrel you are well established and too committed to turn back, it will take either a light bulb moment, a massive bluff or change of Councilors to redress the extortionist amounts being levied upon you.

Perhaps this serves as guidance to others heading down this path, first establish a link with the importance of your airfield and access to RFDS/Fire Bombers, tourism or whatever it may be and the Councils way of thinking. Before becoming an entrenched cash cow.

I am staggered at the amount you are paying, given that you are the only link for the Fleurieu Peninsula, Victor and Goolwa for an aero medical service it beggars belief you are not receiving some form of government assistance or relief.

Whilst this notion is not feasible I wonder how the state government would feel if you up and closed and effectively denied that region access to the RFDS. Me thinks this would grab their collective attentions.

[The name is Porter]

Except for the runway/s you landed and took off from, the taxiways you used arriving and departing, the apron/parking area you occupied while on the ground, the runway lights you may have used, the windsock, the fence to keep the wildlife at bay, the beepback unit if provided, the line marking, apron markers, strip markers, the grass mowing, wages for maintenance, the costs of meeting the airports regulatory requirements, etc etc... no, nothing. The aviation fairies provide all of those.

More 'A' grade horse****. Who provided it? The taxpayer 'provided' it, not the council, not the government. Where do you think government gets every cent it spends FFS? All those clowns did was facilitate the works department or contractors. Now they've brainwashed clowns to think that user pays is fair, YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT, and you are still paying for it. The clowns that depend this tripe should get out more.

[Lead Balloon]

Hear! Hear!

Freeloading GA losers are actually taxpayers. They pay lots of tax. Lots.

[rutan around]

unauthorised person, in relation to a place or thing, means a person who:
(a) is not authorised by the owner or person in control of the place or thing to have access to the place or thing;

So who decides what the owner or person in control of the place or thing can authorise or not authorise. Some of the people are are sensible and decent human beings but unfortunately the position seems to attract a certain type who revel in the only power they have ever had . With IQs flat out exceeding double figures the power goes straight to their head.

What happens if I rock up to an airport with a t-shirt saying:-

VOTE NO for
DUMP
&
MELANOMA

and I'm denied access because I offend his political views? Can he legally deny me access?

Airports a part of the transportation system and and shouldn't be political footballs . New restrictions that slow down operations at Airports should not be allowed unless a very good case can be mounted to show their absolute necessity. If that proof is shown then all stakeholders should be involved in working out the least disruptive way to implement the new security measures.

Blind Freddie can see that most of this stuff is introduced without any consultation with the people who have to try to make silly often pointless security work. It is quite obvious that no sensible uniform user friendly system was ever worked out for the security gate system. I shudder to think how many millions of man hours have been totally wasted on the current gate system.

[Flying Binghi]

Why are Australian pilots subsidizing the defence against islamic nutters ?

Our current clustafeck of a prime minister is inviting the inciters of terrorism to dinner whilst we pilots/aircraft operators have to pay money to defend against terrorism threats.




.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What you guys seem to forget is that the airport owner is just trying to conform with rules and regs forced on them from external sources as well. If they didn't have to have all this security rigamarole do you think they would? They are subject to OTS inspections, audits, non-compliance, show cause etc etc just as much as you bag CASA for. Meeting security obligations forced on them is a huge impost. The regulator doesn't care who pays for it, as long as it is met.

The taxpayer 'provided' it, not the council, not the government.

It's probably been 25 years since the goverment divested itself of the messy busy of running airports and handed them over to local councils to run, often without much in the way of guidance or help in the ongoing running of them. Since that time, almost all of the facilities that were handed over have probably passed their working life and have had to be replaced, upgraded or experienced heavy maintenance. Where do you think that money has come from? A simple thing like a runway reseal can run to 6 figures easily. That's a lot of $10 landing fees. The fact is that most small airports are heavily subsidised by their local community in one form or another, who apart from the tenuous "air ambulance" needs, are not going to see much, if any, return for their dollar. The majority will almost certainly never use any facilities their money goes towards providing.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised".

Whatever the case, it all seems to me to circle back to the point that if Australia was indeed an "innovation nation" and any government an "infrastructure government", there would be a lot more government investment in aerodrome infrastructure.

Everyone seems to be overlooking one key aspect of the 'loser pays' principle and the selling off or 'divestment' of aerodrome infrastructure. Suddenly a whole lot of highly paid 'executives' and 'managers' had to be funded off the back of these assets. After all, but for their brilliance (with the corresponding price tag), how would it be possible to run an aerodrome so efficiently?

It's just the good ol' Australian game of cost-shifting between the levels of government, which game has, surprisingly, nothing to do with any objective principle of efficient provision of services or infrastructure and everything to do with political expedience.

As for the security requirements, I've come to realise that it's a stroke of genius to create a system that, in practice, has no coherent or consistent connection with the objective threats, but the flaws in which us losers have no interest in highlighting in case the jobsworths redouble their efforts to reinforce the facade, to our inconvenience and no one else's. Any bad guys who try to use logic to penetrate the aviation 'security' system would be completely bamboozled. The lunatics are going to ignore the 'system' in any event. I therefore dips me lid to OTS.

[mostlytossas]

Agree with Mr Leadie.Another few points I would like to add is when these airports were handed over to councils it almost always came with a lump sum for future maintenance.There is no doubt the federal govt screwed the councils over as it was never enough,but,that said did they invest it and use it for what it was intended for? Hell no it was in most cases used as general revenue for other non aviation purposes.
Secondly when the runway needs resurfacing this is nearly always funded mostly by a goverment grant.The council in most cases has neither the funds or expertise to do it themselves. And who causes it to need resurfacing? Not GA. Heavy aircraft such as RPT and military thats who. So they should pay for it.Same goes for security. What threat to the nations security a C172 or Warrior poses I have no idea. So we all have to pay for fences and locked gates,screening etc for what? A lock only keeps an honest man out. Anyone who wanted to cause trouble only needs a $20 bulk cutter from Bunnings and turn up out of business hours and can have a free run at it as the fences are only wire mesh FFS!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised"

And I think you are completely missing the point if you think that an itinerant user of infrastructure such as an aerodrome is not being heavily subsidised. The operator of an airport a few posts ago said that landing fees alone do not cover the costs. So someone else is paying the rest , thus the provision of the airport facilities to that GA user is subsidised. That is how most councils refer to their funding models for their airports, as a subsidy.
Back in roughly 2004, an Airports Association report to Parliament on the effects of the governments withdrawal from the ALOP some 10 years earlier (ie ceasing of 50-50 funding) found it had immediately rendered most small aerodromes uneconomic to their local councils with the doubling of running costs, and many were struggling back then to keep them operating. I used to go to AA Annual conferences in the late 90's, and I remember how bleak things were. Yes, some money was provided for future needs, but now after 25 years, most of that has gone (and in most cases, it was spent on the aerodrome, not elsewhere). Any capital works, such as reseals, were always beyond the means of most councils, but they are still expected to contribute something towards them (and you don't need heavy traffic for a reseal to be required. Bitumen ages. In fact the worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it). There were very, very few profitable, or even break even, small airports in 2004. I doubt many would be in a better situation today. Costs have only gone up, and traffic down. The fact that most are still open more likely expresses how much local councils do recognise the value of an aerodrome to their community , irrespective of the facilities they provide.

[rutan around]

In fact the worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it).

In that case every T/O and landing I make is providing a service for the airport owner. In future I will send them a bill every time I land for say $10 - $15

[Lead Balloon]

The worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it).

And what are the quickest ways to deter traffic?

1. Charge usage fees

2. Impose security requirements and procedures that are inconvenient and are not justified by the risk.

On 1, note I did not say "landing" fees. There are aerodromes out there that charge fees if you merely put a plan in the system to fly there, even if you never fly there in fact. And that includes not even flying in the vicinity of the place, much less overhead or landing. They've just set up software to match filed plans to regos and produce a usage charge. I then have to dispute the charges.

As a consequence I will never go to places like YTWB, YORG, YGLB (and I could go on....) ever again.

You could also look to more innovative ways to use the infrastructure. Places like YWWL and YCTM rent out a runway for things like classic car club events.

By the way: Are you aware of any public hospitals, public schools, public bus services etc that turn a "profit"? What, precisely, do we pay taxes for? General Aviation has been scammed into believing that it must grow its own bowl of rice and that's all it deserves.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Rutan, no probs, send them a bill, just discount it from the bill they send you for what it actually costs to provide the airport.
Lead, no worries, that's your choice as a consumer to refuse to use any airport you wish. No one will shed a tear if you don't go there. Its a discretionary choice. Other uses for the infrastucture, fine, hope some work, but I can imagine the whinging from the fraternity because they couldn't use it because the "money-grubbing council" had rented it out to a "bloody car club fer chris' sake" when they wanted to go there.
As for your other analogies? Good choices. Sucking on the public teat has left us with a broken health system, a broken education system, and a broken public transport system. Two are provided by the state, haemorrhage money like there's no tomorrow and cut services/close facilities at the drop of a hat if there's not enough funding ( and we still have co-payments, Medicare Levy, private health insurance etc on top of our taxes), and if you have ever used a private hospital or school, well how was your bank balance after that? Because they do have to return a profit, and what that service actually costs is not pretty. As for your "public" bus, almost always provided by a private contractor of some description (who is making a profit, or he wouldn't do it), said profit subsidised almost completely by the taxpayer, and when the money runs out, services get cut, or the price paid by the actual user goes up. Sure we pay taxes, but look at the country, and our current state of finances. The place costs more to run than we pay. There's no free ride at just about any level.
Back to the original post, if you want to make access easier, lobby the government to review the security regs. Don't bag the airport who has no choice but to implement regs they don't want either.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask again: What, precisely, do we pay taxes for?

Lead, no worries, that's your choice as a consumer to refuse to use any airport you wish. No one will shed a tear if you don't go there. Its a discretionary choice.

Gee, thanks for that.

And do you think that attitude is going to help?

There's still some discretion as to how security obligations are complied with. Some places treat itinerant GA as an irritating low priority. Others don't. That's a choice, not a difference in obligations.

Here's how aerodrome maintenance decisions are made in a first world nation that recognises the importance of aviation infrastructure:

Ruling prevents the city from shutting down SMO through 2023.

The FAA has ruled that the city of Santa Monica must keep Santa Monica Airport (SMO) open through 2023, dealing a significant blow to officials who want it gone.

In a ruling released Monday, the FAA denied an appeal of an earlier decision and maintained the city is required to keep the airport open because it accepted federal grant money for airport improvements.

Santa Monica received $1.6 million for planning and airport development in 1994. Projects funded by the grant were completed in 1996. However, the city applied for and received an additional $240,600 in 2003. The FAA maintains that its agreements with grant recipients last for the life of the facility built with the money or 20 years.

The city argued the 2003 grant did not trigger the grant provisions as it shouldn’t be considered a “new” grant but rather should be part of the pre-existing agreement that would have expired in 2014.

City officials filed a motion to dismiss the case but were rebuffed in federal court in December 2015. Monday’s ruling was the city’s first appeal, with the FAA essentially acting as judge and jury. Officials said they will now continue their appeals in the federal court system.

http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-rules-s...ODYyNzAxMjgzS0

Here the government and its regulator watch us squabble over the ever-diminishing rice bowl.