Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Would have been cheaper just to build the fence at Kempsey

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

Would have been cheaper just to build the fence at Kempsey

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th Sep 2017, 06:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Would have been cheaper just to build the fence at Kempsey

Council decided not to build a fence around Kempsey Aerodrome to reduce the roo problem because it was going to cost too much, $109,930.90 plus GST.

The Council has now been ordered to pay $186,040.60 plus lots of lawyers' costs because of that decision.

Its all here

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decis...b074a7c6e1897b
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 11:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
The Council will likely think it a better idea to close the airfield now.





.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 11:45
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
The Council will likely think it a better idea to close the airfield now.





.
The case decision states that a clause in the LOP contract requires Council to keep the airport open.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 12:08
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ground
Posts: 75
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
It merely says the council would need state permission to close the airport or so on.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 12:36
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,345
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
Yet another example of how the Feds were cunning enough to pass on responsibility, for their many aerodromes to local councils.
In this case, YKMP during 1977.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 21:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 90 Likes on 33 Posts
The kangaroo was killed by the impact.
What's the fine for killing protected wildlife?

I find our electric fence seems to keep roos out of our garden. Wombats? Not so much.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2017, 23:05
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Wombats are a problem Sunfish.

Not only do they eat the lower leaves of trees, but wallabies use their holes to get in and they eat the higher level leaves, eventually killing the tree.

We solved the problem by pushing steel concrete reinforcing rods down into the ground on the fenceline. They were about 10cm apart from each other. This was not a job we lightly undertook given the perimeter of our orchard, but it was essential to preserve our citrus trees. In places the wombats managed to force the rods apart so we replaced them and concerted them in!

It was a lot of work but very rewarding. Just had our best citrus harvest for years.
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2017, 02:36
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,681
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
$$$$..that bureaucrats for ya. !!

Up here in the deep north when they were about to close a DPI facility..they suddenly discovered 'fruit fly'...so a whole army of fly killers were employed to bait, trap and spray.

Coffee plantation owners..altho they protested mightily that the sour thin skin and tough bean inside are not fly tucker the spraying went ahead anyway, and wiped out the plantations.
For the two farms the ask was $2 mil. compensation. Nah !.. see you in court.
The final bill was $12 mil...paid for by the taxpayer.
Was it ever thus.
aroa is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2017, 03:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky82
It merely says the council would need state permission to close the airport or so on.

"The conditions of the transfer included a requirement that the land would not be sold and that the airport would continue to operate": [at para 8]

As I have been known to tell clients...RTFC!
kaz3g is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2017, 06:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the Kangaroo did $161,191.85 worth of damage to a Mooney.

Some might argue it was $161,191.85 of improvements!
StickWithTheTruth is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2017, 07:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ground
Posts: 75
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by kaz3g
"The conditions of the transfer included a requirement that the land would not be sold and that the airport would continue to operate": [at para 8]

As I have been known to tell clients...RTFC!
Very good. Keep reading. Moot point anyway.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 00:37
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Update! Turns out the council was right. Appeal allowed:

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decis...b0b9ab40211ff5

Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 04:45
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,289
Received 25 Likes on 13 Posts
So what's this mean, sorry can't be bothered with the legalese .... I did start it, but suddenly my eyes glazed over and I got a terrible thirst ....

Did the council win the appeal and did old mate Dr. Dillbury fail to get his payout? Or are we all stuffed because no-one will take responsibility for themselves? Or is the roo in trouble for failing to display his/her ASIC and wear high vis? Where's Leadie, can he give us the outcome in a few lines?
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 05:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mascot
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Council won the appeal because the risk of Kangaroos should have been obvious tp the pilot.

I think the Dr originally argued that a risk of Kangaroos was mentioned in ERSA but there was no NOTAM issued for increased Kangaroo activity. The three appeal Judges thought the risk should have been obvious to the pilot and so the Council was not liable.

Originally this would have been covered under the Common Law principles of Tort, but now there is specific legislation Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Guess this means one more reason for Precautionary Searches on country strips.
LKinnon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 06:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,305
Received 426 Likes on 213 Posts
The Supreme Court found that the risk of a collision with a kangaroo on landing at Kempsey aerodrome was an obvious risk, of which the pilot of the aircraft had been warned.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 10:38
  #16 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,977
Received 107 Likes on 61 Posts
Bloke I knew years ago once had a 'Roo problem at his local airfield. Local Council 'didn't wanta know 'nuthin...'

Relevant Government Dept. stated 'Not our problem.'

Result was that rule 7.62X39 was applied at various times in a surreptitious manner.

For a short while a few local Dog owners lacked not for Dog food, and in due course the problem went away.

There are times when I wonder........
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 11:33
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Next door to the neighbor from hell, who believes in chemtrails!
Age: 75
Posts: 1,809
Received 25 Likes on 18 Posts
Very bad roo problem at YLEC right now - emus too.

DF.
Desert Flower is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 22:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,291
Received 40 Likes on 31 Posts
I'm surprised that it's the owner suing the council and not an insurance company. I assume he had no insurance. Not good if he doesn't have some third party insurance.
TBM-Legend is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 22:32
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,883
Received 194 Likes on 101 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
I'm surprised that it's the owner suing the council and not an insurance company. I assume he had no insurance. Not good if he doesn't have some third party insurance.
There’s no accusation of him not having 3rd party insurance and it wouldn’t have helped him anyway, however it would be a poor decision not to have any as many of the larger airports require 3rd party insurance in their T&C’s. Some are over $10m which in many cases GA owners don’t have.

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 04:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,291
Received 40 Likes on 31 Posts
There’s no accusation of him not having 3rd party insurance
Who said this?
TBM-Legend is online now  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.