Prior permission to land at Gympie airport
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah bugger it Lead, let the bastards have it and make their new suburb or DFO
which ever lines their pockets with the most.
Lets face it, aviation is finished in Australia, we saw the best, that's gone and
there is no political enthusiasm for it to return. We can never hope to match
the development sharks money, perhaps in another decade we may have the satisfaction
of saying, "We told you so". By then those responsible will be happily retired counting their
thirty pieces of silver and the people left to wonder where it went.
You cant beat the big end of town.
which ever lines their pockets with the most.
Lets face it, aviation is finished in Australia, we saw the best, that's gone and
there is no political enthusiasm for it to return. We can never hope to match
the development sharks money, perhaps in another decade we may have the satisfaction
of saying, "We told you so". By then those responsible will be happily retired counting their
thirty pieces of silver and the people left to wonder where it went.
You cant beat the big end of town.
Ah bugger it Lead, let the bastards have it and make their new suburb or DFO
which ever lines their pockets with the most.
Lets face it, aviation is finished in Australia, we saw the best, that's gone and
there is no political enthusiasm for it to return. We can never hope to match
the development sharks money, perhaps in another decade we may have the satisfaction
of saying, "We told you so". By then those responsible will be happily retired counting their
thirty pieces of silver and the people left to wonder where it went.
You cant beat the big end of town.
which ever lines their pockets with the most.
Lets face it, aviation is finished in Australia, we saw the best, that's gone and
there is no political enthusiasm for it to return. We can never hope to match
the development sharks money, perhaps in another decade we may have the satisfaction
of saying, "We told you so". By then those responsible will be happily retired counting their
thirty pieces of silver and the people left to wonder where it went.
You cant beat the big end of town.
Sadly, the probability is that you are correct, and it goes well beyond aviation.
Tootle pip!!
Fellas, calm down. Have a look where Gympie airport actually is. It is at a little locality well to the South of Gympie called Kybong, which might be of interest to developers in 50 years or so, but not now. As for DFOs, the Bruce Highway out the front of the airfield was bypassed in February by a new much safer 4 lane section of highway, 1 km to the East and that is where a new DFO would go if it wasn't so far out of town and so far from Noosa.
The Council is just on a mission to avoid liability for anything, like all the others.
The Council is just on a mission to avoid liability for anything, like all the others.
Last edited by Possum1; 26th Aug 2018 at 07:06.
treatment of what is or should be a public user facility (like a local road) as simple private property.
So ‘Australian’. Individual citizens are dictated to.
Public facilities are not for the use of citizens but rather on conditions dictated by the government. Government is not something done for you but rather something done to you.
Public facilities are not for the use of citizens but rather on conditions dictated by the government. Government is not something done for you but rather something done to you.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I lived in Gympie town for a while, and did a bit of work at the Kybong Airport.
Having followed this issue for a few years and signed the petition to council to have the restrictions modified or lifted, when the idea was first mooted.
A well known helicopter company from a bit further south, spent a lot of money, time and effort to build a hangar and try to set up some of his activities here, this effort was being stymied by one or two local residents who made a lot of noise about hover and hover taxying at the field.
As usual, it is just two or so people who bought well after the airfield was established that have caused the problems.
This latest is just a continuation of that.
FWIW Cheers
Having followed this issue for a few years and signed the petition to council to have the restrictions modified or lifted, when the idea was first mooted.
A well known helicopter company from a bit further south, spent a lot of money, time and effort to build a hangar and try to set up some of his activities here, this effort was being stymied by one or two local residents who made a lot of noise about hover and hover taxying at the field.
As usual, it is just two or so people who bought well after the airfield was established that have caused the problems.
This latest is just a continuation of that.
FWIW Cheers
I sent the Council a note over the week end. Did anyone else.?
One suggestion was that they erect a sign saying ..
'Gympie Welcomes Careful Aviators. Enjoy our Town and beautiful Region.
I,m sure there's no PPR for trucks and motor-homes thru town on council roads
And that since GA is a rapid transport system...3 days notice is silly* and impractical
*silly ...as in the infection of bureaucrats with the 'idiot virus'..to come up with stupid, unworkable ideas.
In the past I have use Gympie a s 'whistle stop' in passing, an operations base for 4 -5 days and a safe haven from a storm en-route to elsewhere.
The town benefited in pie sales, taxis, motels, coffee shops and etc.
So you do have to wonder at the logic of 'consultants' and councillors to arrive at PPR.
Yet again, its a classic case of we the av.citizens getting disadvantaged by bureaucrats inserting themselves into yr life and how you may ..or NOT..do business.
Thus do our rights and freedoms get whittled away. Is this what our forebears fought and gave their lives for...so we can live chained to the ground by 'rules' and 'regulations' by the bloated outgrowth of bureaucrazies.?
Civil disobedience or the pitch forks.? Keep this up and it WILL happen.
One suggestion was that they erect a sign saying ..
'Gympie Welcomes Careful Aviators. Enjoy our Town and beautiful Region.
I,m sure there's no PPR for trucks and motor-homes thru town on council roads
And that since GA is a rapid transport system...3 days notice is silly* and impractical
*silly ...as in the infection of bureaucrats with the 'idiot virus'..to come up with stupid, unworkable ideas.
In the past I have use Gympie a s 'whistle stop' in passing, an operations base for 4 -5 days and a safe haven from a storm en-route to elsewhere.
The town benefited in pie sales, taxis, motels, coffee shops and etc.
So you do have to wonder at the logic of 'consultants' and councillors to arrive at PPR.
Yet again, its a classic case of we the av.citizens getting disadvantaged by bureaucrats inserting themselves into yr life and how you may ..or NOT..do business.
Thus do our rights and freedoms get whittled away. Is this what our forebears fought and gave their lives for...so we can live chained to the ground by 'rules' and 'regulations' by the bloated outgrowth of bureaucrazies.?
Civil disobedience or the pitch forks.? Keep this up and it WILL happen.
A little note to those advocating landing without getting prior permission.....
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little note to those advocating landing without getting prior permission.....
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
It's not "private" its publicly owned.
Public facilities are not for the use of citizens but rather on conditions dictated by the government
Traffic,
I earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules about interfering with aircraft
I earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules about interfering with aircraft
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Act, if the interference is done with lawful authority
A little note to those advocating landing without getting prior permission.....
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.
And mores that point, without even mentioning that scenario, I asked my insurer if that were the case, and was told no, it doesn't. Maybe you should consider changing companies?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You're a (very new) private pilot, VFR and on your way North out of Brisbane, some Wx closes off your planned route, and now your only choice for a safe landing is to land at Gympie and wait out the passing storm cell."
You consult your ERSA and find prior permission is required. you have been constantly reminded throughout your training, that to break the rules can make you a criminal, in fact your petrified having got into this position in the first place you have already become a criminal, you are therefore very reluctant to communicate your dilemma. You press on with tragic results.
Publicly owned for the benefit of Bureaucrats.
You consult your ERSA and find prior permission is required. you have been constantly reminded throughout your training, that to break the rules can make you a criminal, in fact your petrified having got into this position in the first place you have already become a criminal, you are therefore very reluctant to communicate your dilemma. You press on with tragic results.
Publicly owned for the benefit of Bureaucrats.
We all know it's about liability, but that is NOT the same thing as safety. Using safety as the justification is a cop-out, so call them out on it. Ask them to show you the CASA discussions they refer to. If they can't, ask CASA whether there are any new rules that they have made that warrant this sort of response. Keep following the trail.
Sometimes just asking the question, in a reasonable way, and remaining calm and logical, and continuing to escalate until you reach someone who can give you an answer, can have results.
Traffic,
If you read the history of Gympie airfield, it was substantially built with Commonwealth taxpayers money, it was/is an ALOP airfield. It was NOT paid for by the local council and their ratepayers.
Even through the original ALOP deed has been debased, when then Minister John Anderson was conned into the changes by the bureaucrats of the then Department of Transport and Regional whatever, there is still an obligation that it remains an airfield open for public use, I would argue that some of the recent restrictions, including PPO, are contrary to the remaining ALOP terms.
As a previous poster has pointed out, petty local politics wins over the public interests of the majority. As we know, some of the restrictions have not the remotest connection to any delineated risk at Gympie, in my opinion it is just the usual appeal to knee-jerk reaction to the great god, safety, for base political purposes. It is also clear, in my opinion, that most of the local council know about as much about aviation, general or otherwise, as the average perX in the street.
I have read the "draft" masterplan, a rather boilerplate effort that, in my opinion, could have been run off a template, just fill in the blanks. Lots of lovely words, lots of vaulting ambition expressed by "council", belied by "council's" actual behavior.
About the only thing that stuck out was 100% user pays, the council will not accept that the airfield should in any way be treated like roads, parks or other public facilities, to the degree that mooted swinging charges for runway access, for proposed "airpark" development of private land adjacent will not encourage these developments.
Tootle pip!!
If you read the history of Gympie airfield, it was substantially built with Commonwealth taxpayers money, it was/is an ALOP airfield. It was NOT paid for by the local council and their ratepayers.
Even through the original ALOP deed has been debased, when then Minister John Anderson was conned into the changes by the bureaucrats of the then Department of Transport and Regional whatever, there is still an obligation that it remains an airfield open for public use, I would argue that some of the recent restrictions, including PPO, are contrary to the remaining ALOP terms.
As a previous poster has pointed out, petty local politics wins over the public interests of the majority. As we know, some of the restrictions have not the remotest connection to any delineated risk at Gympie, in my opinion it is just the usual appeal to knee-jerk reaction to the great god, safety, for base political purposes. It is also clear, in my opinion, that most of the local council know about as much about aviation, general or otherwise, as the average perX in the street.
I have read the "draft" masterplan, a rather boilerplate effort that, in my opinion, could have been run off a template, just fill in the blanks. Lots of lovely words, lots of vaulting ambition expressed by "council", belied by "council's" actual behavior.
About the only thing that stuck out was 100% user pays, the council will not accept that the airfield should in any way be treated like roads, parks or other public facilities, to the degree that mooted swinging charges for runway access, for proposed "airpark" development of private land adjacent will not encourage these developments.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of whatever you think it should or should not be, it is owned by the council, like the roads (which is why you or I don't fix them or build them, they do). As such they can dictate how it is used, like they do the roads. Yes they provide them as a public facility, as they do many things, but all come with caveats.
I’d like to say this is all the thin end of the wedge, but we are well past the thin end. Is just like to know how far the wedge extends at this point.
It was NOT paid for by the local council and their ratepayers.
Yes, and there is nothing in the act that gives them lawful authority!
By your rational, the council can at anytime decide that PPR is now a thing to use their roads, and they are removing the street lights and banning driving between sunset and sunrise.
The UK is considering banning new license holders from driving at night. In QLD if you are a P Plater with a bad driving record you can be banned from driving at night. That's not the council, but just another level of government telling you what you can and can't do on a "public" road.
Your utopia might sound great, but it's not reality.
At post #8 of this thread vag said:
I repeat my question: If we can all submit PPR forms and be granted permission valid for 12 months, what does the PPR system actually achieve for the Council? Actually achieve.
I submitted the PPR form available on the council website and was informed within an hour that one request will be valid for 12 months.
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB, it probably pays for some counsellors 2nd cousin's school friend getting some local government experience in paper pushing by creating a paper trail for them to oversee.