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

Get out of aviation now – further important information

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

Get out of aviation now – further important information

Old 23rd Jan 2019, 23:01
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,899
Less than 10 years ago, I was invited to land at a private strip by someone that wasn’t authorized to give permission for me to do so. I was waved off and did not land or get below 200ft. The person that was actually authorised to give permission took a photo of my aircraft in the air, called CASA and I was staring down the barrel of 50 points penalty. I only got away with it once I gave CASA the name of the person that gave their permission.

It all escalated very quickly and was somewhat stressful. I was guilty until I proved my innocence.

The moral of the story... get permission in writing!

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 23:11
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: adelaide, Australia
Posts: 399
Of equal concern is anyone promoting CLIVE!!!! Up Queensland way I believe he is real popular.....not.
Dick asks what Clive would do? I can answer that for you....Nothing. Just like last time, if he gets back into parliament (very doubtful thank god ) his party will soon self destruct with competing egos.
Total waste of space and a crook to go with it IMHO.
Regardless of what ever side of politics you lean the opinion polls point to a change of government coming by a large majority.
Minor parties will have no influence at all. Not saying that is a good or bad thing but just the likely outcome.
mostlytossas is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 23:37
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,543
Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate View Post
As is increasingly the case Dick does not tell the whole story. Have a look at section 7 of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act which deals with “Emergencies”. The family flying south to whom Dick refers would have no trouble landing in the circumstances he describes.

Bull at a Gate,
Quite so, the first thing I would do in an emergency in the area is pull out "my copy" the the NSW legislation, Warnervale Airport (Restriction) Act 1996, ( you all carry one in your flight bag, of course) amended, and check if I can "legally" land.
We all know, compliance with "the rules" ensures air safety!!
Indeed, the new Part 91 reinforces the concept, compared with the sloppy old rules that ICAO states around the world have existed with, and continue to "Labor".
Tootle pip!!

From said Act. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/leg...1996n57404.pdf
Part 2 Restrictions on aircraft movements
Application of Part
(1) This Part does not apply to take offs and landings of aircraft at Warnervale Airport on an existing runway.
(2) An existing runway is a runway that was constructed before the commencement of this section and that is not extended at any time after the commencement of this section.

Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Jan 2019 at 00:10.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 23:52
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,543
Originally Posted by Clare Prop View Post
Clare Prop,

If you had an original signed copy of "The Big Picture", you would find that the major background issue is VBDs**, like so many things in "NSW, The State For Sale", the above is about an individual skirmish.
Tootle pip!!

** VBD - Very Big Developer

LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 00:00
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 421
And why is Warnervale the only option. I’m sure there’s others.

Dick, please stop with the scare tactics.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 00:15
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,543
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
And why is Warnervale the only option. I’m sure there’s others.

Dick, please stop with the scare tactics.
Given the weather patterns in the area (you must be from somewhere else), the options for VFR are very limited by both "standard weather" and the local vertical scenery.
This is my home territory, I know it all too well.
I am not, for one moment, suggesting this is a scare tactic, but the local council improperly using this legislation of "other purposes".
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 01:24
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Big Island
Posts: 86
Let's be honest, this isn't a hard thing. I've landed at Warnervale on several occasions in the past and there's very good chance that I'll be there again in the future.

How to deal with this circumstance.

Knowing that I need to land at Warnervale 24hrs or more from the time of landing, email them (and hope I get a response in a timely fashion)
Knowing that I have to land at Warnervale within 24hrs, call the number in ERSA with the specified request.
I'm airborne and had a last minute call to land at Warnervale. It's unavailable, go elsewhere e.g Cessnock.
I'm having an emergency and need to land, Warnervale is closest. I'm landing at Warnervale.

This doesn't seem too challenging to me, it's all circumstantial and I wouldn't pull out of aviation just for that.
Urshtnme is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 01:38
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 141
You like Nibbles are wrong. The runway strip is not required to be prepared for normal operations. See the previous reference to MOS 139 Table 6.2-4. The purpose of the MOS change is to ensure that where it is so prepared, pilots are given that information. People also need to understand that if the aerodrome is shown in ERSA as UNCR it is not required to conform to Part 139.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 01:51
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 72
As far as Gympie is concerned, just fill in the form on the council's website and send it off and the long-term ARO there, JB, will email you back in 2-3 days, a 12 month authorisation to land there as required. No landing fees yet...
Possum1 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 04:33
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,189
Rather an interesting layout of unserviceability cones along the runway strip. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/ce...en-in-context/ WTF are they there for?
YPJT is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 05:09
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 56
Posts: 138
Just guessing, but with no access to the NOTAM system and users who regularly land on the strip I'm thinking soft -wet or WIP may need the cones out there, especially when ERSA notes 'vacate the runway as soon as practicable'
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 05:41
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,189
G'day Fieldmouse,
if they are landing on the RWS and it has been approved for that purpose it then it is an unsealed runway and should to be marked with small white cones. On the other hand, if a portion of the RWS is unserviceable for whatever reason, then the adjacent section of the sealed runway is also not available.
Looks like whoever is running that show doesn't really know what they are doing. That marker layout is garbage.

Last edited by YPJT; 24th Jan 2019 at 05:57.
YPJT is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 06:07
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 56
Posts: 138
Agree the RWS should be marked if it's designated for use, but it's been a long time since RWS surface condition affected the serviceability of a sealed runway. unless I'm wrong. Jesus most runways would be closed every time it rained in these parts.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 07:06
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,079
Ursh. That’s just the problem. Now you can’t call within 24 hours. Look again at my first post.

Ayers Rock airport started this prior notice caper and more and more little hitlers will follow. It’s all about control and taking away freedoms

Don’t complain when the number of aircraft owners drops even further and then costs get higher.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 08:34
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 193
What a shame such a successful name in Australian business has now become so conflicted and counterproductive.

But why so bitter and destructive? As for any industry body, if you really want to drive away members and destroy any possibility of selling your businesses as going concerns, inviting a despondent, defeatist Dick Smith to articulate his views at your next forum will be the best advice you will ever hear.

Don't forget: Dick Smith wants to see everyone out of general aviation, but he's decided he's staying in! Or, put another way, do as I say, but not as I do. Or put another way, my significant wealth means the impacts of a declining industry will have a very insignificant impact on my personal way life, thus whatever contribution I make to that decline will not affect me in any great way. Now if you're not a person or business of means and you depend on a flourishing, vibrant GA industry just watch how significant these destructive words will be on your personal way of life.

Be honest, we've all met someone like this in our lives. Do you still hold them in great esteem? Maybe you never did.
Nulli Secundus is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 09:01
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,079
No. Not conflicted- just telling the truth.

The quicker the destruction occurs the quicker the fix will be started.

Also I get lots of requests for advice on how to make a dollar in GA.

At the present time time I don’t want to lead people on so they lose even more money.

I say get out before you lose everything if you are running a GA business.

Of course if you are a private aviator of substantial means you will not be at risk.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 10:46
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 1,960
That picture is taken looking towards the displaced threshold of 20. The runway is being resurfaced. You can see the dotted out markings for repainting the centre line or the white arrows pointing to the DISP THRES. They must be using the "not available" part of the runway as a taxiway. You can see the gable markers running across the end of the RWY Strip further up. The U/S cones are marking areas inside parts of a temporary (or permanent ?) taxiway strip, so they are fine where and how they are.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 10:47
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 193

You could drive an airbus through Dick Smith's contorted positions. A whole industry must be destroyed for it to be fixed? If you Dick Smith, won't help fix a going concern, how could you ever be considered as part of a (fanciful) resurrection? What makes your views so substantially irrelevant is the risk from a decaying GA industry applies equally to everyone, regardless of a private aviator's personal means. With great concern, the message which continues to elude you is that while risk is equal for all, personal impact is not. Your wealth allows you to purchase the luxury of a vocalised defeatism, knowingly comforted that the impact in your personal life will be insignificant. What are the effects of your actions for others? Those not of significant means? Will not your defeatism exacerbate the challenges facing those striving with vision for the greater future in Australian GA?

Now back to the airbus. Not even at top of climb and it has to be asked: surely you don't, Dick Smith, propose operators just close their doors, walk away from their staff and businesses in order to get out of the industry. Many will have debt. Banks don't walk away just because you have.

So let us hear how you would actually counsel a business owner to leave this industry? For example, do you propose they sell out as a going concern? declare bankruptcy due debt? or simply just close down? Please put people's minds at ease with your so-far missing details of how people should take your advice and turn that into action, after all, you are clearly calling for action. What are the specific steps operators should take to get out of the industry? How long would you estimate it will take for us to completely destroy the industry and thereafter how long will it be before the fix-up phase is complete? Will it be quite difficult to attract finance in the planned fix-up phase as financial institutions realise the industry doesn't exist as its been totally destroyed? Do you envisage those who destroyed the industry will also need to seek finance to fix the industry and would you foresee any associated problems in that circumstance?

Nulli Secundus is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 10:53
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 888
Dick, out of interest, would you recommend anyone starting a business to do anything in Australia these days? That is, a business that doesn't involve servicing a government demand for something...
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 05:25
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,079
Andy RR, yes I would certainly recommend that people get into most forms of business in Australia today. I have operated three profitable businesses in my time – electronics manufacturing (then importing after Whitlam took off the protective tariffs), retailing and servicing, then magazine publishing, then food retailing. In each of these businesses there has been no Government over-regulation to stifle the viability of the operating business.

From my experience, there are literally hundreds of different businesses that people can get involved in and still make a small fortune – if not a large one.

Aviation should be one of them, but because those in the bureaucracy have been able to promote “the lie” that in aviation alone, safety comes before cost. That has prevented businesses from being viable. Yes, if you have tens of millions of passengers like the Airlines do you could hand on the costs caused by needless over-regulation and they are hardly noticed by the individual passenger. However in the general aviation industry, they are noticed – so much so that in many cases, the business is sent into bankruptcy.

Aviation could be the same – once we get the Act changed, there will be a real message that the bureaucrats have to comply. We will then be able to look around the world and copy the regulations which give the highest level of safety while retaining viable general aviation businesses.

It is possible. In fact, what the bureaucrats are doing now will work in reverse. As the businesses head towards bankruptcy they will become less safe. It has happened before. It will just be history repeating itself.

My advice in relation to getting out of the industry is totally genuine. I am very concerned about a number of people I know who are holding in there, hoping that things are going to get better, but if that doesn’t happen, they will lose far more in the future than they will lose if they close down now.

I am also pretty well convinced that we will need an almost complete collapse of the general aviation charter and training industries before anything will be done. That is why I say let’s get it to happen quickly so we can get the fix in quickly.

That is, remove these cargo cult people who have a type of religious faith that aviation can be different to everything else in life. One day it will happen. The quicker it does, the quicker the fix will be and we can start employing tens of thousands of people again in aviation and having the whole industry growing.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Jan 2019 at 05:40.
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.