Get out of aviation now – further important information
Thread Starter
Get out of aviation now – further important information
It looks as if Warnervale Airport has now followed Gympie. As many know, you cannot land at Gympie without prior approval. That is, if you are flying up the coast and you decide to land there to spend money in the town, that is not possible unless you can get in contact with the Council and get your approval.
I don’t know if it has been reported on PPRuNe before that Warnervale has now followed. The ERSA now states for Warnervale:
In fact it is worse than that. Here are parts of a recent email from the Council to a pilot:
Of course there is nothing in the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act that says 24 hours' notice has to be applied. This is clearly just the sheer bastardry of the bureaucrats in the Council either intentionally or unintentionally destroying general aviation in their area, and jobs for their own children and grandchildren. In fact, the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act makes it absolutely clear that when there are safety considerations, a pilot can simply land – but of course this is not mentioned in the ERSA. I’m sure the Council has intentionally left that out.
Let’s say there is a young family flying south, with strong southerly winds blowing. They decide that now there is no north/south runway at Bankstown, for precautionary safety purposes they will land at Warnervale. Aha! They look at the ERSA - “Prior Permission Required” - and presumably fly on and take the risk of landing with an excessive crosswind.
It is all so sad. I see it happening more and more. That is why my advice to everyone is to get out of aviation now before you lose everything.
There could possibly be one hope, which is that Clive Palmer gets in and brings in the type of disruption that has happened in the United States.
In the meantime, I suggest everyone stays completely clear of Warnervale. Don’t spend any money there, don’t stay there, tell all your friends to keep away from the place. There are plenty of fantastic, friendly, country airports that welcome pilots and passengers.
Can you imagine if the Council put up a sign on the M1 Pacific Motorway stating “24 hours prior approval required to shop at Warnervale. Please email the Council.” Now that would be dopey.
I don’t know if it has been reported on PPRuNe before that Warnervale has now followed. The ERSA now states for Warnervale:
“PPR required via ARO Central Coast Council, email: [email protected] or urgent requests via Ph: 02 4392 4741 (0730-1500 LMT).”
"It is highly unusual to process a landing request at this short notice, due to the Warnervale Airport Restrictions act we need to actively manage the scheduling of all movements. As per conversation earlier today with Airport Manager Peter Stockdale future requests without 24 hours' notice will not be approved.”
Let’s say there is a young family flying south, with strong southerly winds blowing. They decide that now there is no north/south runway at Bankstown, for precautionary safety purposes they will land at Warnervale. Aha! They look at the ERSA - “Prior Permission Required” - and presumably fly on and take the risk of landing with an excessive crosswind.
It is all so sad. I see it happening more and more. That is why my advice to everyone is to get out of aviation now before you lose everything.
There could possibly be one hope, which is that Clive Palmer gets in and brings in the type of disruption that has happened in the United States.
In the meantime, I suggest everyone stays completely clear of Warnervale. Don’t spend any money there, don’t stay there, tell all your friends to keep away from the place. There are plenty of fantastic, friendly, country airports that welcome pilots and passengers.
Can you imagine if the Council put up a sign on the M1 Pacific Motorway stating “24 hours prior approval required to shop at Warnervale. Please email the Council.” Now that would be dopey.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ML
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that you think there are young families getting around in light aircraft is fanciful but nice attempt to pull on the heart strings.
It's a private asset managed by organisations that are increasingly acting like for profit corporations. Who's surprised?
It's a private asset managed by organisations that are increasingly acting like for profit corporations. Who's surprised?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ML
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's a profitable asset. An airfield the size of Warner ale surely is not profitable in and of itself. I'd imagine some regional councils would be glad to be rid of their aeronautical responsibility. They certainly wouldn't go building a new one now in most parts of the country.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, it makes you wonder what kind of people flock to that industry.
Who's ever been denied landing (provided it was asked nicely) by the way?
@Dick: Do you think PPR would carry much weight in stress of weather?
Speaking of which: thanks again to the AD OPR at YMBD for kindly letting us land there at such short notice!
Who's ever been denied landing (provided it was asked nicely) by the way?
@Dick: Do you think PPR would carry much weight in stress of weather?
Speaking of which: thanks again to the AD OPR at YMBD for kindly letting us land there at such short notice!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flypy
It's a private asset managed by organisations that are increasingly acting like for profit corporations. Who's surprised?
" a private asset" --Is that so, I thought it was owned and managed by the local council??
Unless you believe the property of any council is "private property" --- and the public good does not feature when it comes to local road, parks and the like.
A string of state legislation as long as your arm suggests otherwise.
The real issue at Warnervale is, and has always been, who profits from real estate development, short term direct and indirect profits trump long term need of the community, particularly in NSW, ":The First State for Sale" ( a suggested number plate for NSW vehicles).
Tootle pip!!
Warnervale Airport is owned by the Central Coast Council. The Central Coast Aero Club (which owns Warnervale Air, the flying school and engineering facility) has nothing to do with the draconian landing fee structure or airfield management.
That is all I can say publicly...
That is all I can say publicly...
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
That is why my advice to everyone is to get out of aviation now before you lose everything.
.
.
Or have to go and change careers at a late stage and have to work our way up from the bottom again.
Yeah, great advice.
As for the young family.
The horror. The horror!
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 46
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zanthrus
**** them! Land anywhere you like or have to. There is nothing they can do to stop you.
YES!!!! Add my vote for this idea. Civil disobedience isn’t such a bad thing...
I like the quote by Thomas Jefferson "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Dick...maybe yr sign idea is not such a silly. idea
One on the roads to Warnervale warning motorists that 24 hrs Prior Permission Required to enter town will be instituted shortly because it already has been at the airport.
In the name of equity and non discrimination of Council road and runways users , who all pay rates , it has to happen.
What ..discrimination? Cant have that.!
Is it in the water at Warnervale as in Gympie from the Mary River, or does the idiot virus just infect some councillors and bureaurats.
The more this sort of thing occurs , the closer we will get to a revolution.
Bring it on !
One on the roads to Warnervale warning motorists that 24 hrs Prior Permission Required to enter town will be instituted shortly because it already has been at the airport.
In the name of equity and non discrimination of Council road and runways users , who all pay rates , it has to happen.
What ..discrimination? Cant have that.!
Is it in the water at Warnervale as in Gympie from the Mary River, or does the idiot virus just infect some councillors and bureaurats.
The more this sort of thing occurs , the closer we will get to a revolution.
Bring it on !
Thread Starter
Bull. The family would not know the fine print of the act.
The ERS does not explain in any way the point you have stated.
Blame the the Minister and the National Party. They clearly do nothing to encourage country councils to be pro GA.
I wonder what Clive would do?
The ERS does not explain in any way the point you have stated.
Blame the the Minister and the National Party. They clearly do nothing to encourage country councils to be pro GA.
I wonder what Clive would do?
Sounds like it is the NIMBYs https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/ce...en-in-context/
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,985
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
It's the same case with many council airports now listing in ERSA that the grass portion of the runway (that's required to be suitable for ground run of aircraft under the MOS for Part 139) is not to be used for aircraft operations.
Runway
A defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared for the landing and take-off of aircraft.
for landing and take off, because it is built for it, rather than the
Runway strip
A defined area including the runway and stopway, if provided, intended:
1. to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft running off a runway; and
2. to protect aircraft flying over it during take-off or landing operations.
which is not. Yes, the Runway Strip is suitable for the ground run of an aircraft to the extent that it reduces damage, not prevents it, however the surface standards are less stringent than a Runway, as you are only meant to be on it if you have run off the Runway (as per the definition), which I guess required explaining the runway excursion you had just experienced to the ARO in the first place. Electing to later take off in weather conditions that precluded you from using the actual runway? Safer?
Also, how did you know that the ground under the grass was safe to land on? There are no bearing strengths dictated for Runway Strips. What if you had left deep ruts in the strip, which the Aerodrome operator then has to repair, or got bogged within the Runway strip and closed the Aerodrome until you could be extricated? What if you had hit a soft spot on takeoff that retarded your acceleration and compromised your takeoff? What if you hit the PAPI boxes or TVASIS boxes in the grass that you missed seeing over the nose of your tail dragger?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 60
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nibbles2310 - Not for much longer
Originally Posted by Nibbles2310
What's the penalty for failing to receive prior permission and just landing there anyway? Play the old safety case back at them if they ask and carry on landing there.
It's the same case with many council airports now listing in ERSA that the grass portion of the runway (that's required to be suitable for ground run of aircraft under the MOS for Part 139) is not to be used for aircraft operations. I landed a taildragger on one such aerodrome in a stiff crosswind and made my case to the ARO who questioned me, told him it was an operational decision in the name of safety and that I'd be using it again for takeoff once I'd had a bite to eat in town and bought some fuel. Never heard any more about it.
It's the same case with many council airports now listing in ERSA that the grass portion of the runway (that's required to be suitable for ground run of aircraft under the MOS for Part 139) is not to be used for aircraft operations. I landed a taildragger on one such aerodrome in a stiff crosswind and made my case to the ARO who questioned me, told him it was an operational decision in the name of safety and that I'd be using it again for takeoff once I'd had a bite to eat in town and bought some fuel. Never heard any more about it.
If an aerodrome operator prepares a runway strip and makes it available for take-offs and landings, information to that effect and any associated limitations must be provided to the AIS provider for publication in AIP-ERSA.
So very soon, if it isn't declared in ERSA, it isn't available for landing. Keep your insurances up to date for when you ground loop.
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!
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!
