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

Further damage to GA by airport operators

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

Further damage to GA by airport operators

Old 22nd Nov 2019, 05:41
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 76
Posts: 178
When I grew up I had a 1/10000000 share of an airline, shipping lines, several banks many ports and airports not to mention a post office and all the roads in Australia together with all the railroads.
Can you really tell me that the ordinary person is richer today?
harrryw is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 05:43
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by YPJT View Post


Argue all you like about whether or not they are necessary but it will not be you in the witness box explaining to counsel at an inquest as to the reasons why you did not find it necessary to impose a simple mitigation measure
Sure no problem. Just quote me one counsel at any domestic aviation inquest....

Risk management, mitigation, I has it thanks, donít need your help.
BronteExperimental is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 06:46
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,273
Had to wear them at Jandakot for quite a while now but only if crossing taxiways. Must be working as no one has been hit.
kudos to Dick, a nice bait to wind up the week on
YPJT is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 07:06
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: where eva the plane is broken down
Posts: 37
Passed through The Alice last week on a ferry flight. Spent the night and went out to get going early the next morning for an early start to find the the aroís dont start work till 6am now (first light was 5am i think).
If your an itinerant passing through, you will have to organise airside access the day before. This will be going in the ersa at some stage,
Had to fill out a form to land at the Rock too, even though i was only stopping for fuel. Becoming the norm for any rpt airport.
pi
magnum pi is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 08:24
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by YPJT View Post
Ho hum, another week - another grenade lobbed by Dick.
isn't the hi viz requirement somewhere in CAOs? Although I think it only applies if walking across taxiways.
Dick is only trying to point out another degradation of GA and hold the Government accountable for the pitiful situation they have created for the industry due to their privatization agenda. Something they can fix but won't.

Instead of having a dig at someone trying to help the industry why don't you do some proper research in future and look up the CAOs instead of making a half baked statement without the evidence to back it up - just plain lazy.
pbwhi0 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 10:54
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,273
Well where is he to continue the discussion ?
YPJT is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 10:58
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 822
Must be working as no one has been hit.
Really Dood? Who was hit before the stupid landfill garbage was implemented?

(apart from Jack of course who was pissed as a newt) pardon the pun.
The name is Porter is online now  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 14:04
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,273
The Hi-Viz issue was discussed six years ago.
Hi-vis vests to be required at YPJT from 21 January.
YPJT is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 15:49
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,155
another degradation of GA and hold the Government accountable for the pitiful situation they have created for the industry
And by simply making a phone call the situation goes away. If that is all it takes to kill GA then it must be pretty sick.
due to their privatization agenda
Councils have owned their aerodromes under the ALOP scheme since 1958. That's over 70 years. The government pulled out of that in the early 90's, leaving the councils to fend for themselves, so that's getting on to 30 years ago. The government hasn't owned or operated local aerodromes for most of the time they've been in existence.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 21:59
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,370
The government hasn't owned or operated local aerodromes for most of the time they've been in existence.
....which was all fine and well while ever normal (old fashioned) Local Govt infrastructure practices continued.

Unfortunately, in the last 5 years we have seen the creation and expansion of the AAA and a propagation of the "Airport as a Business" and "maximise return to Ratepayers" model, which in turn started the trend of "Council as Property Developer" followed by "lets build a gold-plated airport and charge all the rich operators a fortune to use it".

The Euro-style Part 139 MOS has provided all the justification they could ever have wanted to expand their empires to the point where Scone airport has direct operating costs of about $78,000 pa but extended costs (once you take the management salaries etc into account) of around $300,000pa.

The geniuses at Upper Hunter Shire Council are now taking out loans of $10.8m to fund the airport mods before Part 139 comes into effect, adding $600,000 pa in loan repayments for the next 30 years.

All we need is basic infrastructure at a basic cost - but instead we are pricing our infrastructure through the roof so that only multinationals and government departments can afford to operate in Australia.

THIS is what is destroying GA, and all small family-owned businesses, in this country.
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 22:45
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,528
Agree 100% Leafblower. Local Councils and State and Federal Governments are adding layer upon layer of costs on the community with zero or negative returns on investment.

By way of example, our shire, one of the smallest, had a $300,000+ pa. CEO who then seriously argued the need for him to hire two deputy CEOs at $250,000 pa. so that he could concentrate on “strategy”. I say “had” because the community finally arced up enough to have him terminated. Over 50% of our council rates are eaten up by administrative staff salaries and on costs with little or no money left for capital works and that figure is getting worse.

We are also drowning in complex “planning policies” one of which - environment, will require months of paperwork and fees to cut down a single tree - alive or dead. The net result of that policy, like so many others is counterproductive, as farmers are going to poison and pull down as much native vegetation as possible before this latest impost is completed.

Another example concerns aboriginal artefacts; the hoo ha and costs associated with their preservation means that any sane farmer who discovers some will immediately destroy or conceal them. For example the discovery of a “canoe tree” on a property requires the design and creation of a special reserve around it which includes restrictions on what the land can then be used for - all at your expense of course. This happened to a friend three months ago.

As far as GA is concerned, we are blessed with a wonderful privately owned airstrip, but that is under constant threat from NIMBYs and as for council approval to build a much needed new hangar, forget it - even if we could afford the planning fees (heritage, water, aboriginal and environmental plans) not to mention the effing opposition from greenies.

Last edited by Sunfish; 25th Nov 2019 at 06:32.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2019, 03:06
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by SOPS View Post
What will happen when they finally kill off the Goose?
Councils arenít trying to kill the Goose, theyíre trying to get rid of the pesky aeroplanes so they can collect the golden egg by developing the land.
mom quite sure this is the end goal.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2019, 05:14
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 36
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by roundsounds View Post
Councils arenít trying to kill the Goose, theyíre trying to get rid of the pesky aeroplanes so they can collect the golden egg by developing the land. mom quite sure this is the end goal.
Even a small airport like Warnervale would yield 400+ 3/4 acre blocks. In that case, it's $160,000,000 just in land sales, then there's the $1,000,000 a year in rates the council would bring in from those 400 homeowners. Plus another $24,000,000 or so to the local economy from another 400 families.

GA's got no hope of competing with numbers like that - even the most die-hard supporter of aviation has to be realistic, it is dying in this country with little to no hope of recovery.

Anyone want to buy an RV-9?
KRviator is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.