Unfriendliest airport for GA in Australia?
Someone mentioned the airstrip is privately owned. That may be so for some, but the Council run airstrip is actually a Shire asset in which each ratepayer who all fund the council have a a1/25,000 th share, or whatever the population base for the shire is
Owned in effect by we, the people. Not that the non airfield wise or non aviationist, control freaks in the council would acknowledge.
A ratepayer in town will drive his $100k flash Landcruiser on local roads , along with the hordes of $200 RVs visitors..no fee.
The $50 k homebuilt owner, airfield hangar ratepayer or fly in visitor uses the strip… fees.
Discrimination?
In some places these fees are obscene amounts, locally, chicken sh*t…but with Avdata, council get practically bugger all, so the income for the strip hardly benefits at all.
As the airfield is not seen as a vital piece of local infrastructure, they don’t spend millions on it annually as with parks, ponds and gardens. Mow the grass, fix the odd pothole, and whinge about the cost.
Its a worry.
Owned in effect by we, the people. Not that the non airfield wise or non aviationist, control freaks in the council would acknowledge.
A ratepayer in town will drive his $100k flash Landcruiser on local roads , along with the hordes of $200 RVs visitors..no fee.
The $50 k homebuilt owner, airfield hangar ratepayer or fly in visitor uses the strip… fees.
Discrimination?
In some places these fees are obscene amounts, locally, chicken sh*t…but with Avdata, council get practically bugger all, so the income for the strip hardly benefits at all.
As the airfield is not seen as a vital piece of local infrastructure, they don’t spend millions on it annually as with parks, ponds and gardens. Mow the grass, fix the odd pothole, and whinge about the cost.
Its a worry.
The difference is every resident can use the road be it on foot, by bicycle, or other vehicle of their choice. Very few can use the aerodrome. What percentage of residents have ever been on a flight from the local aerodrome, let alone park an aircraft there?
Penguin:
And he answer is (drum roll): About a tenth of what the numbers should be if we had FAA style regulation and an informed council.
The "user pays" argument spirals downward as an ever decreasing number of aircraft owners are asked to share a steadily increasing burden.....until the owner of the last hangar gets a bill for the entire cost of the strip and is bankrupt.
You need to look up the definition of a "Public Good".
And another thing..... I am continually surprised at the number of people I meet who say: "Oh I had a pilots licence once, but I let it all lapse - didnt use it enough" or "I took flying lessons 30 years ago but never got the licence". These are a broad cross section of society from suburban mums to submariners.
Makes you think what we could have if we dreamed bigger,
Very few can use the aerodrome. What percentage of residents have ever been on a flight from the local aerodrome, let alone park an aircraft there?
The "user pays" argument spirals downward as an ever decreasing number of aircraft owners are asked to share a steadily increasing burden.....until the owner of the last hangar gets a bill for the entire cost of the strip and is bankrupt.
You need to look up the definition of a "Public Good".
And another thing..... I am continually surprised at the number of people I meet who say: "Oh I had a pilots licence once, but I let it all lapse - didnt use it enough" or "I took flying lessons 30 years ago but never got the licence". These are a broad cross section of society from suburban mums to submariners.
Makes you think what we could have if we dreamed bigger,
Sunfish et al
The regulations have nothing to do with people's interest in flying for fun. Those not involved are unaware and if made aware are potentially frightened off by the uninformed scare monger fraternity.
I live in an area with many public and private GA supported aerodromes.The opposition, based on noise complaints and "why are we paying for this thing we don't need", is constant from local residents and ratepayer in general. They do not care about a few score jobs on site, they see no community benefit.The EMS service is provided by helicopters operating out of an industrial area and they complain about noise from the EMS helicopters. They certainly do not want to pay for aerodromes that do not have RPT ops. There are a few notable exceptions but even Temora has community noise complainers.
Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics
The regulations have nothing to do with people's interest in flying for fun. Those not involved are unaware and if made aware are potentially frightened off by the uninformed scare monger fraternity.
I live in an area with many public and private GA supported aerodromes.The opposition, based on noise complaints and "why are we paying for this thing we don't need", is constant from local residents and ratepayer in general. They do not care about a few score jobs on site, they see no community benefit.The EMS service is provided by helicopters operating out of an industrial area and they complain about noise from the EMS helicopters. They certainly do not want to pay for aerodromes that do not have RPT ops. There are a few notable exceptions but even Temora has community noise complainers.
Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics
What is the ‘public good’ of NOT having an aerodrome.?
Joe Blow who might never have been there, might be thankful it was when RFDS lobbed in to fly him off to life saving medical care.
Those that complain about passing noise don’t mind the water bomber when it dumps on the bush and saves their house.
Pollies fly in, Police services too. AG operators. RAAF drop in to collect Air Cadets, FIFO mine ops, Air taxis, rotary and fixed wing maintenance shops that employ people, a gliding club…all of benefit to the town.
Sunny is right. If aviation wasn’t swamped with the unnecessary, incomprehensible complexities and bs by CAsA, there would be the environment to flourish like in the US. And many more aerodrome users.
Alas.
I have heard the comment many times,..Started to learn, or got a ppl but went away because of the BS and the hurdles..eg ASIC nonsense for one.
Those that persist with home building, restoring, and flying by whatever means, do so because of the freedom flight and the machinery…In spite of CASA not because of it.
Joe Blow who might never have been there, might be thankful it was when RFDS lobbed in to fly him off to life saving medical care.
Those that complain about passing noise don’t mind the water bomber when it dumps on the bush and saves their house.
Pollies fly in, Police services too. AG operators. RAAF drop in to collect Air Cadets, FIFO mine ops, Air taxis, rotary and fixed wing maintenance shops that employ people, a gliding club…all of benefit to the town.
Sunny is right. If aviation wasn’t swamped with the unnecessary, incomprehensible complexities and bs by CAsA, there would be the environment to flourish like in the US. And many more aerodrome users.
Alas.
I have heard the comment many times,..Started to learn, or got a ppl but went away because of the BS and the hurdles..eg ASIC nonsense for one.
Those that persist with home building, restoring, and flying by whatever means, do so because of the freedom flight and the machinery…In spite of CASA not because of it.
I note that no one is predicting that the YCTM council will take me up on my offer to relieve council of the burden of operating and maintaining the aerodrome. All council needs to do is transfer the remaining original aerodrome land to me at the same price council paid for it, and I will take on responsibility for operation and maintenance.
Why wouldn’t council jump at the chance to rid itself of the burden of operating and maintaining something whose benefit is not justified by the expense? If it’s all downside for council, the business case for divestment writes itself, surely.
I’ll be paying real rates for the land, rather than council charging itself in a ‘zero sum gain’ accounting transaction. I’ll be the one spending money and I won’t be charging landing fees or parking fees. (I will, as the council does, charge a ‘throughput’ margin on the Avgas bowser. And of course I will be getting the income from the fenced off land used for agriculture, which income doesn’t appear on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. And of course I will be getting the proceeds of the sale of further subdivided blocks of land, which hasn’t in the past appeared on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. I suppose I could give ‘crying poor’ a go, but I doubt many would be sympathetic.)
Any member of the public may currently use YCTM aerodrome as an aerodrome. Same as any other public aerodrome. No requirement to be a pilot or to have any other qualification. And i’m not talking about just medical patients.
To fly for fun, you have to learn to fly. To learn to fly, you have to find a flying school. Many aerodromes that used to have a flying school no longer have one. I learned to fly at a place that had 6 flying schools. Now it has none. Anyone who says that that outcome has nothing to do with increased regulatory complexity nor aerodrome charging regimes should consider a career in a government bureaucracy. Ditto those who think modern military aerospace capability somehow no longer depends on a long and wide logistics tail requiring facilities and skills that are slowly atrophying in Australia.
Why wouldn’t council jump at the chance to rid itself of the burden of operating and maintaining something whose benefit is not justified by the expense? If it’s all downside for council, the business case for divestment writes itself, surely.
I’ll be paying real rates for the land, rather than council charging itself in a ‘zero sum gain’ accounting transaction. I’ll be the one spending money and I won’t be charging landing fees or parking fees. (I will, as the council does, charge a ‘throughput’ margin on the Avgas bowser. And of course I will be getting the income from the fenced off land used for agriculture, which income doesn’t appear on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. And of course I will be getting the proceeds of the sale of further subdivided blocks of land, which hasn’t in the past appeared on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. I suppose I could give ‘crying poor’ a go, but I doubt many would be sympathetic.)
Any member of the public may currently use YCTM aerodrome as an aerodrome. Same as any other public aerodrome. No requirement to be a pilot or to have any other qualification. And i’m not talking about just medical patients.
To fly for fun, you have to learn to fly. To learn to fly, you have to find a flying school. Many aerodromes that used to have a flying school no longer have one. I learned to fly at a place that had 6 flying schools. Now it has none. Anyone who says that that outcome has nothing to do with increased regulatory complexity nor aerodrome charging regimes should consider a career in a government bureaucracy. Ditto those who think modern military aerospace capability somehow no longer depends on a long and wide logistics tail requiring facilities and skills that are slowly atrophying in Australia.
Vag:
I think your opinion is understandable but misguided. Firstly, some councils do "get it" about aviation and they are going to make a meal, economically, out of those that don't. just as at least one country has done the same by being 'aviation minded".
There are three effects you need to consider:
The first is the multiplier effect. conventional economics estimate that one skilled job producing goods and services supports about eight unskilled service industry jobs - coffee shops, supermarkets, retail, gardening and so on. The multiplier effect is not inconsiderable, so it is not hard to understand that a flying school with say four or five instructors, or a similarly sized aircraft maintenance facility is contributing to the existence of at least four times that number of unskilled jobs in the service industries. So that is reason number one to support and encourage economic activity at your airport - it provides jobs in the general community. Do I need to explain how that is beneficial to council?
The second is infrastructure. Contrary to your belief, military aviation does rely on some but not all of the same service industries that civil aviation does. How do I know this? Because even way back in my working days there were many companies that did military work as well as civil, especially in sophisticated repair and overhaul. Then the military also relies on some but not all of the same consumables and spares as civil aviation the supply chains are long because of where we are and the preponderance of American suppliers. And Yes, last time I looked at a Hornet (which was long ago), some of the sheet metal was stretch formed and supplied with an index hole at each corner. It was fitted exactly the same way as an amateur builder does today - clecos and back drilling, So don't fall for the line that military aviation is different. It isn't. Furthermore drones also use a lot of conventional GA technology. And on top of that GA - experimental often uses some cutting edge electronics and materials as well.
As it is now, I struggled to find Australian sources for aviation tools and consumables and spent a small fortune (at least $4000) on pre covid freight costs on everything from tools to instruments and hardware. try finding short stub drill bits #30 for a right angle air drill. try getting an Australian company to make an aviation hose assembly. What infrastructure we have left is already under threat.
The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better. The more industries that cluster together, the more they attract customers from other airports. hence if your council doesnt support your local airport, its businesses and the service jobs they support will migrate to an industry cluster somewhere else, supported by a council that 'gets it".
A classic opportunity: Point Cook (YMPCK) is the oldest continuously operating airbase in the world. it is also the home of the RAAF museum and has (had?) workshops and a huge body of volunteers who developed expertise restoring old aircraft. ...And across the Bay YMMB - all aviation businesses under pressure to close or leave. Same at Tyabb including considerable vintage aircraft restoration and maintenance capability. The vision: develop YMPCK as the Australian centre for the preservation, restoration, maintenance and operational flight instructional base for historic aircraft by migrating unwanted businesses out of Tyabb, YMMB and elsewhere. Yes, I know it ain't going to happen, but its a pity.
On a national level, look at NZ aviation - its gone from arguably a situation worse than ours to thriving. They "get it".
Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics
There are three effects you need to consider:
The first is the multiplier effect. conventional economics estimate that one skilled job producing goods and services supports about eight unskilled service industry jobs - coffee shops, supermarkets, retail, gardening and so on. The multiplier effect is not inconsiderable, so it is not hard to understand that a flying school with say four or five instructors, or a similarly sized aircraft maintenance facility is contributing to the existence of at least four times that number of unskilled jobs in the service industries. So that is reason number one to support and encourage economic activity at your airport - it provides jobs in the general community. Do I need to explain how that is beneficial to council?
The second is infrastructure. Contrary to your belief, military aviation does rely on some but not all of the same service industries that civil aviation does. How do I know this? Because even way back in my working days there were many companies that did military work as well as civil, especially in sophisticated repair and overhaul. Then the military also relies on some but not all of the same consumables and spares as civil aviation the supply chains are long because of where we are and the preponderance of American suppliers. And Yes, last time I looked at a Hornet (which was long ago), some of the sheet metal was stretch formed and supplied with an index hole at each corner. It was fitted exactly the same way as an amateur builder does today - clecos and back drilling, So don't fall for the line that military aviation is different. It isn't. Furthermore drones also use a lot of conventional GA technology. And on top of that GA - experimental often uses some cutting edge electronics and materials as well.
As it is now, I struggled to find Australian sources for aviation tools and consumables and spent a small fortune (at least $4000) on pre covid freight costs on everything from tools to instruments and hardware. try finding short stub drill bits #30 for a right angle air drill. try getting an Australian company to make an aviation hose assembly. What infrastructure we have left is already under threat.
The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better. The more industries that cluster together, the more they attract customers from other airports. hence if your council doesnt support your local airport, its businesses and the service jobs they support will migrate to an industry cluster somewhere else, supported by a council that 'gets it".
A classic opportunity: Point Cook (YMPCK) is the oldest continuously operating airbase in the world. it is also the home of the RAAF museum and has (had?) workshops and a huge body of volunteers who developed expertise restoring old aircraft. ...And across the Bay YMMB - all aviation businesses under pressure to close or leave. Same at Tyabb including considerable vintage aircraft restoration and maintenance capability. The vision: develop YMPCK as the Australian centre for the preservation, restoration, maintenance and operational flight instructional base for historic aircraft by migrating unwanted businesses out of Tyabb, YMMB and elsewhere. Yes, I know it ain't going to happen, but its a pity.
On a national level, look at NZ aviation - its gone from arguably a situation worse than ours to thriving. They "get it".
This would be the same thriving industry that had their main manufacturer insolvent last year?
It seems to be what some sections of GA do best?
That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.
The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 17th May 2022 at 04:14.
Apart from the historical importance of Point Cook, it has very little going for it. local community hates it with more and more development encroaching on it's boundaries. Then you have silly CASA requirements like a warbird can not fly over a populated area, for whatever stupid reason. If you wanted to try to turn it into a warbird hub it would be a constant struggle to keep it there. Tyabb has it's own problems however apart from a vocal minority the community is pretty accepting of the airport, unfortunately the opponents are also rich developers so they keep at it. Both airports are close to the coast especially Pt Cook, with means salt and corrosion issues for long term parking. Temora is really the best place for the warbird scene to build a hub with it already set up there.
It seems to be what some sections of GA do best?
That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.
That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.
43 inches is right about YMPCK it is too late. The real estate creeps have been telling prospective buyers around Point Cook: “Oh the airbase? I hear it’s closing next year”. They have been lying about that for at least 15 years. I remember angry residents with airbase protest signs on their front lawns circa 2005.
