Ascots plans to shut down Jandakot: Murray Shire minutes
 

FYI: Ascot plans to shut down Jandakot are gaining momentum. Lots of half truths and blatant deceit in this proposal

Page 64 Planning & Development Services Committee Meeting – 22/08/2006 (Murray Shire)

7.6.4.1 DEPUTATION - PROPOSED NEW AIRPORT

RESOLVED

It was resolved that this item be dealt with at this point in order to receive a

deputation from Mr Greg King and Mr David Van der Walt from Ascot Capital,

Mr David Pringle from Pindan Pty Ltd and Ms Leigh Hardingham, Community

Consultant from ARID, the time being 11.28am.

Mr Greg King, Director of Ascot Capital, introduced Mr David Van der Walt, Mr

David Pringle and Ms Leigh Hardingham and thanked the Committee for

agreeing to the deputation.

He presented a slide show detailing the location of the proposed airport and

the reasoning behind the proposed relocation of Jandakot Airport to North

Dandalup.

The slide show detailed the number of flights in and out of Jandakot and Perth

International Airports daily, weekly and annually and showed the overlap of

the two airports’ air space. Mr King stated that the overlap area posed major

safety concerns.

Mr King stated that the increase in the projected number of flights up to the

year 2015 far exceeded expectations and that Jandakot would in no way be

capable of coping with that number of flights. He also stated that when the

A380 aircraft started flying into Perth, Jandakot Airport would have to be shut

down for take off and landing of the aircraft.

Cr Watson-Raston stated that the relocation of the Royal Flying Doctor Service

(RFDS) to North Dandalup was possibly not a good idea. Mr King stated that

the RFDS may be relocated to Perth Airport and there was also the possibility

that it would be flying a jet aircraft.

Cr Bessant stated that so far, community consultation regarding the proposal

is seriously lacking and they needed to start as soon as possible. He stated

that exact detail on the location is very vague and this needs to be identified

better that it currently is.

Mr King stated that the forums will be set up in the next couple of weeks.

Ms Hardingham responded to Cr Bessant saying that they needed to get all

the information together before community consultation can take place and

it is only this week that it has been fully scoped.

Cr Bessant stated that there were already five airports in the North Ward. Mr

King stated that the Murray Airfield would have to close and be consolidated

into the proposed airfield. They are having discussions with the current owners

of Murrayfield regarding this.

Planning & Development Services Committee Meeting – 22/08/2006 Page 65

Cr Barrie Thomson asked why relocating the airport to the east was not

considered. Mr King stated that the Darling Ranges and the Escarpment

impacted on that. He also said that the prevailing winds also work well with

the proposed location and that there was serious wind shear issues associated

with an eastern location.

Cr Thomson then asked how the proposed airport will affect the residents of

the Shire of Murray. Mr King stated that they are working with all the noise

studies and how the noise contours work. They have tried to align the runways

away from the residential areas. He stated that 85% of the flights are

controlled and will be within the area’s buffer of three nautical miles.

Cr Higgins asked whether they have bought the land yet and was told no.

She then asked about the provision of accommodation if they expected a lot

of tourists and visitors.

Mr Pringle from Pindan Pty Ltd stated that they have enough land for sufficient

accommodation.

Cr Nancarrow asked whether it would be better to put the accommodation

in one of the surrounding towns and also, apart from jobs, how would the

community benefit from the proposal.

Mr King stated that they would welcome input from Council and the

community on what it would like to see and they would be happy to

contribute in any way.

The Director Planning & Development Services, Mr Mat Selby, asked what is

the reaction of the State Government to the proposal and how does it fit in

with the existing planning framework.

Mr King stated that it anticipated providing light industrial areas as part of the

proposal, not heavy industrial. He further stated that they have engaged all

levels of State Government in the process.

The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Neil Leach, asked why, if the majority of flying is

for pilot training, the pilot training could not be relocated to Merredin to allow

Jandakot to keep operating. Mr King stated that Merredin is too small.

Cr Higgins asked how many flights per day there would be. Mr King stated

that there are approximately 400,000 flights per annum, which would equate

to approximately 1,100 flights per day. He further stated that the majority of

the flying will be pilot training which would be conducted within the airport’s

buffer zone of three nautical miles and not flying out over residential areas

outside of that zone.

The Manager Planning & Development Services, Mr Mark Jones, asked

whether the project is freehold. Mr King stated that it is not, but would like to

do that and they are capable of doing that. He further stated that it will end

up being owned by the Commonwealth.

Cr Nancarrow said that they now have to get together with the community

and the Council and come forward with concrete information.

Page 66 Planning & Development Services Committee Meeting – 22/08/2006

Mr Mat Selby asked what the timeframe is for them to get the proposal to

Council as it has to formally consider something at Council. It will need an

Amendment.

Mr King stated that it is going to be Commonwealth land and therefore they

can short circuit some of the issues and processes.

The deputation was thanked for presenting their proposal to the Committee

and they left the meeting at 12.29pm.

Cr B Thomson returned to the meeting, the time being 11.35am.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

This is published at the Murray Shire Website Planning and Development Committee August minutes here:

http://www.murray.wa.gov.au/council/...s/planningdev/

Two things that I wondered about. Will the A380 operate into Perth and what sort of jets would the RFDS operate?

The RFDS will be operating the A380 out of Perth!

Tell the South Africans to get lost. Stop shafting thousands of peoples' lives in the name of the almighty dollar. What a bunch of Gordon Geckos.

JT to close because of the A380? Rubbish.

I love the way that some guy from a development company can say: Everyone is an expert... The problem is, the council probably believe he is.

Funny how since they've been told that to use the unsafe airspace argument could be considered actionable by the agencies responsible for such things, they seem to have backpedalled on that pretty rapidly.

Yesterday at a meeting these same gents VderW and King denied that they had ever said there was an airspace safety issue. They were also unable to remember the name of thier "Aviation Consultatnt" who advised them on the piece of nonsense they were touting around as as brieifing document full of reasons to move Jandakot.

This is a BIG issue and lots of info to come on what has been going on behind the scenes. Danny please dont close this down, it is more important than you may realise and very relevant to professional pilots.

These Ascot people are going around telling people they are "The Owners of Jandakot Airport". They dont seem to realise they have a statutory obligation to use the site as an airport, or that the airport lessee-company should have running the airport as its sole business.

The tenants deserve "quiet enjoyment" of thier leases. These guys have come out of nowhere and turned our world upside down, and now say it is up to us to prove the airport should stay. NOT ONE of them has ANY background in aviation, (and the airport is currently without an airport manager ). Then they accuse us of being "Aggressive" when we stand up and tell the truth to defend our livlihoods.

As for the A380...read this http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...u&ct=clnk&cd=3

Watch this space.

A thread well deserving of a 'sticky'.

Good luck all involved...except for the yarpie tossers:ugh:

MA

What if?
 

What if Ascot didn't own the right to lease the airport anymore? What if you could prove that they are operating the airfiled without the required staff and appropriate expertise?

I don't think that the government of the day would be able to sit by and let them continue.

What if we were able to raise the money to control the airport ourselves? Would all of the tenants at YPJT be able to raise the money and the interest to take over the aerodrome, and then control their own destiny's? Would they want too?

I know that in my profession, putting a plan together and raising money for a venture is relatively easy....expensive, but wothwhile. Why don't the tenants form a co-op?

Worth considering?!:)

Find a breach of the aerodrome regulations, document it and send copies to DOTARS airports area, the minister and to CASA demanding regulatory compliance action.

What a load of cr@p! Talk about using half truths to suit your agenda.:yuk:
What about the PC12's and B200's? They don't exactly require a 3km runway.
I'm no RFDS expert but I would have thought they would be far better at JT where it's a quick trip up the Kwinana Freeway to RPH/SCGH/PMH etc, than PH where it's a slow stop-start trip along Great Eastern Highway.
I think these clowns are becoming increasingly desperate as the property prices in Perth continue to climb.
I think you're on the right track Airsic, something has to be done before it's too late.

Cr Higgins asked how many flights per day there would be. Mr King stated
that there are approximately 400,000 flights per annum, which would equate
to approximately 1,100 flights per day.No need to close Jandakot then, seeing as that is less than we have now.
He further stated that the majority of
the flying will be pilot training which would be conducted within the airport’s
buffer zone of three nautical miles and not flying out over residential areas
outside of that zone.
So how do we get to the training area and do cross-countries, bearing in mind a massive Landcorp development will be close to the western boundary?
Cr Barrie Thomson asked why relocating the airport to the east was not
considered. Mr King stated that the Darling Ranges and the Escarpment
impacted on that. He also said that the prevailing winds also work well with
the proposed location and that there was serious wind shear issues associated
with an eastern location.
Wow these guys have so much money they can shift the prevailing winds and stop windshear when there's an Easterly!

YPJT.....and OUR future.....
 

ONYA "Airsic"....

Good thinking!

And, while we have our 'collective thinking caps' on, is there a 'Legal Eagle' amongst us who actually knows or could shed light on the terms or 'spirit' of the JT Lease?
Under the terms of the original 'Local Ownership Plan', that is.
I feel that, at the moment, we are only expressing the obvious around the periphery of the problem.

The FEDS issued the lease, and as far as I can guess, the land cannot be 'rezoned' without the approval of the FEDS, Local State Govt. - DPI - and / or Cockburn Shire Council.
So, how about a nice STRONG Letter to the NEW FED MINISTER, copies to DPI WA GOVT, from the JT Tenants as a collective body?

'Tis time......to 'get serious' and stop 'piddling in the wind'.....:ugh:

Any other suggestions??:ok: :ok:

There is a petition on most operators counters on the field. I suggest if you have anything to do with aviation drop in and sign them!

only a piece of paper - Get Serious
 

With all due respect to 4spooled;

Have been at the aero club and signed the "piece of paper"...but seriously, what do you expect to happen?:confused: :confused: :confused:

"Thanks for the petition, your concerns will be taken into account!":}

Take control of the situation and of your own interests and if need be...buy the bloody thing off them!! Surley there are enough people with the $$$ and the drive whom have an interest to take this on! :ugh: :ugh:

I don't mind helping and raising the money if that is what is required, and I'm sure that there would be a lawyer and accountant in the aviation fraternity that could help with a prospectus to raise money...hell list the thing on the ASX.

Whatever needs to be done, but please don't sit back and think that by signing a petition-all will be saved.:=

The forum board has been rather quite on this thread?!?!?!

I'd get a kick up the khyber and possibly an extened stay at (with?!) Woomera if I opened my mouth on the subject. :}

What that yarpie lot are spouting is an utter crock. :yuk:
Can you image the complaints from a certain someone regarding noise should MUL become JT?! They'll be teaching reduced power TO in 152s to minimise noise. :\

Gaunty,
Some time ago on another thread you were extoling the virtues of the operators at J and their great relationships with their airport owners. You defended the owners their right to profit.
Can you comment now?

I suspect that was with the old owners. Relations were at least... civil? back then.
These guys just seem to be doing whatever they please with little to no consultation.

Gotta love how one of the reasons cited for closing Jandakot is the overlapping airspace and safety concerns........... but 85% of the flying training is going to be within 3nm of the proposed airstrip to minimise noise impact.............. Am I missing something here, or is Perth already more than 3 miles away from Jandakot?. that would save a whole bunch of moving and negate some of their reasoning wouldn't it?. unless we're all going to conduct circuits at a higher alt and into some of that dangerous overlapping airspace that the 380 is going to be using.
What a load of self serving crap.:*

So they bought JT in Jan and less than 10 months later they "have" to move it due to unacceptable safety concerns?

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Bloggsie,
They did not buy Jandakot. The airport remains property of the federal government. They took over the lease to operate it as an airport in accordance with the master plan signed by the Minister. However as they know, for them to continue to purport that they actually own the field will give them more credibility to the general public.

The safety concerns are merely a distraction. Lets not beat around the bush here, Ascot want to move Jandakot for one reason and one reason only and that is to make money. You only have to hear what occurs at one of the consultation meetings to quickly realize they do not have a clue about anything to do with aviation safety, aircraft operations or running an airport.

Their thin veneer of deceipt is well and truly being peeled back to the point now where even people not working in the industry know what a pack of untruths and deception the Arid consultancy is pedaliing. The good thing for us is that they have actually put themselves on the public record and been easily proven to be the liars that they are.

So on top of my already decent drive to get to Jandakot now, they're expecting me to add another 80 mins round trip to my daily journey?
Way to go.

Developer gets involved with Jandakot airport, posing as someone who knows about such things as aviation.
Developer says "We never intended to develop Jandakot".
A year later, plans come out of the blue to relocate Jandakot, and develop the area because they think there's a buck in it.
Who would have thunk? :ugh:

http://www.jandakotairportrelocation.org.au/

Unlike their "consultant's" website, this page CAN be displayed!!!

The airports in the southern hemisphere that will be A380 ready are Cape Town, Johannesburg, St-Denis de la Reunion, Jakarta, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Auckland. I don’t see the Airbus A380 being used on regular services to PER unless it is initially needed by CASA for first of type approval. PER will be used primarily as a Airbus A380 diversion airport.

Existing over flying traffic does cause wake turbulence issues within the JT CTA, as evident by the ATIS when 03 is in use.

The intensity of the Airbus A380 wake turbulence vortex core is less than the 747-400 or other larger military types previously operated into YPPH. The lower intensity vortex core would cause smaller rolling moments if encountered by GA aircraft. The actual core area is slightly larger than the 747-400, the main reason for increasing separation distances when following in approach.

In terms of holding, radar vectors, or other terminal operations, no additional separation has been recommended for the Airbus A380. The Airbus A380 is not causing any new issues for JT.

As for the RFDS, they have been look at jet aircraft similar to what is presently flying from JT.

The proposed relocation of the existing airport is solely for redevelopment of the airport into residential and industrial application at the expense of the small business owners at the airport and at the health detriment of rural and regional members of our community that rely on the RFDS.

"- at the health detriment of rural and regional members of our community that rely on the RFDS"

And Angel Flight.

That covers it all SWH, and well said.

IJ, I had to get my round, green and blue ball out to checkout your current location. All I can say is, keep your head down mate.

Sunday Times - 01 Oct (the lies continue)
 

"Jandakot Unsafe"
by Nick Taylor


I have it on good authority also that the consulting company being used to lie to - I mean provide the public consultation are NOT accredited to do so. Judging by the crap they have been putting out I can understand why they wouldn't have accreditation.

The term "taking a water pistol to a gunfight" rings a bell.

Ypjt???
 

Thanks 'Clare' for that most informative link!

I sincerely trust that the appropriate people will give the appropriate result - soon!

And further, that you or your colleagues will keep us all posted - but without 'giving away anything' of course.

AND A HEARTY CONGRATS to those who collaborated to produce that submission!!!:D :D

WELL DONE!!!

Regards,
Ex FSO Griffo:ok:

Griffo I can assure you the cat is now very much amongst the pigeons.

There is much unecessary and real financial distress and personal anguish for the tenants and stakeholders whilst these guys play their dumb games.

This will be stopped.

Watch this space and the website. :) :ok:

Ypjt??
 

G'day Gaunty,

Thanks for that - check yr PM's...:D :ok:

land swap?
 

Do I have this right?

It's my understanding that they are going to buy up a parcel of land in the south (Dandalup?) and 'swap' their freehold with the government for the freehold of the land at Jandakot.

Is this how they intend to get past the 'purpose for use' restriction of the current leasehold?

Apologies for asking the obvious question!

Thats the plan :rolleyes: and they have already optioned the land down south, problem is they do not have a freehold at Jandakot just the balance of a 99 year (maybe another 89 years) lease and nobody at Jandakot nor any of the Shires down south are interested.

They don't seem to understand that they will have to compensate the Feds for the difference in the value of Jandakot as no longer an airport and the value of whatever they offer swap.

That by most estimates would be way over a billion dollars they would have to pay the Feds.

The other problem they have to overcome is that the Feds will have to have a public tender or something like it for the purchase of the Jandakot land as the Head lease does not give them pre-emptive rights on its purchase.

In the meantime they are conducting a public consultation process for the "relocation" which appears to a "requirement" for Federal Govt approval, problem is there is no such move by the Feds, it is an unsolicited proposal which looks like it is solicited.

Meantime whilst they are flogging the dead neddy, the tenants and businesses at Jandakot are suffering real financial distress and unable to plan the future of their businesses.

So tell me again about the benefits of privatising national infrastructure assets.:{

Gaunty,
Perhaps you have forgotten but the tone and content of your contributions to the old thread "Bankstown operators annoy me" was to defend their right to profit and to critque people at Bankstown for not following the Jandakot example.
You confuse me!

Scion

Oh you mean here,

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209587

Yeah well events have a way of surprising you dont they. At time the announcement was only days old, we had not yet met them nor had they revealed their hand.

No matter as it is now apparent that their blandishments about the future then are as now pure and unadulterated horsefeathers.

They had signed off on the 2005 Master Plan as a condiiton of the transfer of the lease and as part of their mandatory obligation to the Commonwealth AND the tenants. A Master Plan that had been through the consultation process with the tenants AND the Chamber.

It is this Master Plan that they have repudiated and in fact deny having read thoroughly AND "only signed as part of the "formalities" surrounding the lease assignment"

HOWEVER were we not already organised as a Chamber and already "blooded" by previous negotiations with these types, their subsequent volte face and behaviour would have had the tenants like chickens LOCKED in the cage with the fox.
To say that the new owners are surprised at the strength, organisation and political influence of the Chamber would be an understatement.

Having said that we recognise and have told them so that they have a right to a reasonable return on their investment in the airport as an airport. Any development activities on that part of the airport that is designated for development over some 100 hectares is part of the Master Plan and approved by us asit brings more business closer to the airport AND badly needed road and utilities infrastructure.

We are in the process of laying down a process of valuation for lease negotiations that will stop them playing off one tenant against another.

There are a whole bunch of things we expect will come out of this untidy imbroglio that will sort out all the secondary aiprort issue once and for all.

I cannot say here what we plan to do as there are a number of steps yet to be played out, but it is our hope that the Minister will in the end have to make a stand and define once and for all the obligations of the airport owners to their leases and tenants. The Commonwealth do have the rights to determine the leases if it is necessary.

"Hats off for trying boys, you convinced the government to win a competitive tender for the lease of a product".

There was no competitive tender. If there had been, then there are others able and qualified to take over the lease but they couldn't get a look in as it was never "on the market" or out to tender. I doubt we would have this situation if there had been a proper tender procedure particularly as by thier own admission they have no avation experience or expertise whatsoever. There has not even been an airport manager in place since June.

Ascot Capital bought out the company Jandakot Airport Holdings who held the lease. Therefore the "airport-lessee company" never actually changed and they still operate under the same lease that was "won" by the previous owners of JAH. So they snuck in through a loophole. :mad: :*

Consultant Accreditation?
 

Islander,

What type of accreditiation are you talking about?

If you are referring to airport cunsultancy there is only one type of approval for airport consultants and that only relates to the ability to inspect registered and "certain other" aerodromes under CASR 139.

If its an accreditation realting to something other than airports then I humbly withdraw.

LF

The "independant" company "contracted" to do the "consultation" with tenants and stakeholders is not a member of the Australian Market and Social Research Society. They are so "independant" they even share an office and telephone number with JAH!!:p
Thier job is to disseminate misinformation on behalf of JAH. They pretend they are there to listen, all warm and fuzzy, but when errors in their documents are pointed out they take no notice and continue to disseminate the same old nonsense in the hope that somewhere, somehow, they might find someone stupid enough to believe it, maybe they are being paid per convert, who knows. :yuk: :yuk:

And the latest quote (cockup) from the consulting firm hired to conduct the "independent consultation".

In last weeks Canning Times newspaper Leigh Hardingham from Arid Consulting is quoted as saying the move would be good for aviation. So much for her independence and unbiased approach in this.

Why don't they just come clean and admit what the rest of us with 2 brain cells to rub together already know.... They are a PR machine for JAH and Ascot Capital.

sorry to keep dragging this one back to the top.

Well well, looks like Ascot Capital have an even angrier crowd than Jandakot operators to deal with. If last nights meeting was any indication of the lack of support for this little venture I'd say the developers are trying to push the proverbial uphill with a sharp stick.

It was good to see those in the community not necessarily up to speed with the particulars of aviation safety, airspace management etc being very attuned the fact that Ascot have perhaps "guilded the lilly" a little in their attempts to sway opinion in their favour.:ok:

I understand that neither Don Randall MP for Canning, nor the representatives of Ascot/JAH, nor even their "independent" consultants engaged in "community consultation" even bothered to appear at that meeting in Mandurah....