Brisbane's lease cost $1.4 billion in 1997, thats $2.3 billion in todays money. Hardly peppercorn, and hardly "given it". Did you read the article in the aviation section of Friday's Australian regarding airport funding. The author pointed out it is almost impossible to pay the running costs from purely aviation related activities. No one can afford to run something at a loss for long (except the government, and thats what happened when they did, and that's why they got rid of them). The truth is, in the majority of cases, it is the non-aviation related activities that are subsidising the rest, just to make it work. It seems there are arseclowns on both sides.

You sure about that gazumped?

So why doesn't that logic apply to all hospitals, all schools, the defence force, the police forces, ambulance services...

The problem is that the value to the community of these things cannot be measured in the money it costs to run them.

As I said earlier in this thread, the inevitable consequence of not measuring and taking into account the value of an aerodrome to the community is that it must be turned into houses/factories/warehouses/DFOs/fast food outlets. The inevitable consequence. (Unless you can pull off the 40 year right of refusal trick they did in Sydney - milk the monopoly asset for billions and pay not a red cent in tax.)

I say turn 'em all into housing estates/factories/warehouses/DFOs/fast food outlets. Shut 'em all down. It's what the sick, fat, whinging mediocrity that Australia has become wants and therefore deserves.

Reviewing the video, to me it agrees with what I'd expect to see if the pilot had insufficient room to land ahead and was turning towards/parallel runway 08 for a landing. Unfortunately the empty ground next to 08 is now cheap crap shops and car parks - leaving him nowhere to go.

But it does. All fiscal black holes, whether federal or state, and all struggling to maintain services (or being stealth privatised in the case of health and education) in the face of reducing budgets and spiralling costs.

The community can see the value of an airport, but only to a point. Most councils maintain their regional strips even though loss making, because they understand the need it fulfills, but they try to minimise those losses. In a city though, the vast majority of people have come to terms with airports as businesses, if they ever thought of them as anything else anyway. They understand, accept and want a Tullamarine, but they probably can't see a need for an Essendon just down the road. So if a place like an Essendon or a Moorabbin is to survive in a sea of ratepayer self interest, it has to survive by other means.

Nobody forced anyone to sign the lease agreement! I do agree though that the government itself holds the most blame here - in return for that lease, unfettered rights to develop, charge and diversify must have been the nod nod wink wink side of getting anyone signed up.

Current governments are the same - "asset recycling" means exactly the same thing - leases and sales at huge prices are only achievable buy making the new operator able to make a profit by whatever means necessary.

mary meagher, although not a Kingair, this is the RFDS at work.

https://www.facebook.com/royalflying...4456194217252/

www.saveessendonairport.com

Seems this group has come to life again

flying doctors..!
 

Good morning Fujii! quite right, I had no idea that the flying doctors would probably arrive in a costly twin....as I am a very old (and definitely not bold) pilot, in my day when flying half in the US and half in the UK, doctors in the US of A were well known for awkward arrivals in T-tailed Bonanzas, otherwise commonly called "doctor killers".

So Australia is well ahead of most English speaking countries in terms of aviation. Question: these twins listed as being owned by the medics, are they being flown by professional pilots? or by doctors? or are the two qualifications mutually exclusive?

Mary meagher- where to begin? I am quite certain that I will not be the only one to respond to your post.

When referring to the RFDS we are not referring to medical doctors who may (or may not) have any piloting skills, thrashing around on the weekend for their personal edification and jollies; rather we are referring to a highly professional flying organisation.

The RFDS employs professional pilots to transport professional medical staff and patients to and fro medical facilities and the GAFA.

The pilots of these "costly" twins (and singles) are generally considered to be the cream of the crop in the aviation world. They have to be to do what they do (no flaming bog-roll, dark-hole approaches for me!).

In short most of us, who know, either aspire to be or are a little jealous of the boys and girls in those "costly" twins.

@mary,

"The Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (RFDS, informally known as The Flying Doctor) is one of the largest and most comprehensive aeromedical organisations in the world. It provides emergency and primary health care services for those living in rural, remote and regional areas of Australia. It is a not-for-profit organisation which provides health care to people who cannot access a hospital or general practice due to the vast distances of the Outback."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...e_of_Australia

https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/

Tee Emm.

I am pleased you have mentioned this accident that took place off R/W 17 at Essendon on 3 Dec 1993. The DH-104 had a pilot and 9 pax on board for a local flight. There was no baggage.

Just after rotation at 50 ft and 84 kts IAS the right engine lost power and the a/c yawed to the right. The (1500 hours on type, total experience 18,000 hours) experienced pilot then selected gear up only to find nothing happened. He recycled the gear selector and the gear retracted. By this stage the airspeed was well below take-off safety speed. No radio calls were made. The flaps (20 degrees) were not retracted due to the very low airspeed and despite the pilot planning to land in the street the aircraft impacted power lines and ended up bouncing off a number of residential roofs before sliding to the ground. There was no fire and no serious injuries.

Some observations after the accident.

1) From start of take off to the accident approx. 1 minute. No radio calls.

2) In theory the aircraft could have landed back on R/W 17 with about 245 feet to spare.

3) If a flapless take-off had been made the outcome most likely would have been different. (The pilot did not have a chart for a flapless take-off so assumed it was not approved).

Lessons to be learnt.

Thread drift, but to follow up on fujii post.

Some highways have areas set aside for runway usage. In the old days prior the pilot would call a truckie on CB and get him to drive down either side of the highway for a nominated distance and knock down all the timber white posts.



And at night by car head lights. Both PC-12 and King Air, it's all single pilot. Normal crew on our local King Air is pilot plus nurse, and only if the particular case calls for it, a doctor. Book "Australian Midwives" by Paula Heelan is a compendium of tales written by various nurses employed in the EMS fixed wing services. Good yarn.

Hi Mary. The RFDS has its own professional pilots. It is one of the prized jobs here. The doctors and nurses may get to sit in the right seat on clinic runs or when there are no patients. I read and enjoyed your book.

Hi Mary

I sent you a pm that I hope will explain how the RFDS operates its truly essential aeromedical service for folk Outback.

I'm just about to clock up 73 years and I'm the same age as my aeroplane. We both, the AUSTER and I, do some travelling each year in the GAFA whenever we can get away. It's a magic place and I miss the red dirt country from my younger years very much.

Regards

Kaz

I seriously doubt they would have called a truckie on the CB radio to knock down the posts. Knocking down the posts would be a job carried out by the police.

DF.

They would've been negotiating the lease fully aware on both sides it was for a business. I doubt there was much nodding and winking going on.

Anyway, that's enough thread drift.

What posts? There is a "road airstrip" on the Stuart Highway with nicely marked threshold marks, centre line and no posts through that section. I do have photos of it but can't be ******** setting up a photo-share account to be able to post them here. The police are used to close the highway about 1 km before the thresholds when the strip is going to be used.

On subject and as noticed by another poster, the ATSB is saying this was a private flight. I sincerely hope for all concerned that that is a mistake as it will be blood in the water for lawyers for the passenger families.

Well, the Kalgoolie ex RFDS pilot I flew with circa 1990 must have been lying.In the old days I said. Back when Chieftains were the go, and there were no sections of road set up as an airstrip..

For those complaining about excessive development in the near-runway areas; please explain to me how this King Air crash would have had a totally different ending if it had pancaked into flat open ground at over 100kts, and full of fuel? Do you really believe everyone on board would have just walked away, if there were no buildings there? Where are the study results that show no development within miles of a runway improves air safety outcomes?

It's a fact of life airports usually start off their lives in a relatively semi-rural region, and development encroaches on them, because people want quick and easy access to the airport.