Sorry, that's not correct. I am in the industry at a non RPT airport. I see the rates bills from council and the EGLT (ex gratia land tax) payments we pay to Dept of Infra. All non avation sub leases (so a sub lease from our head lease from the commonwealth) are subject to EGLT at the same scales as the relevant state scheme.

http://www.essendonairport.com.au/general/our-history

There is an interactive timeline on the above site. Tap on the point of interest to get some detail.

DFO was constructed in 2005.

Warren Truss is looking very pleased in the image from 2015

This was 1963:

Who pays?
 

what happened Tuesday is a tragedy and I have followed some of the technical discussion amongst you with interest. I am not a pilot but involved with one of the Airport Operators and the type of developments you have been talking about.

No I am not going to tell you which airport but many of you would have and continue to use it.

I see the figures across the whole business. Operations, landing charges, power, water, maintenance, upgrades to runways, rent from your business and the non aviation occupiers. By the way, we do pay council rates and non avaiation tenants also get levied a land tax...

The truth is we loose money operating the airfield. A lot of money. We make money with the non aviation tenants and that income subsidies the airfield operations.

So who pays? Do you want your landing and parking charges to double. (Still won't get us to break even by the way - I've run the model)

No government is going to resume our (or any other) airport lease.

Happy to discuss.

I believe it was aviation related infrastructure.

DF.

If you go to Google Earth, you can step back to 2000 (bottom left hand cnr, select the photo date, and a slider bar appears on top left cnr and you can pick the marked bars between 2000 and most recent), and as DF says, there was definitely 'something' there, slide up to 2005 and you can clearly see the new DFO and carparking.

From memory it was a group of groundsman's sheds for mowers, etc plus maintenance sheds. Essentially aviation related working buildings, very low key and certainly not intrusive to the extent of the DFO.

Spot on John.

DCA Hangar, Essendon

Essendon Airport 2007

Before DFO
 

To the best of my recollection :

The buildings that were there before were operated by the old Department against Aviation as technical workshops supporting the southeast region navaids etc.

Had been there since the war.

Wiki is not Yoda
 

The reason why DFO and others set up at airports is that they get access to broad acre land that permits retail sales (so equivalent to state zones B1 - Business) for less than what GPT, Lend Lease, Stockland, Westfield/SCentre and Gandal are willing to charge.

This large scale land is simply not available elsewhere as these other businesses have it locked up and work ferociously hard against any large scale rezoneing of other land as it would prove competition to them - a bit like federally leased airports where developments are outline in Airport Master Plans.

KeepItRolling - actually the Department of Civil Aviation's (and later Federal Airports Corporation) maintenance workshops and storage area from what I was told.

DF.

Aero Developer..

I couldn't give a toss about the intricacies of the economics of your airport or any of the 20 or so facilities that are leased from the Commonwealth Government.. Many airports in this country are making an absolute killing!

You signed up for it.. Your problem.

Just like the accident at Essendon is a real problem for that specific operator... Essendon Fields..

To justify overdevelopment..because the economics of simply running a safe airport are unworkable..is unjustifiable..

Ok Aero I'll bite.

Why would you take on the lease from the government in the first place if using your models you were in your own words "going to loose a lot of money" unless there was an intention to cash in by selling out the aviation industry?

The government made no one take these leases and they would not have been leased without interest from the private sector.

Can't recall the years precisely but, apart from airport buildings, Citylink had an office just in and around to the left ... used to drop in and pay some money into the kitty there from time to time.

John Anderson has a heck of a lot to answer for!

Kaz

That was in what is now the retail area to the west of the access road into DFO; always was part of the development, just east of and very close to the 35 threshold.

That rings a bell .. all a tad long ago for the old memory cells to fire up 100%

OLD AKRO
Only guys who didn't know Max would ask dopey questions like this

No buddy, I didn't know Max, but I'd love you to tell me why asking about the pilot's training history (which the ATSB will investigate in every incident) is as you call it, a dopey question.


You know as well as I do that the pilot's training history is very, very relevant. And if he has never trained in a simulator for engine failures then he is up against it. My first few engine failures in a Kingair sim came after 31 years of flying - and they were a bloody handful. I now have the technique tuned, but I needed to be exposed to it. Pulling a throttle back in flight to simulate an engine failure does NOT replicate a full V1 cut in the sim, it never will.


I'm sorry if Max was a mate of yours and I know mates will always want to defend their buddies. But its the system that is at fault. There is not the requirement under the regs to do sim training in order for you to fly fare paying passengers in a B200. So one's first exposure to the real forces and the aggression required on the controls to keep it straight and fly away will be in the machine itself, and I don't think that is satisfactory.


Yes. I concur, the full story is not out there yet. I am playing the ball (the system), not the man. I am playing the training system. I hope you will play the ball back at me and tell me why you consider asking the question of any simulator training history is a dopey question. If not, will you also be contacting the ATSB when they look at his training history and tell them that it is a dopey line of enquiry?


I lost a very close mate who flew a military fast jet into the ground and died. He was a great mate, but unfortunately, it was his error. I couldn't defend his error - pilots make mistakes, cock up, whatever - and so do mates.

Mr Andrews the Premier says there were sheds there before the DFO, and the DFO made no difference. So it must be true, then.

Not biting - asking
 

So the government wanted out.... we and others took on the leases as we saw an opportunity that requires risk. Govementment don't like or can't take on these risks.

Many airport Master Plans forecast an increase in movements. We are leasing your businesses hangers and 1/3rd the rate of similar spaces to non aviation business 100m away from yours. Your parking rate is half the daily rate charged by our local council to park a car in their car park. You don't pay land tax (unlike the DFO's of the world on airports)

I am genuinely asking you - how are we selling you out?

Yes we make money from the other developments. Their location is in accorandqnce with Master Plans that the Dept of Infra (well minister) approves and that CASA, ASA, Dept of Infra, local council, avation operators, State Planning Dept all get to comment on.


The building approval is by a Dept of Infra Building Controller.

We spend money - the risk- make a profit and in turn your operations get subsidised.

How are we selling you out? I am genuinely asking you. What is the alternative in an economy where both sides of politics expect infrastructure assets to be self funding.

But we pay rates and land tax
 

Hey mate. I first responded to you as you seemed to think we don't pay council rates or land tax, which isn't correct.

Look, as I asked one of the other guys, give me an alternative model that will work. Take back the lease and then what....? I'm not looking to provoke here - tell me what you think. Do you want to pay 200% more on your charges because that is what we are looking at for cost recovery baseline.

Firstly at an airport why is there non aviation buildings 100m away? I shouldn't need to compete against that because it's an airport and it should be there for use of aircraft.
I'm sure you could turn other infrastructure into profit makers but I don't see any hospitals, navy bases, train stations being taken over for a Bunnings or DFO, because that would be stupid right?

As to your figures I respectfully disagree as my 'local' airport has been putting rents up massively and have made clear that the GA area will be lost to a proposed development.
Where do we and the local ambulance operations go?

I put it to you like this, you get access to cheap commonwealth land through a government lease, land that is in commonwealth hands because it is sole purpose and then slowly turn it into anything apart from its original purpose.

There was a lot more here that I've deleted after re reading, with recent events it seemed a little too passionate but there are many ways we have been sold out.

I do give you credit for posting here as you could have easily kept quiet, and since we can't go backwards we will need to work out a way to move forward.

Or do you mean 'lose a lot of money?:confused:

I know of a few Financial Institutions that I wish would loose(n) their finances a bit, and just maybe this would help keep employed a few more People who are working their arses off, just trying to keep a business afloat during some extraordinarily trying times!:*

Aero Developer; Cry me a river!:{ Actually Left 270 said it better than I could!

Indeed, Rodney rude; Whilst I must state that I have never flown a Kingair and actually do not have any Turbine time whatsoever, I can say that I have had several genuine engine failures whilst flying Piston twins.

I will agree that no amount of pulling a throttle back/cutting the mixture etc will ever replicate a genuine engine failure!:=

When it is genuine, then it really is your arse on the line!!!!!:=:=

I yield to your superior knowledge.

Thanks for reply
 

Thanks for reply

I guess a coupe of things come to my mind in respect of the below.

The particular building i have in mind to below does not - and even before the lease was granted - did not get used for aircraft as it is about 100m from airside and I am simply drawing a comparison to what the rest of the non aviation economy pays. The costs of that building to a hangar are comparable. With respect you are not competing.... you are just not paying your own way.... which is the deal.... which is why we need the income from other uses.

I think the parking cost is a fair comparison as the sunk costs to provide the pavement, lighting, security are reasonably similar.

We leased and operate the airfield in accordance with the Airports Act which allows for land not needed for airfield operations to be put to other uses.

The Airports Act has been supported by both major parties - I can't see it changing.

A few months ago I had a chat with over of the guys at essendon who worked on the aviation side of the airport operator. He told me how the new hotel being built near Matthews Ave is angled the way it is so as to minimise the time that the tower can't see an aircraft on final to tulla 34 - apparently it's down to 8 seconds for an a380.

The en tower needs to 'maintain' visual on the 34 approach path in order to release off 26 - ensuring that a coordinated 34 arrival is clear. The hotel was being built no matter what - so some risk assessment had been manufactured to cover the missing 8 seconds as being tolerable (or SFARP) against the risk of launching the F100 or a global into the path of a 380.

A photo from 80,s shows the buildings where DFO is now.

And here's the problem.

By what rationale does a civil aviation airport have to "pay its way"?

It's a piece of public infrastructure, built up over many decades, primarily from the taxpayer's wallet.

It may not have been a commercially viable operation when your company took it over. It didn't have to be.

Your company knew the situation when they took it on. They didn't have to take it on. They chose to take it on.

So, after going in with eyes wide open they find that they can't make a buck without compromising safety. Too bad too sad. Hand the lease back, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

The problem, Aero developer, is the privatisation paradigm that means the true value of the aerodrome as a community asset does not get measured or paid for by the community. It also results in the mistaken belief that aviation users are being "subsidised".

What price the person who gets to life saving medical care more quickly from the bush, in an aircraft? What price the person who's found on an upturned boat in the Bass Strait, by a search aircraft? What price the felon who's spotted on the run in back street by a police helicopter? What price the commercial efficiencies arising from air transport?

The true value of an aerodrome is not measured in what you can charge for it per square metre.

The scam that's been pulled on the aviation industry by government is to not only expect to get the benefits of an aerodrome for free, but to get the users to pay for the "privilege". You've been scammed, too, by projections of movement numbers that were based on a once-vibrant GA sector that's been charged and regulated to near-extinction.

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. That's the deal you need.

I find the discussion about the DFO pointless. what's the difference between a shopping complex and a series of hangars. I've been into EN at least 400 times and find it no problem. No one seems to be arguing about the row of 3 hangars at the western end, and they are considerably taller than the DFO structure.

At, say 1pm, how many people are in the DFO building, how many in the hangars?

The fundamental issue is that a large tract of prime real estate devoted to being an airport will probably never be able to compete with the returns that could be offered by developing the land for other uses.

The problem is the privatisation model in the first place and the bright idea that a piece of vital public infrastructure on prime land should somehow pay for itself. It is ludicrous and it will never be able to compete on a level with other commercial development. At the end of the day the airport gets squeezed to death. Aviation needs get sold out to other more lucrative prospects that offer greater returns per square metre of land.

At the end of the day do we want functional airports or not? We are in half-baked territory right now...

Well obviously there will be no one in the hangars. They are an aviation business and thus closed and empty at all times.

Who determines "vital"? At one stage the Melbourne "basin" had 4 civil and 2 military aerodromes. The military ones are pretty much gone, perhaps one or two of the civil ones times have come as well. Is there enough business to sustainably support the remaining?

So had Mr Q. At least they are hangars. But yes: perhaps they should not be that close to the runway. (Note what I said earlier about the stonking big hangar that causes turbulence across the touchdown area of runway 35 at YSCB.)

Also, if you look at the 'footprint' of the 3 hangars compared with the 'footprint' of DFO complex including carparks, I reckon that the latter takes up about 10 times the area of the former and, as noted by Bleve, would likely have 100 times more people in it at 'peak' times.

The worst kind of failure at the worst time is likely to end up with an aircraft close to or inside the boundaries of the aerodrome. With what would it be less bad for the aircraft to impact? A hangar? Or shops/carpark full of punters?

You're a ********, and the people you work for are maggots. You have no right to those assets. I and every taxpayer owned those assets before you parasites were given them. You prance around saying 'if it wasn't for us they'd be sold off' you hero. Airports are essential infrastructure, like highways. Truth is, you get airports for peppercorn rates and still can't make them work, 3rd rate clowns who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Go and 'run your model' elsewhere arseclown.

CVR Requirement

Type Certificate for the B200 - TC A24CE - states;
CAO 20.110 states;
B200
(b)(i) tick
(b)(ii) tick
(b)(iii) TC A24CE No. of Seats and Maximum 15 tick
(b)(iv) 16 December 2013 tick

Like the public transport system you mean?

Agree with every thing The name is Porter had to say.

Before DFO.

http://consumer.fairfaxsyndication.c...J314547.jpg?d0

Collision with terrain???
 

I notice that the ATSB have classified this accident as a "collision with terrain".

Huh?

With every new action by the ATSB I find myself wondering, more and more, whether they know what they're doing. If this was a "collision with terrain" (CWT), then every other aircraft crash would also be!

Ran out of fuel, entered a descent and met the earth? CWT.
Lost control and met the earth? CWT.
Collided with another aircraft, lost a wing, fell and met the earth? CWT.
Stalled on final approach and met the earth? CWT.
Landed with undercarriage retracted? CWT

I suppose the reason it is classified as a collision with terrain is because that when the initial report was released on the day of the accident, that was the only known fact. I.e. the aircraft crashed. No cause had been found. If the ATSB's reporting system is similar to the one we had in ATC, the identifier is chosen from a drop down menu. Once the facts emerge, the classification will change.