|
Gympie... More Talkies Please!
ABC Online News:
Flying rules change after 12 near-misses at Queensland airstrip By Jonathan Hair About a dozen near-collisions at a south-east Queensland airport has forced an urgent change in flying regulations to prevent a major disaster. The Gympie Regional Council owns the Gympie Aerodrome, which is used by locally-based powered and non-powered planes as well as helicopters. Mayor Mick Curran said it had only come to his attention in the past fortnight that there had been "about 12" near-misses in the past five years. Some of the incidents "resulted from a lack of radio use by aircraft operators". He said council had been unaware of how close it has been to an aviation disaster "Nobody wants to see that, nobody wants to have that occur," he said. "If council was aware of this prior to it, something would have been done." Council has since held crisis meetings with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and convened a special meeting with councillors on Friday to push through new safety rules. They include forbidding aircraft to land between sunset and sunrise with the exception of emergency flights. It will also be mandatory for all aircraft to use radios while in the nearby airspace or on the ground. In addition, helicopters are no longer allowed hover in the area. |
Yeah! I'm not surprised. Last time i rode through Gympie on me motorbike I nearly got hit by two different cars within minutes of each other. Up Gympie way they just don't look pulling outa their driveways. The local council needs to do something about it..:mad:
. |
Folks,
Local Government elections coming up, per chance?? Tootle pip!! |
I might just be a dumb pilot but I can see no connection between night operations, using radio and hovering helicopters and the need for 'crisis meetings" with of all people, CAsA and now councillors are going to meet and push through new safety rules.
What are the 12 'near misses" (or should that be near-hits) that are quoted as the reason behind all this? Of course the safety case will explain everything, won't it. Copy please. CC |
I might just be a dumb pilot but I can see no connection between night operations, using radio and hovering helicopters and the need for 'crisis meetings" |
|
Another link in the aviation safety chain, Councillor Muldoon!
Local councils always give me the impression that inbreeding of village idiots should be stopped in Australia. |
Well, I'll take a guess these 12 "near-misses" (Agreed Charlie, stupid phrase) were mostly at night and/or between hovering Helicopters? Perhaps Helicopters hovering at night were nearly missing each other... haha.
|
Look at the ears on it
|
How can you have a "near-hit"? By definition that's a hit so a distance qualifier is redundant. A "near-miss" conveys the fact they missed but also that they passed near each other. Someone didn't even make year 8 English obviously :E Would "farkin-close" work better? :ok:
|
Rather than arguing about the grammar of near hit or near miss and the depth of the towns gene pool does anyone know the aviation reasons for the restrictions?
|
Ummm, the dozen near collisions mentioned? They did involve aviation.
|
Whilst the only report so far regarding Gympie has come from a news report (ABC) experience has taught me to be wary of content and context from press reports.
I cannot find any associated information on either the ATSB or CAsA websites to explain the items in the news report. I have now found the Gympie Council agenda for a special meeting last Friday 28 July. See para 3.1 https://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/docume...g%20Agenda.pdf It would seem as though the anti-noise nimby's have rattled a few cages. As these council actions have changed some procedures, I wonder if the QLD RAPAC were involved in the discussions as they should have been. If CAsA were up to their usual tricks they would have done their very best to avoid involving RAPAC at all. CC |
Portable electric lighting without PAL.
How much night flying has been done in Gympie in the last 5 years? Or helicopter/s flying over influential residents house/s at night VFR? |
Half the problem would be solved if most of the local operators (both private and commercial) at YGYM used even semi-decent radio phraseology :mad:
|
Folks,
A serious question --- I wonder what criteria is being used to determine whether a "near miss" ( I prefer near hit, doesn't a near miss mean you almost missed, but didn't --- and near hit is commonly used elsewhere), has occurred? In the Sydney area, such is the silly nonsense perpetrated by the "pingya" brigade, that sighting an aircraft in the windscreen, anywhere outside a circuit area seems to constitute a "near miss". It is some time ago now, after political pressure, that ATSB investigated one "occurrence" reported by a "highly experienced and qualified" pilot (which he is, based on hours, licenses and ratings) south west of Camden. Turns out the "separation" in Class G airspace was, determined by radar traces, to be 5km. plus laterally and 900 ft or so vertically ---- near miss?? At least the complainant's eyesight is good, that he even saw the "conflicting traffic". As a second of too many similar examples, a very well known retired domestic Captain reported: (Oh! Shock! Horror!) I had to change heading to avoid the other aircraft. This was in Class G below 5000', central Victoria. The thought: "Toughen up, Princess" does spring to mind. Tootle pip!! |
It's poor form to attack someone on the basis of a photo. By all means debate the ruling but when launching a personal attack, you lose credibility.
|
Probably an attempt to stop Becker flying his helicopters there at night?
|
I prefer near hit, doesn't a near miss mean you almost missed, but didn't --- and near hit is commonly used elsewhere Where is "near hit" commonly used, link please? |
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky82
(Post 9846434)
Probably an attempt to stop Becker flying his helicopters there at night?
. |
Unless CASA issues a formal direction for CAR166 E to apply or declares a Broadcast Area the Council has absolutely no authority to mandate radio carriage. They have no authority over the operation of airborne aircraft.
|
I think Checklist Charlie hinted at what appears to be the real reason.
A ban on night flying and hovering helicopters. Sounds like a ban on...noise. |
Don't discount greedy developers either.
|
If "near" is a contraction of the word "nearly" then the correct term is a "near hit" as in "the aircraft nearly hit the other aircraft". If it is a description of proximity then "a near miss" would indicate that "the aircraft was in close proximity when it missed the other aircraft", as opposed to a "far miss", i.e. "it missed us by miles". Or you could just reduce it to a simple binary logic of "it missed" or "it hit" :-)
|
More appropriate term is "airprox"
|
Originally Posted by Dexta
(Post 9847318)
If "near" is a contraction of the word "nearly" then the correct term is a "near hit" as in "the aircraft nearly hit the other aircraft". If it is a description of proximity then "a near miss" would indicate that "the aircraft was in close proximity when it missed the other aircraft", as opposed to a "far miss", i.e. "it missed us by miles". Or you could just reduce it to a simple binary logic of "it missed" or "it hit" :-)
|
Having seen the likely events up there in the past, I will take a punt that it is all about half the runway being on a slop and the top half blind from the taxiway. Combine that with many sloppy radio operators and you get folk taxiing into aircraft cresting the hill either taking off or landing.
The airfield is a great little place but it is far more unforgiving of fools than most others. It makes the blind ends like Bathurst and Toowoomba loo like non events. As for helicopters at night being a pain in the butt, is there anywhere that Beckers have not worn out their welcome? |
People are ecstatic when rescued by a helicopter. But just don't go training the pilots anywhere near me! :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 9848463)
People are ecstatic when rescued by a helicopter. But just don't go training the pilots anywhere near me! :rolleyes:
. |
More background info required here... Based on the press report and the council meeting agenda item the whole matter does not make sense. It appears ill conceived, ill advised (that's CAsA) which ultimately suggests its implementation (if it even gets that far) will be just be a big a cockup. Something councils have demonstrated they are excellent at in the past. The safety case (if one was ever done) would make an interesting read. I suspect the anti-noise nimby's have put the wind up council who then have come up with their questionable 'safety enhancements'. CC |
Originally Posted by Checklist Charlie
(Post 9848517)
I totally agree.
Based on the press report and the council meeting agenda item the whole matter does not make sense. It appears ill conceived, ill advised (that's CAsA) which ultimately suggests its implementation (if it even gets that far) will be just be a big a cockup. Something councils have demonstrated they are excellent at in the past. The safety case (if one was ever done) would make an interesting read. I suspect the anti-noise nimby's have put the wind up council who then have come up with their questionable 'safety enhancements'.CC |
I'm planning on visiting the Gympie Airport open day this coming Sunday, it might be an opportunity to 'engage' some councillors in a discussion.
It does appear from the Gympie Times link above that the noise nimby's and possibly somebody looking at a future land use zoning change just might have influenced this odd apparent outcome. CC |
If the Council have communicated with CASA, then the silo's within CASA still exist, as there was a SQld RAPAC meeting a week ago and the matter was not on the agenda nor raised by anyone presnet including CASA. The CASA RAPAC rep is now looking into it I understand. As was indicated previously, the aerodrome operator (Council in this case) have no authority on the airspace and operations at the the aerodrome unless CASA approval is provided and it is listed in ERSA. Any changes as outlined would have to be justified with incident reports and some form of safety case.
|
Via The Gympie Times:
The owner of a helicopter training school has criticised the new safety changes at Kybong Airport, saying it is now impossible for helicopters to use the site. Becker Helicopters owner Captain Mike Becker said the ban on hovering was the same as stopping planes from taxiing. "It's impossible for a helicopter, if it's going to land there, not to hover," he said. "If it's upsetting residents who aren't at the airport because they were worried about helicopters flying over the top of them, that's got nothing to do with hovering does it?" Having invested about $800,000 in purchasing 4ha at the site with the intention of moving some of his business there, the changes - which Capt Becker said his company was not consulted on - had left him wondering what to do now. He said requests for an urgent meeting with the council had been turned down. He also questioned the decision to allow residential development at the airport. "You can't build a house in an industrial area," he said. According to Capt Becker, the council had been made aware of incidents during a meeting in April 2016, and that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recorded only seven incidents at the airport. A Gympie Regional Council spokeswoman said the council was encouraging feedback from all members of the community through the airport draft master plan next week. https://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/...sible/3208561/ . |
There's a balance to the above bleat from Beckers - I think it would be fair to say that Becker Helicopters are generally unpopular with the populace of the entire Sunshine Coast hinterland, not just those of Gympie.
|
Originally Posted by Dora-9
(Post 9853172)
There's a balance to the above bleat from Beckers - I think it would be fair to say that Becker Helicopters are generally unpopular with the populace of the entire Sunshine Coast hinterland, not just those of Gympie.
A justifiable 'bleat' i woulda thought. . |
Will be interesting to get some feedback from anyone who attended this weekend's fly-in.
|
Is the council controlled by development sharks? most of them seem to be up that way. Caloundra council made a grab for their airport for "development."
|
Do the council have any in house aviation expertise or have they engaged a consultant to provide appropriate advice?
Seem not to date. They have no power to 'control' anything above the ground, which many councils seem to think they have.:ugh: |
An attack on one needs to be treated as an attack on all. Otherwise the developers and NIMBYS will pick off airports one by one.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.