Prior permission to land at Gympie airport
 

The latest En Route Supplement Australia has come out dated 16 August and it now states that prior permission is required to land at Gympie Aerodrome.

Remember, this is an aerodrome that was built under the Australian Government system where about half of the funding came from the Commonwealth – that is, taxpayers from all around Australia. I would imagine this is just the start of councils putting this particular requirement in the ERSA.

It would be interesting to find out if Lead Balloon knows whether they can legally do this. It is a bit like saying if you want to enter the main street of Gympie, please write to us two days before and we may give you approval. It is amazing that our forefathers fought for certain freedoms which seem to be going.

Here is the article covering this in The Australian this morning.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...7d4d9d2ac4.jpg

What a sure way to drive away any business and recreational use of the airfield.
Council silliness started last year when they decided they 'controlled' the airspace and said they 'banned' night flying and helicopter circuits.
They have paid some large dollars to a consultant to come up with a "Master Plan" so whatever it says must be implemented to justify the dollars.
The council website contains this little pearl of wisdom "Other than rental for hangar sites, there are currently no fees or charges for the Gympie Aerodrome. Council will be introducing fees and charges in the 2018-19 financial year."

I just hope the good citizens of Gympie realise that they may have to wait 3 days for the RFDS or the Rescue Helicopter to seek prior permission before they can medivac them out. The same goes for the firefighting helicopters waiting those 3 days before they can put that fire out.

What is it about councils like Gympie and Busselton that appear such silly and inept organisations when it comes to airports.

It is understood the PPR for Yulara, that is until they actually enlarge the parking area and provide a more useable airport.

CC

Hmm, council paid a "Private" consultant for a "master" plan....
Who was that consultant? what were they paid? what qualifications did they have?what affiliation do they have
with development sharks? What political donations have been made to political parties involved in the council by development sharks?
"Money money money"... makes the world go round, also explains one or two passing strange policies.

Council website says "Council engaged Rehbein Airport Consulting to prepare a Master Plan and Feasibility Study"

REHBEIN Airport Consulting

CC

I can't see how you can possibly arrange prior approval to land somewhere, when you have "an unplanned operational requirement" to go there.

The mayor allegedly proffered the excuse: "it's so we can find out who is using the airfield".

The answer now is "no one'. Which means that the airport site is then slated for redevelopment as commercial or residential purposes as soon as the council can force the tenants out and bulldoze the runway.

Master Plan is here: https://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/docume...ter%20Plan.pdf
REHBEIN are a long established AND REPUTABLE COMPANY
This morning I submitted the PPR form available from the council website and was informed within an hour that one request will be valid for 12 months.
The aerodrome is the property of the council so they can impose conditions on access. It was built by the council with government assistance. Under ALOP they were given $40,000, 26 years ago. Not a lot for continuing maintenance.

Exactly. YBLN has no real desire to foster GA ops at their airport. YBUN on the other hand is very GA friendly and I believe still no landing fees.

As for having to fill out a PPR form for Gympie. If all they want to do is collect some data on what and when the airport is being used, I can think of a couple of low tech, more efficient and less costly methods.

So keep a log of who uses the airport...

While you're at it, put cameras on all the roads into town to find out who is using your streets...

Wheel clamp your aircraft? Have that unreliable tractor unfortunately break down right in front of your aircraft? There's a lot they could do. Then what will you do?

In the remote possibility that someone from the council is present at the same time you are and they are armed with a list of submitted aircraft details with associated permissions to land, provide them with the details they want, point out the "fait accompli" that you have in fact landed safely without their assistance and proceed on your way.

As of yet, there are no landing fees to pay, only a provision for them sometime in the future.

So if you land without prior notice what is the penalty and how do they know that you have been there? If they know then their argument is false.

Why not? It's private property, and they have stipulated the terms of use, and you have ignored them. What do you think all that fine print says on the sign you drive past as you enter a car park? You don't abide by them, and come back to find your car towed away. Boo Hoo.

This is what the consultants report said:

Traffic,
I earnestly suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules about interfering with aircraft, which are quite different to motor vehicle.

The real issue here is the treatment of what is or should be a public user facility (like a local road) as simple private property. As usual, the US situation is instructive, anywhere federal funding has been provided, no matter how small, or long ago, such an airfield must be open to everybody without discrimination.

The untold story, here, is how the then Minister, John Anderson, was literally conned by his department into changing the terms of all the ALOP airfields, to the very great disadvantage of the aviation users. And it was a con, we managed to stop it the first time around, but the second time it sneaked through, to the the everlasting gratefulness of real estate developers on local councils.

Don'y forget, most of these airfields were built with Commonwealth taxpayers money in the first place, NOT local ratepayers money.

I have also noted, over the years, and with notable honourable exceptions, how hard it is to get local users to band together to defend their local airfield, instead of apathy followed by whinging at the result, how about fighting for your interest. Usually it doesn't take much of a campaign to shift the local council, because ratepayers have about as much faith in the honesty and good intentions of their local Councillors as they do in politicians in general.

Tootle pip!!

Ah bugger it Lead, let the bastards have it and make their new suburb or DFO
which ever lines their pockets with the most.
Lets face it, aviation is finished in Australia, we saw the best, that's gone and
there is no political enthusiasm for it to return. We can never hope to match
the development sharks money, perhaps in another decade we may have the satisfaction
of saying, "We told you so". By then those responsible will be happily retired counting their
thirty pieces of silver and the people left to wonder where it went.
You cant beat the big end of town.

thorn bird,
Sadly, the probability is that you are correct, and it goes well beyond aviation.
Tootle pip!!

Fellas, calm down. Have a look where Gympie airport actually is. It is at a little locality well to the South of Gympie called Kybong, which might be of interest to developers in 50 years or so, but not now. As for DFOs, the Bruce Highway out the front of the airfield was bypassed in February by a new much safer 4 lane section of highway, 1 km to the East and that is where a new DFO would go if it wasn't so far out of town and so far from Noosa.

The Council is just on a mission to avoid liability for anything, like all the others.

Irrespective of whatever you think it should or should not be, it is owned by the council, like the roads (which is why you or I don't fix them or build them, they do). As such they can dictate how it is used, like they do the roads. Yes they provide them as a public facility, as they do many things, but all come with caveats.

I lived in Gympie town for a while, and did a bit of work at the Kybong Airport.
Having followed this issue for a few years and signed the petition to council to have the restrictions modified or lifted, when the idea was first mooted.
A well known helicopter company from a bit further south, spent a lot of money, time and effort to build a hangar and try to set up some of his activities here, this effort was being stymied by one or two local residents who made a lot of noise about hover and hover taxying at the field.
As usual, it is just two or so people who bought well after the airfield was established that have caused the problems.
This latest is just a continuation of that.
FWIW Cheers

I sent the Council a note over the week end. Did anyone else.?
One suggestion was that they erect a sign saying ..
'Gympie Welcomes Careful Aviators. Enjoy our Town and beautiful Region.

I,m sure there's no PPR for trucks and motor-homes thru town on council roads
And that since GA is a rapid transport system...3 days notice is silly* and impractical
*silly ...as in the infection of bureaucrats with the 'idiot virus'..to come up with stupid, unworkable ideas.

In the past I have use Gympie a s 'whistle stop' in passing, an operations base for 4 -5 days and a safe haven from a storm en-route to elsewhere.
The town benefited in pie sales, taxis, motels, coffee shops and etc.
So you do have to wonder at the logic of 'consultants' and councillors to arrive at PPR.

Yet again, its a classic case of we the av.citizens getting disadvantaged by bureaucrats inserting themselves into yr life and how you may ..or NOT..do business.
Thus do our rights and freedoms get whittled away. Is this what our forebears fought and gave their lives for...so we can live chained to the ground by 'rules' and 'regulations' by the bloated outgrowth of bureaucrazies.?
Civil disobedience or the pitch forks.? Keep this up and it WILL happen.

A little note to those advocating landing without getting prior permission.....

The aviation insurance legal advice we have received is - land WITHOUT prior permission,and you are no longer covered by insurance. This is for cases when Prior Permission is specifically required and that requirement is published in documents that you as PIC would reasonably be expected to have access to (like ERSA), . This is in the event of any damage of any type (that you sustain or cause) during the time from wheels on to wheels off.

The insurance companies seem to be the final word in a lot of aviation activity. Releasing a time expired engine under Australian regulations being one other example.

If what has been previously posted is true, then is it is "owned" by the ratepayers of Gympie, not the Commonwealth. They have elected a council to manage their assets. The council has imposed conditions of use on behalf of the owners. Who are we to say they can't? You might not agree with them, but that's your problem, not theirs.

In almost all cases, yes. The government being what ever level of such that provides said "public" service. You can't borrow a library book with out being a member of the library, or at least registered with them in some way. You can't use the local "public" pool without agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of entry. You can't drive your car on a "public' road without it being registered, you being licensed to do so, obeying the road laws, and the vehicle itself being subject to an external assessment of whether it is fit to be on said "public" road (ie roadworthy). Public toilets have conditions of use, Public parks have conditions of use. Public car parks have conditions of use. Where do you think you actually have any free reign in a public place, while using a 'public' facility. What make you think a "public" aerodrome is any different?
In the Act, if the interference is done with lawful authority, then it's not unlawful interference. The terms of use would have to be quite specific in this case I suspect.

Yes, and there is nothing in the act that gives them lawful authority!

You're a private pilot, VFR and on your way North out of Brisbane, some Wx closes off your planned route, and now your only choice for a safe landing is to land at Gympie and wait out the passing storm cell. I find it difficult to believe that choosing a safe option somehow voids your insurance.

And mores that point, without even mentioning that scenario, I asked my insurer if that were the case, and was told no, it doesn't. Maybe you should consider changing companies?

"You're a (very new) private pilot, VFR and on your way North out of Brisbane, some Wx closes off your planned route, and now your only choice for a safe landing is to land at Gympie and wait out the passing storm cell."

You consult your ERSA and find prior permission is required. you have been constantly reminded throughout your training, that to break the rules can make you a criminal, in fact your petrified having got into this position in the first place you have already become a criminal, you are therefore very reluctant to communicate your dilemma. You press on with tragic results.

Publicly owned for the benefit of Bureaucrats.

Ask them to show you the evidence they have that a) there is a safety risk, and b) their measures address that safety risk.

We all know it's about liability, but that is NOT the same thing as safety. Using safety as the justification is a cop-out, so call them out on it. Ask them to show you the CASA discussions they refer to. If they can't, ask CASA whether there are any new rules that they have made that warrant this sort of response. Keep following the trail.

Sometimes just asking the question, in a reasonable way, and remaining calm and logical, and continuing to escalate until you reach someone who can give you an answer, can have results.

Traffic,
If you read the history of Gympie airfield, it was substantially built with Commonwealth taxpayers money, it was/is an ALOP airfield. It was NOT paid for by the local council and their ratepayers.

Even through the original ALOP deed has been debased, when then Minister John Anderson was conned into the changes by the bureaucrats of the then Department of Transport and Regional whatever, there is still an obligation that it remains an airfield open for public use, I would argue that some of the recent restrictions, including PPO, are contrary to the remaining ALOP terms.

As a previous poster has pointed out, petty local politics wins over the public interests of the majority. As we know, some of the restrictions have not the remotest connection to any delineated risk at Gympie, in my opinion it is just the usual appeal to knee-jerk reaction to the great god, safety, for base political purposes. It is also clear, in my opinion, that most of the local council know about as much about aviation, general or otherwise, as the average perX in the street.

I have read the "draft" masterplan, a rather boilerplate effort that, in my opinion, could have been run off a template, just fill in the blanks. Lots of lovely words, lots of vaulting ambition expressed by "council", belied by "council's" actual behavior.

About the only thing that stuck out was 100% user pays, the council will not accept that the airfield should in any way be treated like roads, parks or other public facilities, to the degree that mooted swinging charges for runway access, for proposed "airpark" development of private land adjacent will not encourage these developments.

Tootle pip!!

I did say that was based on the veracity of a previous post. Irrespective, they are the operating authority whether you agree or not. It is still open for public use, with caveats, just like the rest of their public facilities.
The Act doesn't have to. It just has to protect them if they do. That authority is determined by other agencies.
They probably can. They can remove the street lights any time they want. They can close a road if they want to. They can stipulate whether you can stop on that road. They can stipulate whether you can park along that road. They can even make you (horror of horrors!) pay to park along that road.
The UK is considering banning new license holders from driving at night. In QLD if you are a P Plater with a bad driving record you can be banned from driving at night. That's not the council, but just another level of government telling you what you can and can't do on a "public" road.
Your utopia might sound great, but it's not reality.

LB, it probably pays for some counsellors 2nd cousin's school friend getting some local government experience in paper pushing by creating a paper trail for them to oversee.