Care to think about the cost of a kilometer of two lane highway? ....And the associated maintenance costs.

Aerodrome maintenance is insignificant compared to road costs and the wear created by a GA aircraft is insignificant compared to a B double.

That’s because in your lucky country, you’re comfortable that ‘someone else’ will always provide most of the country’s defence and commercial aviation materiel and capability. In your world, private aviation contributes nothing to that capability. There is an existential reason for civil aviation being part of the ‘cultural DNA’ of the USA. Experimental and general aviation in the USA are part of a fundamental foundation of the USA’s ongoing capability to design, construct, maintain and crew some of the best if not the best transport category civil aircraft and airborne defence systems on the planet.

Myriad aerodromes were part of Australia’s defence capability in WWII. Of course, there won’t be another set of circumstances in which Australia will have to try to be self-sufficient for more that a few weeks, will there. You can relax: Some other country will always come and save you.

I'm not 'owed' anything. I just don't like paying twice for something for which I've already paid, or being treated like I'm some kind of self-indulgent fringe dweller.

You evidently didn’t read, or if you did you didn’t understand, that the way in which the YCTM Council accounts for aerodrome expenses and income artificially exaggerates expenses and excludes actual income generated by aerodrome land. It’s only making a “loss” because actual money actually generated by actual aerodrome land is actually excluded as income. Unless and until I see the actual books and financial management practices in relation to any aerodrome, I don’t believe the claim that it’s making a loss. I’m sure the people making the claim will be able to point to a list of expenses and income, but it’s rarely the whole story. And often there's a strong incentive to paint the aerodrome in as worst possible light as it can be.

And the user pay zealots who continually effing whinge about what they shouldn't have to pay for. I put one child through school but you put 6 through, you should pay more, I'm subsidising your children etc

Somebody best advise all those pesky, bludger private pilots that cart around those in angelflights.

CASA's doing its level best to scaremonger 'community service flights' into the ground, too.

There was a whisper going round my neck of the woods a while ago that one local Councillor (non-Aviation minded) wanted to introduce landing fees to all aircraft at the two airstrips in the area.

He was firmly told by fellow Councillors in words that could not be misinterpreted or misunderstood in any possible way to ''Fuggeddabowdit!":=

(I think the term actually used was something along the lines of STFU.:eek:)

A kilometre of road can be used by anybody. A kilometre of aerodrome which must be maintained to a higher regulated and audited standard irrespective of whether it is in use or not, cannot. Do you have to put lights down either side of that kilometre of road if someone wants to use it at night? Do you have to mow the grass out to a certain distance either side of the road and keep it mowed before it is legal to use it? Do you have to produce and maintain a manual about how that kilometre of road is used? Do you have to publish nationally any change in the status of that road? Do you have to appoint, train, retain, and perhaps pay for a staff member or members who's sole function is to look after that single kilometre of road? Of course not. It again is a spurious argument.
Joe Bloggs in his Cirrus doing a quick jolly around Port Phillip Bay is contributing to this how?
I would suspect that having a truly massive military-industrial complex would have a little more to do with it.
Eighty years ago in a completely different technological environment. Not that you're clutching at straws, but.......
I don't understand why you continue to conflate your reluctance to pay landing fees, with the future defence of this country? If you think the existence of such aerodromes is such a national necessity, pay the f*cking fees and help keep them open. Consider it as doing your bit.
What have you already paid for? Your taxes stopped paying for aerodromes 30 years ago, If you fly to another aerodrome outside your council area, you certainly haven't paid for any works done in the last 20 years that the ALOP grants didn't cover.
That's why I said "in it's most literal sense".Jim Bloggs taking someone to hospital because otherwise they can't get there, that's one thing. Joe taking taking his quick flit around the bay, doing the bare minimum to maintain currency, is just indulging his hobby. I would hazard there's a lot more of the latter in private flying than the former.

Two weeks ago I decided to return to my old haunts and headed for the Dig Tree.

Preparation involved the purchase of 150L of unleaded from the local servo ($270), sundry bits and pieces like a new phone charger, emergency water and food, spare oil, fuel and oil filters just in case a tool roll and tie down kit. Travel via waypoints YSHT, YECH, YKER, YSWH, YWTO to YBHI. Two stops for comfort breaks and a sandwich.

Three nights in Broken Hill and two days car hire plus meals. ($1000).

Three very very wonderful days and nights at YARK - Arkaroola.( Accomodation food and fuel about $900). if you haven't been there put it on you bucket list! Doug Sprigg, as always, is the perfect host. Arkaroola is a very special place....and then two inches of overnight rain and Three around Innamincka put paid to going further North. The trip back took two days and cost about $600.

Total spend at least $2770, it would have been more if the airstrip wasn't flooded at the tree because I was planning YINN and YTIB on the way home. = Now this is just one old fart going away for a week. I dont have time to do the trip in a landcruiser these days (i'd still be stuck because the roads are closed, but that is another matter).

Now consider some of my friends and acquaintances - Mum Dad and two kids in a C182 who want to see a lot of Australia but are time poor or the retired couple in their Bonanza who like a luxury getaway every now and then - they were going IFR back to YMMB from YARK in an afternoon! There are plenty of people who have money to spend, are time poor and want to go special places where Qantas doesn't fly. Both of those acquaintances will spend three or four times what I spend.

GA travellers hemorrhage money into local communities everywhere they go - and those places aren't necessarily frequented by grey nomads with caravans and the majority of the aviators spending doesnt show up directly in Council accounts.

However to do any of this travel, you need the GA infrastructure to support it. Engineers, spare parts, fuel, airports. I am relatively self sufficient. In a certified VH registered aircraft you are less so, You need the infrastructure and every time an aviation business closes, anywhere, perhaps because of a bloody minded council raising rents, our options and freedom of action just got reduced because we have one less supplier.

Now when you consider the above and the barriers that the Government through CASA and local government put in the way of private pilots, you just might get a sense of the economic potential of even this small part of GA if we could only unlock it..

How dare you, you privileged, white, boomer, male, owner of inner city real estate that has increased exponentially in value, mysogynist, sexist, racist, pilot (what have I missed?) How dare you expect basic services, how dare you expect a runway to be the same as a highway, you elite prick!

Very good parody there, Tossbag!:ok: Exactly the sort of rant I'd expect from a card-carrying member of the Greens Party!:D

Except that the rants I have heard from the above mentioned Watermelon Party members didn't bring up any mention of inner city real estate ownership, mainly because that is exactly what they were! ie Owners of inner city real estate.

It's great to have a 'social concience' when you are better off financially than the rest of the sweating masses!:rolleyes:

Pinky, every socialist/communist do gooder in this country, like Cannon Brookes, Turnbull, Forrest et al, coincidentally have made their fortune first, then turn into a zealot, go figure

All's not lost just yet, tossbag. I'm sure Twiggy's still a pretty shrewd capitalist!

But it's not a basic service, and it's not a highway. It's like saying the council has to provide a golf course, just because you want to play golf. It's a piece of privately owned infrastructure that the owners have every right to charge a fee for the use of if they so desire, much as should the council decide to provide a council owned golf course, they're going to charge you a fee to use it. I don't like paying for the use of the council swimming pool or putting money in a parking meter any more than the next rate payer, but I don't throw my dummy out of the cot ranting "it's so not fair, I've already paid for all this" when I do. Or is it only selective? When you go to Byron Bay, do you also bitch about paying at the parking meter (and they are literally everywhere), and refuse to, on the basis you're bringing so much money into the town?

Quite right. But it is still an entry point into the town. And if you want me to visit, don't charge me such high fees unless you charge everyone else who enters town. Afterall, ratepayers fund (most) roads in their LGA's.
When the Council has paid parking, then paying for parking on their aerodrome is fair, IMHO. But not if they have no paid parking in their LGA - because they are being selective in who they charge. Why charge aircraft ("to maintain the airport and cover the budget to do so" in your words) when the road budget for most Council's is significantly higher than the aerodrome budget? When you go to the Council swimming pool, do you pay for parking in the pool carpark - or do you just pay an entry fee for the pool?

Would it not make more sense to have toll roads and paid parking to offset the expenses incurred in maintaining the Council road network? Of course. But most regional Council's don't. Why? Because they know full well it'd be political suicide to introduce paid parking at Temora, or Narromine, or Scone - but those rich pilots who dare fly in? They're fair game at most airports.

Yes that's the way it usually works out because once you become really rich you want to protect your wealth at all cost second to none. So your allegiances to anything including country are thrown out the window. Once you're at the top of the tree Socialism is probably the best way of protecting your wealth as it stops any type of educated middle class kid inventing something that is a threat to your business or wealth. It also reduces the availability of health and various other technologies/luxuries to the middle classes. And if you are invaded by say a Communist Country you can either leave to another country or just join the upper echelons of the invaders and preserve your wealth while the middle classes are destroyed.

It's a very Australian thing but governments in this country seem to hate aviation and I have never really understood why. Whether that is a full blown conspiracy or just the nature of bureaucracy I don't know. Most likely the latter however it is everywhere. It is almost like governments in this country do not want any aviation activity to exist at all. Roads and railways are the only "approved" form of transport and they will subsidise those inefficient forms of transport forever regardless of cost, be it environmental or monetary.

mmmm, yeah, Byron Bay is not really my scene.

None of the new found socialists complete with their new found conscience ever pull stumps on the wealth generation.

For the record, I don't care how much wealth a hard working person makes, when it comes with the sanctimonious bull**** it's on the nose.

As usual, TIEW, you paint the narrowest and most negative picture of private aviation you can. People going on a “quick flit around the bay, doing the bare minimum to maintain currency, is just indulging his hobby.” Are you able to explain how you know what every private pilot does each and every time he or she goes flying? And now you presume to tell me how to spend my money.

Sounding a bit arrogant to me, TIEW.

In a group I follow a question recently came up about what someone described as a ‘zipper’ in the wings of the Sabre at Temora. (Coincidentally, I fitted an upgraded VHF to the aircraft when it was being refurbished at 2AD.) The ‘zipper’ is a piano hinge. Same system used on the wings of the Bonanza I used to fly. Same system used on the cowling of the RV9A I currently fly. Same system used on the Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. And…same system used on tens of thousands of other in-service military aircraft.

I know this is going to sound really corny to some in the lucky country, but the experimental aviation sector in the USA has the capability to build B52 bomber airframes. Same techniques as used to build many ‘light aircraft’. Most of the people who fly those military aircraft in the USA start out in private aviation. That’s one of the reasons why experimental and private aviation is not seen as a fringe dwelling indulgence in the USA. They are encouraged and nurtured. The USA doesn’t have the luxury of relying on anyone else to defend it. And the USA knows that aviation capability can’t be created overnight.

What military aircraft could Australia build from the ‘ground up’? Who cares, someone else will build them. Pilots? Import them too. Kick back and relax.

The current ‘received wisdom’ is that Australia has the capability to sustain a fight for about two weeks. Plenty of time for someone else to step in and save us. Private civilian aviation is just an unnecessary indulgence.

Clinton, you're wasting your time mate, he/she knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing. Go to Byron Bay you elitist and pay some airport parking why don't ya.

No, I just think that the argument that local aerodromes charging a landing fee has resulted in this country being unable to build indigenous 5th generation fighter aircraft is a particularly stupid one. In the years preceding the end of the ALOP scheme, we weren't exactly an aviation powerhouse, so nothing has changed. You think Russia or China or anyone else likely to attack us has a massive military because they have a healthy GA sector? You think the RAAF is struggling for pilot applicants because noone applying already has their PPL?
To probably 99.99% of the Australian population, that's exactly how it's seen. To Bruce and Sheila, standing around their backyard barbie, looking up at Sunfish fly over on his way to YARK, do you think that they think he is performing some function vital to the future history of this nation? That's if they even look up. No one gives a sh*t about whether you have to pay landing fees or not, or whether you feel hard done by.

Someone mentioned the airstrip is privately owned. That may be so for some, but the Council run airstrip is actually a Shire asset in which each ratepayer who all fund the council have a a1/25,000 th share, or whatever the population base for the shire is
Owned in effect by we, the people. Not that the non airfield wise or non aviationist, control freaks in the council would acknowledge.

A ratepayer in town will drive his $100k flash Landcruiser on local roads , along with the hordes of $200 RVs visitors..no fee.
The $50 k homebuilt owner, airfield hanger ratepayer or fly in visitor uses the strip… fees.
Discrimination?

In some places these fees are obscene amounts, locally, chicken sh*t…but with Avdata, council get practically bugger all, so the income for the strip hardly benefits at all.

As the airfield is not seen as a vital piece of local infrastructure, they don’t spend millions on it annually as with parks, ponds and gardens. Mow the grass, fix the odd pothole, and whinge about the cost.

Its a worry.

The difference is every resident can use the road be it on foot, by bicycle, or other vehicle of their choice. Very few can use the aerodrome. What percentage of residents have ever been on a flight from the local aerodrome, let alone park an aircraft there?

Penguin: And he answer is (drum roll): About a tenth of what the numbers should be if we had FAA style regulation and an informed council.

The "user pays" argument spirals downward as an ever decreasing number of aircraft owners are asked to share a steadily increasing burden.....until the owner of the last hangar gets a bill for the entire cost of the strip and is bankrupt.

You need to look up the definition of a "Public Good".

And another thing..... I am continually surprised at the number of people I meet who say: "Oh I had a pilots licence once, but I let it all lapse - didnt use it enough" or "I took flying lessons 30 years ago but never got the licence". These are a broad cross section of society from suburban mums to submariners.

Makes you think what we could have if we dreamed bigger,

I'm not the one who needs to look it up - it's those who want an aerodrome with reasonable fees who do, so they can try to convince the council and other ratepayers.

Sunfish et al

The regulations have nothing to do with people's interest in flying for fun. Those not involved are unaware and if made aware are potentially frightened off by the uninformed scare monger fraternity.
I live in an area with many public and private GA supported aerodromes.The opposition, based on noise complaints and "why are we paying for this thing we don't need", is constant from local residents and ratepayer in general. They do not care about a few score jobs on site, they see no community benefit.The EMS service is provided by helicopters operating out of an industrial area and they complain about noise from the EMS helicopters. They certainly do not want to pay for aerodromes that do not have RPT ops. There are a few notable exceptions but even Temora has community noise complainers.

Please nominate what the public good really is in real, unemotive terms. The councils would love your wisdom. The furphy of defence is just that. we no longer live in the age of piston engine fighters and bombers with no electronics

What is the ‘public good’ of NOT having an aerodrome.?
Joe Blow who might never have been there, might be thankful it was when RFDS lobbed in to fly him off to life saving medical care.
Those that complain about passing noise don’t mind the water bomber when it dumps on the bush and saves their house.
Pollies fly in, Police services too. AG operators. RAAF drop in to collect Air Cadets, FIFO mine ops, Air taxis, rotary and fixed wing maintenance shops that employ people, a gliding club…all of benefit to the town.

Sunny is right. If aviation wasn’t swamped with the unnecessary, incomprehensible complexities and bs by CAsA, there would be the environment to flourish like in the US. And many more aerodrome users.
Alas.
I have heard the comment many times,..Started to learn, or got a ppl but went away because of the BS and the hurdles..eg ASIC nonsense for one.
Those that persist with home building, restoring, and flying by whatever means, do so because of the freedom flight and the machinery…In spite of CASA not because of it.

I note that no one is predicting that the YCTM council will take me up on my offer to relieve council of the burden of operating and maintaining the aerodrome. All council needs to do is transfer the remaining original aerodrome land to me at the same price council paid for it, and I will take on responsibility for operation and maintenance.

Why wouldn’t council jump at the chance to rid itself of the burden of operating and maintaining something whose benefit is not justified by the expense? If it’s all downside for council, the business case for divestment writes itself, surely.

I’ll be paying real rates for the land, rather than council charging itself in a ‘zero sum gain’ accounting transaction. I’ll be the one spending money and I won’t be charging landing fees or parking fees. (I will, as the council does, charge a ‘throughput’ margin on the Avgas bowser. And of course I will be getting the income from the fenced off land used for agriculture, which income doesn’t appear on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. And of course I will be getting the proceeds of the sale of further subdivided blocks of land, which hasn’t in the past appeared on council’s books as income generated by the aerodrome. I suppose I could give ‘crying poor’ a go, but I doubt many would be sympathetic.)

Any member of the public may currently use YCTM aerodrome as an aerodrome. Same as any other public aerodrome. No requirement to be a pilot or to have any other qualification. And i’m not talking about just medical patients.

To fly for fun, you have to learn to fly. To learn to fly, you have to find a flying school. Many aerodromes that used to have a flying school no longer have one. I learned to fly at a place that had 6 flying schools. Now it has none. Anyone who says that that outcome has nothing to do with increased regulatory complexity nor aerodrome charging regimes should consider a career in a government bureaucracy. Ditto those who think modern military aerospace capability somehow no longer depends on a long and wide logistics tail requiring facilities and skills that are slowly atrophying in Australia.

Vag: I think your opinion is understandable but misguided. Firstly, some councils do "get it" about aviation and they are going to make a meal, economically, out of those that don't. just as at least one country has done the same by being 'aviation minded".

There are three effects you need to consider:

The first is the multiplier effect. conventional economics estimate that one skilled job producing goods and services supports about eight unskilled service industry jobs - coffee shops, supermarkets, retail, gardening and so on. The multiplier effect is not inconsiderable, so it is not hard to understand that a flying school with say four or five instructors, or a similarly sized aircraft maintenance facility is contributing to the existence of at least four times that number of unskilled jobs in the service industries. So that is reason number one to support and encourage economic activity at your airport - it provides jobs in the general community. Do I need to explain how that is beneficial to council?

The second is infrastructure. Contrary to your belief, military aviation does rely on some but not all of the same service industries that civil aviation does. How do I know this? Because even way back in my working days there were many companies that did military work as well as civil, especially in sophisticated repair and overhaul. Then the military also relies on some but not all of the same consumables and spares as civil aviation the supply chains are long because of where we are and the preponderance of American suppliers. And Yes, last time I looked at a Hornet (which was long ago), some of the sheet metal was stretch formed and supplied with an index hole at each corner. It was fitted exactly the same way as an amateur builder does today - clecos and back drilling, So don't fall for the line that military aviation is different. It isn't. Furthermore drones also use a lot of conventional GA technology. And on top of that GA - experimental often uses some cutting edge electronics and materials as well.

As it is now, I struggled to find Australian sources for aviation tools and consumables and spent a small fortune (at least $4000) on pre covid freight costs on everything from tools to instruments and hardware. try finding short stub drill bits #30 for a right angle air drill. try getting an Australian company to make an aviation hose assembly. What infrastructure we have left is already under threat.

The third reason is Hotellings Law ( that's Harold Hotelling the economist) the best place to put your aviation business is next to a competing aviation business. That way you both do better. The more industries that cluster together, the more they attract customers from other airports. hence if your council doesnt support your local airport, its businesses and the service jobs they support will migrate to an industry cluster somewhere else, supported by a council that 'gets it".

A classic opportunity: Point Cook (YMPCK) is the oldest continuously operating airbase in the world. it is also the home of the RAAF museum and has (had?) workshops and a huge body of volunteers who developed expertise restoring old aircraft. ...And across the Bay YMMB - all aviation businesses under pressure to close or leave. Same at Tyabb including considerable vintage aircraft restoration and maintenance capability. The vision: develop YMPCK as the Australian centre for the preservation, restoration, maintenance and operational flight instructional base for historic aircraft by migrating unwanted businesses out of Tyabb, YMMB and elsewhere. Yes, I know it ain't going to happen, but its a pity.

On a national level, look at NZ aviation - its gone from arguably a situation worse than ours to thriving. They "get it".

This would be the same thriving industry that had their main manufacturer insolvent last year?

What do you suggest Traffic? Sit around and whine?

It seems to be what some sections of GA do best?
That's only if the services provided are essentially similar, and the prices are fixed. H's Law says that if the prices are not fixed, companies will modify them to compete, thus it is in their best interests to be as far apart from each other as possible so they face less competition. There's a reason Coles and Woolies are generally at the opposite ends of the shopping centre from each other, or not co-located at all.

Apart from the historical importance of Point Cook, it has very little going for it. local community hates it with more and more development encroaching on it's boundaries. Then you have silly CASA requirements like a warbird can not fly over a populated area, for whatever stupid reason. If you wanted to try to turn it into a warbird hub it would be a constant struggle to keep it there. Tyabb has it's own problems however apart from a vocal minority the community is pretty accepting of the airport, unfortunately the opponents are also rich developers so they keep at it. Both airports are close to the coast especially Pt Cook, with means salt and corrosion issues for long term parking. Temora is really the best place for the warbird scene to build a hub with it already set up there.

But Coles and Woolies are BOTH at the shopping centre. Hotelling is why you find hungry jacks, KFC and Maccas clustered. Consumers like choice. That is why we have open air markets and historic localities in old cities for goods such as jewellery, leather goods, even electronics, etc. It is also partly why we have medical industry clusters like the Parkville strip.

43 inches is right about YMPCK it is too late. The real estate creeps have been telling prospective buyers around Point Cook: “Oh the airbase? I hear it’s closing next year”. They have been lying about that for at least 15 years. I remember angry residents with airbase protest signs on their front lawns circa 2005.