What's happening at Evans Head?
 

It would seem that Evans Head was quietly sold by Richmond Valley Council for a mere $3m in 2020.

The new owners seem to be pushing the 'Airpark' line but it would also seem that they have now introduced what might be the most outrageous PPR standards I've seen for a small ALA:

Yes, that's right, you have to pay in advance.
Yes, you also have to book a 'slot' in advance.
Yes, you also have to upload your insurance certificate of currency (just a lazy $20m of public liability) in advance.

Considering this is a rumour network, does anyone know what the real agenda is here? My spidey senses tell me this is a housing development ploy and has little to do with building a long term sustainable 'airpark'.

make it so difficult to fly in and so expensive that people simply won't use it then in a few years time you can say there have been less than 20 aircraft movements in 3 years so we don't need an airport any longer. Luckily we can build houses there and recoup our investment in days. It is meant to be heritage listed, it is meant to be contaminated ground and yet there are houses getting closer by the week

So who on the council stood to gain from this privatisation? There's obviously no community benefit.

“Yes, that's right, you have to pay in advance.
Yes, you also have to book a 'slot' in advance.
Yes, you also have to upload your insurance certificate of currency (just a lazy $20m of public liability) in advance.”

These are all pretty standard conditions for a taking a boat into a marina anywhere in Australia… why not similar for an airplane into a private airfield?

$20m is an onerous condition and well above the industry standard, including Class D and major regionals.

You don't have to prove that you have $20m in liability when driving on a public road, so why do you need it for 1,000 metres of pavement?

$20m AUD is amateurish. We all have USD35m going in to e.g. Longreach, don’t we?

It’s pantomime.

Surely you are having a laugh?

This is clearly a ploy to all but eliminate itinerant aircraft visiting Evans Head, for reasons that only the new owners know...

No, not having a laugh at all. I’m deadly serious.
The boating fraternity have dealt with these types of requirements for a very long time. I don’t see the difference.

Boating, in decent size boats, attracts similar ownership costs to airplane ownership. Why is it such a shock that privately owned facilities would come at a cost, require advanced bookings, and require proof of insurance to be provided.

Like I said, all of the above are completely normal prior to entering a marina in my boat.

Bullshyte Switchbait.

‘’When I sign up for a marina berth, I am purchasing a berth for a minimum of one night. Furthermore the berth is one of a limited number of purpose built physical facilities, protected from bad weather, usually including electricity, water, toilets showers and security services.

‘’Your simile would be truthful if I was asking for hangarage for my aircraft overnight or longer.k

That is completely different from an itinerant aircraft stopping on the grass for fuel, toilets or passengers. Furthermore most marinas supply such services to all vessels for an hour or two for free.

Should there be?

Compulsory Third Party (CTP) Insurance in most States is heard in Magistrate's Court for up to $100,000 - but can be heard in Crown Court for Unlimited amounts...

So if your car is registered, then you are covered. Even third party property insurance for cars is around £30 million limit for liability.

Those laws have been enacted in most states since the 1950s.

I'm guessing that Local Councillors, not knowing anything about aviation, have simply grabbed those numbers from the auto industry for running aviation assets.

Perhaps it's time we had a compulsory scheme for aircraft registration - everything except the physical aircraft asset to be insured?

Wrote about this back in the day. This airfield with infrastructure, at least covering 100 hectares and a lot of it prime development land in a booming north coast tourist town, was sold quietly by Richmond Valley Council for less than the cost of many houses in the town. Just under $3m. (You can find the sale price buried in the council minutes of the time about 4 years ago. Like barely a few paragraphs.)

There was no recent public tender for this public asset. No advertising that it was for sale. It was sold to a party of just a few guys (maybe just 2) that it quietly negotiated with. There was a heritage listing in the original agreements, but somehow the details of that are now a bit murky and appear to be very watered down. The gates went up on the airport shortly after it was sold and most of the tenants booted from their hangars. These were only low impact flyers...a few gyros, a few RA aircraft etc.

I am no lawyer, but the fact that this didn't go to tender, wasn't advertised, and sold for what is blatantly millions below market value seemed a breach of process to me. Sale of public assets are supposed to go to tender and this is the process that is supposed to be followed: . https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/wp-conten...nment-2009.pdf

So i wrote to NSW ICAC and also the Council for Local Government. Well you can guess the response. They would rather sit on their asss's and collect a salary then do their actual job. Why bother? Unless it is in the media and there is political pressure, why would you look at it? ICAC won't look at anything unless you can prove corruption which for the average person would be impossible...and also isn't that their job? If nothing else, it is very "odd".

Ultimately a very small group of people got their hands on a lot of development land for peanuts and are now are very wealthy because of it. They don't want the airfield used,. And the public? They lost a public asset and they got very little money for the community in return.

A classic example of bureaucratic buggery in councils. It’s endemic. And as for those agencies that are supposed to deal with these things…forget it .Government appointees. Not going to find issues that give bad publicity or might reflect on the government.
Been there , had all the ****e with the QLD agencies, CCC , OIA, QPS…nothing to see here. And there was corruption.!
And a few other fraudulent and illegal issues.
Where does this leave the citizen /little guy. Up that creek, paddle free. So much for truth, justice and the rule of law.
NOT.
Corporatised councils are just like corporate CAsA. Unaccountable, non transparent and untouchable.

I cannot enter a privately owned marina that I visit every year without public liability insurance, even just to stop to go to the toilet.

601, you mean there is a little man who comes out to check your insurance? I’m intrigued. In 63.years of sailing no one has ever asked for my certificate of insurance unless I was booking a berth. Most Marinas I have visited both interstate and overseas (italy, croatia, UK) have a public wharf section with space for a few hours parking and also a “ dinghy dock”. At most someone will take your lines and charge you a few Euro.

P . S. your boat doesn’t have a toilet?

The smell of corruption?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"You don't have to prove that you have $20m in liability when driving on a public road,"

There's a difference .................
Should there be?



In all Australian jurisdictions, car drivers have cover for third party death and personal injury under the compulsory third party insurance required to get the car registered. The amount the third party can recover is limited by the statutory scheme and generally the third party needs to establish fault on the part of the driver. There is no compulsory insurance for liability of drivers for third party property damage (or associated economic loss) and no statutory limit on liability either - which is why you would be crazy to drive around without at least that additional cover (which usually has a limit of $10 million AFAIK, which is designed to provide a comfortable buffer above the most extreme example of potential loss).

In aviation, commercial operators get some protection from unlimited liability for third party claims under statutes which implement international conventions (and their employees are indemnified by their employers by law). Commercial operators are then insured to a level which reflects those limitations.

Private operators/pilots do not get that limit on liability. They should be insured to a level which reflects the level of risk if they don't want to expose themselves and their assets to third party claims. Pilots hiring aircraft should not assume that the owner/operator has insurance or, if they do, it extends to them as hirer. Even if covered, hirers may be liable for the excess/deductible (which might be quite high).

It is absolutely standard and prudent for an organisation which owns or operates a facility to require someone who wants to the use that facility to have a prudent level of insurance for third party liability. It is likely to be a requirement of their own public liability insurer.

A new compulsory third party insurance scheme for aircraft could in theory be implemented to deal with all of this. I suspect it would be hard to get to work from an underwriting perspective because of the diversity of who needs to be covered but the (relatively) small overall number of policies to be issued (compared to motor vehicles - and everyone knows how hard motor vehicle CTP has been and continues to be to get right, and it only covers death and injury).

Sadly, this all costs money. Like everything.

TDB

Sunfish, a WAFI. It all makes sense now.

Despite the substance of the previous discussion in this thread and elsewhere, it remains unassailably true that there is no legal requirement, in Australia, for car drivers or owners have insurance cover for liability for damage done to a third party's property by the vehicle. I am not required, and I do not have, millions of dollars of third party property liability insurance to cover me to drive down and park in the main drag of any town or city.

I have never been asked, by the operator of any aerodrome, for evidence of insurance cover required by the operator's 'conditions of use'. In any event, evidence is easy to concoct and provide if required. That might be awfully naughty and perhaps even fraudulent, but it doesn't create the cover to respond to the liability of the uninsured naughty fraudster, if it arises.

The operators of the aerodromes the use of which include mandatory insurance cover like these are setting their own trap, for themselves.