skippydiesel

35 minutes ago, RossK said:

and for those wondering...

Mile High Club?

Wow! they went out with a bang😈

"And they don't  "only charge for landings" - I've been charged for overflying airports at 9,500' - verified by ADS-B - because I put "YGLA" on the flightplan as a turnpoint instead of the aid and made a deconfliction call with a departing RPT on CTAF."

I hope you have not paid.

Its the PICs prerogative to set whatever flight plan meets his/her cross country needs, subject to airspace classifications and military activity.

YGLA circuit height is 1059 ft, overfly 1559 ft . I don't think you can be charged for entering the circuit (without landing), let alone an overfly of any altitude,  let alone 9500 ft

"...deconfliction call with a departing RPT on CTAF."

Care to expand on this statement?

.😈

9 hours ago, walrus said:

Skippy I never called ALL airfields because that is impractical - too many, most rarely used. Just the ones I new to be populated.

How do you know they aren't "populated"? You can not have the information to make such a observation.

I call for the following reasons:

• It costs me nothing - I see it as a basic courtesy that may have safety implications for me/other aircraft.
• I don't know who may be listening/will benefit from my call. This applies to the airfields and aircraft in the vicinity.
• Should I face a problem/incident a little later - someone may have heard/recorded my call and be able to assist with last known position.
• I still make "all station" calls when I change frequency,  following the above  logic.

In my humble opinion we have swung too far, to the silent side of the communication pendulum. Pilots are relying way too much, on the "mark one eyeball",  OzRunways (& other EFB's) to tell them their is another aircraft in their vicinity and the assumption that if they hear nothing there is no point in making a call.

The Camden pilots who fly over The Oaks without making that all important call , are putting pilots at unnecessary risk, should be counseled and if continue to offend, some  face some form of disciplinary action .😈

1 hour ago, BurnieM said:

 

The issue is that departures from The Oaks 36 or 18 do not fly over Camdens circuit area but upwind departures from Camden 24 fly almost directly over The Oaks.

 

AND aircraft arriving from the West overfly, all too often at or below our 2500ft, on occasion as low as circuit height 1900 ft.

Very few make any sort of Inbound call let alone the usual 10Nm one or even an overhead call, When hailed appear not to be on/monitoring 126.7 (our CTAF frequency).

My perception is, the arriving aircarft tend to be the worst offenders.😈

Hi Walrus,

I stand to be corrected; I understood and practise that a 10Nm inbound, altitude (intentions & time) /overflying/passing of ALL airfields, call is required.

Further - may not be required, I do a second call  - overhead/abeam(direction & distance/any change of altitude)

Further  - If not landing, I do not enter the airfields airspace, I overfly above the minimum and or pass to one side, well outside any possible circuit activity.

I  (& the majority of private pilots in AU) am flying at surface to 10,000ft a AMSL - not 40,000ft. Depending on windspeed, direction & terrain clearance I could easily be approaching an airfield at close 500ft above circuit height.

There is no suggestion that RAA class aircraft or GA, using The Oaks airspace/in the vicinity, should not communicate with each other - they should when/where appropriate.

When in The Oaks airspace - communicate on 126.7

As for Camden communication - this only applies to aircraft entering, within their airspace. There is nothing to be gained by The Oaks aircraft having conversations with Camden Tower😈

"In the Skippydiesel's case Avdata has made a mistake and they have corrected it."

I did not get the impression, from Avdata, that trying to charge for flying in the circuit was a mistake - sounded to me that this is a charge that the YGLB owner is attempting to levy. Avdata merely passing on the charge. Could be wrong but got the feeling that Avdata not to keen to do so. 😈

26 April 2025  

Friday to Sunday free underwing camping available for visiting pilots

https://www.nswsac.com.au/fly-in

😈

Inaugural FlyIn 19-18 May 2025

https://frogshollow.org/

😈

I try not to be too critical of others misfortune - we know the cause (no fuel) but we didnt get to read what lead up to the loss of power.

I have been lucky; Years ago, despite careful flight planning, unexpectedly/unforecast strong headwinds, had a drastic effect on my ground speed. After some inflight guesstimates, I decided my fuel situation was just too marginal to continue as planned. I diverted to a field some distance from my planned track.  It was late in the day but luckily a "Good Samaritan" was working back and had 20 Litres of fresh 98RON on hand.  On arrival at my planned destination - I still had that fresh 20L in the tank, but no more. 😈

Walrus;

Up until Australia was cast adrift by the British during WW2, we were completely dependent on the Poms. All facets - cultural, economic & military came from the "mother country". Even after WW2 we continued to depend on British market for the sale of our products. Then the Poms delivered a final "kick in the goolies" when they entered the European Common Market - cast adrift once more, we had to find other buyers of our products.

We should have learnt from those hard lessons , but nooooo we transferred our dependency to Uncle Sam. Willingly subverted our culture to a pseudo US one and sent our troops to die in futile, unwarranted/ ill-conceived wars in the name of Yanky colonialism.

The American came to our aid in WW2, not out of the goodness of their hearts/kindred spirits but because we were an unsinkable aircraft/troop carrier in the Pacific - a launching platform. 

Since day one of european colonisation, we have looked to others for manufactured goods, rather than develop industry of our own. The car industry is such a good/recent example - Australia developed two very good cars (Ford/Holden) - should have been the Volvos of the southern hemisphere, sold to the World - but no - we tried to bribe, with bucket loads of taxpayers $$$, the US parent companies to continue. Their allegiance was elsewhere and we lost not only a jewel but also a strategic industry. Our Gov should have done what they recently did with Whyalla - we would still be making Australian cars today.

Despite our immense geographic size we are a small country. It behoves us to have allegiances with the more powerful. This should never have been allowed to develop into dependency, with successive prime ministers, behaving like whipped puppies, when in the presence of American Presidents - sickening!

Like all great powers before it, the US is a bully. No country should get too close to a bully, least the bully flatten the unsuspecting sycophant for no good reason, other than a display of strength..

There is a chance that the Trump may inadvertently be good for use - our leaders may learn  & work towards true independence😈

9 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

But AVDATA do have a contract with the Airfield owners.

Most airfield owners have a website where they state their charges.

Really this argument should be with the airfield owners if you are being charged for usage that did not occur.

 

There is no argument - this is but a question/debate.

I was/am shocked at an attempt to charge for the use of the airspace above YGLB.

Going by the Hervey Bay comment (above), at least one other Australian airfield has tried & failed, to charge for using the airspace above it.

"Most airfield owners have a website where they state their charges." - are you suggesting that; if stated on a website, its legitimate/fair/reasonable?

".......this argument should be with the airfield owners if you are being charged for usage that did not occur." I did fly through (use) the air above YGLB 

Seems to me we should all be shocked by such a move.

What's next, a charge to breath?😈

IF! there is a next time, I will land, visit with the locals (hostiles?), get my $12+ worth & depart😈

Even cheaper if you purchase your coolant & fuel hose from Repco/Gates😈

So is Hervey Bay the only other airfield where a use of circuit charge has been attempted/failed?😈

1 hour ago, BurnieM said:

They charged me $12 for a single touch and go a few weeks ago.

 

I understand that the charging is done from radio recordings.

They pretty much had to wave it but I would have thought it should have been obvious you did not actually land.

 

 

Yes from radio calls (in my case specified no landing) that the pilot makes giving aircraft type & registration ALSO  AVDATA alluded to a recording of my track & altitude???? Referring to this, the charming lady, agreed I had not landed, mentioning my arrival & departure altitude.😈

16 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Sounds like your in the circuit zone not over flying.  What calls were made by you?

Yep! Did a x wind join from the dead/non operative side, following a small high wing, turning Base. Made my intentions known - not landing. On Final, asked the high wing, now backtracking,  if they minded me doing what was in effect a go round over them - no they didnt. Mission accomplished. Went home from there.

Note: YGLB has no tower or traffic control/assistance. It's a privately owned, former public owned airfield, given away by the Feds, I think to Goulburn Council, who on-sold it to a private entity.

As I pointed out,  ERSA has the AD having landing fees (sort of complicated involving charges for certain taxiways) nothing about charging for the air above- not even sure this is allowable/legally enforceable.

At no time did I use any YGLB services or assets.

Do any other airfields charge for the air above??😈

Is it true that I am the only pilot, on the Forum, that didnt realise you had to  pay a  toll for passing over some airfields, in Australia??😈

I have just received a statement from AVDATA purporting to be for "Airport landing and usage at Goulburn Airport (YGLB)"

A tad surprising as I have not landed at YGLB within the last 5 years or so (would have to check logbook for precise date).

Called AVDATA,  charming lady (CL) answered - Turns out the charge was for doing a low pass ? WTF?  Who knew you could be charged for an aerial manoeuvre ?

I  explained to CL, that not only had I no intention of landing but there was also a high wing (Foxbat?) backtracking on the runway at the time, so I couldn't land and no I definitely wasn't training.

Apparently YGLB charge for any fly past under 1000 ft AGL. I checked ERSA - no mention of this innovative Toll on the airspace.

My thanks to CL who has waved the fee.

Was the Forum aware that you could be charged for a fly past??😈

Thanks for all the responses.

Unfortunatly no one (including myself) seem to have a solution for the lack of good airmanship exhibited by so many Camden GA pilots.

Is this just a Camden culture or is it more widespread???

I used to fly out of Camden, in the distant past, when it was still owned by us the people (Feds)I recall a good community atmosphere.

A more recent, 2 month, experince - hard to say but I had the impression that much of the past community atmosphere may have evaporated.

Could there be a general loss of pilot discipline/courtesy, with the privatisation of the field and greater pressure for financial viability?😈

17 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Avalon is an Aviation Industry event more akin to Farnborough or Paris where all the latest civilian and military aircraft are on display & sales teams abound. Oshkosh is the US Experimental Aircraft Associations annual fly-in & everyone is welcome. About 10,000 aircraft fly in for the event. It is aimed at a completely different demographic.

Fair comment however Australia has only the one big annual event, so it would be nice if us littlies were better included.

Having a visiting private aircraft flight line, for existing & aspiring owners  to wonder up & down, is FREE advertising, while generating a more congenial environment.😈

Never been - Could it be that, if small aircraft appeared to be more welcome (eg Oshkosh type atmosphere) a lot more pilots would fly their little birds to the show??😈

"..........ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder"

Most (all?) do, although not a requirement.

I know that Sydney Control monitor aircraft on  "instruments" and have experince of hearing aircraft on  converging course/altitude being warned by Sydney. Does not seem to be foolproof as THE INCIDENT illustrates. Could Sydney have been "blanked" by terrain? 😈

12 minutes ago, aro said:

It's all within D552 (Flying Training) up to 4500 already so you could probably argue that the upper level should be the same.

Are you suggesting transiting aircraft, not below 4500 ft?

The "ceiling" over The Oaks is 7500 ft however just to the east its 4500 ft - it would be near impossible for aircraft to descend to 1800 ft, for entry to Camden airspace ie they would still be down around 3000 ft over The Oaks.😈

1 minute ago, aro said:

Camden has 3 inbound reporting points within 15 miles, why does The Oaks inbound point even exist? Get rid of it and create a danger area 3nm radius around The Oaks to 2500'. Seems like a simple solution.

Hmm! There's a thought.

Personally I would like to see the height go to 3000 ft . Reason being, The Oaks circuit height is 1900 ft, overfly is technically above 2400 ft, however most quote & go for 2500 ft. We appear to get a lot of overflying aircraft at 2500 & well below (even down to circuit height). 3000 ft gives a nice buffer, from transiting aircraft for those  arriving/departing  The Oaks. 😈

"Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden."

Camden is controlled airspace (has a tower).

I can see how having the same radio frequency would reduce transiting pilots workload but at the same time would congest the airwaves, likly making communication worse. Also I am not sure how the Tower would deal with aircraft movements that are 7 Nm away, out of sight.

"But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo  semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ?"

I Dont understand. Please expand

"Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit "

That Camden have a limit to the number of aircraft in the circuit does not impact on The Oaks - its the aircraft entering/leaving the circuit, transiting The Oaks,  that is the problem.

To me this is a lack of training/personal discipline problem -

• Have the GA pilots received appropriate training & follow up BFR,  looking at the obligation to communicate,  when transiting within 10 Nm of an airfield?
• Is there a mechanism to bring the failure to communicate  (with The Oaks) to the attention of  the flying community based at Camden?
• Penetration of airspace, as for the above?

Should it be impractical to try and get the Camden pilots to do the right thing - could The Oaks inbound (to Camden) reporting point be removed or relocated away from The Oaks?

The above may not address the dot point problems, which collectively demonstrate poor pilot behaviour but would relocate the risk away from The Oaks😈