turboplanner

It's not a football match though FV; in amongst the histrionics is the truth, and the only way to get at that is to do the homework.

 

 

You might try something with more engineering content and a little less vitriol.

 

 

TurboI am no "certified" engineer but after 40 plus years working in electronics, electrical and manual industry involving a lot of metalwork design and fabrication I think I have an idea of how the exponential design works....a lot here dont. I have a ...I think a very good grasp of what is required to put my backside into. Do you?..what sort of real world experience do you have in making a living with this?

I would hope there are at least a dozen of them reading this thread and I am sure most would be squirming in their seats reading to comments and not because they think its crap. As I have said common sense doesnt seem to exist anymore. The arguments put forward here are valid and I am sure they would agree.

 

And they are dodgers. You know as well as I do no one wants to put their signiture on anything now because someone doesnt want to be responsible for any decision anymore. Its typical of all government run services not only CASA. Its a mindset that has developed over the past 20 years. Its the same way ambulance chasers will try to sue a council for someone walking down the footpath and they trip base over apex and sue the council for uneven ground. When the actual problem is that person (I mean darwin award contender) can not take responsibility for watching where they are walking. This is the problem and the similar thing runs right up to the high end of the power base that governs the country. no one seems to have any balls anymore to make a decision

 

RAAA may well be trying to grow their base and there is nothing wrong with that premise but they are going about it the wrong way. I have already said this previously in this thread.

 

Am I not speaking english???.. it seems either I can not either get my point across by my version of the english language by my explanations or there are quite a few members of this forum who are just thick or just wish to be nay sayers

 

Hopefully the end of my ranting due to being very pissed off. RAAA can invite me to the next meeting with CASA and I would gladly attend and put forward my take on this subject and their performance on the issue

 

Mark

I make a living at it, including writing software to do 67 concurrent calculations on a proposed product to optimise increasing the loads while maintaining commercial viability.

You've again demonstrated you don't understand the underlying principles involved while at the same time slagging off again at CASA.

 

A lot of GA people must be perplexed that anyone would want to fly the slugs of GA.

 

 

I always said when I heard the proposal RAAA were putting in that it would all be too hard for the dodgers at CASA. As with all govt departments they can only do one small thing at a time as that one thing takes 1000 public servants to counterjump and dodge and pass on to someone else because no one want to put their name to any decision...This is why you need the KISS principle when dealing with public servants...one thing at a time because its all to easy for them to say its all too hard

Calling CASA dodgers, particularly when there are probably in exess of a dozen CASA employees reading this thread in disbelief, and particularly when you've just demonstrated that you don't have a grasp of the exponential effects of Aircraft design, is not very wise.

 

It wasn't CASA who came up with these crazy ideas, and it wasn't the RAA Members; and when you analyse what would occur within RAA and GA if such changes were introduced, it's not hard to see who are the dodgers.

 

 

Yes but even with the extra mod to 600kg the Sav (and this is only from about 2011 models and later) really is very maxed out and that is +4 -2 I would rather have a +6 -3 anytime.

I understand what you said earlier about the Savannah already being at its weight limit, but just to illustrate the creep which goes on, if it was redesigned for 750 kg MTOW

 

Savannah 450 kg MTOW 286 kg empty wt loads 164 kg

 

Savannah 600 kg MTOW increased mass: 33% 320 kg empty wt +11.9% loads 280 kg

 

Savannah 750 kg MTOW increased mass: 67%

 

You start to get into diminishing returns

 

As the weight increases to 67%, all the G loadings increase by 67%, so a lot of redesign is required - heavier nose wheel/suspension etc.

 

That adds weight, so to get the same performance, more power is needed, and that adds weight + burns more fuel

 

More fuel for the same range means a bigger fuel tank, and that requires heavier tank mounts etc so that adds more weight.

 

And so on

 

If that isn't done, you can finish up with an underperforming slug, and even when it is done you can finish up with something a lot less nimble on rough terrain, burning GA level fuel volume.

 

So it isn't always a simple step up there are some slugs in the Piper rangeas you go up the scale.

 

You mentioned also wanting to up the frame strength for +6-3, and that further robs the weight from the increased MTOW

 

This is what it does to the Cessna 152

 

C152 MTOW 758 kg Empty Wt 490 kg Loads 268 kg

 

C152A Aerobat 757 kg 510 kg +4% 247 kg -21 kg (7.8%)

 

While the Aerobat is not as good for touring, it is certified at +6-3Gs, and approved for:

 

Chandelles, Steep Turns, Barrel Rolls, Snap Rolls, oops, Vertical Reversements, Lazy Eights, Spins, Aileron Rolls, Immelmann Turns, Cuban Eights, and stalls except whip stalls.

 

The Aerobat's stall performance flaps down, power off is 35 knots.

 

 

310 to 320kg is a common empty weight. Not too many running around at 300....they have bad scales or just lyingYes but even with the extra mod to 600kg the Sav (and this is only from about 2011 models and later) really is very maxed out and that is +4 -2 I would rather have a +6 -3 anytime.

 

I mean 7 or 8 kg over the 750kg for the 152 is just a bit less fuel or chop a leg off to keep it at 750kg MTOW...which ever doesnt hurt the most

 

Current aircraft only some can be further weight lifted but most can not. So it then leaves the market place open for others that will fit the bill and new designs to take a leap and bound and who knows maybe inject some life into this seemingly dying pastime/sport/hobby

The manufacturer quotes "about 300 kg"

 

If it got to the 320 kg you've quote, that would leave 280 kg in loads - still more than a Cessna 152

 

Many people have argued that the plastic fantastics have killed recreational aviation, but this is a new one - bump up MTOW, (even though you don't need to because at 600 you get more than a GA aircraft at 758), just in case someone can pull off a miracle and design an aircraft, which already exists in GA.

 

 

Dont know what the MTOW for a 152 is...but its empty weight UP TO 750 kg then it would fit....same as that Jab .....they fly that can do 750 but only allowed to fly at 600......dont be picky. You know what I meanCOMMON SENSE where did it go???????? this past 10 or 15 years those 2 words have disappeared from the dictionary

In this case common sense has gone out the window to be replaced by sneaky deception which affects thousands of pilots abiding by the rules.

Refer Class G #15 - a C152 has a Maximum Take Off Weight of 758 (or 757 depending on the book), and weighs 490 kg - that's 268 kg left over for pilot, pax, fuel, baggage and fuel to usable fuel level.

 

GA Reg, RPL - tougher medical

 

Latest information from Aero kits Pty Ltd for a factory built Savannah: MTOW - 600 kg, Empty weight - about 300 kg - that's 300 kg for pilot, pax, fuel, baggage and fuel to usable fuel level.

 

RAA Reg, RPC

 

 

The weight increase to 750kg is wanted by most to be able to fly slightly more comfortable and safer stronger aircraft in RAAA..which only requires a drivers medical. This is what MOST want from different polls that have been done

That question was answered on the last thread; what you are describing is a Cessna 152, almost exactly.

 

You CANNOT have a weight increase on something like a Savannah to provide a safer stronger aircraft WITHOUT having to make many components heavier, which means the end result is that you get no increase in PAX/Luggage/fuel (based on the existing design)

 

I know that's a gross oversimplification, and an engineer may well be able to design a product for 750 kg, but until that can be deomnstrated, If you want to carry more load, you do what people do throughout all aircraft categories - you go up one category, and that means to go to GA and that means you need the appropriate medical.

 

 

Mostly people trying to cheat on medicals, and just dragging the sport down

 

 

Its difficult to work the empire out eh, whats wrong with 750kg and 1500kg ultralights.

There's another extensive thread on that.

 

 

U/L's don't require deep concrete runways and taxiways. The major expenses are there for the heavies, even if they only come there rarely.. The U/L's just get in the way. The culprit is the Federal government selling off the Aerodromes and losing control of what they do. Councils have no control either. Nev

They need the grass cut and the fences maintaioned, and the wind socks replaced and the parking area maintained, and the buildings maintained, and security - even for a small country airfield.

Spread evenly over the number of people using the airfield, that's not a big cost at all; the key is how do you make sure it is spread evenly, and catch the worms that always use other people's money.

 

 

My quote above about choosing where to do the training referred to the ability and skill set of possible instructors due to the high incidence of instructors/experienced people being involved in accidents, not as to where to physically go to do

I would PM djpacro, who has international aerobatic status, and see if he could recommend a suitably qualified person in Brisbane, or better still grab a Jetstar $89 flight to Melbourne and do it with him.

 

 

U/L's don't require deep concrete runways and taxiways. The major expenses are there for the heavies, even if they only come there rarely.. The U/L's just get in the way. The culprit is the Federal government selling off the Aerodromes and losing control of what they do. Councils have no control either. Nev

There's a small list of those around the Country, and that needs some action from the present government to reverse the situation where operators are using 99 year leases to industrialise and commercialise airports, substantially affecting aviation by bypassing normal prohibitions, because the land is still zoned CA.

 

 

3. There are almost as many ideas on how to do spin training and where and when as there are posters on this forum.

It all seems very confusing.

 

Choosing somewhere to do the training also appears fraught with danger because of number 3 above.

It is this comment from Geoff that I was addressing; I know a few people with GA aerobatic rated aircraft, and endorsed for aerobatics who would happily fly to an RAA club/operator's field and conduct some spin training, but at the present time, if they did it within a 25 Nm radius of the airfield, anyone could be doing anything, whereas at a GA field it would just be a trip out to the designated aerobatics area of the Training Area.

 

I wasn't suggesting spin training in RAA Aircraft; and point out that training on recovery from unusual attitudes, spin training and aerobatic training can easily be obtained simply by hiring the appropriate aircraft and instructor from within GA; it's not as if you have to marry him (i.e. you may only want to play round with an hour or two of experience, and that might last you for years).

 

 

RAA members can eliminate that situation and support airfields on a fair user-pays system by agreeing to provide invoicing details to airfield operators.

 

Transponders are used for BMX racing these days, so the technology is available for automatic recording.

 

I can understand from some of the posts we see here that a number of people might arc up at the possibility of being traced, but maybe payment could be by Paypal.

 

 

Choosing somewhere to do the training also appears fraught with danger because of number 3 above.

Regarding the thread on 25 Nm radius limit for RAA pilots without Nav endorsements, this is a good example of the RAA shortcoming.

In the GA system, with the defined Training Area, there is a defined Aerobatics Area, so no problem choosing somewhere to do legal training.

 

 

Yes, and mostly are avoidable if the pilot has been trained to fly the aircraft in balance at all times. I encounter a disturbingly high number of pilots who skid the aircraft during left turns, (as onto final). This is a surefire way to spin 'under' and at 500ft or lower = no recovery likely. As you can guess, I'm a proponent of lots of 'co-ordinated' flight practice for students. If you can't fly 'in balance' - then it's difficult to learn how to fly intentionally 'out-of-balance' - as in slipping for height loss, and in crosswind ops.happy days,

Interesting point. Instructors have drawn my attention to this instrument perhaps four times EVER.

Far from flying in perfect balance at all times, I consider I'm a bit sloppy in the circuit area.

 

 

What are the names of the aerodrome board members?

 

 

It seems that 'the media' has taken an interest in this case because the program maker, Lyn Gallacher, has taken up flying herself. ;-)

Good observation, the success of any sport in a local area is always boosted when one of the local journalists is part of it.

This leads to the marketing principle that people don't notice products or sporting events even though they are right under their noses.

 

That leads to the thought that if ou have a business, and an airport is definitely a business, more people might get interested if only you could tell them about it like that journalist does.

 

That leads to the thought that maybe I could tell my local journalist about what we are doing at our airport?

 

And that leads to the thought that maybe like the great Arthur Schutt used to do (the Arthur Schutt who dominated the market in Australia with his Cessna sales) I should tell potential customers about what we are doing at our airport.

 

It works; my optometrist send me reminders when he thinks I'm due for an update. My eyes don't change much, so I usually ignore them, but when the time comes, he is at the top of my awareness of trustworthy opticians, so I gravitate to him. He emails meregularly with great ideas for me to spend money; one was a pair of optical sunglasses, which I've used about four times.... but he got me in. Recently, he sent me a reminder that my prescription was overdue; then another reminder; then a differently worded reminder.

 

He must have figured reminders weren't getting anywhere with his customers, so I next received an invitation to visit his premises for a 30th year Celebration Night, where he would have frame stylists present; followed by another reminder that they hadn't heard from me; followed by another reminder and news that he woulod be offering 25% off prescriptions of thise attending; followed by another reminders that I hadn't booked.....................and I've booked to go to a 30th year celebration with an Optometrist for the first time in my life.

 

The point about this is; if something as uninteresting as spending an evening with an optometrist, can be achieved with persistent contact; how easy would it be to motivate people about the excitement of flying; that moment when you've just lifted off and the aircraft is lifting away from the ground.

 

Now, I've oversimplified this to make the example:

 

The Optometrist either had a gift, or hired a very professional marketer, because none of the messages were intrusive, or annoying, and their purpose was always very clear with no BS.

 

Has your airport ever contacted you?

 

 

If you wanted a successful business model for a rural airport, why would you rely on a Council to come up with one?

 

 

As I said, I’ll be putting my word where my mouth is, and will update on the progress. My presumption is that you will still argue even if/when I prove my point in “real and in the public domain”.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but just to reassure you, hundreds, if not thousands of airstrips have been approved on rural properties around Australia.

 

 

Consequently you must take a 'commercial' position on these matters and determine; is it worth it. Fighting legal matters on 'principle' is for wealthy naive people. Usually the two aren't mutually inclusive. Smart money doesn't do that.

This applies to planning matters also; you have to be pragmatic, however in Planning matters you are dealing with the Civil Administrative Tribunals which are designed for the community.

 

If someone objects to your application after the Council has approved it, they have to put up $800.00 in Victoria, but they can represent themselves, so that's the total cost other than time or travel. The Council defends it's decision, and they may send along a member of Planning staff, a solicitor, solicitor and barrister, all the way up to a team with SC barrister. You can also apply to be heard, and since the other party has paid the fee, it's going to cost you nothing.

 

An application by a property owner for an airstrip on a rural property should come into this category.

 

I think flying below the radar with good neighbourly relations is the key.

In every Council area, unsurprisingly there are lots of illegal operations, from garment manufacture in garages in the Residential Zones to warehousing and manufacture in Rural Zones.You may get away with it for years, but if an incident occurs you have the disadvantage of coming from a position of operating illegally.

 

 

No, it’s not. The referendum of 1988 confirmed that. Therefore, the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and similar which are state Acts are inconsistent with Commonwealth Law, rendering them void where inconsistent.

Ah yes, that one.

A friend of mine wrote to the Queen over an issue caught up in that thought process. I thought that was a little over the top, but was surprised when he phoned to say he'd received a letter from the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, assuring him that the Queen had read his letter, and had asked him to write to the Governor-General in response. Unfortunately it wasn't such a positive outcome once it got back to Australia.

 

Effectively the Commonwealth is an association of six sovereign states (countries), and Commonwealth laws are based on what the States agreed to allow it control in the 50 odd years of debate leading up to 1901.

 

The key is that each legal Jurisdiction makes its own laws and doesn't cross over into another Jurisdiction; however, to ensure we have some commonality across the Country, the Federal, State and Territory Ministers for the various departments meet from time to time and make agreements on standards. One of the more recent, and unusal, agreements was an agreement to ensure common transport regulations for trucks. In this agreement a national regulator was set up to come up with new commonwealth regulations, and the States and Territories made an agreement that when a new regulation was agreed upon, it would go into law in the State of Queensland (with the normal checks and balances in the Queensland Parliament, and the other States and Territories would mirror the Queensland Act, and in that way, a truck legal in Queensland would be legal as it drove through every State and Territory.

 

So the Commonwealth was not over-riding individual States rights; they were voluntarily agreeing to a National Standard.

 

In the exercise we are talking about - building an airstrip on a rural property, the Commonwealth has no interest at all and would not be a party to the discussion on whether an airstrip was appropriate or not.

 

Once an aircraft landed there, the operations of the aircraft need to comply with CASA regulations, but that's not related to the planning issue.

 

If worried about the hanger/machinery shed issue, put 2 x 40ft container parallel with a roof between. Not a fixture, doesn’t require approval either.

Depends on the Zone.

My local Council can order removal of containers in the Green Wedge Zone, based on a law to prevent the proliferation of containers used as sheds turning a zone into a mess.

 

A container can also be rejected on this basis in its Green Wedge Zone

 

VICTORIAN PLANNING PROVISIONS

 

Section 70- definitions

 

 

 

Clause 74

 

Store – land used to store goods, machinery or vehicles

 

Store is included in Warehouse

 

Warehouse is a Prohibited Use in the Green Wedge Zone

 

 

Apart from this two containers with a roof between them would be classified as a shed, where the maximum size for a Section 1 Use is 10 square metres, bumping it up to a Section 2 Use, which does require a permit. One of these was recently approved by our local council.

 

 

Local 'law' as you put it is not Law.

Yes it is law; I'll give you an example; a mechanic in City of Greater Dandenong decided to keep a pet sheep, which is not allowed in his zone.

The Council fined him under the applicable local law and told him to remove it.

 

He appealed the Council's decision at VCAT, which upheld the CGD local law.

 

He then went to the Victorial Supreme Court, which upheld the Council's decision.

 

He then appealed against the Supreme Court decision and his appeal failed.

 

He then went to the High Court of Australia which denied him leave to appeal.

 

No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

Just to make it clear; if you want to build an airfield on your property, you'll be dealing with Planning Law, not Local Law.

 

If the Council rejects your application, you can appeal to the State Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT etc)

 

If the Council approves your application, any objectors can appeal to the State Civil Administrative Tribunal

 

Either party can appeal to the State Supreme Court, but only on matters where the Tribunal has erred in law (The Supreme Court will not hear the merits of your case again)

 

Your permit is either approved or denied, after that process.

 

Hence why Moonee Ponds have no luck with Essendon.

I got the Council's name wrong, it was Moonee Valley Council; the planning map here shows Essendon Airport Zoned CA (Commonwealth of Australia), and in this zone, the Council has no jurisdiction, so does not make any decisions. Close by you can see a PUZ1 Zone (Public Use Zone) the Council does control this, and you won't get housing or an airfield in this zone.

 

For most of the locations in Australia where someone wants to build an airport, the Zoning is likely to be a derivative of Rural, the Council does make the decision on that zone through the process I outlined above.

 

Although the State Government may make mention to Local Council Planning Schemes, there is no legislative requirement to seek approval for private use, landing and take-off. As a matter of fact, if it is an area zoned rural, rural/residential, agricultural etc (basically you aren't residential and in town) and there aren't built up areas within the ALA required approach areas, there is no leg for Council to stand on at all.

What usually happens is someone grades a "firebreak", "track" or whatever and parks his aircraft in a shed, ignorant ofthe planning scheme requirements. He only uses it about 20 times a year, and nobody really knows it's non-compliant, or does anything about it. Then something happens which brings it to Councils attention, a Compliance Officer visits, photos are taken, statements are taken from the complainants, and the landowner receives a notice to cease operations and demolish the hangar, or it may be suggested he apply for a permit. Then the process I outlined above starts

It's important to understand that emotional freedom campaigns may sway the way some Councillors vote on the night, but the Officers' Report presented to the Council will be based on compliance or otherwise with the provisions of the zone. If the Officers recommend a permit be issued, that's a big bonus for any Tribunal case brought by objectors, becaise the Tribunal usually goves more weighting to the Officers since they are professional Planners. For the same reason, if the Officers recommend againstit, you have a tougher road to hoe at the Tribunal.

 

Having said that, every case is different and there are many surprises.

 

A private strip can be used for personal use, with the exception of training, and even allows for agricultural use, if it is considered by the property owner to be an "Ancillary" use of the property.

An ancillary use is an argument you can put; but it can bite you if it isn't provably true. Many cases are lost because the Use, whether ancillary or not, is not deemed to be appropriate in that particular zone.

Above all else, if the issue is important to you, hire a Planning Consultant.

 

 

1. Local Governments (Councils) are not Constitutionally recognized, and they have no right or authority to implement or enforce Law. They can try and make life hell, but any good Lawyer (even i laughed typing that) can run circles around them.

Local Governments have Local laws which certainly can be enforced through the legal system.

They don't come into play here though. What we have to deal with is the Council Planning Scheme, which in Victoria is part of the State Government Planning Scheme. Other States are likely to be the same as this.

 

If you go on to the State Government's Planning website, each Council scheme should be listed, and will include your location

 

In your location what you are looking for is Uses

 

There are three categories:

 

1. Section 1 Uses (As of Right, no permit needed)

 

2. Section 2 Uses (Where a permit must be applied for and approved by Council, and succeed in QCAT, NCAT, VCAT etc if there is a challenge)

 

In considering a Permit Application, the Council will consider whether the Application is appropriate for the zoning in that area. (For example, in a Farm Zone, a 12 story hotel is not going to get up).

 

3. Prohibited Uses - pretty straightforward.

 

2. CASA (and where delegated, RAAus) is a Federally governed body (as opposed to State/Local), and therefore would have more information and ability to implement and/or enforce Law regarding airfields/airports/airstrips, than any other department claiming to have an opinion or interest.

Not in a paddock; the Federal Government usually has to wn or control a property (such as a major city airport), in which case you will see Commonwealth police around the area, and the State and Local Governments will not be involved. e.g. Essendon Airport is leased to an operator by the Federal Government. Even Though Moonee Ponds City Council has voiced its concern about the Lessee's buildings encroaching on flying operations, and beinh unsuitable for that part of the City, that's all it can do, it has no jurisdiction)

 

3. Common sense should be imbedded in any pilot. Use it. If you can't, you shouldn't be flying regardless.Follow ALA guidelines, use common sense, and for the sake of being human a bit of common courtesy re: your neighbors.

This always helps to avoid the building of an enemy army.

While Jaba is no doubt describing things that have happened in the Tablelands Shire, it would be interesting to see exactly what its Planning Scheme says; it might all be explained there.