turboplanner

Momentum ..............Calls for Archerfield Airport safety check after Melbourne tragedy

Interesting discussion with some town planners, they have no say about developments on the airport. (Because it's Federal land?) The style of development at Essendon would not be allowed in other developments in the same area.That may actually be an incentive to keep it as an airport - while it's an airport the lessee can collect rent and develop whatever they like without planning controls.

The DFOs are pop up type sheds and they need to be demolished and removed from the airfields; because of the zoning, this needs to be managed at Federal Government level.

As it should be, however, in the wake of this incident the public relations activity has been driven by the developers; just about total silence from the aviation community.

Not being very familiar with Melbourne, what sort of areas surround EN?How 'far' is it to town etc by ground and can ML/MB/AV cope with the workload?

Is there a need for an airport in the area where it sits?

 

Not suggesting it should be closed just trying to understand its use and arguments for/against a bit better.

The issue here is the negligence of allowing large buildings and retail activities inside an airport boundary.

There's plenty of technical discussion on the B200 EFATO performance on prune

It is a line of trees planted on the boundary now grown quite high. Owner has told people it is to stop aeroplanes. Just off the threshold of 18.

The question then is whether the airfield owner allowed for the required clearance heights within his property; if he did then there's no issue, other than pointless point scoring.

Where I fly an immediate neighbour (anti-airfield) has put a deliberate obstruction right at the end of the main runway. Neither CASA nor the local authority has done anything about it, despite repeated complaints.

If it's Kyneton, to the east is a PUZ (Public Use Zone), to the north, south, east and west is FZ (farm zones).

People can legitimately conduct Section 1 Uses as of right, without permits, and Section 2 Uses after issue of a permit.

So you need to look up the Planning Scheme, then the appropriate Zones (PUZ and FZ), then the Uses permitted.

If the obstruction isn't related to one of those, take him to VCAT; if it's a hay shed of normal size, he's well within his rights.

At time of day, as mentioned above, a landing on the freeway would have been into bumper-to-bumper traffic...I was there a couple of minutes before and there would not have been any room for a landing without taking out a few cars.

However, the pilot was denied any chance of that by the people who allowed buildings on the airport grounds.

This very sad accident will affect many more people than just those directly involved.The encroachment on the airport by non-aviation development is criminal in my view. And it's occurring at all secondary and many regional airports. Have a look at YMEN on Google Earth if you don't fly in there, and you will see the problem for anyone taking off to the south.

Standby for an "inquiry" and the closure of Essendon.

 

Kaz

If so the argument may well be that if the DFO had not been built there a successful EFATO possibly could have been conducted.

This very sad accident will affect many more people than just those directly involved.The encroachment on the airport by non-aviation development is criminal in my view. And it's occurring at all secondary and many regional airports. Have a look at YMEN on Google Earth if you don't fly in there, and you will see the problem for anyone taking off to the south.

Standby for an "inquiry" and the closure of Essendon.

 

Kaz

On the other thread I posted the Zoning around Essendon Airport, and it appears the Airport is zoned Commonwealth of Australia, so the State Government and local Council have no authority.

If that is the case, then the AD hoc decision to issue 99 year leases to several commonwealth owned airports was the start of it, and the lessees, an their sub lessees and their sub lessees appear to have been conducting their own Planning safeguards.

So as not to drift on the Essendon Accident this Morning.What are or aren't Town Planners thinking when they allow development up to Airfield boundaries without considering options for Pilots if the noise stops on takeoff. At Caboolture 06 or 12 are favoured as options exist but 24 and 30 offer virtually none. Unfortunately incidents like todays will more likely see the Airfield at risk even though the at least 3rd party damage/casualties (if any) are a direct result of failure of fore thought by Town Planning.

CA appears to indicate it is Zoned Commonwealth of Australia, who therefore is the Responsible Authority

The Yellow PUZ1 (Public Use Zone 1) is a State/Counncil responsibility as are the Business, Park, and Residential Zones

How Business activities got onto that zoning is a very good question.

If it turns out that the Essendon crash would not have resulted in fatalities had the DFO/Spotless building not been there (in other words if the area had been protected as an airfield), things could get very interesting, because this ridiculous situation is repeated at several locations around Australia.

I just google earthed the airport as I have never been there. How on earth did any councillor in their right mind approve the development of that shopping centre. FFS the piano keys of runway 35 are level with a carpark and if you were using 17 what hope would you have in the event of a engine failure. These people need to become criminally liable for their decisions. Given that it's been there since 1921 I'm sure it was there first.

The ABC were rabbiting on about a Beechworth when I turned on and seemed more interested in explaining how Essendon was completely surrounded by suburbia and therefore a dangerous place...., so I'm afraid they got bundled with the rest of the rabble in my book.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died. Very sad indeed.

So as not to drift on the Essendon Accident this Morning.What are or aren't Town Planners thinking when they allow development up to Airfield boundaries without considering options for Pilots if the noise stops on takeoff. At Caboolture 06 or 12 are favoured as options exist but 24 and 30 offer virtually none. Unfortunately incidents like todays will more likely see the Airfield at risk even though the at least 3rd party damage/casualties (if any) are a direct result of failure of fore thought by Town Planning.

1. Corruption

2. Apathy

When you've got the ops and tech managers investigating accidents, attending coronial enquiries and developing new rules they simply do not have the time to attend to FTF inspections.The accident investigation process should be dealt with by an independent organisation, this would free these people up to promote the sport and address what is likely the cause of a high percentage of the accidents - flight training. Under a proper Safety Managment System you cannot have the people responsible for a department investigation incidents which may have been caused in part by the dept they head.

I am rather surprised there has not been more reaction to the fact not all our flying schools are being inspected.Sort of gotten lost in discussion of hours to train & what instruction cost. Just to chime in on that I know of schools regularly taking 60 hours to get a pilot certificate done. On the other hand an interstate friend had a school tell him they would have him solo in 5-6 hours.

Unfortunately there's an anti safety culture; an 'it's not going to happen to me" attitude that needs to come crashing down first.

It's just a matter of waiting for the case.

.......but Turbo was watching and had good reason to....

Castration

Palmer Island is a nice place to visit especially when there is an event.

լավ է

Because Neil that 50 ft you may have gained might just get you to where you wanted to go and remember it's easier to lose height than gain it with nothing working up frontAll instructors obviously train different, I'm glad mine trained me this way as it seems most practical to convert the excess energy to height

However, in the genuine engine failure when the "this can't be happening to me" feeling kicks in the first action can take 3 or more seconds, so you will be behind the profile, pulling the nose up when the speed decay has lost most of the benefit.

I've never been told to do that by an instructor. In all cases the first action has been nose down to glide speed.

have you checked out how many feet after that fan stops you lose before you obtain best glide speedneil

I can't see the truth in saying RAAus is better for local and a Piper for trips away. Surely those plastic fantastics with glass cockpits are better than an aged Piper with years old technology. The Corbys are usually GA rego and I wouldn't consider them good for trips away.

I agree that if you're going to do some serious touring you wouldn't use the GA training area, and most people quickly slide up the scale to the faster aircraft, CS, retracts as quickly as they can get endorsements.

Just the TSO'd instruments and radios alone would be worth more than the Starlet.

At least he didn't tell you to eat cake Alf!

I've gone more macro in recent years and use Jetstar etc for the longer legs, then hire, so the cost comes down again on the long trips.

In the US I hire with an instructor so there are no radio/nav/local experience issues.