Ultralight Aircraft not Permitted at Whitsunday Coast / Proserpine Airport (YBPN)

[thebun_88]

I was reading through ERSA for the Whitsunday Coast / Proserpine Airport and noted point (9) of the Local Traffic Regulations:

 

"Ultralight ACFT operations not permitted, subject to CAR 90 & 91"

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YBPN_3-Jun-2010.pdf

 

I've looked up CAR 90 & 91 and they read:

 

 

90 Access of official aircraft to aerodromes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, all aircraft

 

 

 

 

 



belonging to or employed in the service of the Crown shall

 

 

 

 

 



have access, at all times, to any licensed aerodrome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

91 Use of aerodromes by aircraft of Contracting States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Aerodromes established under the Air Navigation Regulations

 

 

 

 

 



or licensed under this Part and open to public use shall be open

 

 

 

 

 



to any aircraft which possesses the nationality of a Contracting

 

 

 

 

 



State.

 

 

 

 

 



(2) Subject to these regulations, an aircraft which possesses the

 

 

 

 

 



nationality of a Contracting State shall be entitled to use the

 

 

 

 

 



aerodromes and all air navigation facilities, including radio and

 

 

 

 

 



meteorological services, which are provided for public use for

 

 

 

 

 

the safety and expedition of air navigation.

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone clarify the above and put into normal speak? My layman reading of this is that a registered aircraft in Australia is entitled to use the aerodrome and the air nav facilities. If that is correct, can ultralight aircraft legally land despite this "Local Traffic Regulation".

 

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

 

90 Access of official aircraft to aerodromes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, all aircraft

 

 

 

 

 



belonging to or employed in the service of the Crown shall

 

 

 

 

 



have access, at all times, to any licensed aerodrome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



This one refers to aircraft belonging to or employed in the service of the Crown (i.e the Commonwealth). Since privately owned aircraft neither belong to nor are employed in the service of the Crown, then this exemption wouldn't apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91 Use of aerodromes by aircraft of Contracting States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Aerodromes established under the Air Navigation Regulations

 

 

 

 

 



or licensed under this Part and open to public use shall be open

 

 

 

 

 



to any aircraft which possesses the nationality of a Contracting

 

 

 

 

 



State.

 

 

 

 

 



(2) Subject to these regulations, an aircraft which possesses the

 

 

 

 

 



nationality of a Contracting State shall be entitled to use the

 

 

 

 

 



aerodromes and all air navigation facilities, including radio and

 

 

 

 

 



meteorological services, which are provided for public use for

 

 

 

 

 

the safety and expedition of air navigation.

 

This one is about aircraft of a 'Contracting State'. A Contracting State is defined in Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act -"Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention."

 

So this excemption wouldn't apply either as it only applies to aircraft of foreign countries that are a party to the Convention.

 

So the overall answer to your question, from my interpretation of the Regs, is no.

 

 

[thebun_88]

I'd have to agree with Darky's laymen decoding.

 

My next question would be why can't ultralight aircraft fly into this aerodrome? I suppose aerodrome operators are entitled to make their own rules however I am wondering what the rationality is behind this (if any) especially given that ultralight aircraft can operate in much busier airspace and even CTA (with PPL pilot). What about GA registered ultralights?

 

 

[winsor68]

The story as I heard it is that a gentlemen built a Foxcon Terrier, put the final touches on it at Proserpine Airport and then attempted his own test flight... stalled on takeoff and died. The council banned Ultralights.

 

Word on the street is that the locals will be contesting the ruling soon...

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Two points:-

 

1. I don't believe that the term "Ultralight" is defined in any legislation. The legislation provides for various classes of aircraft with specific weight limitations. If we're going to bandy about colloquial or common usage terms, which by their nature are rather inexact, then what is and isn't an "ultralight" is debatable. So what consitiutes a "microlight"? Usage of this term makes the local rule meaningless and thus unenforcable.
    
    
   
2. The bit about "Contracting with Foreign Countries"... I read something about that recently in that it used to be an anomaly that RA-Aus registered aircraft used not to be included, however a change to the legislation has been made to correct that. Darky is correct in that it refers to parties to the Chicago Convention. Wish I could remember where I read it
    
    
   

 

 

Found it.... On the RA-Aus web site

 

RA-Aus registered aircraft were re-classified as 'Australian aircraft' in a September 2004 amendment to the Act, thereby removing an anomaly where RA-Aus aircraft were legally 'neither Australian aircraft nor foreign aircraft, but were effectively treated as foreign aircraft that were allowed to operate in Australia but did not have the nationality of any ICAO contracting state'.

So I think that's strike two!

 

 

[airangel]

Go to Airlie Beach instead. Its a terriffic strip, friendly people, You just need to advise in advance. There is a landing fee but it is worth it.

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

Mmmm...wonder what they'd do if you were transiting and I dunno maybe you're oil is getting a bit hot and you decide to put down as a precaution?

 

Anyway realised it's useless whining about it on the forums...thought I might let the boss know about this. So I've sent an email to Steve Tizzard, this is the kind of thing he gets paid for!

 

Dear CEO,

 

I have just become aware that restrictions have been imposed on "ultralight" aircraft using

 

Whitsunday Coast / Proserpine Airport (YBPN). As per the latest ERSA. http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YBPN_3-Jun-2010.pdf

 

This raises many questions, some of which can be summarised as:

 

1: Is the term ultralight actually defined in Legislation anywhere?

 

2: Is a VH registered Jabiru J-120 an ultralight or not?

 

I am sure you can see where this is going! This is just the thin edge of the wedge, if other Councils get on this we maybe extremely restricted to where we can operate out of.

 

I ask you as our CEO to take up this cause on behalf of the RAA membership.

 

regards

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

I suppose aerodrome operators are entitled to make their own rules

Folks,No, mostly they are not !!

 

 

 

Of course, this doesn't stop many aerodrome operators ignoring the law and purporting to ban certain aircraft.

 

The first question to answer, is Proserpine an ALOP (Airport Local Ownership Program) airport ?? ie a former Commonwealth owned airport, tuned over to a local council in the ALOP program, with the council contractually bound by the terms of the Deed covering the transfer.

 

If it is, the council have to make it available to all comers on reasonable terms.

 

Re. CAR 91, under current Australian legislation, RAOz aircraft are "Australian Aircraft", notwithstanding the fact they are not VH- registered --- look up the definition of "Australian Aircraft". Don't forget, Australia is a contracting country the Chicago Convention, and CAR 91 does not say "----except Australia".

 

Therefor, in my opinion, the guaranteed access provided for in CAR 91 applies equally to RAOz aircraft as it does to any other aircraft. If you want to be a bush lawyer, you could say that, if the airport being subject to CARs 90 and 91, this contradicts the purported ban on whatever an "ultralight" happens to be. Indeed, it would be rather ridiculous to suggest the ERSA condition means that the airfield is open to "foreign" ultralights, but not Australian.

 

This is without consideration of what constitutes an "ultralight" in legal terms. It was (previously) used as shorthand to refer to any aircraft registered by the AUF ---- but had no strict legal definition, as far as CARs such as CAR 91.

 

Would somebody like to do the homework, and find out the history of this airport, and is it, or is it not, an ALOP airport.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

There has been a bit of an accident history at this airport over the years, but probabily no worse than some others in the country.

 

the Terrier accident mentioned earlier was a new owner who came over from WA to pick up his new aircraft. He had a GA background, and was given a minimal check-out in the new aircraft by the seller. The seller flew him over to Proserpine, where during departure he stalled the aircraft on climbout, and impacted spectaculary right in the middle of the runway, fatally. Therer was also some questions asked about instruments fitted or not fitted to the particular aircraft. This airport has been a MBZ for many years, and there were also many no-radio usage events by ULs, which came to the authorites attention.

 

The airport is used by Virgin 737s a couple of times a day, but they have recently been complaining about lack of facility maintenance (IER: approach lighting bulbs out) and have threatened to withdraw their service from the region. Weather in the area can get marginal, with hilly country on the approach path. I suspect that the airlines have supported the no UL ruling, to allow their services to operate smoothly, as the ULs used to mainly use the cross runway to the main.

 

A major airport upgrade has just been announced by state government.

 

I have operated there in the past and it can be a handy fuel stop if you are transiting to the north, although your probabily better off inland anyway. Shute harbour which is nicer, can get weathered in also due to it's position, and I have encountered this a few times over the years.

 

My mind goes back to the situation at Atherton airport a few years ago when Lee Ungerman went there in the Thruster to conduct some training. The local council then banned ULs from operating there. They were reminded (by Middo I believe) that any airport that has recieved ANY goverment funding AT ANY TIME has to allow access to all aircraft. Atherton has had ULs since.

 

Whitsunday/proserpine may now be privately owned by AAL (Australian Airports Ltd) who also own Townsville , Mackay and Mt Isa to name a few. The area has a couple of smaller private airports where ULs are based within the Proserpine MBZ, and to complicate things further it ajoins the Hamilton Island Class C, which is to the East. Right in the middle of the lot is Shute Harbour Airport (privatly owned) which has a separate frequency to Proserpine,(127.85) is non controlled, and is without doubt the busiest of them all with the majority of movements on a daily basis. I regulary commute from the North into Shute Harbour Airport which requires a call on the Prossy MBZ freq, a switch to the Shute Freq, and occasionally a chat to Hamilton Is Tower if it's open re: their class C boundries and height restriction. All good fun in the early morning !... I have had no problems in communicating with jet traffic going into Proserpine airport, and even if it says 'no ULs', if I've got a weather problem and need to land at Proserpine I will do so by requesting a 'precautionary'' landing. I must add that I haven't needed to do this lately. Yes, there are local pilots who have also been fighting the 'no UL ' ruling...I would agree that we do need to watch closely the private take over and ownership of what were always public airports, by entities like AAL. Those airports then techically become 'private', and they then can set their own rules.??? at our expense.......................................Maj

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

Well if they are using 'accident history' as an excuse...The only reference I could find to the 'stall on departure' was in 2002. But if you look at the ATSB reports all incidents and accidents that I could find were VH registered aircraft...Even if we are better off inland as Maj suggests, this is besides the point really. Look at the wider implications for RAA. If airports are able to do this, we are going to be running out of places to operate out of.

 

So I rang the airport operator, (Council) who was very good about this...the reasons are

 

1. That someone killed themselves. (2002)

 

2. They can't track us down for landing fees

 

3. Someone made an RPT have to do a go-around

 

4. Virgin doesn't like UL's

 

This has been in for 6 years apparently and their attitude is that ANY Raa registered aircraft is an UL regardless of equipment fitted etc...So your fancy J-230 with Dual Comms, TXPDR and 120 knot cruise is a UL! They also admitted that they really can't do anything to stop you (but not on the record you know wink wink!)

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Good stuff Maddogmorgan....pretty much as I suspected.....And of course if it sets a precident for future airport usage we could have a problem

 

As far as the 2002 accident is concerned, a Terrier (or any other aircraft for that matter !) sitting flat as a pancack on the center line of any runway after a straight-in nose first impact is not a good look !........................Maj

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Don't forget, Australia is a contracting country the Chicago Convention, and CAR 91 does not say "----except Australia".

I disagree with that I'm afraid. The definition in s3 states that "Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention." It does not say "a country that is a party to the Chicago Convention", it specifcally includes the word foreign which implies that Australia is not included.

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

Ok all the legal mumbo jumbo is all very good...Darky you're running for the board...Show us what you can do!

 

 

[farri]

Either the authority responsible for controling the aerodrome is within the law and their rights to do what they are doing or they are not.

 

The solution is very simple.

 

Hold Them To The Law.

 

In my opinion,this is the responsibility of RAA.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Poor old proserpine airport. no matter who runs the place, be it the local council or another company, it has always seemed to have 'missed the boat' as far as making the most of opertunities when they have arisen. spent a far amount of time there during the ninties and saw a continuous stream of unqualified people try to run the place. their poor management has cost the local tourism industry millions over the years. Not surprised to see this attitude from who ever is running the place today. when Shute reverted back from it's closed shop lease in the 97, the operators at prosie could not move fast enough to get away from the boofheads controlling Prosie. Another much underestimated airport that one can consider is Bowen.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Seems a lack of knowledge by Prosie mob to me.

 

I came over there recently at 1500ft due weather going Mackay to Townsville and had a Dash 8 doing a let down at same ETA. No problems - arranged seperation by CTAF and the Q- Link aircraft monitored my transponder position on their radar.

 

I would suggest that flying below an aircraft doing a let down through weather would have more potential for conflict then actually landing at the airport - Might be the real reason is point 2 regards landing fees.

 

If point 1 (falality) was the reason then jets would be banned - bad accident involving a jet in 1990s.

 

I know my points don't help but couldn't help adding them.

 

Only been to Prosie half a dozen times in 30 odd years of GA flying so I guess it won't worry me now either.

 

Frank

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

This has really got my goat! and my goat don't like being got! I have also fired a letter off to the local newspapers there pointing to these forums...

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

The definition in s3 states that "Contracting State" means a foreign country

Darky, If that is the case ( and I am by no means certain it is) the ERSA entry means that foreign ultralights have a right to use the aerodrome, but not Australian (ultralight) Aircraft ----- does that sound logical.

 

What nobody has done, so far, is dig up the "ownership" history of Proserpine ---- this will be pivotal to the legal right of the present owners to restrict access.

 

Clearly, whoever somebody spoke to is not up with the current definition of an Australian Aircraft. Clearly, the local regional council is the operator of the airport, but what is the history??

 

Regards,

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

If that is the case ( and I am by no means certain it is)

I'm just quoting the legislation (which I assume probably knows what it's talking about)

 

Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 states:

 

"Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention.

 

If you don't believe me, click the link and scroll down to the definition :)

 

As for it not being logical, perhaps they just didn't expect foreign registered ultralights to be an issue so didn't worry about it. Are there that many foreign ultralights flying around here?

 

 

[Skip]

I rang and asked but was told it was to with radio's,when I said most aircraft now have radio's it was still no that the rules.

 

Skip

 

 

[Yenn]

I agree with Bowen being a good strip. It is a lot nearer to civilisation than Proserpine. I would not want to try walking from Proserpine airport to the town, and even if I did what is there anyway. Maybe i am biased but I always liked Bowen.

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

It's not about it being a good strip or bad, or a long walk or a short walk, or what there is to do when you get there...It is about losing the ability to operate out of these airfields. What if Bowen then decides to do the same, then Ayr, then Innisfail, then Mareeba, etc etc...There are much bigger issues at stake here

 

 

[Powerin]

From this site:

 

The airport is on 430.43 hectares of state reserve land, permanently set apart as aircraft landing ground. The Whitsunday Regional Council has control of the land as trustee, while the reserve is administered by the Department of Environment and Resource Management. The council is licensed to operate and maintain the aerodrome. The airport terminal is located on a trustee lease on the airport land. The land is currently leased to Qantas and the council who jointly own the terminal building. Other operations on the airport land include:

 

• a car park and various other structures owned and operated by council
   
   
  
• leases for ancillary aviation purposes
   
   
  
• car park rental agreements with hire car companies.
   
   
  

[Guest Maj Millard]

Skip at Collinsville with the Rans S6. I recently landed at Collinsville, but did not see any aircraft at the airport (as usual). Is that your strip North West of town up againt a small hill, with strip running roughly E/W..??? Cheers Maj

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Bowen of course is one of our many underused airstrips, and I would agree a nicer stop off point than Prossy. I haven't landed there lately, but often go over it looking down from about 5 grand. The upkeep of the airport generally has improved with planted landscaping etc. and there are occasionally three aircraft parked there now, instead of the usual single lonely 172. I think it is on the up and up slowly but surely. To the South of Proserpine is Lakeside airpark by Bloomsbury. Aviation people reside there, and I'm sure there would be no problem getting a short lift to the servo for fuel. A great little spot for a break, with your best landing option always from the East, regardless of wind direction. Keep a good eye out for a few powerlines in the immediate area.