Cosmick Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. Two reasons: 1. Corruption 2. Apathy 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 3. Developer greed (closely related to your 1.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 It's a joke and this will highlight it. Privatisation at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Last time I flew in to Essenden it was all green foelds around it. Absolute madness to have buildings as closse as theyare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Developers have deep pockets, Essendon airport would make less money than that DFO every day of the week 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. This is the Zoning for Essendon Airport. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Google earth has images back to 2000. Then there were a couple of low warehouses & an assortment of what appears to be sheds, open areas & car parks. By November 2005 a sprawling warehouse was built in the eastern corner with massive car parks & all the other buildings were gone. By November 2006 the warehouses had spread across the entire site with a huge car park in the centre just 80 metres from 08/26. The threshold of 35 was displaced 280 metres. By June 2009 new buildings appear on the other side of the access road about 80-90 metres from 17/35 but interestingly the threshold displacement is now reduced to about 90 metres. By August 2012 the Dan Murphys building is built right up to the perimeter road just over 75 metres from the 17/35 seal & that is how it remains till today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsam Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 If CASA was truly interested in safety, why wouldn't they have stepped in to limit unsuitable development so close to an aerodrome. Surely they have a safety mandate for all such airports under threat of inappropriate development. Let's not forget, in most cases the airport was there first, by many years. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. That's a pretty vague description; which airfield? what obstruction? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. If it's in a Farm Zone, he is entitled to plant trees. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT HAMMER COPPER TUBE INTO THE TREES ,THEY WILL BE DEAD IN 12 MONTHS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 approaching essendon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 If your trees are under powerlines, they cut the tops out of them. Cost heaps and looks terrible. They must have to power to do that. It's a large ongoing cost. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Is that he approach to 35? Putting DFO on the right there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Yes. Approach to the north. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. Without looking at the rules, from memory you have to be at least 300 feet over ajoining property on approach or takeoff unless they give permission to fly lower. I have a farm strip and avoid flying over all neighbouring houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickduncs84 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Without looking at the rules, from memory you have to be at least 300 feet over ajoining property on approach or takeoff unless they give permission to fly lower. I have a farm strip and avoid flying over all neighbouring houses. Never heard of this rule before. There is no limit on takeoff or landing that I know of?? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Lots of public airfields have a neighbouring property at the boundary say 100m-200m from the end of the strip. You are not very high over them when landing, often 10m above the boundary fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Commercial infill at our (privatised) Canberra International Airport: 2002 (West up) 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Yep, if CASA were doing its job they would be lodging objections to developments which infringe safety. Just because their objections may be overturned does not excuse them in the slightest. But remember the first rule of running a bureaucracy... Don't make the problem go away, the problem is the source of your powers and budgets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmick Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 Commercial infill at our (privatised) Canberra International Airport: 2002 (West up) [ATTACH=full]48698[/ATTACH] 2016 [ATTACH=full]48699[/ATTACH] Ridiculous YCAB (Caboolture) 2004 Vs 2016 followed by YCDR (Caloundra) ENCROACHING IN PROGRESS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 The great argument over aircraft safety re Essendon is in full swing AGAIN. We don't provide areas to crash land around aerodromes, for aircraft that approach at over 100 knots anywhere. It's not a practical fix for anything really. If there are golf courses that might be of some use for smaller slower landing planes, on rare occasions But really? OFF aerodrome landings are not a serious proposition for higher performance aircraft. Helicopters and light aircraft fly over cities everywhere. Fuel laden tankers pass you at great velocity on normal roads. Drug affected people driving is common. One person killed many more persons by just driving fast along a footpath in Melbourne's busiest street in an older commodore. The building of the large Sales Wharehouses is VERY questionable, but they aren't much different to large Hangars for aircraft maintenance, if you fly into one. We should make important decisions in the calm of normality not a knee jerk reaction to a disaster where the media whips up a frenzy. Nev 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now