bexrbetter Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Love the sensationalist reporting at the end about how it could have been far worse...... I walked down the footpath at the side of the road today, oh my god, 300 cars almost killed me! 3 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian00798 Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 I walked down the footpath at the side of the road today, oh my god, 300 cars almost killed me! How many had you had to drink then?? Remember the footpath is the grey bit, not the black bit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cub Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 What trashy sensationalist reporting. The so called reporter stated 'The engine stalled'. No one else mentioned anything about an engine failure. Another reporter to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 That's how the cycle goes. Airport built in prime real estate location, so they develop all around the airport with morons who buy with the piano keys practically in their back yard then complain about aircraft noise and safety hazards so the airport disappears. I don't know if their will be a Caloundra airport a decade from now. Take Pittsworth for example... The image is 2017, but there is a brand new house where the red square is......they must just love aircraft. I can't think of any other reason you would build there. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 How many had you had to drink then?? Remember the footpath is the grey bit, not the black bit Doesn't matter...the media will say you were just a metre from certain death. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Take Pittsworth for example...The image is 2017, but there is a brand new house where the red square is..... How did that even get past planning? I had to restump/raise my house at great cost because it was below the Qld 1974 floodline because 'I was at risk' from a once in a thousand year flood (2011 floods didn't even come close). Doesn't matter...the media will say you were just a metre from certain death. That was my point, I was just walking down the footpath as normal like any other person, it's how the media spin their bullshot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 How did that even get past planning? Good question, even if I'm a bit high, I'm only about 100' over their driveway on approach. I imagine those that do those long, low approaches will be even lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonB Posted August 16, 2017 Author Share Posted August 16, 2017 :laugh:They should offer free wheel cleaning on the way past with little brushes on the roof, that would be a novel way to offset the house cost. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I have wondered how they might react if one was to carry assorted old aircraft hardware and small pieces of structure and drop one piece every time you overflew. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 How did that even get past planning? Council may have been HAPPY to aprove it. More leverage to close the airport and sell off the land? I've seen first hand how devious they can be. Some may even call it corruption.... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'd be very interested to know who they would sue should a loaded Air Tractor plough through after an engine out on takeoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian00798 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'd be very interested to know who they would sue should a loaded Air Tractor plough through after an engine out on takeoff. Anyone and everyone they thought they could win against. The pilot, the aircraft operator, air tractor, the aerodrome operator, Pratt and Whitney, the person that hired the air tractor, I'm sure they could think of others too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'd be very interested to know who they would sue should a loaded Air Tractor plough through after an engine out on takeoff. The council for letting them build there. The builder for not making the house plane proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Just a well-intentioned note to the OP and other future posters of events that people might like to have some idea of what the thread is about ... a title like 'what happened today' tells us nothing.Suggest OP and others might in future consider a title more like 'Sling 4 crash at Caboolture 12th August 2017' ... if you like. Well ... it's great that the title's been changed but rather unfortunate that the new title is just as nondescript as the previous one. Downunder suggested we try to use a common format which makes a LOT of sense - " there needs to be a standard format. "aircraft type", "incident type", "location", "date" ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Anyone and everyone they thought they could win against. The pilot, the aircraft operator, air tractor, the aerodrome operator, Pratt and Whitney, the person that hired the air tractor, I'm sure they could think of others too. In an ideal world the magistrate would laugh them out of court and order any costs against someone dumb enough to build a house there, but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up disappointed. It's hard to believe sometimes that we evolved as far as we have. If our ancestors were dumb enough to camp next to the giant carnivores, they got eaten and others learned not to do it, but now we reward them. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron5335 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 The Council would be safe, because they only have to abide by height restrictions of buildings surrounding an airport, there is no requirement for a Council to provide crash sites outside an airport. .they must just love aircraft. I can't think of any other reason you would build there. I bet the owner of that house is Daryl Kerrigan (The Castle) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 The council for letting them build there. The builder for not making the house plane proof. Remember...the Insurance companies convinced a whole lot of the wanker brigade that insurance companies were ripping everyone off in australia with frivolous claims...so council insurance payouts were capped at somewhere below $100 000. Hasn't anyone noticed they don't even bother putting up warning signs effectively when doing roadworks these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian00798 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 In an ideal world the magistrate would laugh them out of court and order any costs against someone dumb enough to build a house there, but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up disappointed.It's hard to believe sometimes that we evolved as far as we have. If our ancestors were dumb enough to camp next to the giant carnivores, they got eaten and others learned not to do it, but now we reward them. We are 100% in agreement on this, but sadly we live in a less than ideal world. I think the people that bought near places like caloundra got the usual sale pitch from the developers, yeah there's an airport there but it only has a couple of light aircraft fly each day and it's scheduled to be closed down in a couple of years anyway..... basically the usual. As you can see I have become a bit jaded with the beuracracy of this country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Remember...the Insurance companies convinced a whole lot of the wanker brigade that insurance companies were ripping everyone off in australia with frivolous claims...so council insurance payouts were capped at somewhere below $100 000. Hasn't anyone noticed they don't even bother putting up warning signs effectively when doing roadworks these days? Depends on what call "effective ", if you mean starting a 40 zone with a traffic controller at the Sunshine Coast for roadworks near Rockhampton, I'd say they got it right.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 There's a lot of lurid scenarios going on here. We've covered the Planning Schemes and how they work a number of times. With the exception of the Commonwealth owned airports which were leased to private operators who have since made changes which would usually would not be permissible in surrounding Council land, most airfield operators just don't protect their operations. Plenty of slagging goes on about the people who came and built houses, but several planning stages have to take place before that can happen, and those stages don't usually involve the new owners of the houses. Some operators protect their semi-industrial operation and the airstrip with appropriate Planning Approvals, but most forget to protect the circuit with an Overlay, under which a number of Uses, in particular Sensitive Uses can be prohibited, or limited to a residential density of say 1 dwelling per 40 Ha, which works well for circuits and training areas, providing plenty of forced landing areas, and offending very few people. Others don't, or miss Development Applications/Planning Applications by dodgy developers. While these Applications are usually made with weeks or months to spare, often the owners of the airfields, not being regular Council Meeting attendees, or keeping in contact with Councillors find out when a Councillor phones them a couple of days before the Meeting, ro even when they read the newspapers after the Meeting. By then it's too late, and the only resource is the State Tribunal with an objection based on the Council's Planning Scheme. Councils are driven by the excitement of residential or industrial development, and also the big boost to income from rates. The usual reaction from the airfield, and which plays virtually no part in the Planning Process is to whip up a horde of screaming flyers, who are then countered by the developer's clever touts to keep the red herrings coming until the Tribunal close off date is reached, when they've won. That's what happens often, but in most cases the airfield just doesn't understand the Planning process, and when you research the files, you find he never participated. Or, in some cases, he went to the Tribunal but appealed on emotional grounds, or the grounds most of us talk about here. Since the Member is under scrutiny to stick to planning grounds, and ignore emotions he has little hope of winning. What usually happens is that we hear a few months later that the airfield is closing or is severely restricted from operating because the owner was "screwed" by whatever part of the system bit him. At this point, the airfield footprint out to the circuit area is often no longer an exclusive airport (I've never seen a post here actually admitting to this) It is now some real estate on the ground adjoining an Industrial Zone or a Residential Zone. The developer sells the rezoned land which has now increased around tenfold in value to Real Estate Companies who begin selling building sites and building infrastructure. These Companies are often the victims of dodgy developers, but the end result is they are not warned about the flight paths (now zoned Residential) over their heads. So the go to the Council (who authorised the rezoning underneath the flight paths) and who love to call meetings in which severely warring parties are expected to cooperate in copping it sweet, and quietly back out. No one knows the Planning laws, no one wants to stand up and clean up the situation, so the parade goes on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 According to their website, the Pittsworth airfield, shown in post #29 is owned and maintained as an ALA by Toowoomba Regional Council, there very people that allowed a dwelling to be constructed at the end of the runway, about 120 metres from the threshold. There are agricultural operations based there. I haven't actually measured it, but I doubt that it conforms with CAAP 92-1, for Agricultural day operations or Single engined and Centre-Line Thrust Aeroplanes not exceeding 2000 kg MTOW (day operations), which are the least stringent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Well ... it's great that the title's been changed but rather unfortunate that the new title is just as nondescript as the previous one.Downunder suggested we try to use a common format which makes a LOT of sense - " there needs to be a standard format. "aircraft type", "incident type", "location", "date" ". Why not a separate section for accidents? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Why not a separate section for accidents? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of them. Separating accidents from incidents would be pointless, because different people have a different perspective between an accident and an incident and the section is still small enough that your can use the search function. Including the date aligns it with news media of the time, and the location also pinpoints it, inclusion of "fatality" speeds up databasing fatalities, but of course in many accidents deaths can occur some time later. I can't understand why someone would change the title to something even more obscure; that's not a fault withe forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Separating accidents from incidents would be pointless, because different people have a different perspective between an accident and an incident and the section is still small enough that your can use the search function. Including the date aligns it with news media of the time, and the location also pinpoints it, inclusion of "fatality" speeds up databasing fatalities, but of course in many accidents deaths can occur some time later.I can't understand why someone would change the title to something even more obscure; that's not a fault withe forum. I just noticed that there is already an Accidents and Incidents section, Turbs, so please disregard my suggestion. (I never search this forum by sections, just by New.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Depends on what call "effective ", if you mean starting a 40 zone with a traffic controller at the Sunshine Coast for roadworks near Rockhampton, I'd say they got it right.... Beat me too it! 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