Methusala Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 Placing bets on Joyce showing courage in an area so mired in conservatism is a "brave position to take, Minister!" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 1, 2018 Author Share Posted January 1, 2018 Barnaby loves railways, toot! toot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 Can't help but agree with Methusala. One always has to keep in mind, politicians of the major parties make decisions that are in the interest of their party and their major backers - not decisions that benefit their constituents, or "minor interest groups". Recreational Aviation owners and supporters are regarded as a declining and minor interest group to politicians, with little benefit to the Party, if they hand out benefits to that particular group. I see nothing in Joyces previous or future decision-making or attitude, that would convince me that he would take up the aviation-improvement area, with the passion needed. It's often believed he's a farmer and he wants increased attention to agricultural operations - and voters also tend to think this, because he's a National Party leader. In truth, he's an accountant, a bean counter, who has never farmed in his life (except as a child-helper on his parents farm and 3 years as a farm labourer after he graduated from Uni with a BFA). We all know what bean counters are like when in positions of power. They're only interested in "the numbers", and "the bottom line". Joyce has been a banker and an accountant for 14 years, owning his own accountancy business for 6 years. He's a Conservative with a capital C, belonging to both a religion and a party that are outstanding pinnacles of Conservatism. Joyce will do precisely nothing by way of decision-making or idea proposals, that looks like "rocking the boat", for any "minor interest group". This is the way of senior politicians in Australia, and thus it ever was. 3 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 In a practical sense He's probably too lazy to bother doing something which has nothing IN it for HIM. The inland rail might be his baby. Whether that's viable or not is a question to consider. It's all politics not reason. Transport & Infrastructure.? Flying little ultralights with 2 people max in them must be in there somewhere? How many votes in that for bananaboy.?. the CWA of new England and the Club and Pub set don't fly ultralights. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Of course if we adopt part of the FAA system we may also go to US class E which has no radio or transponder requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Minor interest groups can make things happen, but they need to be well organised, vocal and punch above their weight. CASA is fully aware of this and maintains a divide and conquer strategy amongst the small aviation players.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 Inland rail is a unique opportunity for landowners located along the line, the payout for access to the land will be the single most expensive component of the build. If they decide to electrify and use renewable energy I would not be surprised if there is a double dip for landowners, a multigenerational river of gold from some pretty worthless land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Well the history of ADL - Darwin rail.. It was never viable. It's a good idea to have rail instead of a lot of trucks on the roads, but the $'s may not add up. These kinds of investments require a population to support them. Even roads get wrecked regularly with extreme weather in the North. Will numerous dams ever be the go. The evaporation is against it. They have to be deep to work . Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Barnaby got a BFA. Is that what I think it is? Batchelor of F All 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Should be written SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Inland rail is a unique opportunity for landowners located along the line...a multigenerational river of gold from some pretty worthless land. FT the inland regions you mention may not be as heavily populated or productive as the US Midwest, but it does produce quite a bit of our export income...and lots of the food you eat. Given the quillions our government wastes on American wonder weapons, I don't mind them spending a few bob on a nation-building project that's been delayed for over a century. Well the history of ADL - Darwin rail.. It was never viable. It's a good idea to have rail instead of a lot of trucks on the roads, but the $'s may not add up. These kinds of investments require a population to support them... What would make it "viable"? Making a profit? Has Sydney's Olympic Stadium made a profit yet? We may never attract a large population to northern Australia, but if we want to keep it we'd better get serious about developing it- before someone else does... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Viability depends on the terminal infrastructure. The interface between rail transit and trucking distribution is what makes or breaks a long distance freight system. I hope that there is some serious planning going into the interface. Our country needs more proper (standard gauge) rail infrastructure. But no Australian government has shown leadership in long term planning, ever. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 The Inland rail business case is built on moving a lot of coal, from memory 1/3 of the freight was just coal, which might make it viable if there is increasing demand for coal. General freight on Inland rail has to compete against the existing road, sea and rail network which is already heavily developed. If Inland Rail was viable it should be done with private money, it doesn't benefit the individuals that live along the line it only benefits the big freight companies and miners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 OK. Yes that may be true and Humpty Doo looks better than ever. Its a place with wet and dry seasons with a non reliable "WET" and a damaged underground (artesian) supply from the New Guinea Highlands which is. an area now experiencing drought and frost, with resultant failure of traditional crops. If the rail is making losses by any significant amount it will not continue. A while ago trucks were restricted from competing with rail to prop rail up.. We don't do things that way now. You can only subsidise if the International trade agreement accepts it. Like in the EU. Generally it's a principle frowned on. Sea transport is very cheap. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Sea transport may be cheap, but is slow and is still plagued by the problem of trying to create a speedy interface with trucking distribution at the destination. Sorry. This has nothing to do with Dick's 'rant'. Back to topic. The problem with trying to copy some other system (USA), is that for it to be a success, we would have to adopt the complete system. Unfortunately our bureaucrats have never done that in the past. They only 'cherry pick' bits and pieces. Then everyone cries out 'See! It didn't work!' I don't know if Dick is on the right track or not. Our country is more (demographically) like Canada than USA. Does Canada use the USA model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 You still have a trucking or maritime interface at the other end for all bulk stuff. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 When it's a Brain Fart politically motivated con, it's not likely to end up well. . Keep the politics out of commerce and the payola out of politics. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 It doesn't matter if the inland rail isn't viable, all that matters is it gets built, viability will be someone else's problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Really ft? I'm for it if it can be done properly and responsibly. Not for a political advantage or pork barrelling. It's NOT THEIR money to gamble with. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 It's like the NBN, Mal said we would all have it by the end of 2016. People voted for that and they don't care that they didn't get it. Once the inland rail is built there will be a bunch of lucrative contracts issued that will send all the owner drivers to the wall, taxpayer will end up picking up the tab for every bit of freight for 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Dick wants the US model which has class E from 18000 down to 1200 or lower and G beneath that. It is a no radio E for VFR, and IFR rely on much better radar and communications coverage at low,levels than we have here for separation. So no 126.7 and no Area, just 4 NM CTAF's. Makes me even keener to keep what we have with some common sense to ensure those "busy, unmarked airstrips" are marked. Kaz 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Thanks, Kaz So the USA system relies heavily on a much bigger, more exy radar network. Not going to happen in Aus. (Unless we cut subsidising casa and spend that money on safety infrastructure) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 The trick with Espace is clearance from cloud for VFR. With Gspace clearance from cloud is not as big an issue. Espace around airports in US down to 700' AGL is to ensure that VFR aircraft don't get in the way of IFR traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Don't like being forced down too close to ground. My instructor always warned me to stay away from the edges of the sky. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 You will need a transponder. It was in his last incarnation that Dick brought in transponders in E (another push for ADSB, perhaps?) Kaz 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