Garfly

Yeah, interesting but puzzling; what ATC (Canberra Approach and/or Tower?) are telling you. Maybe the tech has not trickled down yet or maybe they choose not to deal with any additional "situational awareness" capacity. As to the Garmin quote, as far as I understand it, that wouldn't bear on the issue of whether or not ATC have commissioned the gear that lets them "see" EC devices (as foreshadowed in the Flight Safety Australia article [above]).

I don't think Thruster misses the point - or even disputes conventional wisdom about straight ahead being best. To me he's just putting the emphasis back where it belongs: if you don't get flying speed NOW, you won't be landing anywhere (in the conventional sense). Juan Browne makes the same point in this 2 minute quickie on the subject.

I got the impression that a buy-back isn't even on the cards. The hope being that the "pre-existing covenant" (that YGLB remains) will be honoured into the future.

I agree. FlightChops too, emphatically:

A new contribution by FlightChops:

It'd be strange if this remains the case (that ATC can't see SE2 transmissions). (And even more strange that we don't have clarity on it by now, one way or the other.) This was written back in 2021 in Flight Safety Australia in an article called "VFR and Visible" Can ATC ‘see’ my SkyEcho2? The prime objective of SkyEcho2 is air-to-air traffic awareness – the device is not certified to the performance standards needed for ATC separation services. Nevertheless, CASA envisages the device being used for situational awareness by ATC. By early this year, the Airservices Australia ATC system had not been modified to display SkyEcho2; however, it is expected that with a new ATC system on the way, SkyEcho2 transmissions will be displayed to controllers, for situational awareness only, using distinctive symbology which will prevent the application of surveillance separation standards to those aircraft. Given the COVID crisis, there is uncertainty about when this capability may be delivered by Airservices Australia. VFR and visible _ Flight Safety Australia copy.pdf

The story of Lake Macquarie airport (YLMQ) shows there are still councils around that see value in having and holding a local airport - and are prepared to resist the importunings of developers who don't. (And it seems hopeful that Goulburn's among them. Old Bar (YOBR) and Tooraweenah (YTWN) may be other examples but specific arguments around 'heritage' played a part.) From Wikipedia's Lake Macquarie Airport page: For most of its history, the airfield functioned as the base for Aeropelican Air Services ... Once these services were withdrawn in 2006, the airfield was sold to the Mirvac Group for $5.5 million in 2008.[4] // ... Lake Macquarie City Council expressed an interest in maintaining the site for aviation uses. Although the airport is privately owned and council has limited control over the site, zoning restrictions encourage future aviation use. The council rejected a proposal by Mirvac to redevelop the airport into housing estates.[6] Instead, the council's Lifestyle 2030 Strategy development plan, published in March 2013 identifies the airport as having "ongoing potential for use by commuter aircraft" to serve Sydney and regional areas while generating business and employment opportunities.[7] Lake Macquarie Airport | PROCEDURES WWW.LAKEMACQUARIEAIRPORT.COM.AU Lake Macquarie Airport - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Or, make a ruckus ...

Unfortunately not, apparently:

Yes, and sadly Williamsdale airport doesn't even exist - except as a bitter memory for those who laboured over the plan for years. Canberra must be the only city in Oz with no GA friendly facility.

No, Dick's Gundaroo strip is about 15nm north of Canberra. Williamsdale is about 20nm to the south.

It's a damn shame that the Williamsdale GA Airport for Canberra fell at the final hurdle. Home | Canberra's Second Airport WWW.CANBERRASECONDAIRPORT.COM

That's probably what the interior of Marine One looks like.

You take it correct, sir. I'm not that invested. It's far away. But as an occasional air traveller I don't like seeing airports close.

Well, notwithstanding the Bob Jellys of the world ... I'd have thought there'd be a pretty strong sentiment in an important town like Goulburn that it have a well functioning airport. So ,call me naive, but I'm comforted, for now, that YGLB will stay due "its SP2 zoning, designating it as a ‘special purpose’ zone aimed at safeguarding infrastructure and supporting related uses. This zoning underscores the airport’s pivotal role in regional transportation,”

Okay, but all I really wanted was some assurance that it'll remain an airport. And it seems it will. That's good.

Yeah, well I was wondering whether there were any zoning type restrictions that'd ensure it remains an airport. This article seems to suggest there are. Steven Westlake, principal at Ashby York, has described the airport as “a premier investment opportunity in the aviation sector” ... “Moreover, the property offers a unique opportunity for potential investors with its SP2 zoning, designating it as a ‘special purpose’ zone aimed at safeguarding infrastructure and supporting related uses. This zoning underscores the airport’s pivotal role in regional transportation,” the firm said. Goulburn Airport on the market after 13 years – Australian Aviation AUSTRALIANAVIATION.COM.AU The general aviation airport, which has been owned by Goulburn businessman John Ferrara since 2011, has been listed for sale through real estate firm Ashby York as Ferrara looks to divest from his property...

True, but they're not all that common.

Ian, have you heard if the Goulburn Council is in favour of - or insisting on - the land being retained as the town's airport by any new owner?

Fair enough, but if you're on mid-downwind, say, and your fear is about converging traffic on base (like the incident recounted by RFGuy a while back) then a more urgent exit might be called for: an early crosswind for an upwind rejoin, or a dive away or a climb?

I guess the first priority is to escape the danger; go away until things calm down or clarify. I suppose that'd be off on the dead side. There is always 'overhead' the circuit but if there's more than one up there, it might be more dangerous than the (limited) order imposed by the 1000' agl of the circuit itself, no?

I wonder if there's an agreed best-way to bug-out of a circuit if you suddenly sense you might collide with a nearby craft you've not got eyes on. Obviously, it depends on what you do know but I suppose neither climbing nor descending nor turning - nor changing speed - is any guarantee that you won't actually cause the crash you're fearing. Maybe breaking away in whatever direction you have best all-round sight of is the best one can do, no? (Until universal ADSB becomes a thing.) But even short of sensing imminent danger, what's the best way to gracefully bow out of a circuit when you become uncomfortable or situationally unaware? What to do and what to say?

AT THE ENQUIRY the law would SEEM the least of my problems. Like Jimmy Stewart in Flight of the Phoenix, I'd be overwhelmed with guilt.

On-airport fuel sources are plentiful, Mogas 95/98 sources not so much. The problem is easier to understand when it involves flyers keen to keep their 912s lead free. (Cue THAT debate. ;- )