10.5

It relates to the asbestos laden aftermath of the four, or was it five “accidental” fires which occurred at the heritage listed St. John’s orphanage. These “accidental” fires left an unsafe, toppling charred ruin which resulted in asbestos dust being blown over the neighbouring properties for years, until council issued a demolition order which was ignored until legal proceedings were commenced. Check out the Wikipedia page on St John’s orphanage for more background.

I think there is every chance that once he has been nailed to the crosses by Worksafe, CASA’s ongoing pressure, Goulburn council prevail with their court case, the forced sale of the airport and his deteriorating health condition have prevailed it will be a fine place to operate from. Truth be known, it is pretty good now. You can completely ignore his impotent and largely incoherent threats and just get on with flying. Many folk from Canberra are doing just that now.

Let me save you some time…

Council leased the airport to the now owner for two years beginning on 1 October 2011 and sold the airport to the now owner on 2 September 2013.

It was leased with an option to purchase. That process was protracted and took about two years to finalise. An interesting footnote was that the sale had a series of significant presale conditions which needed to be met. They were not met, Council was formally advised of the shortcomings, but proceeded anyway. To answer your question, it may be possible to find that date, but the sale document date can be found if it is important to you.

Just to add to the above. A covenant was created by Council shortly before it was sold which specified several conditions which applied to the land use. The owner did not adhere to the conditions, and council did not enforce the conditions which they put in place. None the less it is a legal document which was pivotal in the past.

You make a very good point about Councils and in Goulburn’s case there are very many serious questions to be asked. Unfortunately when one asks, The doona is pulled over the head as pudgy little grasping fingers are firmly stuck into already deaf ears.

To add some context, the current owner has suffered several heart attacks and is currently facing four serious criminal charges under section 27 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. WorkCover does not take too kindly to businesses killing their customers. Criminal convictions usually mean one is prevented from operating as a director of a company. His departure will be universally welcomed as his greatest contribution to Australian aviation.

There is a pre existing covenant which specifies that it remain an airport.

Hi Chris, I will have hangar space becoming available at Goulburn shortly. Please let me know if i can help. (John.tenhave@gmail.com)

Deleted...possibly litigious...mod

Hi there Ian, As huge fan of the KISS principle, why not just a couple of gas struts, with appropriate brackets? Cheers, John

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-during-skydiving-festival-at-goulburn-20151230-glwqmy.html

You have hit the nail on the head! I am sure the family of the deceased and the maimed innocent will be greatly comforted by the ongoing earning. A most interesting couple of questions to ask are these : was everything reasonably practicable done to avoid this accident? Could the possibility of such events have been reasonably foreseen? There have been a number of serious injuries which preceded this, and countless unreported near misses. It is only a matter of time until there is another fatal.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/one-dead-after-skydiving-accident-at-goulburn-20151121-gl4kdk.html It was only a matter of time....

Hi Dodo, depending upon the size of the aircraft, I may be able to help you. Please give me a call on 0417223230 and I will do my best to help. Cheers John

it is strongly recommended that you positively identify the cause of and solve the problem before proceeding further. If it is flutter, you will get very few chances before the surface fails. Check with the factory. Have you recently painted or otherwise changed the mass of the ailerons or Elevator? Are these surfaces mass balanced? Cheers John

Actually not. The formula for fatigue is miners rule... check the other axis of the curve...

hi Tim, I understand your intention and for the most part we are in furious agreement. I am simply reluctant to draw inferences about wider populations based on one event. By restricting my comment to observed behaviour at Goulburn, we can talk about facts rather than relying on opinions - however worthwhile those opinions may be. In the spirit of staying on topic, your comments are probably worthy of a separate thread. When we have multiple unsafe events in one location, and we do at Goulburn, warning bells ring for those of us who have examined the chain of events preceding accidents. Agreed I salute your tact, Tim. I completely agree that this person's attitude and behaviour had given him gold card access to pariah status. His actions were idiotic, arrogant and insane. Darwin won the day. As for linkages? It would be very easy to overlook any common factors twixt the deceased actions and those of others - because it is profoundly unsettling to do so. I also submit that when aberrant behaviours are common place, they tend to become part of the fabric of the airfield behaviour and sink from view. Visibility is further hindered when there is: no external oversight, no internally sourced responsibility, no peer group pressure to comply, no formal structure to hold offenders accountable (other than a coffin), no incentive to improve, no penalty for transgression, no mentoring of any worth Such behaviours do exist on Goulburn. i defer to your greater knowledge on the subject. I would have greater concern for the former group but submit that there is a place for informed wisdom when the bible does not have a "worked example" to cover given circumstances. Your second tribe might simply say it is not permitted so we will not do it. - hard to argue with that as a risk averse strategy. - It would have worked, had the subject belonged to such a tribe. Well, land ownership is one thing. I know of no kings - self appointment is insufficient qualification, and few castles - compliance with the most basic of building codes and standards would eliminate most of the contenders. I completely agree that the time has past for tolerance of incoherent, unethical, dishonesty devoid of personal or community accountability. The home for the bewildered beckons. Safe, accountable aviation practice is quite another. I submit that strong, credible, informed, wise leadership in aeronautical behaviour would be a major step forward. It has been notably absent to date. The present aviation authority vacuum has a strong attraction for those with an aversion to restraint and adherence to rules. At the risk of starting a "Master Chef Goulburn" thread - might I suggest a good chef is pretty important as well....... Thank you for the invitation. I had not seen them, but I am a newby on the forum so it is no surprise. As a heads up, I will be working closely with the new owner of the Airfield (if and when the sale is finalised) with the aim of an across the board cultural change in flight safety. Perhaps this death will provide something more useful than daisy fertilizer. Might I publicly acknowledge the value of this forum (Ian and Ross!) and suggest that it serves an admirable role. If someone has something valid to say it can be said at a time, place and pace which suits the contributor. It also has the missing factors which i listed above. Goulburn can be a great airfield but behaviours have to change. The gene pool is already improving. The old Guard have had their chance and verified that rampant self interest does nothing for community advancement or cultural improvement. Good things are happening now! Kind regards John

- Dear 68Volksy, let me gently set aside your feelings and beliefs for a moment. I simply wrote to the subject which was Trike down at Goulburn etc. My comments relate to my direct observations at Goulburn. If there is a wider resonance with the content, fine. I have made no such assumptions - but if your belief is correct then we have a bigger problem.... I do not know enough to be able to support or refute your conviction - but if you are right (and you may well be) you are implicitly identifying : a widespread lack of professionalism, general acceptance that aberrant behavior is acceptable powerlessness to improve Let me gently exclude myself from your communal "we". There is no joy in having aberrant behavior threaten our safety and our freedom to enjoy aviation. I also submit that identifying error has no automatic effect on the safety or otherwise of the observer. Would we, for instance, assume that the contributor who listed the transgressions preceding this "rural purchase" be safer and happier as a result of his list? I suggest the opposite is more likely. It is profoundly sobering to attend a fatal aircraft crash, to be actively involved in courts of inquiry and to attend the funerals. We can become safer if choose we to learn the lessons. Again let me extract myself from your communal "our". I submit the primary outcome was a dead person....The secondary outcome may be a heightened awareness of the rules and the consequences of breaking them. I agree that introspection is difficult. But you have clearly managed it, at least as far as your driving is concerned. Well done. I agree with your sentiments, but do not accept that we are doomed to mediocrity and the powerless acceptance of aviation ineptitude and irresponsibility. I do agree that a necessary condition for change is the recognition that change is needed. A fatal on your home airfield is a pretty broad hint.... Changing entrenched misbehaviour is neither easy or comfortable but it is possible. The ingredients for improvement at Goulburn exist, what is missing is the recipe. Kind regards John

Thank you for your kind words, David. Let me suggest that worthwhile conversations are never solo efforts, but reflections upon collective wisdom - so thank you for your contribution, also. I do. Well, I am hardly an expert on the subject, having only flown it a handful of times - but it is fun, slippery, easy to fly, and it rewards accuracy.

Hi David, I agree with the sentiments but suggest that there is much more to successfully exerting influence than simply talking to (or at) someone. Indeed, several of the subsequent contributors have identified particular walls they have hit - or foresee. They are all real problems, ego, ignorance, lack of perception, fear of being labeled a dobber, fear of isolation and so on. I outlined a few others. There are many more. I submit that unless personal, social and structural forces are exerted, the best intentioned change efforts are unlikely to succeed. [quote name='David Isaac']True John, but for everyone we lose, there are many others, some we may be able to influence in the right direction if we speak up. Speaking up did not work with the expired subject of this thread. In fact, I would go so far as to submit that the effectiveness of speaking up is often inversely proportional to the need to improve. Those most likely to respond to advice are those most likely to listen. Those most in need of improvement are unlikely to be in that condition because they were diligent, careful, intelligent, humble, expert listeners. The best we can hope for, in this case, is that a full and accurate disclosure of the facts preceding the "subject purchase of the farm" prompts introspection - sunlight being the best disinfectant. Goulburn has more than it's share of dangerous behaviours and it is a useful case study because it highlights the absence of factors which are required to instigate and maintain safe recreational and light aviation operations. - personal, social and structural. The deceased simply served to combine them all in a fatal cocktail. Great observation John and I agree 100%, we can never know how any particular individual will respond until we attempt to contribute to their education. I submit that often we have a very good idea how they will respond, and it is the likely response which deters frank exchange of ideas and advice. In places like Goulburn there are a few dominant characters who have anointed themselves as being above the law, to the extent where the general populace have come to accept their aberrant behaviour as the norm. Ah yes, he is a "colourful character". One of the other contributors identified the issue of confronting bullying individuals. For many this is an insurmountable hurdle - is it reasonable for the ordinary bloke to confront, for a random example, an over bearing ex-mayor about his low flying, his taxiing into populated hangars, the status of his medical or mental health, his licence status ? I predict that such a personality is a prime candidate for "rural land purchase". So be it. Lest you think me completely callous let me add that I took active steps to address the issues with the random example, with zero effect. In some cases your are correct, but does that justify silence on our behalf where if we can use some discretion and speak up in a non aggressive manner, we may save a life or two? It may not justify silence but I have sought to explain why silence is more likely than confrontation. I also submit that speaking up in isolation is unlikely to effect the required change. Discretion is the better part of valour, read the body language, you will soon know if you are ****ing in the wind. I agree. ****ing into the wind does, however, give a useful measure of wind strength.... John, I think we are all brothers, but just as in the biological form, there will always be some who will not listen and sadly may not be with us for long. David.[/quote] I beg to differ about implied lineage but I agree that there is some part of the human spectrum whose greatest contribution will be their departure. Kind regards John

hi All, a quick note to say hi. I am here to learn, love flying, and have done so for thirty five years. I fly out of Goulburn, have a couple of hangars and few aircraft to keep me busy. regards John