10.5

39 minutes ago, Ian said:

What is the Goulburn council  court case?

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.  

13 minutes ago, Ian said:

I'd heard rumours of his excellent treatment of aviators and other people.

Given the fact that he never achieved the requirements for the transfer of title it seems odd that it was transferred. But that probably just local Government.

 

Does Goulburn remain the best option for Canberra fliers?  Is there any intention of Canberra airport, or anywhere else to cater to general aviation at all?

 

Is anyone who was involved with the Williamsdale site left around?

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.

10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The online agendas and minutes only go back to 2018.

Pre-digital most Counclls had a storage issue with Agendas and Minutes which could be from20 to 50 mm thick. Some Councils (not referring to this one) who wanted to bury information would take a truckload to the State Public Record Office and then claim it wasn't practical to search for the data you wanted (except on one occasion where a CEO agreed with me and wanted to spear a Councilor and sent a team of six across to the PRO vault and found the data in about an hour).

As we know digital files are much more easily stored and there's no reason why all their Agendas and Minutes can't be sitting there available for checking.

I'd suggest a Goulburn Mulwaree ratepayer ask Amy for a copy of the Minutes that resulted in the Sale on 2/9/13, and in particular, the Covenant presented to the Councillors and the Covenant which became part of the Contract of Sale. Amy will tell you if it is Commercial in Confidence, and can't be released to the public, but it any case it shouldn't be posted public here. There are other ways to handle it.

Let me save you some time…

19 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

Will a title search show the date of transfer and the date of sale?

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.  

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Can you remember when, or find out the date of the Council Meeting where it approved the sale to the current owner? 

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.

4 hours ago, robinsm said:

The airpost was gifted to the people of Goulburn by The Poidevan family on the condition that it remain an airport indefinitely.   The council sold the airport to a private operator aginst the wishes of the users and the goulburn people in general in an obvious money grab.   The routine upkeep was offered to be done by the users of the airport but money and alleged self interest bypassed the locals.   

I dont know the wording of the deed of gift but I am sure someone has a copy.   Since being taken over by the p[rivate operator, the airport has been semi run down and a state of aggravation has existed between the users and the owner.   

 

 

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. 

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

On 18/4/2024 at 9:44 PM, turboplanner said:

The current situation is that Goulburn Airport is for sale; that's all at present.

 

Going over threads from 2009 to 2012 when the Council sold it and subsequent stories which pointed to industrialisation:

 

8 Recreational Aircraft and 1 Cessna apparently are no longer there.

9 Recreational Flying Members were lost to this site and perhaps RAA

 

So in 12 years, maybe that is the loss when an Airfield ceases to be a pure aviation precinct.

 

Because there's been no news since, those numbers could be greater; I know of one other who operates a GA Aircraft elsewhere.

 

In the bigger picture across Australia, it's worth taking a look at potential lost fields earlier than we do.

 

 

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.

On 15/4/2024 at 6:16 PM, Garfly said:

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?

 

 

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

On 29/5/2023 at 6:57 PM, Chris_LSZO said:

Hi folks 🙂

 

I own an Ultralight Aircraft (CTSW) and am looking for a hangar space for long term rent from January 2024 in the Sydney area.
I know this will be very tricky, does anyone have an idea how to solve it? Maybe park the aircraft outdoors until I'll find hangar space but where this would be possible?

I already asked at Wedderburn and Sydney Recreational Flying Club ([email protected]).

 

Many thanks in advance

Chris

Hi Chris,

I will have hangar space becoming available at Goulburn shortly.  Please let me know if i can help. ([email protected]) 

deleted...mod

 

Deleted...possibly litigious...mod

I need advice from someone that may be able to help advise me on this.This has nothing to do with Aviation but as site Admin I am asking for some leeway on this post...it will be deleted once someone can help me with this.

 

As a break from running this site I have been building in our family pool area. However I have come up with a problem and that before when we wanted to use the endless spa pool, we would just slide the lids off and store them beside the pool. This will not be possible once it is all built in.

 

My thought was to perhaps use a pulley system that would lift the pool lids off the top and slide them down the gap beside the pool. Then when finished, you could use the pulley system to lift the lids back up and steer them back down on to the top of the pool.

 

My problem is:

 

1. Is this feasible?

 

2. Is there a better way?

 

3. At what exact distance along the roof beams would I need to mount the pulley...scientific engineer calculation needed here?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Here are some pictures:

 

[ATTACH]46148[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]46149[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]46150[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]46151[/ATTACH]

Hi there Ian,

As huge fan of the KISS principle, why not just a couple of gas struts, with appropriate brackets?

Cheers,

John

Tragedy indeed - especially when carrying a child as a paying passenger.Doesn't seem to have stopped them making money today though - they're back hard at it...

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

I am looking for somewhere to hangar a rag and tube aircraft within about an hour of Canberra.Goulburn may be an option, if pricy - does anyone know of availability and costs to hangar a plane(and fly from) Goulburn? And who I could talk to?

Does anyone have any other ideas? - access to a paddock with a shed would be fine, and quite happy to pay for that?

 

The main requirement is within about an hour of Canberra, and available. It would be a rag and tube, so no need for long or sealed runways, so maybe a paddock and temporary hangar?

 

any ideas appreciated,

 

dodo

 

EDIT - Bugger - I can't fix the typo in the subject! (Sorted - Mod xox)

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

Yes, well, agricultural aircraft can operate at whatever weight the pilot considers he can get off the ground. Add this to a cantilever wing, and you have a formula for wing fatigue failure. See http://www.ruudleeuw.com/tanker130.htm

hi Tim,

My intention was too remove Goulburn as the focus of this incident and instead focus it on the wider aviation community. Unfortunately, as pilots, I do not feel we can exclude ourselves individually from this community.

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.

 

I think we can individually exclude ourselves from some of my statements however - my old high-horse gets a little tired some days...

Agreed

 

I would argue that the untrained person in an unregistered and unairworthy aircraft is not, nor ever will be, a member of our aviation community. Unfortunately the wider community and the media do not make this distinction. Whilst the links and friends that the man had at the airport seem to run deeper than his one-time terminal visit might suggest I do not think he could be called a "local" Goulburn airport user. As such I do not believe his actions can go to support any argument that there is an entrenched attitude issue at Goulburn.

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:

 

1. no external oversight,
    
    
   
2. no internally sourced responsibility,
    
    
   
3. no peer group pressure to comply,
    
    
   
4. no formal structure to hold offenders accountable (other than a coffin),
    
    
   
5. no incentive to improve,
    
    
   
6. no penalty for transgression,
    
    
   
7. no mentoring of any worth
    
    
   

 

 

 

Such behaviours do exist on Goulburn.

 

There are certainly many characters who believe that their way is the right way and they are capable of making better judgement without resorting to law books. There are also many who believe that by placing unwavering faith in legislators they will never do anything unsafe. These two tribes both exist at Goulburn (and elsewhere from my observations) and will always be in disagreement on some level or another.

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.

 

Unfortunately the history of Goulburn airport has been very much one of a nation divided - the three Kings in Glass Castles. The Kings are getting on a bit now though and i'm hoping there will not be any successors.

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.

 

Most recipes generally involve a period of mixing.

At the risk of starting a "Master Chef Goulburn" thread - might I suggest a good chef is pretty important as well.......

 

This in my opinion is what is missing most at Goulburn - a forum for communication to take place. There're quite a few airport users who get together for a monthly BBQ down at Goulburn Aviation - you may have seen the invites posted on this forum. Please feel free to wander down if you're around on the first Saturday of the month as the invitation is always open. It's a good place for sharing any issues that arise. There's no shortage of opinion but we try and stay true to the reason we're all there - a love of flying.

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!

 

John

John,I feel you make it sound as though Goulburn is the only aerodrome with any of these occurences? I don't believe this is the case

- 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'm sure every member of this board could easily relate just as many issues at whatever aerodrome they use.

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 :

 

1. a widespread lack of professionalism,
    
    
   
2. general acceptance that aberrant behavior is acceptable
    
    
   
3. powerlessness to improve
    
    
   

 

 

 

 

 

We also all seem to feel more than happy pointing at other people and calling ourselves "safe" because we can see the errors they make and the things they do wrong.

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.

 

This goes to highlight my previous comment in that the primary outcome in these instances is feeding our own egos.

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.

 

It's a darn sight harder to see our own faults and harder still to do anything about them. I know how many times i've pushed a little too hard in the car after having talked myself into the "there's no-one else on the road" mentality...

I agree that introspection is difficult. But you have clearly managed it, at least as far as your driving is concerned. Well done.

 

From my perspective for change to occur it will take pilots not only able to see other peoples errors and communicate but also pilots willing to accept their own errors and change. It's not about to happen any time soon...

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....

 

Kind regards

John

John,You have made a great contribution to this complex issue. I agree with your detailed analysis, I was tending to generalise and you have given a sophisticated response and a bloody good one, thanks. Your final point is in all probability the most poignant.

David

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.

 

PS Sounds like you play in a stimulating environment.

I do.

 

I also just noticed the Varieze, how do you like it?

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

snipThese people will always be with us. Education and peer pressure have a slight hope in this endeavour, I don't see how anything else will. I believe we are to a significant extent our Brothers keepers. We all have an obligation to speak up when we know our Brothers are doing unwise things.

 

snip

 

David,

 

I have been following this thread with interest and submit the following thoughts for your consideration.

 

Clearly these people are not always with us, as is evidenced by this latest event.

 

I agree that education and peer pressure are useful but they are dependant upon a few factors which are not always present :

 

1. Moral engagement i.e the comprehension that one's actions have an impact (no pun intended) on others.

 

2. A willingness and ability to accept advice / education / peer pressure.

 

3. A realistic risk perception.

 

4. Accountability.

 

5. A sane view of the world that is coherent with our own.

 

6. An acceptance / understanding that aviation rules are usually written retrospectively, in the blood of those who provided the data points upon which the rules were based.

 

I respectfully submit that exerting influence and changing behaviour is a much more complicated process, and the best advice offered to the deaf, the blind or the bewildered is wasted, lost and may even provoke more extreme responses.

 

Let me pose a not so hypothetical situation. How does the game change when someone, such as the departed, is advised of unwise behaviour and responds with threats of personal violence and attempts to run the advisor over with his motor vehicle?

 

Are we still our brother's keeper? Perhaps we are, but not everyone is our brother.

 

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

Ferret,

three things are required. Experience, passing the exams, and time.

have a troll around the casa web site, looking for the LAME syllabus - it is not trivial, cheap, quick or particularly well paid.

Kind regards

John