soilmaster

Looks like Big Mac cannot keep away!!! http://vocasupport.com/the-phoenix-mccormick-arises/ and more on the subject of changes: http://vocasupport.com/corporate-governance-in-casa-july-2015/

The airport at Goulburn has resorted to "risky" advertisements. This is the latest in the saga: http://vocasupport.com/goulburn-airport-features-in-a-risky-advertisement/

Well the dam appears to have broken this past week, with a series of articles continuing on in the Australian, together with a major statement by casa Board chair, Jeff Boyd. The material and links to the relevant articles are here: http://vocasupport.com/jeff-boyd-assumes-control-over-casa/

AVMED - Do you have a problem with an assessment? Quite a few people have been complaining in a number of forums that they have had serious problems with casa AVMED assesments. These problems include failure to answer letters, e-mails, phone calls or FAXES. There have been numerous long delays for completed DAME medicals and we are looking to find out what the range of problems really is and how they can [if not already rectified], be rectified. I am a private pilot who has been through the mill as well, due to a mistake by a DAME, which resulted in my Class 1 being suspended. I was horrified when this occurred and would not wish the same treatment for anyone else. If you fall into this group, please click through to this page and assist us in compiling a proper list and range of issues faced. We all have heard of the CVD problems and the current case before the AAT, which is attempting to overturn a long determined principle [with no accidents in Australia (or world-wide) of CVD related accidents. casa say that the US accident had CVD symptoms, but the real cause was on-ground interference with the PAPI visual indications due to the local terrain. Please assist us as this will form part of a private review of AVMED and it's impact on aviation jobs in Australia. Contact for AVMED

I left AOPAA as a member in the early 2000's when they ceased representing my interests, basically they "lost the plot". Further to that, when AOPA started taking money from CASA for "Safety Seminars", AOPA became compromised and How can their President [Phillip Reiss] be directly involved in the ASRR [Aviation Safety Regulatory Review] - Truss Review and maintain proper representation for his members, when they represent such a small number of members within the industry??.

No doubt Westwind ran out of fuel. It is the mechanism behind the scenes that CASA takes, the likely influence on the ATSB report [e-mail evidence of iterference and direction to change report], the ineffective AOC and CAR 217 training, no 20.11 training, the missing docs on the actual weather, the failure to retrive the Voice recorders and so on. I have no doubt of the outcome by the pilot of a "splash-in" could likely be avoided if CASA had done their job properly, rather than getting involved in [what I believe to be] a striaght up coverup of the facts. Please explain to me why CASA offered the PelAir Chief pilot a FOI job??

The importance of transponders and the people behind the screens cannot be over stated. I found this stuff for aread: http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1800

More information about the lessee at: http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1934

The issue here is that casa has breached the Transport Safety Investigation Act by not giving all the information it had to the atsb. In doing that, casa failed to give [atsb] them what is known as the "Chamber's Report". This report showed that casa had failed in it's duty of care in surveilling PelAir. The easy person to blame was the pilot rather than the PelAir system, which was completely "off-song". This is not about sms's, but in fact the failure again by casa to both adequately surveil, following approval of a deficient AOC, which casa approved anyway. There is further information and a complete breakdown at: http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=571

The on-going senate inquiry into pelAir has some serious implications for all aviation, no matter what end of town. The Minister, was last night asked on his response to the current senate inquiry, where there was 176 odd pages which did not give any positive space to either CASA or ATSB. The 26 reccomendations even went to a reccomendation to investigate laying charges on casa and atsb for breaches of the TSI Act [Transport Safety Investigation Act] This is worth looking at : Albo is asked an aviation question and start asking questions. 29th Aug 2013, 11:41 #7878 (permalink) Up-into-the-air Join Date: May 2010 Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia Posts: 439 Finally Albo is asked a question on Aviation Ben Sandilandlands and Prime's Chris Reason have broken the drought on real aviation questions: Further information is on: PelAir in Open | Assistance to the Aviation Industry Let us all keep up the questions to the Minister and keep the pressure on. A useful source is: #aviation and #pelair on tw-tter.com and let albo know on @albo and tell them: Aviation needs your help #aviation #pelair @AbbottPressHQ @warrentrussmp @Nick_Xenophon @TurnbullMalcolm @SMirabellaMP @cnegroni @CUhlmann

The following gives some of the information leading to this becoming a serious issue for us all http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1306

Thanks Dick for your support over the years and a wise head for advice. You could always be relied on for fair counsel. Fair weather flying always.

GOULBURN AIRPORT: It is about time the Government came to the understanding that this is infrastructure that just cannot be replaced. How about a proposal for a complex across the M3/ M7 intersection in Sydney's west - this is the same type of interference as that proposed at Evan's Head. The closure/ destruction of Hoxton Park and the North/ South runway at Bankstown are just the same. This is a raw grab for money with an abbregation of responsibility by those who are supposed to properly represent us in the community. If it suits a "Government" to grab for money, they will do so, no matter what the human or other negative costs. A good recent example is the recent "grab for cash" by Goulburn Council and the proposed sale of Goulburn Airport. There is no proper public consultation, just a rush to ignore the deed on the airport, which effectively precludes a sale. Further this airport was placed in Council's hands by a private bequest for proper protection and use of the community, not sale. The same is the case for Evans Head and all airports covered by a Federal Government deed under the ALOP.

GOULBURN AIRPORT: It is about time the Government came to the understanding that this is infrastructure that just cannot be replaced. How about a proposal for a complex across the M3/ M7 intersection in Sydney's west - this is the same type of interference as that proposed at Evan's Head. The closure/ destruction of Hoxton Park and the North/ South runway at Bankstown are just the same. This is a raw grab for money with an abbregation of responsibility by those who are supposed to properly represent us in the community. If it suits a "Government" to grab for money, they will do so, no matter what the human or other negative costs. A good recent example is the recent "grab for cash" by Goulburn Council and the proposed sale of Goulburn Airport. There is no proper public consultation, just a rush to ignore the deed on the airport, which effectively precludes a sale. Further this airport was placed in Council's hands by a private bequest for proper protection and use of the community, not sale. The same is the case for Evans Head and all airports covered by a Federal Government deed under the ALOP.

Goulburn Airport - NO SALE It is outrageous that Goulburn Council have done what they have done. When the airport was first targeted for sale in 2001, it was stopped because of the codicil on the operations. Reading the contract for sale, Goulburn Council are not taking into account the planning constraints of the codicil of operation when Council accepted the money to upgrade the airport and on which they entered a deed. A deed cannot be varied by a "letter" from a Federal bureaucrat - "a deed is deed is a deed" on which Council say they can sell the airport. A look at the conditions say that the purchaser cannot meet these requirements anyway and there does not appear any way that Council wants to enforce that things do happen correctly. Remember that the taxiways do not meet the airports standard for example.

Leigh Creek Fuel I am informed that BP is seriously considering closing this strategic point of fuel availability. I would appreciate your assistance to maintain this important piece of infrastructure. I spoke to Graham McNee on 07 3364 7162 (0419 820 027) He position is AUS Marketing manager for GA MB - the person who seems to be making the noises about the closure is: Stewart Stephenson 03 9268 4161 is the MB person making the decisions about the removal. and another contact is: Paul Scheuner 08 8234 3844 (0410 479 328) - SA He is the SA ops for BP I have a particular safety requirement and OPS requirement for LEC and my aircraft used around 1,500,000 litres of fuel in the past 11 months between Alice Springs, Adelaide Leigh Creek and Mt Isa. Please help by contacting these people and telling them how important infrastructure is in the centre of Australia.

No - I am not sure who Mariner Developments really is, but the proponent is the husband of Senator Ursula Stephens and the last Development Application was made by her daughter. He says that he has nothing to do with Tzovaris or Sweeney.

If you want some help, pls let me know.

:hittinghead: A quick look at the ASIC website reveals that Domain Resources Pty Ltd, the Company Council is negotiating with is not registered for GST and does not appear to have traded for at least 2 to 3 years and not posted it's last annual return. George Tsovaras lists Domaine Real Estate Pty Ltd with his operation, but there appears to be no direct link to the other Company's. Domain Real Estate is registered as a Business name of both the above Company's. George Tsovaras at the meeting mentioned a relationship with Sweeney and Mariner Developments. A Mariner person tells me they have no relationship with George Tsovaras. Keith Sweeney speaks for himself - see SMH at Developer linked to drugs and bikie gangs - National - smh.com.au

Goulburn Airport - Damage to Surface Have a look at this - completely inn appropriate YouTube - Goulburn Airport. Drag, Drift & Burnouts AND Council allow this :hittinghead:

Goulburn Airport - NO SALE This is a copy of the letter to Goulburn Council that I sent last week. There is to be a story in the Goulburn Post as well. The Mayor and the Council of Goulburn Mulwaree, Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Bourke Street, GOULBURN NSW 2580 Goulburn Airport 20th October 2008 1. The data provided to prospective purchasers does not provide clear title to the land. This includes:  Outstanding matters with the Commonwealth of Australia;  Ownership transfers from Poidevins;  Interference of the Deed in any transfer;  Planning requirements of Council by Deed. The reference to the 1963 Johnson & Sendall search of title does not substantiate the title transfer between the Poidevin family in the period 1935 to 1939. The late 1930’s transfer has a codicil, which says that the land goes ONLY to Council to operate as an airport for all time. The land is a community asset, which is similar to the local parks and ovals. Whether council could sell off the areas already sold is another matter. However, these do not directly impinge on the Council saying this is “operational landâ€, and can then be sold, has no foundation in truth, due to Council accepting money from the Commonwealth and undertaking to do certain things. These deeds are permanent, as the underlying agreement cannot be altered or re-directed. In fact there are issues that are not complete from the deed. 2. The Commonwealth deed for Council has some serious obligations for Council as a planning body. These obligations cannot be transferred to a third party. Council, in its contract (at 39.1.2.4) does not fully describe the deed’s intent and direction for “fair and equitable†access. The first attempted sale fell over on this basis alone. 3. The deed requires the owner and operator to be able to protect the airport in perpetuity by implementing adequate and proper planning. This cannot be done by a body that does not have “planning approval†to protect the airport from surrounding activities. An example would be a house application immediately adjacent to the airport to Council. There is a difference in an airport, which has part of it’s operational area outside the physical perimeter in comparison to a house, which is confined by it’s perimeter completely. The surrounding area requires active intervention in a planning sense by an owner, in this case, Goulburn Mulwaree council. A separate operator could not stop this, which would then reduce the ability of the airport to be used as such. This airport falls under the planning provisions of the local Council, not as with Bankstown, the Federal Government planning regulations. Further, in a letter from Minister on 3/8/2000, Council was instructed that it must satisfactorily address all issues 4. Council cannot and should not sell the airport, but start to take proper decisions, listen to the community and manage properly. 5. I also bring to your attention, matters that have been raised and remain un-resolved (see letter of 2nd July 2004 and May 2004 and 14th July 2002), which include:  AVDATA safety issues;  Failure by Council to provide un-fettered access;  Width of runway issues;  Safety/ suitability of runways for normal operations;  Safety/ suitability of taxiways for normal operations;  PAL lighting issues;  Non-aviation use;  VFR and IFR issues. We require these matters to be properly addressed and Council made aware of their legal responsibility for the airport – now, in the past and in the future. Council cannot abrogate their moral, legal or community responsibilities in this matter. It is essential that we have this asset working well and into the future to provide a resource for all the people of Goulburn. Other airports work well, such as Wagga Wagga and Cootamundra, without Councils attempting to sell them. Wagga has a vibrant usage group, which is encouraged by the City, allowing four landings each month without charge (Goulburn is a per landing arrival, with people trying to avoid a charge). At the moment, a visiting aircraft to Goulburn - of 1500 kg total operating weight, would be charged for a weeks visit, $46 for take off and landing and $ 23/ night some $204 for a week. A great way to encourage use. At Cairns, this would cost just $ 43 and allow parking on a hard stand area, not on grass. A great way to encourage business. This can happen in Goulburn as well, but will not, until the spectre of the removal of the airport from reasonable usage by the community is removed. It should be noted that Council’s data shows some $35 000 of income from movements. If this is placed with $ 15 000 from local aircraft, there is $ 20 000 generated from visitors. This is 1650 per annum or around 5 movements per day. This brings some $ 250 to $ 500 per movement, where people are encouraged to stay in Goulburn. So where we discourage a visit, or there is just one stopping/ day, some $ 150 000 would be generated for fuel sales, motels, meals, car hire, repairs etc. Thus the Wagga model is very attractive. The airport also gives access for air-ambulance, policing functions, fire-fighting and a huge range of other uses. It is not a minority of people that use the airport, but a range of people who visit, spend money and develop opportunities for our community. R. W Cumming 20/10/2008