Ultralight Aircraft not Permitted at Whitsunday Coast / Proserpine Airport (YBPN)

[Bill Hamilton]

Darky,

 

All you are quoting is an interpretation from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 ---- do you really think I don't know that ?? ----- and we are not really interested in a speculation about what somebody thought at some time.

 

There is far more to the effect of legislation than simplistic interpretations ---- up to and including court precedents as to the legal interpretation of the law ---- and this is particularly applicable to aviation law, because it is such a mess.

 

One indisputable fact (including at least one High Court of Australia decision, with which I am very familiar) is that Australia is a contracting state to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, aka the Chicago Convention. Therefor, the fact that both the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Air Navigation Act 1920 purport to exclude Australia as a contracting state, in the interpretation of "contracting state",for the purposes of these two Acts, has been varied by the HCA.

 

For far too long, all the disunited segments of aviation in Australia have rolled over to every major and minor challenge, and the result is there for all to see.

 

Will GA and the rest of Australian light aviation ever get together to collectively fight for their position in the scheme of things ---- all indications are, probably not, they are too busy fighting each other.

 

Still nobody has come up with a history of the ownership of Proserpine, isn't there anybody who knows somebody who might know --- anybody in that area of Queensland???

 

Regards,

 

 

[Powerin]

Still nobody has come up with a history of the ownership of Proserpine, isn't there anybody who knows somebody who might know --- anybody in that area of Queensland???

As per my previous post from a govt website it is: "state reserve land, permanently set apart as aircraft landing ground. The Whitsunday Regional Council has control of the land as trustee."

 

Apparently there was an attempt to acquire it by the "Whitsunday Development Corporation" which failed after a public protest and lawsuit.

 

Hope that helps? (just repeating what I googled)

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

All you are quoting is an interpretation from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 ---- do you really think I don't know that ?? ----- and we are not really interested in a speculation about what somebody thought at some time.

There is far more to the effect of legislation than simplistic interpretations

Ah, good, I'm glad you managed to avoid being condescending there i_dunno

 

 

[winsor68]

Bill... I think your posts are informative... But please be aware that you do come across as very, very condescending and insulting sometimes... I think it is way out of line... Darky is correct and you owe her an apology.

 

I hope you don't carry yourself like this in person... if you do you must live a very interesting life.

 

Please... Stop doing it... But keep on posting.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Powerin,

 

The present ownership is well known, what I want somebody in the region to find out is the history of the airport, going back to before the Ansett involvement, which is many years ago. It may or may not be significant to the right of entry to a public airport.

 

Who by and when was the original airport built??

 

Darky,

 

What other reaction to your original post did you expect, that's the problem with bush lawyers, simplistic answers to issues that are far from simple.

 

Winsor68,

 

I am not a politician currying votes, I am not in any popularity contest, but I do have some knowledge of these matters, anybody who knows me personally or professionally will form their own opinion.

 

Regards,

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

OK everyone let's not forget this thread is about equitable access for us and our aircraft...there are bigger issues here than wounded pride or perceived sleights! So let's kiss and make up and figure out how we can influence Proserpine to re-think their position...

 

 

[farri]

OK everyone,So let's kiss and make up and figure out how we can influence Proserpine to re-think their position...

Good Advice but As maddog said earlier,"There`s a much bigger issue at stak here".

 

In fact, thebun_88,has asked for the Regulations to be clarified into normal speak and can Ultralight aircraft legaly land at Proserpine?.

 

I can`t see how we`ll get a correct interpretation of the Regulations or influence the aerodrome authority, simply, by everyone having a go,We need an authority to give an accurate interpretation, an incorrect one may worsen the situation

 

The RAA is our representative and governing body and in my opinion it is their responsibility to ensure that general aviation aerodromes are not discriminating against legal recreational aircraft and if they are,they need to take the necessary steps to overcome this,it shouldn`t be up to the individual pilot.

 

Frank.

 

 

[thebun_88]

Good Advice but As maddog said earlier,"In fact, thebun_88,has asked for the Regulations to be clarified into normal speak and can Ultralight aircraft legaly land at Proserpine?.

I think Darky has clarified Part 90 & 91 to an adequate state however given these refer to "foreign" aircraft I think they may prove irrelevant to the situation.

 

Another question which leads on from whether or not publicly owned aerodromes can stipulate such discriminatory rules is:

 

If I did land there (albeit for precautionary reasons) what could be the legal recourse? I say could because even if there were legitimate grounds they would be easy to defend against (precautionary landing etc) and not worth the time or money prosecuting.

 

Furthermore if there is a legitimate way to implement this rule I think it needs to be amended as this would be a rather good way to significantly restrict movements at an aerodrome which could provide grounds for closure due to under utilisation.

 

I can imagine many cash strapped Councils/governments doing this as there would be a great deal of money to be made from developers.

 

 

[farri]

cfi thanks for that but what`s the bottom line then??????????

 

Frank.

 

 

[farri]

an extract from the report cited aboveOpen, unrestricted and non-discriminatory access to aerodrome users;

 

cfi, thanks very much,I reckon this is important to the debate and that is the line I clamped on when I read it, I have always tried to have non-discrimination upheld.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Ultralight" is a generic term,I was once told by a CASA inspector that CASA didn`t differentiate between an "Ultralight" and any other aircraft,if it flew it was an "Aircraft".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If CASA`s view is still the same,and I dare say that it is,then provided that the aircraft is legal and it meets the aerodromes requirements,(such as radio and what ever else is required) then it should not be discriminated against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I read the full report and there was mention of proserpine on page 3. If my understanding is correct then Proserpine wasn't one of the ALOP aerodromes. If that is correct then suggesting that the Deed of transfer T's and C's can be called upon to hold the council to account is probably incorrect. See underlined and bolded sections below for the relevant bits.

 

My suggestion is to take the time to read the report it is very interesting and has sufficient quality referencing in it to suggest that it probably isn't a work of fiction. Thanks to CFICare to bringing it to our attention.

 

Andy

 

Quote from report:-

 

 

Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1992 there were three principal categories of aerodrome ownership in Australia, namely

 

 

 

 

 



Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) controlled airports, Commonwealth aerodromes, and

 

 

 

 

 



other aerodromes.1 The FAC operated 23 of Australia’s major airports while the

 

 

 

 

 



Commonwealth Department of Transport and Communications operated another 23

 

 

 

 

 



aerodromes. Six other aerodromes were owned by the Department of Defence and used for

 

 

 

 

 



civil and military purposes. The remaining licensed aerodromes (approximately 350) were

 

 

 

 

 



either operated by local authorities, state government instrumentalities or private interests (eg

 

 

 

 

 



Broome, Hamilton Island and Proserpine.)

 

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 



The ALOP (Airport Local Ownership Plan,) implemented in 1992-93 with the aim of handing

 

 

 

 

 



over rural and regional airports then controlled by the federal government to appropriate local

 

 

 

 

 



government bodies, has not been a total failure. Some local government bodies have

 

 

 

 

 



acknowledged the essential role of their airports and embraced the task of making them work

 

 

 

 

 

for their communities."

 

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

(including at least one High Court of Australia decision, with which I am very familiar) is that Australia is a contracting state to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, aka the Chicago Convention.

Just out of curiosity Bill, what's the name of the case? (I'd like to read the judgment tis all)

 

 

[ahlocks]

what's the name of the case? (I'd like to read the judgment tis all)

Me too Bill.

 

I'd like to know why the ruling was made and how it was applied in that particular example.

 

Ta in advance!

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Darky et al,

 

Go look for the CASA v. Hevilift Helicopters, a major issue was the rights and obligations of Australia as a contracting state, and the use of an aircraft from another contracting state on an Australian AOC, as Australia being a contracting state is relevant. The other I will have to find, from memory it was one of the airlines V. a CASA predecessor, and the right of intrastate or interstate airlines to use an airport.

 

There is a long history of litigation re. the Commonwealth power to administer aviation in Australia, and the limits of those powers. There is no mention of aviation in the Constitution, aviation is state's rights. The Commonwealth powers to administer aviation rests on the Treaty Making powers and the Corporations powers of the Constitution.

 

All the ALOP Deeds were great stuff, but who is going to come up with the history of Proserpine.

 

I don't think (but I don't know) if it was ever a DCA/DoT-ATG/DoA/CAA/FAC (have I left any out) airport or if it was, therefor, an ALOP airport, but that is not the only reason for knowing the history.

 

Regards,

 

PS: If I had a lazy $0.5 mil, I have little doubt that I could extract an interpretation of CAR 91 that says, in effect, that it would be unreasonable to interpret "contracting state", as in the CAAct 1988 or (in a slightly different wording) the Air Navigation Act 1920, contrary to the definition of contracting state in the "Convention", so as to discriminate against an Australian aircraft identical for the purposes of the regulation compared to an aircraft bearing the nationality of another contracting state having the right under CAR 91 to use the Australian public airfield.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Bill,

 

Thanks for that. (More late night reading. )

 

Can't help with Proserpine's early history. Most of the accessable info is about the council trying to sell a reserve. :ne_nau:

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...PS: If I had a lazy $0.5 mil, I have little doubt that I could extract an interpretation of CAR 91 that says, in effect, that it would be unreasonable to interpret "contracting state", as in the CAAct 1988 or (in a slightly different wording) the Air Navigation Act 1920, contrary to the definition of contracting state in the "Convention", so as to discriminate against an Australian aircraft identical for the purposes of the regulation compared to an aircraft bearing the nationality of another contracting state having the right under CAR 91 to use the Australian public airfield.

Good point.

 

I had occasion to read the original Air Navigation Act (prior to amendments) yesterday and it seemed to me that the only reason they singled out Australian Aircraft was for the purposes of defining "State Aircraft" ie. those owned by or in the commission of the government of Australia. This was to exclude rights that could have been construed to be reconnaissance, law enforcement, military or the like. I noted that Qantas was specifically excluded from being a "State Aircraft", so that it could undertake its purpose.

 

Indeed the as amended (current) Act has little else in it other than the Chicago Convention and associated matters. A lot has been repealed, as other legislative instruments were enacted, and it seems even the current VFR Guide has many outdated references to it.

 

PS. I'm not a lawyer, but I live in the bush

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

davidh10,

 

As I said in an earlier post, the regulations are a mess, thus even knowing some of the HCA decisions, while helpful, are only part of the answer to trying to work out what the aviation law means.

 

With the new "Maintenance Rules" (doesn't have any impact on RAOz aircraft) and the new CASR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, ( which is applicable to all those who commit aviation) it is about to get a whole lot more difficult.

 

We have the doubtful distinction of having the world's most verbose aviation law.

 

Regards,

 

 

[shags_j]

Just a quick question. Has anyone spoken to RAA about all this and asked for their position?

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

I have made a minor amount of progress, thanks to Paul Phelan.

 

It seems the Council/Shire bought the airfield from a subsidiary of Ansett, quite a long time ago, so the question becomes: From whom Ansett did Ansett acquire the airfield?

 

There must be some local historian who knows the story??

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

All i have ever been able to find out about it is that it was opened in 1951. I assume that it was owned and built by the QLD Govt. back then. maybe. If searching for the history of this airport do not confuse it with the war time strip that was located several miles further south on the same side of the H'way.

 

Rogin Taylor for Council This guy may be able to help.

 

There was a pretty active aero club there at one stage but by the time i arrived up there it seemed to be more of a drinking club than a flying club. Geoff the owner of Shute airport was pretty active in it so another source for history there.

 

Ansett were big time here espesially when Ansett owned Hayman Isl. they flew those large helicopters from Prosie to Hayman and then out to pontoons out at Bait Reef. I think that pretty much stopped after a rather nasty accident on the pontoons. The road into the airport from the H'way is Reg Anssett drive from memory. Some one else in the area who is good at finding local history is Ian Bishop who lives (if he is still in the area) at Strathdickie on a road the locals call "Highway to Heaven," select super low to get up this one. Bish built a Jab in one of the hangers at prosie.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

Just a quick question. Has anyone spoken to RAA about all this and asked for their position?

Shags, see post 10. Haven't received a reply as yet

 

 

[Steve Donald]

well if they are using 'accident history' as an excuse...the only reference i could find to the 'stall on departure' was in 2002. But if you look at the atsb reports all incidents and accidents that i could find were vh registered aircraft...even if we are better off inland as maj suggests, this is besides the point really. Look at the wider implications for raa. If airports are able to do this, we are going to be running out of places to operate out of.

So i rang the airport operator, (council) who was very good about this...the reasons are

 

1. That someone killed themselves. (2002)

 

2. They can't track us down for landing fees

 

3. Someone made an rpt have to do a go-around

 

4. Virgin doesn't like ul's

 

this has been in for 6 years apparently and their attitude is that any raa registered aircraft is an ul regardless of equipment fitted etc...so your fancy j-230 with dual comms, txpdr and 120 knot cruise is a ul! They also admitted that they really can't do anything to stop you (but not on the record you know wink wink!)

virgin doesn't like ul's that's a shame i like virgin

 

 

[winsor68]

virgin doesn't like ul's that's a shame i like virgin

I don't think we can assume that Virgin doesn't like ultralights just because they are the only airline still flying into Proserpine...

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

I don't think we can assume that Virgin doesn't like ultralights just because they are the only airline still flying into Proserpine...

Yes I think we can, the Airport Ops Manager said so...He said that this was instigated by Virgin, after they had to do a go-around and after some near misses, Proserpine is a small town and when the likes of Virgin threatening pulling out over safety concerns 'real or perceived' or threaten legal action small town councils listen. From what the Ops Off said it seemed to be fear over money leaving the region and liability concerns. Virgin have also threatened to pull out over maintenance issues regarding several aspects of the AD including runway lighting not working etc...also Virgin is not the only Airline flying in there Jetstar has regular flights and so does a few regionals

 

 

[winsor68]

My mistake... I thought Jetstar had pulled out already.

 

That is a bit disappointing to hear.