Proposed Ban for flights over Melbourne

[robinsm]

Good on you Marty, good to see you have an even balance on things. Unfortunately the greens have gone so far from their original roots that they could be called the Party for anyrthing negative...lol

 

 

[kaz3g]

G'day Kaz. I've often wondered why that big shed was allowed to be built just off the north threshold of 18! Is the Shepparton council just begging for an unfortunate incident there, so they'll have an excuse to sell off the aerodrome?I've also encountered tall prime movers intentionally loitering slowly on the alley/road close underneath me on short final to 18. They should be told not to linger on the runway alignment if aircraft are on final... Have you encountered this, or was I just unlucky?

The Council has had no interest in fostering aviation at the current airport And has a grandiose plan to build a new one elsewhere. They just don't have the many tens of millions of dollars needed to pay for it.

 

The airport is being rapidly built in and the land at the northern end is all zoned industrial. That big shed certainly makes for interesting landing approaches when it is windy (sheer) or hot (thermal source). A new housing estate is rapidly filling up vacant land to the south and east

 

Interestingly, the owner of that shed has his Citation parked at Shepparton and is currently constructing a rather large hangar for it so perhaps he also thinks moving the airport is a long way off.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz,I hope RAAus, AOPA, SAAA and all the other bodies can get organised with a coherent voice to stop this one.

AOPA is meeting with the Greens.

 

Kaz

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The Greens are the only ones taking climate change seriously.

That's a claim with no credibility at all.

 

Even Labor's 50% renewables by 2030 will be difficult, but that falls within the Internationally agreed "within 2%" temp rise limit ratified by some 150 countries.

 

The Greens 90% by 2030 is just ludicrous, and impossible.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

That's a claim with no credibility at all.Even Labor's 50% renewables by 2030 will be difficult, but that falls within the Internationally agreed "within 2%" temp rise limit ratified by some 150 countries.

 

The Greens 90% by 2030 is just ludicrous, and impossible.

The elephant in the room is that Australia supposedly makes 1 - 1.5% of the worlds anthropogenic carbon dioxide but the figures thrown around that the entire world needs to drop are variously 50 % or more. Some countries produce more than our entire carbon dioxide output entirely within their yearly variation let alone their baseline.

The "warm and fuzzies" jump up and say we have the highest per capita production so somehow it carries extra effect on the earth. ( although they usually achieve this by double dipping in that somehow the CO2 within the coal we dig up is added to our bill and then added again to the country who burns it and actually releases it as well.) But that argument is completely spurious. It is the total mass alone that is important. The earth doesn't care whether one or one million people made it. But the fact that very few of us will be paying for the reduction is very important. It will cost us a disproportionately high cost to reduce it.

 

So even if we could stop making 100% of our carbon dioxide it would achieve exactly nothing. We have to accept that what we do is symbolic and tokenism. That's fine if we want to show we want to do something to the rest of the world and encourage them to do likewise but this is where I have a big big problem with the greens and many others. They talk as if the huge increases in cost of living and the damage to the economy are justified. Clearly they are symbolic and will achieve no actual outcome.

 

 

[Ron5335]

I am still confused about the whole thing.

 

Up to last year, I was a environmental vandal, by having a slow combustion wood heater.

 

Every year, they would come after me with torches and pitch forks, and site the pollution and

 

health issues I and others like me were causing to people and the environment.

 

Every year the during Winter, the local Council would put this big banner up across the main

 

street calling for an end to wood heaters.

 

Then this year, some Govt Dept announces that wood is a natural process of carbon, so therefore

 

it's a renewable energy, and the most cost effective way to heat a house is by using a slow combustion

 

wood heater.

 

Now I'm a Greenie !!!!!!

 

Did anyone else notice the absence of health issues and pollution problems caused by home fires on the news during this Winter ?

 

If I were a cynic, I would say it's a Govt Ploy to do with Power Generation............

 

Get people off the grid, and they can use the reduction to say how well they doing in meeting their targets.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The elephant in the room is that Australia supposedly makes 1 - 1.5% of the worlds anthropogenic carbon dioxide but the figures thrown around that the entire world needs to drop are variously 50 % or more. Some countries produce more than our entire carbon dioxide output entirely within their yearly variation let alone their baseline.The "warm and fuzzies" jump up and say we have the highest per capita production so somehow it carries extra effect on the earth. ( although they usually achieve this by double dipping in that somehow the CO2 within the coal we dig up is added to our bill and then added again to the country who burns it and actually releases it as well.) But that argument is completely spurious. It is the total mass alone that is important. The earth doesn't care whether one or one million people made it. But the fact that very few of us will be paying for the reduction is very important. It will cost us a disproportionately high cost to reduce it.

 

So even if we could stop making 100% of our carbon dioxide it would achieve exactly nothing. We have to accept that what we do is symbolic and tokenism. That's fine if we want to show we want to do something to the rest of the world and encourage them to do likewise but this is where I have a big big problem with the greens and many others. They talk as if the huge increases in cost of living and the damage to the economy are justified. Clearly they are symbolic and will achieve no actual outcome.

Regardless of our share of the problem, what people are failing to see is that leading the solution creates opportunities. The idiots in QLD government are saying the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine is "essential infrastructure", what they aren't saying is that Adani is actually concentrating more on renewable projects than coal.

India and China are shifting to large scale production of renewable tech faster than anyone else on the planet. While we sit back complacently saying "not our problem" and "we've got lots of coal, we'll be right", the rest of the world (well, apart from the US for the next 4 years) will be taking up the opportunities that a shift in power production provide, and our best and brightest scientists will go offshore to work for them.

 

The Greens don't want us to symbolically get to 100% renewables at massive cost and no benefit. They want us to provide an environment where Australian innovators, scientists and companies can become world leaders in the industries of tomorrow instead of dogmatically sticking to the industries of yesterday.

 

The Greens 90% by 2030 is just ludicrous, and impossible.

Maybe, maybe not. But if you don't set aspirational targets then you don't get anywhere.

Denmark has a target of 100% by 2050 and it's not the only one.

 

Australia is the perfect place for large solar and we have the natural resources, science, education and manufacturing ability to make the most of it. All we lack is political will.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Bloody news reports stating SA has blackouts what that story no back up sun or wind oh that's a furfey Neil

 

 

[Vev]

The proposed legislation goes much further than that. It appoints an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and a Community Advocate whose jobs revolve around facilitating complaints from people who dislike aircraft noise.Kaz

Hi Kaz ... I thought there was already an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman in place?

 

Aircraft Noise Ombudsman

 

It makes me wonder how how much understanding of the Regulations the Greens have before they begin the journey?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[robinsm]

Hi Kaz ... I thought there was already an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman in place?Aircraft Noise Ombudsman

It makes me wonder how how much understanding of the Regulations the Greens have before they begin the journey?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

Seems to be a case of either "me too" or empty cans rattling to gain attention because no one is taking any notice of them.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

I'll listen to aircraft noise complaints right after barking dogs are banned. . At least someone is getting some utility/pleasure out of an aircraft. Barking dogs are utterly useless and do nobody any good, including the dog.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

About twenty years ago a drongo came to my door asking me to sign a petition demanding Parafield Airport be moved or closed down. When I refused, saying the planes don't bother me, he abused me, demanding I sign it anyway. I told him to fk-off and go live in the Simpson desert if noise was so bad for him. I wonder if he did, certainly never called here again.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Kaz,I hope RAAus, AOPA, SAAA and all the other bodies can get organised with a coherent voice to stop this one.

Hence a council of aviation associations would be a good idea to address such mass-stupidness

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

No flights below 6,500 feet? Hoe would you land? An airport on Mt Kosciuszko?

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

You'd almost think police are giving them a wink and a nod. A favorite trick is to give it full throttle in busy streets with outdoor diners ear shattering.I've mentioned before that lower powered single engine AC owners/mfrs may be able to argue that compliance with the current transport industry drive by noise levels is acceptable measured from the street, since noise reduces with distance.

Yes, by virtue of the inverse square law double the distance and have a 4 x noise reduction. (Except from a busy highway where the line source nature of the sound propagation can mean it will be more likely to cover a distance with a higher dB level). These wingers need to get a life.

 

 

[Nobody]

I have sent the letter below to my local member. Hopefully others on this site will agree enough to send something along the same lines to their members. If we don't speak up then the silliness will get passed.

 

I write to you, my local member, to ask that you vote against the “Air Services Amendment Bill 2016” recently proposed by Adam Bant in the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation is poorly thought through, illogical and asks for things that already exist. This bill, if implemented, will have a significant negative impact on general aviation in Melbourne and Australia more generally.

 

 

 

The proposed bill contains an amendment that would prohibit aircraft from flying within 5km of Melbourne at a height less than 2000m. This would mean that small aircraft ravelling west from Moorabbin airport or into Essendon airport would be required to operate through the controlled airspace associated with the large transport aircraft around Tullamarine airport. Small aircraft operating in this area are already required to operate above 1000 feet under the civil aviation regulations. At such a height the noise emitted from a small aircraft is significantly less than other general city noises like trams and vehicle traffic. The proposal unnecessarily restricts aircraft movements for no benefit.

 

 

 

The proposal to allow for anyone affected in any way by air traffic to require Airservices Australia to review flight paths is unworkable. This would divert the limited resources of Airservices Australia into endless reviews even where no adverse impact to people on the ground is demonstrated. It will provide the opportunity for vexatious complaints to clog up the system diverting resources away from Airservices Australia’s other essential tasks.

 

 

 

The proposed legislation also asks for the creation of an “Aircraft Noise Ombudsman” despite the fact that such an organisation already exists to resolve complaints about aircraft noise.

 

 

 

Please don't vote for this proposed amendment.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Yes, by virtue of the inverse square law double the distance and have a 4 x noise reduction. (Except from a busy highway where the line source nature of the sound propagation can mean it will be more likely to cover a distance with a higher dB level).

If I can comment on that Frank inverse square reduction from a point source is 6dB per doubling of distance and 3dB from a line source in ideal free-field conditions. This is the SPL propagation loss, in terms of perceived loudness approx 10dB represents a halving so yes it's a considerable reduction in loudness but not four times...

 

One could have a degree of respect for the Greens if they actually never used things like petrol, coal-fired electricity or flew in aircraft. Or made noise.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Denmark has a target of 100% by 2050 and it's not the only one.

.

And?

 

Denmark is a tiny place with huge windswept highland areas, think the North Sea. Population 6 million in a place smaller than Tasmania. 1/4 of the population live in one city alone. Also the bulk of the population live in a reasonably tight area that would be covered by the same area covered by Newcastle, Sydney to Woolongong.

 

Infrastructure is easy and cheap as the place is so small and millions can be serviced easily. Hell, a bunch of Bunnings extension cords would about cover it.

 

Australia is NOTHING like that. Denmark is a stupid argument often quoted by Australian climate hysterics not taking into account, well, not taking into account anything at all.

 

 

 

[coljones]

And?Denmark is a tiny place with huge windswept highland areas, think the North Sea. Population 6 million in a place smaller than Tasmania. 1/4 of the population live in one city alone. Also the bulk of the population live in a reasonably tight area that would be covered by the same area covered by Newcastle, Sydney to Woolongong.

 

Infrastructure is easy and cheap as the place is so small and millions can be serviced easily. Hell, a bunch of Bunnings extension cords would about cover it.

 

Australia is NOTHING like that. Denmark is a stupid argument often quoted by Australian climate hysterics not taking into account, well, not taking into account anything at all.

 

[ATTACH=full]47163[/ATTACH]

Well there you go Bex. There are a hell of a lot of people in the Sydney Conurbation - if the danes can deliver renewables into that population in that tiny place there really isn't much of an argument for not delivering it into Sydney.

If Barney wants coal fired he can truck it up from Schenwa to a power station in Armidale. Or if Duncan wants it they can ship coal down to a power station in Crookwell.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Well there you go Bex. There are a hell of a lot of people in the Sydney Conurbation - if the danes can deliver renewables into that population in that tiny place there really isn't much of an argument for not delivering it into Sydney. .

Denmark has ripping solid North Sea winds all year round with coastline hills with no population, but the population are very close - fantastically ideal suitability for wind turbines, the best in the world.

 

I can only write it, the understanding part is left to you.

 

 

[Nobody]

I wonder if they argue about aviation on the renewable energy forum?..

 

 

[coljones]

I wonder if they argue about aviation on the renewable energy forum?..

They do - in the context of Bio diesel and Bio AvGas

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I wonder if they argue about aviation on the renewable energy forum?..

Funny but actually a genuine worry.

 

That the USA EPA hasn't cracked down on engine emissions for aircraft is very strange and well overdue. it's when, not if.

 

Lycoming and Continental have had something to say about it I presume, they must be shaking in their boots otherwise.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

If I can comment on that Frank inverse square reduction from a point source is 6dB per doubling of distance and 3dB from a line source in ideal free-field conditions. This is the SPL propagation loss, in terms of perceived loudness approx 10dB represents a halving so yes it's a considerable reduction in loudness but not four times...One could have a degree of respect for the Greens if they actually never used things like petrol, coal-fired electricity or flew in aircraft. Or made noise.

As far as practical application is concerned, you are correct. The practical reality is the human ear is a very poor determiner of changes of volume. Of course, if a person has a particular dislike for a sound (techno, exhaust brakes, trail bikes or aircraft), no matter the relative dB level to the mean environmental noise, they will complain.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Of course, if a person has a particular dislike for a sound, no matter the relative dB level to the mean environmental noise, they will complain.

Yup, perfectly said.