Now, I'm confused.
"CASA said grant options and exemptions were offered to smaller aerodromes, though the council did not apply for either on behalf of the Mallacoota Airport."
"Grandfathering provisions applied to existing facilities, including Mallacoota Airport, so smaller aerodromes did not need costly work to meet the new standards," CASA said.
"No infrastructure changes were required as part of the transition process."
There is a lot of material published related to aerodromes etc. The link - HERE - seems to be pertinent; although I have not read 'all' of the published data - so no guarantees.
But it seems to me there are some rabbits running here - set to confuse the hounds. For example, if grants and grandfathering and exemptions were allowed and available, why did the local council not make application? Surely exemption for RFDS /medical / 'charter' would be available - just for the sake of safety if no other. This don't make sense; any risk analysis of the small number of non scheduled services would conclude that for aircraft <5.7 without certificated performance requirements (RTOW etc) have few restrictions (bar the existing obvious) which preclude IFR arrival and departure.
If you draw a line on the map from Bairnsdale to Merimbula, the area to the East of that line encompasses some fairly rugged terrain and is subject to some of the worst, unpredictable weather conditions this land is subject to. Aerodromes, like Mallacoota are an essential part of the support structure remote regions must have. The Council must know this, just as it must know that the RFDS (Fire support etc.) may be called in at any tick of the clock (or the back thereof). Angel Flight seem to be a regular user and thus far the accident/incident risk rate is (and remains) a zero under the existing facility - but the risk of a life lost simply because an aircraft could not make an instrument approach is pretty much an odds on bet.
Goodwin (AAA) makes some valid points; but that aside, the Council seem to be trying to buy a ticket on the Federal gravy train rather than applying to CASA for any and all exemptions available, to provide medivac transport for the locals and visitors. CASA may be on a mission - maybe not - but the offer of grants and exemptions seems to be a reasonable solution for remote, non RPT serviced aerodromes. Perhaps its time 'men of good faith' got together and sorted this out; maybe even drag in a politician or two to ease the passage.
As said, its all very muddled and conflicted; but I can still remember being very pleased that Mallacoota had an instrument approach, lights, friendly locals and a warm motel room available one truly dark and stormy night when the pucker factor was off the scale (its long story Joyce); 'nuff said.
Toot - toot..
"CASA said grant options and exemptions were offered to smaller aerodromes, though the council did not apply for either on behalf of the Mallacoota Airport."
"Grandfathering provisions applied to existing facilities, including Mallacoota Airport, so smaller aerodromes did not need costly work to meet the new standards," CASA said.
"No infrastructure changes were required as part of the transition process."
There is a lot of material published related to aerodromes etc. The link - HERE - seems to be pertinent; although I have not read 'all' of the published data - so no guarantees.
But it seems to me there are some rabbits running here - set to confuse the hounds. For example, if grants and grandfathering and exemptions were allowed and available, why did the local council not make application? Surely exemption for RFDS /medical / 'charter' would be available - just for the sake of safety if no other. This don't make sense; any risk analysis of the small number of non scheduled services would conclude that for aircraft <5.7 without certificated performance requirements (RTOW etc) have few restrictions (bar the existing obvious) which preclude IFR arrival and departure.
If you draw a line on the map from Bairnsdale to Merimbula, the area to the East of that line encompasses some fairly rugged terrain and is subject to some of the worst, unpredictable weather conditions this land is subject to. Aerodromes, like Mallacoota are an essential part of the support structure remote regions must have. The Council must know this, just as it must know that the RFDS (Fire support etc.) may be called in at any tick of the clock (or the back thereof). Angel Flight seem to be a regular user and thus far the accident/incident risk rate is (and remains) a zero under the existing facility - but the risk of a life lost simply because an aircraft could not make an instrument approach is pretty much an odds on bet.
Goodwin (AAA) makes some valid points; but that aside, the Council seem to be trying to buy a ticket on the Federal gravy train rather than applying to CASA for any and all exemptions available, to provide medivac transport for the locals and visitors. CASA may be on a mission - maybe not - but the offer of grants and exemptions seems to be a reasonable solution for remote, non RPT serviced aerodromes. Perhaps its time 'men of good faith' got together and sorted this out; maybe even drag in a politician or two to ease the passage.
As said, its all very muddled and conflicted; but I can still remember being very pleased that Mallacoota had an instrument approach, lights, friendly locals and a warm motel room available one truly dark and stormy night when the pucker factor was off the scale (its long story Joyce); 'nuff said.
Toot - toot..