Flight Training School (post 4)
Sue Brooks November 21st, 2008
So the blame game continues in the paper today. It seems no one at the Chronicle wants my opinion however! I have however received some emails with these questions. “Why didn’t Council make it very clear to the residents of Hervey Bay that the proposed training school would be based in Maryborough but the flights i.e. takeoff and landings, would be occurring at Hervey Bay airport”?
My second question is “Who is going to pay for the security/emergency system that will have to be put into place if this school does go ahead”. (I will have to check the commercial in confidence status of this info before I respond directly to this question)
My response, personal comment as always. As a member of the Hervey Bay City Council I was under the impression that the school would build at Maryborough and the flight training would occur there. I thought that Hervey Bay may benefit from some economic returns as a result of the school but I did not expect a great increase in flying activity at the Hervey Bay airport. In other words I was not informed of the details of the proposed school although I understand our Mayor did have some knowledge as he had visited the Parafiled Airport and was involved in discussions with the then Maryborough Mayor. No formal report was presented to HBCC as I recall, on the full implications for the Hervey Bay airport.
I understood that the installation of the (Instrument Landing System) ILS at Hervey Bay would make our airport operations safer and that the Flying School would use this equipment for one aspect of their training. I did not, at the time, think the increased flight activity would be considerable at Hervey Bay airport. I did, and still do however, expect the Hervey Bay airport to attract increased activity as time goes on.
Post amalgamation as a member of the FCRC I was informed in much greater detail of the entire Flight Training proposal. My concerns in relation to this project, and any other project, centred around our responsibility as a Council, to ensure the safety and ‘comfort’ of our residents and the preservation of our natural environment, in terms of adverse impacts from any proposed commercial venture. I am always concerned that Council does not place itself in a position where it knowlingly compromises these values. Next on my list of concerns is the financial cost/return to Council. Will this project cost Council directly and if so how much? Is the economic benefit to the community worth any direct financial loss or cost to Council? Exactly what economic return will be gained by a project and by whom? Will every rate payer have to support the proposed project by an increase in rates? In relation to any proposal involving use of Council (public) owned land my concerns relate to the cost to Council of ongoing upkeep and the ramifications of entering into a long term lease. Will a return to Council via a commercial lease offset the direct cost to Council? Should Council enter into a commercial lease or support the project without entering into a commercial lease?
These are the types of questions I continually ask of our ‘bureaucrats’ when any proposal is presented to us. In relation to the FTG proposal Council formally delegated the CEO authority to continue negotiations along agreed guidelines. Council has never formally altered that decision. In my opinion timelines have been followed and Council has been kept updated on progress. Council has not formally decided to alter this process.
Council recently decided to hold public meetings to inform residents about the proposal as a result of the increasing number of enquiries we were receiving from residents in both Hervey Bay and Maryborough in relation to this proposal. I believe that the Fraser Coast Regional Council has acted in a proper and reasonable and timely manner post amalgamtion. I have not been in contact directly with FTG personnel so I do not know any further details as to why they have withdrawn from their proposal. I believe that they have decided that in this economic climate the proposal is not viable. I am also supportive of our CEO and our senior staff who, in my opinion, have worked diligently to keep Council informed of the issues surrounding this proposal and I am quite annoyed and upset at the negative comments made about them via local media. It is the responsibility of Council (Councillors) to formally direct our CEO and senior staff to do our bidding. I believe our senior staff have done exactly that.
- Council related issues
- Comments(8)
Sue,
There has been much said about a “vocal minority” opposing the FTG. In reality, I believe there has been a vested interest group pushing the proposal. Due to their position in our area and their money? Their access to the media has been great and the info put out by them, biased, inaccurate and a manipulation of the facts.
If the electorate is given the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, I believe they will never accept the FTG coming to our region.
Sadman
Sadman
I am really unsure who you refer to when you say vested interest group? Cr Nioa owns a property within a few blocks of the airport yet she supported the project, Crs O’Connell and Hovard worked their hardest to bring this one in for Maryborough so yes it was in their best interests for it to get off the ground.
The others who have an interest (Maryborough’s Chamber of Commerce and other local business people) were all looking forward to this project as not only would it complement the other businesses at the airport and provide a rental income to help offset the cost of running the facility but also help attract other organisations to our region.
Also, what about the local schools who were gearing up to use the new facility to train their students? Here was a new business coming in and offering our youth new opportunities but we’ve gone and wasted it. What a shame.
Ben,
Tell us more. What were the schools doing to train their students at FTG’s facilities?
What new opportunities would our youth experience?
As to Crs. O’connell and Hovard, they won’t answer questions, I know.
Ben , you have been suckered, they put out the bait and you went for it. Give us some
hard facts Ben. What are the benefits for our region?
Sadman
Benefits:
Jobs – the fuel man (someone physically has to keep the aircraft in go juice), the aircraft mechanics, the council guy who ensures the runway is kept clean (he’d actually have something to do each day!), the flight trainers themselves, the catering staff, the taxi companies (the students will get out and about afterall), the entertainment venues (yes, even overseas visitors want to experience local food, beverages and culture). I probably missed a few others but you get the picture.
Economic –
* Local aviation fuel supplier would benefit,
* Aviation maintenance business would have ongoing work and be able to retain skilled workers.
* Airport would get rental fees (no it won’t pay to keep the entire airport operational but it will contribute to the bigger picture),
* Entertainment venues would benefit from the additional patronage of flgiht school staff and students.
* HELP ATTRACT ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO UPGRADE BOTH AIRPORTS – I understand part of the proposal required the upgrading of safety systems – so this benefits the entire community as not just are the flight school planes going to know who else is up there with them, all other aircraft will get this flow on benefit also.. but I digress…
* The flight school would actually be putting more pilots into the industry so companies such as REX would have enough pilots to enable them to service our region which in turn enables more services (such as attracting medical specialists who prefer to be able to fly in direct and not spend time commuting by car from Brisbane)
* Each trainee pilot will also return home to share his or her experiences of our wonderful region which would again flow on to mean more visitors.. which benefits the entire community with the toursit dollars they bring.
I am certain someone such as Gerard or Barb could rattle off a hundred more.
Now.. the community benefit part…
I am not the expert on this but it is my understanding several local schools were developing subjects based around the aero-industry so I’d be guessing that means anything from introducing students to flight basics, real-life exposure to aircraft mechanical engineering right through to actual flight lessons.
There is a very active light aircraft manufacturing industry in this region – not just in Hervey Bay but also nearby Bundaberg and these businesses are always looking to attract new employees and apprentices.
Retention of local youth in the area is great for our economy and gives our youngsters a chance for an alternative to living in the hussle and bussle of the bigger cities (something we all enjoy ourselves).
The flight training school was just a start to the possiblities of other add-on businesses the FCRC could attract to both our airports to enhance their viability.
I’ve said enough but John / Sadman, but please, pick up the phone and give either Gerard or Barb a call and I am sure both would be happy to answer any sensible questions.
Ben,
You mention jobs and nominate 6 areas, so let’s look at them. Aren’t the runways kept clean now?
Taxis, do you really think companies will put on more drivers?
Flight trainers/instructors, they would have brought with them.
Catering, yes there would be a few.
Entertainment!! Ben, we are talking about trainee pilots, they are paying BIG,BIG money to learn how to fly. Pilots must have zero alcohol blood levels, the course is quite short and much study to be done. I doubt they will blow their chance at a pass for some light entertainment. Added to which Ben, would you want a trainee pilot who has had a night on the town flying over your house?
As to the councillors you mention! Ben, they have had nearly two years to tell us what the benefits are, they haven’t!! I wonder
why?
Maybe Ben, you could tell us what jobs “local youth” are likely to get out of this exercise?
Sadman
Ben,
You make some good points about job creation etc, but couldn’t the same be said for the Traveston Dam? Are you going to give the same argument now that plans to build it have been scrapped? I presume not because you believe the damage caused far outweighs the benefits. That is the real argument, not JUST what benefits the project will create.
Sadman.
Jobs for youth would have come from traineeships and apprenticeships with aerospace companies such as Seabird, Jabiru, perhaps Maryborough Aviation Services just to name a few of the organisations in our area.
The other obvious employment opportunity would be as a pilot. D’uh!
Now I don’t feel there is any more to be gained in this debate – the School is gone and not coming back so we’re wasting our breath speculating what might have been.
Ben,
Having got beyond pre-school, I don’t know what “D’uh” means?
Regarding the rest of your post, those opportunities are still there.
But I agree, as you have nothing else in the way of valid points to
make regarding the FTG proposal, let’s move on.
Sadman