Flight Training yet again……
Sue Brooks November 29th, 2008
Will it ever end! I raise a few questions in answer to recent criticism about the decision by FTA to withdraw their application and the accompanying finger pointing and blame game that seems to have erupted.
Noise - To put it simply. To my knowledge when an airport owner decides knowingly to dramatically increase flights the ANEF contours around the airport move outwards. http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/expanding/app_a.aspx
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aviationenvironment/noise/anef_anei.asp
These contours are a line drawn around an airport within which houses are not allowed or desired. What do you think happens when an airport owner decides to go ahead and increase the use of its airport and houses that were outside the contour now end up within it? Please make your own enquiries as to the legal position of these residents that now find, through no fault of their own, that they are within a contour.
Economics – Does anyone truly believe that the economic return to a community is justified if the entire community has to suffer a considerable increase in rates to pay for the economic benefit of a few? Yes I know money circulates widely around a community but I am very unsure that the figures touted by FTA are anywhere close to what the real benefit to OUR community would be.
Insurance – If you can find anyone anywhere that would insure an organisation when it wants to do something, that it has been legally advised not to do, please let me know! In relation to noise insurance. I am all ears as to how anyone can insure against airport caused noise. From my knowledge there is no such insurance available anywhere.
Council process – In relation to the flying school. Council decided on a process post amalgamation. The resolution was carried unanimously and is on public record. No Councillor has tried to change this at any time since it was resolved. Council officers, including the CEO, were following instructions of Council. Flight Training has never, ever asked me if I support or don’t support their proposal. So how is it that Councillors are being targetted with the ‘don’t support it’ brush? When have Councillors voted for or against it? The answer is ….Never.
I am so sad that the print media and some business and community leaders, including both our Chambers of Commerce executives, have been blaming Council for the departure of this project. If we all keep speculating and blaming each other we just perpetuate the notion that the Fraser Coast is not a good place to do business. Is this what we really want? Do we want to drive a wedge between two cities that are absolutely wonderful places to live and visit? I am sure that we are in for a bumpy ride economically speaking, but does that mean we turn against each other instead of helping each other?
No city or town is currently using any Council monies to build any projects that was funded by any other Council prior amalgamation. In other words this year each area is receiving monies spent on projects that had already been earmarked by the previous Council. The waterpark is primarily State funded and all Councillors from everywhere, accept myself, voted in favour of this project going ahead! No city or town is currently benefitting at the expense of any other city or town within the FCRC area.
Please ask for some public disclosure and factual information about the FTA proposal before beying for blood! Let’s stick to facts and not rumour and inuendo. We live in such a wonderful place and we should be doing our best to reinforce that fact and not detract from it.
- Council related issues
- Comments(5)
For those interested in another view of the FTG/Maryborough airport saga read -
http://www.frasercoastairportnoise.com
I think you will find it of interest,
Sadman
And one more point of liability for council.. what of all the people who bought property in Hervey Bay after careful investigation with council on the flight path and then find the documentation and spoken assurances were now disregarded? These properties still not within the worst ANEF boundaries but were bought with reasonable assurance that they would not be affected at all.
This airport should never have been extended. It is still not too late to cut losses and replace it with one of the alternatives provided by study 7 years ago. I believe it could be done at a cost neutral basis once the resale value of the land in Hervey Bay and Maryborough are considered.
In response to Justasailor,
Many if not all of these suggestions were put to council and posted in Letters to the Ed,
prior and during the runway extension. No one was interested!! Now unfortunately, we
have about $20 million of ratepayers money invested in the Hervy Bay airport.
Without a massive lose of money, I don’t believe there is any going back. Remmember,
due to the financial situation land values have dropped and housing is in a bit of a slump.
But some of us did try.
John A Neve
Hi John and all
It certainly would have been better to do it then than now but… perhaps it isn’t out of the picture yet.
As you point out property is not hot right now but that works both ways. Good buying then.
But one thing that doesn’t come cheap and is never plentiful is air park property. How about subdividing the M’borough airport for private residents with shared title to the landing strip? I bet you could flog those properties for a million a block easy. Private aircraft operators all over the country would look at that. How many, say 1/2 to 1 acre blocks could be set up? They would need to be at least a 1/2 acre so room for private hangar. Or maybe units with large common hangars? How many acres available there? Like an up market version of what is now at Pacific Haven.
M’borough could go back to the relatively light air traffic it can tolerate and they would be considerate pilots because it’s their neighbourhood. Covenants could be built into the title to require traffic to avoid town areas. This would truly bring money into the area without wrecking the place to do it. Just eyeballing the thing I bet you could sell off enough to finance the new airport or near to it.
The answer?? Dunno but I would like to see alternatives discussed.
Is this something that has been considered Sue?
cheers
and just one more thought about a possible air park in Maryborough… what a great way to shut up the hecklers.
Propose an alternative to the FTG that even (edited by Sue) Bates would have a hard time badmouthing.
Would go a long way to taking the wind out of their sails..
An Air Park would bring more money in than even the bogus $20 million FTG fantasy. And would bring in permanent, high income residents and corporate leaders, the people who can afford and justify their own aircraft.