I REFER to letters by Michelle (Argus, 5/6/18) and Peter (Argus, 8/6/18) regarding the impact of possible departure of the Australian International Aviation College.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
People opposed to the industrial scale pilot training operations are well aware of the loss of existing work should AIAC withdraw completely. We genuinely understand the view taken by Michelle and similar service providers and sympathise for their loss.
In equal measure, I urge Michelle and others to understand the impact four years of low altitude circuit training has had on the lives of the 3000 or so people living some six kilometres around the airport. This cannot be described – it has to be seen, heard and felt.
A large-scale increase is unlivable and intolerable. Yes, people ‘bought near the airport’ and fully expected a resurrection of commercial aviation in some form – but people didn’t expect intrusive, repetitive day and night vocational training aviation, a point highlighted in the recent independent assessment report.
As for the economic benefits. The only case put forward to date was in AIAC’s Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE). This has been debunked – the assumptions made are based on expenditures by international students studying three to six-year degree courses at major city and regional universities. Over 60 per cent of expenditures are course fees and other costs associated with tertiary education, which are not applicable to company funded, short duration vocational training cadets.
The SoEE forecast annual expenditures of $35,000 per student. With 30 students per year since 2014, the Kempsey economy should have seen an injection of over $4 million.
Where is the evidence? The cleaning and grounds maintenance income mentioned by Michelle is real and the loss will be genuinely felt, however the other figures are based on assumptions and guesswork.
The case put by AIAC was never tested. We repeatedly asked for the claims to be validated by real economic data, applicable to Kempsey – nothing has been forthcoming.
Council has also taken AIAC’s claims at face value and has not conducted its own robust, cost benefit analysis.
Pilot training to the level sought by AIAC will see a loss to agribusinesses and jobs.
Organic farmers have indicated that they will leave the Macleay – and with that will go the $2 million packing/distribution shed (and jobs) under construction at South Kempsey. Organic certification is at risk from aircraft engine emissions from leaded Avgas 100LL fuel and hydrocarbon emissions from kerosene based Avtur fuel – despite individual aircraft meeting emissions standards, the more aircraft flying in a confined area the greater the risk to organics, albeit real or perceived by the market.
Regarding some inaccuracies in Peter’s claims. CASA does not control airspace, Airservices Australia does. CASA controls aviation safety. Council, as airport owner, has the power to impose day/time restrictions on ‘circuit training’.
We stand ready to work with council, the business chamber and other sectors of the community to turn Kempsey Airport into a more viable aviation asset and to help grow the Kempsey economy.
We genuinely hope that All Cleaning Services and Huddo continue to thrive and prosper. As for popping the champagne – not just yet – we suspect AIAC is regrouping and will take another strafing run.