Talk:Parafield Airport

No title

 * I have heard that the trees spelling "PARAFIELD" have been removed a few months ago --59.167.21.107 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also heard rumours that Parafield is going to be closed and developed into northern Mawson Lakes, with the airport possibly shifting to Gawler. How likely is this? I find it a bit hard to believe. --59.167.21.107 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The trees have certainly gone - it looks like the commercial precinct (Bunnings etc...) is going to expand to where they were. Havn't heard the moving rumour - seems unlikely as there is still a lot of undeveloped land on the sea side of Pt Wakefield rd that I'd think'd be developed first and nothings been announced about that yet _ Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper article stated that the trees were diseased hoewver they were axed before any member of the public could object. There are plans to build a Harbour Town style development which will probably affect many nearby busineses. Bunnings killed off most of the local hardware stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.26.122.12 (talk • contribs).
 * It's unfortunate that "disease" is an oft used excuse to cut down trees that are seen as inconvinient to some. Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Parafield from 1928
Found some fantastic photos of Parafield from 1928, but don't know if they could be used under fair use claim, expiration of copyright maybe? Anyway, take a look --Russavia 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it says for "For personal use only. To publish or display, contact the State Library of Western Australia." so I would suspect not but you might want to try and ask them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

= Other = Removed "Airlines and destinations" as the only entry below it was Air South Charter, who have not operated out of Parafield for years.

Classic Jets Airshow Crash
@Bidgee

A routine airshow display does not end with the aircraft crashing. A routine display ends with the airfcraft safely landing. The aircraft amy have performed a similar routine at other shows successfully, but by definition todays show was NOT ROUTINE.

BTW "routine" can also mean a sequence of events such as a "dance routine". Which is the sense I used when I originally drafted the article.

Yes I understand the aircraft I've referecned at Aircraft.net is the same aircraft. The reason I added the reference is because you modified the article ro make it read like the aircraft was a real spitfire, not an scaled replica. It is not a warbord - a warbird is a service aircraft. In anycase whether classes as a warbird or not it is still a replica. It is not registered as a spitfire. I aslo don't undertand why you removed my details about the location of the crash or the pilots details, or the aircraft's registration status.

If you want to edit a fact that you think is incorrect or poorly worded, please edit just the part that you think is incorrect. Please don't remove correctly cited facts. On the subject of notability if the pilot is not notable, why is the fact it is a particular mark of Spitfire notable or useful information - especially given that it is a replica? Th e[ilot is notable in that he was a well known airshow pilot and he crashed. The crash makes him more notable.

And why is the location of the crash not relevant? And why is the fact the aircraft experimental not relevant?

Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact said that is crashed " after a routine display at the airshow", I didn't say that it happened during nor part of the "routine" (which could be a "high speed pass" to a "dirty pass"). If you bothered to look at the article I linked to, was the very aircraft model which crashed. The pilot isn't notable (whom was sadly killed) and the fact that most war birds (even those which were flown during WWII) and home builds are classed as Experimental. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 (READ the linked article) is the very airframe. Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No it is not a spitfire, it is a replica. I'd go along with replica Spitfire MK26. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermarine-Aircraft-Spitfire/1308825 - read the remark in the article. As to experimental - it does not matter if most warbirds are or are not experimental. What matters is that the aircraft in question was one (an experimental aircraft). It is not something I made up, it has is registered as experimental. ANd it is important in that most aircraft that are flying are not experimental even inf most warbirds are.

Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And - why demote the section to a level 3 header? The aircraft crash is significant enough to stand on it's own section. While the show was run by Classis Jets it the crash rates a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtan163 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You've clearly not read the article about the "Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26", which states that it is a kit form home build aircraft. Mk 26 is 80% replica..... Level three header as it happened during the airshow. Bidgee (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the logic of the accident occurred during the airshow, then most wikipedia articles could simply be sub sections of the article on the Universe. The aircrash is a separate event from the Museum and from the airshow. I had a copy of the program and the program (obviously) didn't include a crash. The crash was an unplanned and separate event outside of the normal operations of the museum and outside of the planned airshow program. The routine may have been part of the show, but the crash was not. Jtan163 (talk)
 * Except that there is insufficient info at this point the matter (the crash) should probably have a separate article, like the other reported aviation accidents on wikipedia.Jtan163 (talk)


 * Re: Spit MK26 - i'm having problems identifying the article you mean.
 * In any case most people who are not familiar with the intriciacies of aviation will I believe take Spitfrie MK26 to mean a real spitfire. I think it is important that people who are interested will be able to read the article and understand that the aircraft was not an actual supermarine (as in the the supermarine company that was trading up until the 40 or 50s) spitfire and that it was not full size and was not a factory built production aircraft. I think most people who read SPitfire MK26 will assume that it is one of the many marks of Spitfires that were produced in the 40s (50s?). I don't see how clarifying this in the article is bad.

Jtan163 (talk)
 * I suggest you get your fact right! I never stated it was part of the routine, I stated the crash happened after the routine (ie: the "dirty pass" had been completed). You've clearly not read the article, you'll not that it is a modern aircraft based on the original Supermarine Spitfire. The manufacturer's website. Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand now that you mean the wikipedia article on the supermarine spitfire MK26. I thought you were reffering to an aritcle referenced on an external site- which obviously did not exist. Try assuming good faith and perhaps using a better explanation if your reader is not understanding. That said, I still think that while correct, the name of the aircraft as you have named it is ambiguous and will give most readers the wrong idea. I don't see how adding a footnote is an abuse of footnotes. Let's assume good faith shall we? If you don't like my method of doing it, can you please edit the article in such a sway that an average user, e.g. my grandmother, won;t mistake the aircraft in the accident as a supermarine spitfire as opposed to a supermarine aircraft supermarine spitfire?

Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Importing Mass Flight Training Noise at Parafield Airport, the Resident's experience.
Foreign flight training is a very relevant part of Parafield Airport's recent history. It is what kept Parafield Aerodrome funded up to remain as an airport, an unforeseen disaster for surrounding residents that had no say in the matter.

The stopparafieldairnoise blogspot will highlight the unbelievable amount of unmonitored flight training that had taken place at Parafield Airport.

It also demonstrated how with help from Adelaide's only main-stream newspaper, official authorities did not officially measure, or publicly report, the actual amount of circuit training noise over densely populated residential areas. Up to 120 overflights per hour were commonplace for decades till 11PM at night.

The ineffectiveness of a Government subsidized complaint & monitoring system is noteworthy of study. Community Consultation as run by Airport consultants is noteworthy of study. The failure of a State's public health health authority over Federally sanctioned foreign investment is noteworthy of study. Editorial bias in mainstream media omitting critical public health concerns is noteworthy of study.

Complaints from residents around Parafield Airport rivaled Australia's major gateway, Sydney Airport. Only since complaint reporting was made mandatory post 9/11 did this actuality become apparent.

It took 25-30 years, hundreds of house sales directly attributed to noise, degradation of human health, degradation of home value, suicides, for something to get eventually recognized.

It has only been the recent past two years the racket has somewhat alleviated, but we do not fully understand what happened to cause that, or why it took decades. Many still living in the dread that it could start up again any time.

www.stopparafieldairnoise.blogspot.com


 * If these things have been worthy of study and are notable enough to report in Wikipedia, we need references - newspaper articles and the scientific reports (perhaps PhDs from the nearby University of South Australia). Are you able to provide links to these? WP:RS policy does not allow us to cite from blogs. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 07:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parafield Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410133534/http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/PPFAD01-129.pdf to http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/PPFAD01-129.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * VH-YNJ Parafield Airport.jpg