[adrianw]

I've decided to try and re-validate my lapsed licence and trying to decide which flying school to use. Ideally within easy reach from my home in Banbury.

In the past I've flown from Enstone, however, I'm spoilt for choice really with Hinton, Turweston, Wellesbourne and Oxford all being within easy distance.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

I did pop in to Hinton yesterday and they seemed friendly, although perhaps limited in terms of their training fleet which I thought might make self-fly hire an issue.

Many thanks

[Flyin'Dutch']

They are all excellent places to fly from - I have done so myself from all of them over the years.

The different schools/operators have something different to offer so it would probably be best to make tracks to all of them and have a chat about what they can offer and what you want.

[AFKAE]

Do it with Nick at Hinton, he's a good guy.

[ThePipster]

The crew at Turweston are very good and friendly to boot! Training, touring and aeros, what more can a guy want?

[shameless_plug]Don't forget to visit Sywell when you have your licence back!! [/shameless_plug]

Pipster

[ChrisT]

Does Clive Stainer still operate from Hinton? Did some slmg work with him a few years back - he operated a C152 as well at the time - would recommend him as an instructor.

[AFKAE]

Clive retired at the end of May.

[Rob P]

I trained at Wellesbourne and found it very social and welcoming.

They seem to have won their struggle against the airfield closing and the busier it is the less likely this is to happen. I think there are several schools to choose from (the one I trained at is long gone I'm afraid)

Rob P

[kanga]

.. Wellesbourne ..

They seem to have won their struggle against the airfield closing and the busier it is the less likely this is to happen...

one would hope so, but it is not clear to me (no expert in these things ) that the planning guidance from central Government (UK in this context; no relevant delegated power) allows consideration of such criteria at the local level. One possible weapon for local opponents of airfield loss, however, is the designation of 'air sports' as official sports by Sport England [sic]. This, in theory, means that any planning decision which closes a 'sports facility' (by Sport England definition) must do so in consideration whether there is another or another can and will be provided within a 'reasonable' (IIRC) distance.

A further problem may be that many pilots using an airfield may not be residents of the LA area whose planning decisions affect its future, whereas some possibly vocal airfield opponents (possible encouraged my highly mendacious material from developers) may be.

Against this, Councillors know (and their Planning Officers will, quite properly, tell them) that since 1980s refusals of development proposals, if overturned on appeal to SoS, can lead to developers' costs being awarded to LA (and, if refusal is 'perverse' (again, IIRC), possibly even as personal surcharges on Councillors themselves).

So, I'm delighted that Wellesbourne seems to have a reprieve for now (unlike Long Marston in same LA area), but they may not be completely out of this particular wood...

As ever, this is the sort of issue why all supporters of GA should be supporting at least one of the GA organisations with their subs. Only with such support can the (usually unpaid, but needing resources) folk at these organisations fight these battles on behalf of all of us.

[Rob P]

..., but they may not be completely out of this particular wood...

Absolutely.

But how the case was won so far was proving an economic benefit to the area from the existence of the airfield as it is currently used.

Every single PPL trainee adds one more (small) economic incentive.

Forget Great Crested Newts. It's money what counts.

If you need more insight, the legend that is Duncan McKillop can provide.

Rob P

[kanga]

..how the case was won so far was proving an economic benefit to the area from the existence of the airfield as it is currently used.... It's money what counts.

..

<continuing thread drift, from OP's local airfields to planning issues but Staverton and Kemble are also nearish OP>

oh, quite. It is that which Staverton, too, has on its side. And the (sensible, non-partisan, majority core of) Councillors in all 4 relevant Councils know it. And MP3's folk's constant clever effective PR keeps the anyway sympathetic-to-proud local population on side too.

And in our case, the fringe-of-airport aviation industry very large to quite small companies actually provide much more local employment than all the (busy and successful but mostly small) on-airport aircraft operating/maintenance businesses. This did not stop one (long-term avowedly anti-airport, pro-development) Councillor public stating that there is no reason to suppose that those large companies would move themselves or many jobs elsewhere if airport ceased operating as an airport

Obviously, local County and lower echelon, separate and joint, 'strategic plans' do have explicit published criteria for preserving and enhancing local economic benefit. This can be a bit hit-and-miss, though. The latest iteration of the Cotswold District of Gloucestershire plan mentions Kemble under its 'economic' paragraphs only in terms of the business park on the edge of the airfield, without mentioning the fact that some of the businesses there are essentially aviation businesses, dependent on an active airfield. However, nearly all of the actual one surviving runway is actually in Worcestershire - the County line cut the airfield curtilage in 2 places ..

A thought: apart from island airfields (St Mary's; Lundy ?), are there any in England [sic] where the relevant LA can, should or actually does recognise a local airport as a benefit to local tourism ? Newquay, perhaps ? I expect most Brits, and therefore most Councillors, may think of an airport as somewhere which enables locals to go elsewhere on holiday elsewhere ..