Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Which is why keeping existing airfields open and perhaps applying to reopen some disused ones may be a better option.
Personally I'd say a
complementary option.
I don't think it needs to be an either/or choice.
Airfields that are a gateway to a destination have an attraction, as opposed to just being an airfield in their own right in the middle of nowhere. e.g. I go to places like Skegness and NorthRepps because I can have a day-out - nice as Fenland is, I go to Fenland and never leave the airfield. That's not saying there isn't a role for both.
One caveat would be that in protecting those airfields that we've got, don't accidentally make it unattractive for someone to establish a new one. E.g. I could imagine a time in a few years where I'd consider using part of my retirement fund to own a field and use it as an airfield for a decade or so - but at some point I'll need the capital back out, which may well mean reverting it to aggriculture.
Sooty25 wrote:our grass strip has remained waterlogged for 3 months now. Thankfully it doesn't need to generate regular revenue in the way a commercial venture would.
North Denes, you'd really want to walk the field now to see what the drainage is like, but as it's elevation is quoted at 6ft and is only quarter of a mile from a tidal river, I'll bet it's quite wet! Not problem for helo ops.
I get that grass isn't perfect - a lot depends on the underlying land conditions and mitigations. I don't think we've had to close yet this year, despite being in the Vale of York surrounded by flood plains, but equally I know others have been closed for ages. But then a lot of recreational flying is seasonal too for other reasons.