Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1779790
PeteSpencer wrote:...I don't think that makes me a bad person.
My main ride is of course, the DT, who from time to time even publish my letters.
Peter :thumleft:

[My heavy snip of Pete's post]

Nothing makes you a bad person*, Peter, there was no criticism intended! :thumright:

Rob

*apart from the fact that you won't fly in to Leicester anymore to allow me to buy you lunch! :wink:
By oldbiggincfi
#1779832
Just in case, as was I, that the local planning office could stop flying operations. you may not know the following was copied from a Model Aircraft Forum.

Basically the 28 day rule, relates to "Change of use of land" under planning regulations.

Any piece of land may be used for any purpose that it is not designated as, for 28 days (or part days thereof) in any one year.

Thus, for example, a piece of land designated as part of an "Agricultural Holding" could be used for 10 car boots, 10 motocross, 4 horse jumping events and 3 football matches and a 1 day Scout Camp site in any 1 year.


All seems strange to me as several , what looks like fields, suddenly become populated with fancy mobile homes with very small wheels .
Can be there for years and nothing changes .
Complaints of antisocial behaviour go unheeded , don't tell me you didn't hear the Quad Bike roaring through the village or see that pile of rubble in the hedgerow .

If light aviation doesn't wake up there will soon nowhere to go. It's all very well discussing and moaning about the closure of airfields . Let's get some new ones and start lobbying for a change in rules . Landing places don't have to be wonderful , a large field will do. I have landed in fields near racecourses/tracks , hotels , beaches and even on reservoir wall.
Years ago I arranged a large, 20 or so aircraft, fly out. to Exmoor . Moved the sheep out the field first – no problem for an Aztec, Arrow or little Jodel . South Moulton were happy for the extra guests .
Love a new aeroplane but nowhere to park it .
User avatar
By JAFO
#1779847
PeteSpencer wrote:You tell them that the complaint will be logged and has legally to be disclosed to prospective buyers if they ever put their house on the market.

Peter :roll:


Years ago, when I worked for the police, a colleague of mine took a complaint about the noise of the force helicopter. She was very polite and finished the call by thanking the gentleman and telling him that she would add his name and address to "the list".

'What list?' He asked.

'We keep a list of those who object to the use of the helicopter, sir. That way if their house is broken into or their car stolen or a loved one of theirs goes missing, we know that they do not want us to use the helicopter when we respond. Bye bye.'

:D :D :D :D :D :D
Sooty25, AndyR, seanxair and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1779862
PeteSpencer wrote:You tell them that the complaint will be logged and has legally to be disclosed to prospective buyers if they ever put their house on the market.

Which caused us problems as buyers too.... previous owners of our place had long running complaint with the abattoir next door for being an abattoir (animals don't go quietly).
We didn't care (my dad farmed livestock, we know what's involved) but the conveyancer insisted on getting confirmation from the mortgage lender that they were happy to lend despite the complaints, which just added delay and complexity.
I'd stick a ban on urbanites retiring to the countryside. Too many have a deluded dream of peaceful chocolate box living, and forget that people have lives to live here too and farm land is basically one big outdoor factory.
seanxair, skydriller, Nick and 3 others liked this
By chevvron
#1779865
ChrisGazzard wrote:How is it that this normal Aviation activity is acceptable for most of us up and down the county, but because you happen to live in a village on the outskirts of an airport you are able to not only benefit from virtually no overflights, but have a right to complain when one actually does.

In the past, a since retired manager at Fairoaks not the present one, on receipt of a complaint about aircraft noise from somebody who moved into the area shortly beforehand, would simply write them a letter suggesting they take up their complaint with the estate agent who brokered their house purchase and point out the airfield has been there since 1936 and used to be far busier having trained over 6,000 pilots during WW2.
He showed me one or two of the letters once.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1779871
oldbiggincfi wrote:Just in case, as was I, that the local planning office could stop flying operations. you may not know the following was copied from a Model Aircraft Forum.

Basically the 28 day rule, relates to "Change of use of land" under planning regulations.

Any piece of land may be used for any purpose that it is not designated as, for 28 days (or part days thereof) in any one year.

Thus, for example, a piece of land designated as part of an "Agricultural Holding" could be used for 10 car boots, 10 motocross, 4 horse jumping events and 3 football matches and a 1 day Scout Camp site in any 1 year.


The full SI - is here
Permitted development
B. The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes of—
(a) the holding of a market;
(b) motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities,
and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use.

I'm told that planning authorities can:
a) remove or restrict permitted development rights by an article 4 directive
b) enforcement action may be taken against a use relying on permitted development rights where the local authority has reasonable cause to consider that the use is not intended to be temporary, even if it does not exceed 28 days in any given calendar year
User avatar
By flyguy
#1780234
*Sigh*

At our shop we work incredibly hard to distribute the aerobatic noise footprint - split the local area into specific noise areas, use at least 3 different areas per flight, note which ones have been used so we can avoid them on subsequent flights, base height typically 4,000', fly out to sea within gliding range, reduced rpm on RTB, climbouts only over the green bits, etc etc.

And we still get people claiming that we are performing aerobatics directly over their house/village/town at dangerously low level. That their professional pilot friend has told them it was defo illegal and that if there was an engine problem then their house would definitely be hit. That we deliberately target them . That we fly over them every day when we have been on the ground for two weeks. Sadly, Haters gonna Hate, almost regardless of how hard we try to be as sensitive as possible.

And recently, in trying to calm a lady who has us on speed dial, it appears that my attempts to very gently explain our operation has now meant that I am apparently the font of all aeroplane knowledge, such that she now calls frequently and asks where other aeroplanes are from when they're obviously not in our colours. You try and be helpful....! :roll:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1780272
Excuse my ignorance, but if an aerodrome has the necessary planning permission then why does it even need to engage with noise complaints beyond "Yes sir, this is an aerodrome. There are aeroplanes here and they have engines which make a noise. Good day."

Or can every aerodrome's right to operate be withdrawn by their local council if complaints meet some arbitrary threshold of too many?
Shoestring Flyer liked this
#1780311
defcribed wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but if an aerodrome has the necessary planning permission then why does it even need to engage with noise complaints beyond "Yes sir, this is an aerodrome. There are aeroplanes here and they have engines which make a noise. Good day."

Or can every aerodrome's right to operate be withdrawn by their local council if complaints meet some arbitrary threshold of too many?

There will often be certain 'conditions' to be adhered to when you are granted planning permission and planning permission can be withdrawn if these conditions are not followed.
If you are a licensed airfield, you are required to form an 'airport consultative committee' with representatives of local councis, residents and airport users where 'problems' can be discussed.
kanga liked this
By dr107flyer
#1780487
There are certain individuals that have taken to falsely reporting aircraft as illegal low flying just because they don’t like the noise. So assuming said individual lives in a remote area so nobody else is affected ,do we keep flying in the area as it’s suitable for our activities and accept the fact we will continue to be reported to the CAA , or do we give up the valuable bit of airspace in an already complex over controlled part of the country?
By rdfb
#1780494
dr107flyer wrote:There are certain individuals that have taken to falsely reporting aircraft as illegal low flying just because they don’t like the noise. So assuming said individual lives in a remote area so nobody else is affected ,do we keep flying in the area as it’s suitable for our activities and accept the fact we will continue to be reported to the CAA , or do we give up the valuable bit of airspace in an already complex over controlled part of the country?


I'm not involved in handling noise complaints (or in the operation of an aerodrome!) but it is frustrating to hear that false reports and irrelevant reports have a voice.

Complaints should be taken seriously, and the details investigated. But following diligent investigation, serial complainers who repeatedly make false or irrelevant* complaints should be ignored (with appropriate documentation recorded with the justification). Such a person should have one single voice, not one for every single overflight.

* By irrelevant, I include complaints about aircraft for which the complaint handler is not responsible, and complaints of the nature "I live under an approach path, a plane approached with no other rule was broken but I'm going to complain anyway".

If this kind of handling isn't included in the processes of all parties handling complaints (aerodromes, councils, CAA), the processes need fixing. It's already built in to the way that humans deal with things. It should be reflected in formalities too, with no excuses needed.
#1780498
Blimey !!! Do I have the right to complain when the Air Ambulance flies low or maybe the police helicopter shinning lights at night .
As for the military, formation of 6 Apaches gets everyone out of their graves, the living duck in them .
Living near brands hatch we get the spitfire from Biggin regularly barrel rolling near by under the TMA of 2500' .
But do I complain when the complainers depart Heathrow and start a climb into the airway over my house .
It's just a fact of modern living, being understanding and considerate .

I can't stop the birds singing l
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1780581
There are certain individuals that have taken to falsely reporting aircraft as illegal low flying just because they don’t like the noise


I’m pretty sure a Mode S and SD trace will prove them wrong if ever questioned?

I fly with SD on ‘Go Flying’ even if I’m not looking at it, largely for some kind of evidence that I haven’t done something I might be accused of.