Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1783248
Joe Dell wrote:If I flick through AFE Flight guide etc I would appear to have a choice of over 400 destinations. If I were to add the strips which don't appear in any guide or chart the number jumps significantly. There are six within a half hour flying time which didn't exist until recently. Glass half full?


If you happen to own your own aircraft, yes. But if you rent from a club, you're at more mercy. As an owner, you can move your aircraft around.
PeteSpencer liked this
#1783254
If the cost of flying was reduced to something sensible enough to attract all the wannabes into the sport it might become something worth thinking about by the general public. Instead of a rich kids play thing.
Licence well north of £12k, about £200 per hour to rent some antiquated junk heap from a club, after the obligatory check ride £! You couldn’t hire an aircraft for a whole day, fly somewhere and wander about for a few hours and fly back! £thousands for maintenance to tighten a loose screw, £more thousands every year for CofA, regulations that can’t be understood by the people that wrote them,
The public don’t know about LAA, BMAA, etc.
So where is the incentive for the government to maintain a network of airfields?
JodelDavo, flybymike liked this
#1783265
There's a lot of aircraft around that aren't antiquated. Some of their owners might have the delusion they aren't junk heaps. :D

Flying can be cheaper but the comfort level gets closer to motorcycling than driving - not for every passenger. Even my favourite passenger prefers the luxury of Easyjet occasionally.
#1783276
That's the grand irony, of course; statistically, I'm sure that the noise from a light aircraft is much less
onerous over the long-term than noise from cars or motorbikes outside their property. In fact, I can tell you that it is, having spent 2 years of my life working with the ANCON model for acoustics in aviation:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Environ ... g-process/

Perhaps a good starting point is a question: what are complainants really bothered about? Is it noise? From the aircraft? Vehicles? Is it privacy from overflying? Is it fear of being involved in an accident on their property? Is it just a general annoyance with somebody having fun in a perceived 'posh' way?

I may be completely wrong, but I don't think I have ever seen any data that actually tries to understand what the objections are to general aviation from NIMBYs; we (the GA sector) try to apply catch-all solutons (like noise abatement areas, avoiding run-ups etc). Perhaps if we could empathise with those who don't like us, we can apply tailored solutions to address concerns. A perception that flying is only for rich people has a different solution to the perception that aircraft are disturbing someone's peace and quiet.

The reason I say that is because - objectively, scientifically, statistically - I believe noise is not the real issue. Or at least, pure decibels. There is much to it than that; rather than simply 'absorb' the complaint all the time and create these NAAs - which merely reaffirms the perception that GA is noisy - why can't we use evidence to prove that it is not and move the discussion onto the real reason why people don't like GA?

I suspect the real problem underneath is that a small group of people don't like the idea that someone else is having fun - and that the method they use for having fun appears to them rather elitist and potentially dangerous to them and their property. So, they use noise as a very easy stick to push GA around with.

Where are the national-level campaigns showcasing the accessibility of aviation? Where are the outreach campaigns to get flying into schools? Where's the messaging that shows how safe aviation is? Where's the push to demonstrate that you're more impacted by the noise from a motorbike speeding round the country lanes than you are by a light aircraft passing quickly over at circuit height?

We constantly pander to the NIMBYs here and the consequence of that is that it allows them to get on the front-foot? Where's the fightback? Why so apologetic?
rdfb, Crash one, Aerials and 3 others liked this
#1783277
Crash one wrote:If the cost of flying was reduced to something sensible enough to attract all the wannabes into the sport it might become something worth thinking about by the general public. Instead of a rich kids play thing.
Licence well north of £12k, about £200 per hour to rent some antiquated junk heap from a club, after the obligatory check ride £! You couldn’t hire an aircraft for a whole day, fly somewhere and wander about for a few hours and fly back! £thousands for maintenance to tighten a loose screw, £more thousands every year for CofA, regulations that can’t be understood by the people that wrote them,
The public don’t know about LAA, BMAA, etc.
So where is the incentive for the government to maintain a network of airfields?


the harsh reality is, even done on the cheap, flying isn't cheap to a lot of people. It will always be the hobby of the more affluent or those so determined they sacrifice everything else.

LAA, BMAA does make it cheaper, but it still isn't cheap.
cockney steve liked this
#1783299
Sooty25 wrote:
Crash one wrote:If the cost of flying was reduced to something sensible enough to attract all the wannabes into the sport it might become something worth thinking about by the general public. Instead of a rich kids play thing.
Licence well north of £12k, about £200 per hour to rent some antiquated junk heap from a club, after the obligatory check ride £! You couldn’t hire an aircraft for a whole day, fly somewhere and wander about for a few hours and fly back! £thousands for maintenance to tighten a loose screw, £more thousands every year for CofA, regulations that can’t be understood by the people that wrote them,
The public don’t know about LAA, BMAA, etc.
So where is the incentive for the government to maintain a network of airfields?


the harsh reality is, even done on the cheap, flying isn't cheap to a lot of people. It will always be the hobby of the more affluent or those so determined they sacrifice everything else.

LAA, BMAA does make it cheaper, but it still isn't cheap.



Horse riding and horse ownership isn’t cheap either, and can be very expensive or reasonably manageable. Much the same, yet horse riders don’t get the anti gangs bleating at them at every turn.
I don’t know about the boating community, do they get hassled for having marinas up and down the coast that could be pristine beaches for the great unwashed to sunbathe on?
#1783313
I don't think horses generate 73dba of noise when they go past, or burn fuel and create emissions; there are also many more horse-riders than pilots. Ditto, I'd argue that boating is perceived as more accessible by the general public.

GA is really just having its Top Gear moment. It would be interesting to know whether gliding clubs get the same level of retribution?
#1783315
some of the previous comments are exactly why my idea would fail. Whether it is Ingatestone or North Denes or anywhere else, people always find fault, or the next thing would be, it's not near me. Nothing is perfect nor doe it need to be.

My idea wasn't to just buy one airfield that is convenient, but over a longer term buy a whole network of airfields scattered across the country, bundled into an investment product, that while it may not return 15%, might equal or outperform your typical bank ISA, with long term capital growth on the shareholding, whilst supporting ones own hobby.

Ingatestone, "I don't like the house..." Neither do I, fence it off with a chunk of garden, flog it and clear a chunk of the Mortgage, or use it towards airfield No.2. What's the income off the fishing lakes?

North Denes, Gt Yarmouth might be a ****'ole to some, but it is still a day out at horse racing, or on a beach that some city folk might fly to. Fish and Chips, followed by an ice cream! Or for Pete, there is always Fallen Angels.
Make an offer, by now £650k might just buy it! Lease off the old Bond's Terminal building to someone like McDonalds, extend the runway to the west, and it's starting to make sense. What is the current income from the garage that is running on the plot?

Look beyond just aviation to support these.

Old Buck, what happens when this passes to the next owner? It is potentially another single owner airfield that may, one day, become vulnerable.

A group of airfields owned by a group of people, none of whom can unilaterally force a sale would provide security for the airfields, and strength to fend off the NIMBY's and planners at individual sites.
JAFO, rdfb, Aerials and 3 others liked this
#1783352
Rob P wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:Drop yer steed off at N Denes for its annual and then face non-existent public transport to get home or an obliging mate in his Cub:


How well I remember the days when The Shiny Colt went to Le Plessis Belleville, just outside Paris, for its annual.

Always an adventure

Rob P


Ah yes: I well remember the day when the Shiny Colt went................

Peter :lol:
#1783376
Sooty25 wrote:My idea wasn't to just buy one airfield that is convenient, but over a longer term buy a whole network of airfields scattered across the country, bundled into an investment product, that while it may not return 15%, might equal or outperform your typical bank ISA, with long term capital growth on the shareholding, whilst supporting ones own hobby.


A single owner of multiple airfields is exactly what is needed. That allows to reduce costs by consolidating expenses related to operations. A single complaint/planning handling, management and lobbying system comes to mind. Consistency in local rules/regulations/expectations and consolidated pricing and billing would make things easier for pilots, too, in a way much more convenient than just having reciprocal landing card arrangements. Imagine if holding a contract with a network meant that you do not have to PPR to any airfield in the network and landing and parking fees are all just the standard known prices and just get taken by Direct Debit (or even included in a fixed annual contract).

Normally businesses consolidate (through mergers and acquisitions) during a market downturn for exactly this kind of reason.

Unfortunately because of the general downturn in GA, the risk for investors is high, and I'm not sure the return will compensate for that. But putting money towards this might be worth it to protect our hobby.