Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792852
Many thanks, Neil, for drawing people's attention to this (and continuing to do so). I am sure that many of the responses in support are the result of your tenacity! I put the details on two facebook groups and think that prompted a couple of responses.

The supporting comments are by far the majority and although this is a consultation and not a referendum they must carry some weight, especially as most of them point to the safety case for the development. Interestingly one of the more recent posters has raised the question as to whether the change to the taxiway should be considered as 'permitted development' and not subject to planning consent. I don't know the technicalities, but it did strike me that planning consent for simply widening and straightening an existing 'path' was a bit over the top.
With best wishes
Mike
Grelly liked this
User avatar
By JonathanB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792864
I think they did it under the auspices of permitted development of airfield infrastructure in the first place, then the local authorities went nuts about it.
By Maxthelion
#1792879
Not only are there objections on the grounds of noise from idiots who bought houses next to the airfield, several have actually objected to low flying when taking off. I think there is a gap in the market here for an aircraft that can land and takeoff without being near the ground in the process.
User avatar
By Nero
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792881
Maxthelion wrote: I think there is a gap in the market here for an aircraft that can land and takeoff without being near the ground in the process.


Or vertically... Why hasn't the Harrier JJ technology been ported to more light GA?

~ Scott
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792952
Nero wrote:Or vertically... Why hasn't the Harrier JJ technology been ported to more light GA?


Now wait a sec, thinking about it....

.....Im pretty sure there is an aircraft that is in widespread GA use that takes off and lands vertically...

...its coming to me...

...

...tip of my tongue...

...

... yep...

...

...Hang on...

...


..... Got it...!!!

..A Helicopter..!!! :thumleft:


Regards, SD..
User avatar
By ChampChump
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792957
Currently causing some mirth where I'm based is an extract from the parish council meeting, where it was reported that some aeroplanes landing at the airstrip are 'very low'.










The others are just clever, of course.
User avatar
By Nero
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1792958
kanga wrote:Well, one of these would actually meet the challenge :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft
See, helicopters are too sensible. This is much more like it.

Either a floating airbase or mothership from which we take disposable, single use parasite aircraft in order to avoid going too low for landing

(hopefully the parasite craft just disappear rather than land/crash)

~ Scott
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1792972
Grelly wrote:
Nero wrote:Why hasn't the Harrier JJ technology been ported to more light GA?


Oh, yes! Then we can say to the nimby's "but it's what you asked for..."


Years ago our local RAF airfield that was mainly used for UAS and AEF squadrons Bulldogs and Chipmunks had a NIMBY near the runway who was a thorn in the SATCO's side with his persistent daily complaints to ATC and the local media, one morning he got the surprise of his life.

Before said NIMBY had a chance to make his daily phone rant the SATCO had order in a pair of harriers for circuit practice, of course during the circuits instead of asking number two to go around because he was too close to number one on final just advised the number two aircraft to hold position on final, guess where that happened to be. :lol:

When Mr NIMBY finally called in SATCO advised that the RAF were assessing the airport due to its location for a future basing of a Harrier squadron, you could hear the silence on the phone, I believe some months later Mr NIMBY moved away from area :lol:
User avatar
By kanga
#1792973
This system actually worked, without ever landing at an airfield:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Mayo_Composite

.. alighting at a water aerodrome is different, of course, and I don't think Redhill is ever that waterlogged :wink:
User avatar
By kanga
#1792975
Lockhaven wrote:.. local RAF airfield that was mainly used for UAS and AEF squadrons Bulldogs and Chipmunks had a NIMBY near the runway .. the SATCO had order in a pair of harriers for circuit practice,..


memories of the NIMBYs who bought the cheaply bought, refurbished, expensively sold OMQs at Little Rissington, who then complained about the VGS Vigilants. And then the new C130Js started using it as a RLG for conversion training from Lyneham .. :)

And the single (but voluble and politically influential) NIMBY at South Cerney who complained about the VGS converting from winch to Ventures. The VGS moved out to Hullavington, and the RAF started using it for low-level cargo drops from C130s :)
Lockhaven liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9