Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869234
I’ve just read this from the start for the first time.

What’s the matter with some of you?

GS is on our side, and he and Ian took time to do an interview for our benefit. Ian’s move towards more e-media is fantastic. and to be able to interview an MP who’s pro-GA is positive, and he came across well - and let’s not forget he was having a day off…

It was an interview for our benefit.

Pouncing on a single short interview in a negative way just because you might not like the fact that coal mines got closed 30 years ago, and we don’t have a PM who allows our country to be swamped by tax-sappers is pretty short sighted and speaks volumes about some people here.
User avatar
By peter272
#1869236
TheFarmer wrote:I’ve just read this from the start for the first time.

What’s the matter with some of you?

GS is on our side, and he and Ian took time to do an interview for our benefit.


Having dealt with MPs over a number of years, I admit to a cynical view of them - esp GS who has a certain reputation for not being exactly straight.

He is a transport minster and pilot, but never forget he is climbing the greasy pole, and that focus will lead him to follow whatever course that will help him in his ambition. So far I am less than impressed, personable though he may appear.
User avatar
By ArthurG
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869240
I'm with The Farmer here. If you just dismiss all politicians as self-serving, dishonest or evasive , then that's exactly the sort of politician you will get. If you expect more of them and it is clear to them that you do, they're more likely to deliver in my opinion. It's like if a teacher believes in his or her pupils, they will generally achieve much more. Once you start bad-mouthing politicians , it removes the obligation on them to perform.
Jon G4LJW, riverrock liked this
User avatar
By leiafee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869243
rdfb wrote:
leiafee wrote:Have we between us sent even 20 letters to our local MPs or councillors about the importance of our local airfields?


Does more letters really help? If a representative organisation sent a single letter that explained that it represented 20 members, wouldn't that be equivalent?


Nope. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. One big squeak to one MP will not be as effective as 20 squeaks to 20 of them.

Politicians ignore silence. They see silence as consent.

Noise is the only things that gets attention. One email with 20 names at the bottom is not as nosiy as twenty emails.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869246
With all respect @leiafee , writing to your MP, no matter how squeaky your wheel might be, is like emptying your bladder in the Welsh wind when it comes to a subject like this that’s an urgent issue for them to resolve.

An airfield is a much easier place to build houses to accommodate all of our rapid population growth/immigrants than a green field site.

They simply need housing, and airfields are ideal locations.

Writing 20 individual letters might well warm the cockles, but it’s a little bit futile.

Sorry.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1869248
ArthurG wrote:If you just dismiss all politicians as self-serving, dishonest or evasive


Well they have rather brought that on themselves to be fair.

Rob P
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869250
Nope. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. One big squeak to one MP will not be as effective as 20 squeaks to 20 of them.Politicians ignore silence. They see silence as consent. Noise is the only things that gets attention. One email with 20 names at the bottom is not as nosiy as twenty emails.


I’d say a two pronged approach is good.

You have a rep organisations and you have individuals creating awareness with their MPs.

The poor state of GA’s access to secure infrastructure in this country is a direct result of apathy and indifference over the past half of a century.
User avatar
By Charliesixtysix
#1869264
James Chan wrote:
The poor state of GA’s access to secure infrastructure in this country is a direct result of apathy and indifference over the past half of a century.


It might be that the problem lies within GA largely tending to be content to operate as tenants of airfield landowners, rather than investing in and owning the land directly.

A willing seller landlord is normally at liberty to dispose of an asset as he sees fit and to end any tenancy in line with the terms of the agreement in place at that time.

In contrast, a significant number of gliding clubs have acquired their own airfields and benefit from greater security of tenure. That the majority of (UK) gliding operations are carried out within a Club structure is not insignificant in this.
Miscellaneous, nallen liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869271
In contrast, a significant number of gliding clubs have acquired their own airfields and benefit from greater security of tenure.


Perhaps, but only to that club as other clubs may find it difficult to be based there. And only for the time as the club sees fit and remains interested.

Once bored, they too could dispose of it.

But if core infrastructure (runways/ramps) was separate and safeguarded, then every club rents the hangar/office spaces at the same rates, say on a per-square-foot basis, without having to worry about the details of having to fix the runway lighting, etc.
Last edited by James Chan on Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By ChampChump
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869275
Thanks, Mr Farmer. This government is the most aviation-friendly iteration we are likely to see. It recognises the importance of GA . Some of the comments above do us no credit.

Thassorl.
MikeB, Paul_Sengupta liked this
User avatar
By Charliesixtysix
#1869285
James Chan wrote:
But if core infrastructure (runways/ramps) was separate and safeguarded, then every club rents the hangar/office spaces at the same rates, say on a per-square-foot basis, without having to worry about the details of having to fix the runway lighting, etc.



In other words, a lease with permanent security of tenure and no financial investment required?

Some landowners might find that a little one sided, or are you proposing the national airfield infrastructure be compulsorily purchased and run as a nationalised industry?

Either way, my money is on the club ownership model standing more chance of working in the real world.
User avatar
By kanga
#1869289
rdfb wrote:.. single representative organisation would be far easier for decision makers to deal with, rather than a rabble of dissenting voices.
... I have subscription money ready for an organisation that is prepared to represent me in my recreational aviation activities.


In US that would be AOPA (Canada: the much smaller COPA). AOPA explicitly speaks for all GA activities, articulately; this is in fact, not just a claim. Its huge membership means it can pay for effective research, 'lobbying' at Federal and State levels, and PR 'outreach'. It has the further advantage that many on Capitol Hill (and in State legislatures in larger States like Texas and Alaska) are AOPA members as pilots or at least regular users, to get from 'constituency' to State Capital or to Washington (which usage thus becomes an allowable business expense!). Meanwhile, many GA pilots are also members partly because of the 'perks' such as more affordable (and in litigious US highly desirable) "renter's insurance" - it's why I joined while we lived there. Also, as AOPA is a 'non-profit', even subs may be tax-deductible, which means effectively free, for many Americans.

AOPA UK seems to suffer from an image problem, whether deserved or not. I belong although no longer an active pilot because it clearly has access to regulators (national and international) which none of the other UK GA bodies do; I also still belong to LAA, for analogous motivation (I support its aims). But membership is expensive, and its magazine seems to contain artcles only about the 'skygod' end of GA activities, often based on or seeming to be mere regurgitations of manufacturer PR handouts of the sort of aircraft or gizmos unaffordable for most in UK GA: bizjets, turboprops, top-of-the line avionics, fully IFR operations, .. A particularly recall an article not long ago on the plans for Staverton: all about the advantages for the high-end executive user, nothing about the difficulties created for the lighter end, nor the worrying acceptance that the revenues from the new business park would no longer revert to airport operating funds but to the general funds of the two Councils as landoweners. The only article about a Permit aircraft I recall reading was about an imported expensive homebuilt helicopter kit. I recall nothing in their magazine over the years about any aircraft or activity which would fall within the bailiwick of LAA, BMAA, BGA, .. Similarly, I recall nothing in the magazine about the disadvantages for the Day/VFR bimbler of the Class D changes or proposals at Farnborough, Oxford, Brize, Biggin, .. But the Association is meant to be representing to regulators those aircraft and activities also.

But AOPA still and still alone does have the 'access' which the other Associations seem to lack. I'm not sure what can be done about this. A bit of 'visible inclusivity' might help, eg co-opting ex officio the Chairmen of other Associations as at least 'observers' on AOPA Board meetings ?
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869308
a lease with permanent security of tenure and no financial investment required? Some landowners might find that a little one sided, or are you proposing the national airfield infrastructure be compulsorily purchased and run as a nationalised industry?


I'm not proposing nationalisation, but I think the companies that own and run core infrastructure (runway, ramps, taxiways), should in some cases be separated from those who provide products/services (maintenance, flight training, handling, clubs, aircraft leasing etc.) on that infrastructure. For the reasons it happened on train lines, postal services, telecoms, etc.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7