Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By kanga
#1869079
James Chan wrote:
He even talks of all airfields being built by the tax-payer. How far out of touch is he?


Well, as far as I know many were indeed funded and built using taxpayers' money, but for military use. ...


not all for military use. The extension to the Filton runway was enabled by compulsory purchase with taxpayer money, and included demolition of a village. This was to enable the flying of a (government-supported) civil aircraft, the Brabazon, by Bristol (then a private company). The company was part of the (government-pressured) merger which formed BAC, which was then further merged through nationalisation into BAe. At privatisation, the freehold of the entire site passed to BAe shareholders. The runway is now being wholly redeveloped; even the emergency services helicopter operations were evicted.

If the runway extension, to which the community arguably had a moral right, had been retained for aviation use, it might have been enough to support continuing GA actvity :roll:
johnm liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1869080
johnm wrote:“Best place for GA” .......


It occurs to me that this doesn't necessarily mean the best place in the world to indulge in leisure aviation.

It feels more like the judge saying to the convicted prisoner, "Prison will be the best place for you."
User avatar
By Bald Sparrow
#1869088
johnm wrote:We have 10 acres of woodland in Surrey, the likelihood of planning permission is zero so instead of upwards of £10million it’s worth zilch.

No reason why airfields can’t be similarly restricted under planning regs, indeed development for suitable light industry around the apron and related facilities could be encouraged and everybody wins.


I once found records in Hansard that shows that my local airport had the same problems then as now. Those records were from 60 years ago. 60 Years ago, the airfield was council owned, now it is in private hands. After 60 years, nothing has changed despite private companies throwing money at the problem. After 60 years, it still makes a loss.
You can't keep a loss-making operation going but we need airfields.
It needs Government action and support to protect airfields, not words.
User avatar
By TheKentishFledgling
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869098
I’ve met GS a few times, the first being on assignment for FLYER at the HoC when the Red Tape Challenge was launched. FWIW he was VERY willing to chat aviation, to listen to gripes and I genuinely felt he took away some of the points we discussed. And as proved on from contributions on this thread, he can get stuff done where possible.

Much better to have a SoS who is willing to listen and, crucially, understand aviation than one who doesn’t.
Dave W, James Chan, ChampChump and 8 others liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869101
Why? He has utterly failed to use his power, influence and knowledge to deliver security for most GA airfields which is fundamental to the “Best place for GA” .......“policy”


You have a point, but who else understands aviation from this position of power and influence? And who else understood this that clearly in the past 60+ years before him?

Playing devils advocate, one could also turn this statement on its head and say "GA has utterly failed to use its lobbying power, influence and knowledge to deliver security to its core infrastructure".....
Bald Sparrow, Stampe liked this
User avatar
By leiafee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869102
James Chan wrote:Playing devils advocate, one could also turn this statement on its head and say "GA has utterly failed to use its lobbying power, influence and knowledge to deliver security to its core infrastructure".....


Do we even KNOW our own lobbying power?

Almost 20,000 members here. Following the usual rules of internet participation maybe 2000 actively reading, and 200 actively posting.

Have we between us sent even 20 letters to our local MPs or councillors about the importance of our local airfields?

I bloody well bet we haven’t.

650 MPs - What percentage of them do we reckon have heard from one of us on the subject of safeguarding GA?
By Lefty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869106
Bald Sparrow wrote:From my poll, we know how many wrote to the CAA about the FAA licence transition.
4 said they had.
2 said they would.

:evil:


But to be fair, it doesn’t affect very many of us. I think 2D’s suggested that there only a very small number of pilots that were flying exclusively on an FAA licence. (IIRCC maybe 10-20 people ?)
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869107
My MP and APPGA have certainly heard from me and AOPA are very active with APPGGA etc.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1869135
patowalker wrote:So how does a government help an airfield make money, when many GA pilots are too stingy to pay a £15 landing fee?

They could review the business rates on sirports, hangars and associated facilities. Our hangar is rated on a definition that includes light industrial and assumes heating. How many others are the same?
If hangarage was in n rates exempt buildings, like many other small businesses, that would impact the rent paid by aircraft owners and (maybe) encourage building of small hangars.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869140
Lefty wrote:
Bald Sparrow wrote:From my poll, we know how many wrote to the CAA about the FAA licence transition.
4 said they had.
2 said they would.

:evil:


But to be fair, it doesn’t affect very many of us. I think 2D’s suggested that there only a very small number of pilots that were flying exclusively on an FAA licence. (IIRCC maybe 10-20 people ?)

I probably had that many pilots phone me for help in in Spring/Summer 2018 alone, purely about them missing the (then new) ssea to lapl bridge destruction. All uk microlight pilots, plus any ssea since 8/4/2018, no matter how experienced, have no proper qualification enhancement route. Not sure how many faa pilots have written in about that.
Rjk983 liked this
User avatar
By Bald Sparrow
#1869190
@Irv Lee and @Lefty Lefty

I appreciate what you say but are you not highlighting the problem that stops GA making it’s case to the Government?

The numbers are small. Those affected by the FAA licence changes are small (more than 20 I would suggest, even people with CAA licences are affected). Those affected by other changes to licence in the recent past may also be small but each of those small changes add up to the slow erosion of Light GA in the UK.

That the people unaffected by changes are not enthused to write to their MP or the SoS or the CAA is understandable. 10 or 20 people having their ability to fly taken away can be brushed aside by the regulators as collateral damage. And so the changes continue until you are one of those touched by a regulation that stops you flying or working. Then it becomes a big thing to you and no-one else.

We have a multitude of associations that each put forward their members view as they might affect them (because no-one else will) further diluting the discussion with those regulating the industry.

If Grant Shapps would sit with someone and honestly discuss the problems affecting GA, who would he sit with? And would we come up with another EIR (someone’s idea to give GA something it didn’t want) as the solution?

Yes, @James Chan GA has utterly failed to use its lobbying power, influence and knowledge because everyone has their own wants and needs.
Grelly liked this
By rdfb
#1869229
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? Even better, that single representative organisation would be far easier for decision makers to deal with, rather than a rabble of dissenting voices.

I know some will say that there is a difference and swamping them with letters is better, but I disagree. I'd prefer to pay dues to an organisation that represents me, and let them actually represent me and include me in their count when they engage decision makers. I think this would be far more effective in the long run.

I already pay a subscription to an organisation that represents my interests in the area of my work. I have subscription money ready for an organisation that is prepared to represent me in my recreational aviation activities.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1869230
Lefty wrote:But to be fair, it doesn’t affect very many of us. I think 2D’s suggested that there only a very small number of pilots that were flying exclusively on an FAA licence. (IIRCC maybe 10-20 people ?)


It;s not just those flying exclusively on FAA papers though, there are many more with UK PPLs and FAA IRs

Irv Lee wrote:I probably had that many pilots phone me for help in in Spring/Summer 2018 alone, purely about them missing the (then new) ssea to lapl bridge destruction. All uk microlight pilots, plus any ssea since 8/4/2018, no matter how experienced, have no proper qualification enhancement route. Not sure how many faa pilots have written in about that.


…and that's why divide and conquer can be a successful strategy

Ian
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7