Sutton harbour owners behaviour, what do you think? one for pilots

Aardee

Well-known member
Joined
22 Jan 2004
Messages
2,979
Location
Portsmouth
Visit site
I can understand the airport owners controlling access to the plane (private property etc), but is it their place to prohibit a takeoff on safety grounds??
 

henryf

Well-known member
Joined
31 May 2007
Messages
4,578
Location
Uxbridge
www.911virgin.com
To an outsider it does seem a little strange.

I think I'm correct in saying that, assuming no headwind to help, that particular aircraft needs about 175 metres to take off and reach 50 feet. I've just measured the runway at Plymouth and it's 1150 metres end to end. A safety margin of over 600% would seem fairly reasonable.

By all means require the use of a commercial pilot and ensure the plane is safe to fly but otherwise it looks like someone's trying to get planning permission for a new development and emphasising that all of a sudden Plymouth Airport isn't safe to fly planes out of.

Let's not forget that a good many airfields are little more than fields. Even Lee on Solent in our boating patch uses radio communication between pilots to sort it's self out and I didn't see a huge fleet of Oshkosh fire trucks last time I took off ! Plymouth has the benefit of a hard surface. Give the fellow a broom and get him to sign his life away.
 

ProDave

Well-known member
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Messages
15,041
Location
Alness / Black Isle Northern Scottish Highlands.
Visit site
The former airport site, which has been closed for almost four years, is in a built up area and has none of the facilities to safely manage the movement of aircraft.

"For that reason we will not give permission for the aircraft to take off but have no issue with it being taken away at any time by road. We have made that clear to the pilot and await a response."

Well if there is only one aircraft there and only one aircraft moving, I personally can't see a problem.
 

Vitesse

New member
Joined
21 Sep 2012
Messages
699
Location
Chillington S Devon
Visit site
I think the answer has been touched on here, that the closed airfield isn't now viable as an airfield and allowing a takeoff would somehow work against that idea, at least in the owner's opinion. Much better it be developed.

They've got themselves an awful lot of publicity over this.
 
Joined
8 Jul 2014
Messages
102
Location
london
Visit site
Sutton Harbour (who bought Plymouth airport as a going concern, and then swiftly ran it into the ground so that they could exercise the 'armageddon-clause' in their purchase contract from the council and close it for a property redevelopment scheme) are claiming a £200,000 rates rebate from Plymouth council, on the grounds that the airport no longer operates as an airport. They are concerned that an arrival and departure from the field (even as a result of an emergency diversion) is going to cost them money. The assertion that they are unwilling to let the pilot fly out of the field for "safety reasons" is a bald faced lie, by a bunch of rapacious chancers. I'm not sure that I'd keep a boat at one of their establishments, as you'd never be quite certain that you'd be allowed to leave - one day they might decide that it too was unsafe...
 

Prhperio

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2013
Messages
166
Location
Home: Bristol. Boat: East Cowes
Visit site
From a position of total ignorance in such matters and assuming that the consequences if it went pear shaped would be severe, it's got to be awfully tempting for the pilot to sneak in and take off anyway (assuming he can get a clear patch of concrete I guess)
 

Whitelighter

Active member
Joined
4 Apr 2005
Messages
13,979
Location
Looking out of the window
Visit site
Also it's not an airport, and the runway isn't a runway anymore.

Of he'd managed to put it down on a section of A road, you wouldn't allow him to take off on that same section of road.
He's landed on a bit of Tarmac that used to be a runway but no longer is. He landed in an emergency, without permission and on somewhere not (currently) designated for landing aircraft. There is now no emergency and just because there happens to be some Tarmac long enough doesn't mean he can just take off
 

Uricanejack

Well-known member
Joined
22 Oct 2012
Messages
3,750
Visit site
Also it's not an airport, and the runway isn't a runway anymore.

Of he'd managed to put it down on a section of A road, you wouldn't allow him to take off on that same section of road.
He's landed on a bit of Tarmac that used to be a runway but no longer is. He landed in an emergency, without permission and on somewhere not (currently) designated for landing aircraft. There is now no emergency and just because there happens to be some Tarmac long enough doesn't mean he can just take off

True but Gimli was no longer an airport either.
And a The Mississippi River Levy in Louisiana definitely never was.
I think the owners are being unnecessarily uncooperative.

Even so the insurance should cover the cost of removal by road.
 
Last edited:

longjohnsilver

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,843
Visit site
Also it's not an airport, and the runway isn't a runway anymore.

Of he'd managed to put it down on a section of A road, you wouldn't allow him to take off on that same section of road.
He's landed on a bit of Tarmac that used to be a runway but no longer is. He landed in an emergency, without permission and on somewhere not (currently) designated for landing aircraft. There is now no emergency and just because there happens to be some Tarmac long enough doesn't mean he can just take off

Quite different to landing on a road, which, as you well know, would cause traffic disruption. This is a not so old runway that was controversially shut a few years back by a company that this year increased visitors fees to their marina by 90%. Just to keep a boating theme.
 

jimmy_the_builder

Well-known member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
8,755
Location
Sussex
Visit site
Also it's not an airport, and the runway isn't a runway anymore.

Of he'd managed to put it down on a section of A road, you wouldn't allow him to take off on that same section of road.
He's landed on a bit of Tarmac that used to be a runway but no longer is. He landed in an emergency, without permission and on somewhere not (currently) designated for landing aircraft. There is now no emergency and just because there happens to be some Tarmac long enough doesn't mean he can just take off

Just being pedantic here - it's still a runway, it just isn't licensed any more. You would have thought that if the owners were willing, a temporary exception could be granted by the CAA for a one-off departure (presumably to the SE which looks like the safest route out).
 

jimmy_the_builder

Well-known member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
8,755
Location
Sussex
Visit site
Fair enough. What if the field was the same size and had the the same stuff around it as this airfield. Tbh I'm not that bothered either way, just curious. :)

CAA rule 5 requires aircraft to not fly below 1000ft when flying over built-up areas, except when landing at or taking off from a licensed airfield. The key word here is licensed. So in this example, if the farmer's field wasn't licensed, and it was located in a built-up area (like Plymouth airport is) then you wouldn't be able to take off from there.
 

doug748

Well-known member
Joined
1 Oct 2002
Messages
12,691
Location
UK. South West.
Visit site
Sutton Harbour (who bought Plymouth airport as a going concern, and then swiftly ran it into the ground so that they could exercise the 'armageddon-clause' in their purchase contract from the council and close it for a property redevelopment scheme) are claiming a £200,000 rates rebate from Plymouth council, on the grounds that the airport no longer operates as an airport. They are concerned that an arrival and departure from the field (even as a result of an emergency diversion) is going to cost them money. The assertion that they are unwilling to let the pilot fly out of the field for "safety reasons" is a bald faced lie, by a bunch of rapacious chancers. I'm not sure that I'd keep a boat at one of their establishments, as you'd never be quite certain that you'd be allowed to leave - one day they might decide that it too was unsafe...


A lot of Plymouthians would agree with this sentiment.

Almost from first taking on the lease SHH started whinging that the airport should be "developed". At one point they were reported as wanting to have an alternative airport built in the South Hams (of all places). They are stuck with the lease, don't want to take a loss and don't want to run an airport.

They have also done their best to push through their vision of "development" in the historic Sutton Harbour area. I personally avoid all their works with a passion.
 
Top