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

[Dick Atcherley]

Anyone know who's behind SSH?

Companycheck lists the following as current Directors of Sutton Harbour Holdings.

Graham Scott Miller
Jason William Hyde Schofield
Robert Henry De Barr
Sean Jonathan Swales
Natasha Claire Gadsdon

As for the question as to who is the money behind SSH, that is trickier to answer.

 

[capnjack]

I am not a pilot, my screen name is just a nickname. However I do work for an International Airport Operator.
On the face of it, I can see the argument that it does seem a little petty that this guy cannot just take off again. Unfortunately it is not that simple.
Without going into reams and reams of rules, regs and licences, there is one simple fact which would absolutely stop them from allowing this aeroplane to take off. If the aeroplane suffered catastrophic engine failure on take off and ploughed into a housing estate or a factory, not only would the owners be subject to prosecution for allowing it, without proper licences and contingencies in place, no matter how small, but they would also be subject of a police investigation and again subject to prosecution for criminal negligence.
I think if I was the owner and even if this didnt happen the shere cost to reinstate simple Aerodrome regs and notwithstanding he was able to file a flight plan and organise any customs regs, this would far out way any helpful kindness I would be bestowing on this chap.

 

[Dick Atcherley]

I am not a pilot, my screen name is just a nickname. However I do work for an International Airport Operator.
On the face of it, I can see the argument that it does seem a little petty that this guy cannot just take off again. Unfortunately it is not that simple.
Without going into reams and reams of rules, regs and licences, there is one simple fact which would absolutely stop them from allowing this aeroplane to take off. If the aeroplane suffered catastrophic engine failure on take off and ploughed into a housing estate or a factory, not only would the owners be subject to prosecution for allowing it, without proper licences and contingencies in place, no matter how small, but they would also be subject of a police investigation and again subject to prosecution for criminal negligence.
I think if I was the owner and even if this didnt happen the shere cost to reinstate simple Aerodrome regs and notwithstanding he was able to file a flight plan and organise any customs regs, this would far out way any helpful kindness I would be bestowing on this chap.

I've never read such garbage in all my life. File a flight plan and organise customs regs for a VFR flight in the uk?? You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As for the liability if the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure on take off and ploughed into a house or a factory? These houses and factories were there when this was a functioning airfield - nothing has changed - and there is no liability attached to the owners. Period.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

Point of information: It's not "CAA Rule 5" but Rules of the Air Section 5(1)(a) (ii) as modified by Section 5(4)(a).

Incidentally, the Jodel is a fairly straightforward aircraft to derig and move by road. I know someone who built one.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Point of information: It's not "CAA Rule 5" but Rules of the Air Section 5(1)(a) (ii) as modified by Section 5(4)(a).

... ok, but generally known as 'caa rule 5', at least amongst the pilots and instructors that I know.

 

[aquapower]

Incidentally, the Jodel is a fairly straightforward aircraft to derig and move by road. I know someone who built one.

Sounds like an easy solution to the problem, I'm sure insurance will be paying and will want the removal carried out by an approved method that's not breaking any rules which could lead to massive fines.

 

[Neil_Y]

Thanks for all the comments, between the council and SHH it will no doubt take a year to move the concrete!

As a pilot of light aircraft in the past it seems a bit heavy handed, and looking at the stats for the jodel it should easily make 500 feet well before being over any houses (with no wind) a bit of a head wind and it would be up a good bit higher. The field is also big enough for a turn downwind and a fast landing if he had engine failure or to just come down again! it's huge for such a small (slow) plane. But if it can be dismantled easily I hope his insurance covers him, I guess it should.

 

[JumbleDuck]

... ok, but generally known as 'caa rule 5', at least amongst the pilots and instructors that I know.

We used to call it "ANO Rule 5" in the gliding world, though it's not in the ANO ...

 

[mmcp42]

I'm new here, but I am a pilot
it is perfectly legal to take off and land at an unlicensed airfield, without asking anyone

I'm based at such an airfield
we use the radio to inform one another using an agreed radio frequency 135.475

there is nothing in "the rules" that prevents the Jodel from taking off
CAA have said they're happy
Insurers have said they're happy
SHH are just being silly, for no obvious reason

just imagine sailing into Portsmouth to shelter from a storm, only to be told you didn't have permission, so have to dismantle your boat and take it out by road
and, by the way, you're prevented from protecting the boat from further weather damage

the owners then claim the reason for their decision is you might damage something on your way out

the real nub of this is that the Jodel ran into bad weather and made a precautionary landing
would it have been better to press on and risk having an accident - what do you think?

incidentally, Plymouth airport signed up for the Strasser scheme that allows aircraft to land without landing fees in the event of a weather diversion
that permission is still in place!

still nothing like a nice bit of publicity to help their share price!

 

[Archerpilot]

I am a pilot. The best way to move a serviceable aircraft is to fly it.

The rule five which has been mentioned is as follows:

5.—(1) An aircraft must not take off or land within a congested area of any city, town or
settlement except—
(a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
(b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with the permission of the
CAA.
(2) An aircraft must not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an open-air assembly of more
than 1,000 persons except—
(a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
(b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the
CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly.

Aircraft must also remain more 500 ft from any person or structure except when taking off or landing.

It is arguable whether Plymouth Airport is a congested area, as most of the buildings nearby are industrial. It also arguable as to whether it is an aerodrome, the rules do not require an aerodrome to be licensed as such and many active aerodromes are not licensed. Even if it is not an aerodrome and is in a congested area then the risks are low and permission ought to be straightforward. No facilities are required for an aircraft like the Jodel, which would regularly take off and land from any old field with the landowner's permission. Here lies the rub. SHH appear to be adamant that they will not grant permission, there is no reason why they should, but equally there is no reason why they couldn't if they were kindly disposed to the owner. My granny used to say that kindness costs nothing and that would be true in this case too.

The reason pilots are getting exercised about this is a safety issue. The pilot landed a perfectly serviceable aircraft on an intact but disused airport as precaution due to deteriorating weather. This is a standard practice and strongly encouraged by all. The alternative is that pilots press on and end up dead due to losing control of the aircraft or flying into terrain hidden by clouds. SHH action is a discouragement to wise and safe behaviour and an encouragement to potentially lethal behaviour.

As they have a lease on a serviceable airport and were responsible for operating one, you'd think they'd know something about aviation wouldn't you??????

 

[Tim Walker]

Guys,

I would very much like to gauge your opinion of a safety issue. I am a member of a similar forum to this one, used by recreational pilots (as well as professional ones). These days I am an infrequent sailor, but a fully-qualified and current pilot of light aeroplanes.

I'm sure that many of you are aware that a Jodel light aircraft is currently on the ground at Plymouth Airport.

The pilot of the Jodel aircraft had made the decision to make a "precautionary landing" due to bad weather, rather than press-on and risk his own life and perhaps that of those on the ground. When the weather had passed through, it would be a very simple matter for the pilot to depart (safely) Plymouth Airport and carry on to his destination. The Jodel is an aircraft designed to use semi-prepared farm fields as short as 500 metres, with a margin of safety and would have absolutely no problem departing Plymouth, a tarmac runway of more than 1100m in length. For such a departure, no Air Traffic Control would be necessary, in fact such small aircraft may use airfields where there is no ATC more commonly than using an airfield where ATC is present.

The Jodel seems to have been impounded by Sutton Harbour Holdings, simply to ensure that the runway is not used for the purpose of an aircraft take-off, which would be an embarrassment to them. The whole fiasco seems to have been brought about by the Directors of Sutton HArbour Holdings and their overwhelming desire to make sure that the former Plymouth Airport does not look to be viable as an airport, so that they can force planning permission through, in order to redevelop the site. It is my informed belief that under the terms of the lease granted to them by the Airport owners, the Council, SHH are required to keep the Airport facilities in working order.

Put yourself in the (parallel) shoes of the Jodel pilot - if you were at sea and threatened by bad weather, what would you think if you put into a safe, useable harbour that was owned by a company who no longer wished it to be used as a harbour and found that they subsequently impounded your boat? They would not allow you to depart again by sea, once the foul weather had passed, but they would (as a kindly gesture) allow you to take your vessel apart and remove it by road. There is nothing wrong with the harbour (indeed it has been used as a commercial harbour, operating large ships until quite recently) and there are no safety issues about you departing in a normal manner.

That is an accurate parallel of what has happened at Plymouth Airport. I bet you'd be a bit annoyed and would possibly think twice about taking the safe/sensible option in the future. Any thoughts?

Tim Walker

 

[pigfoot]

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.

That is an incorrect interpretation of Rule 5. If that were the case, all aerodromes would need to be licensed.

"Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice" applies here.

 

[jgsmith43]

Sounds like an easy solution to the problem, I'm sure insurance will be paying and will want the removal carried out by an approved method that's not breaking any rules which could lead to massive fines.

No Idea what model of Jodel that JumbleDuck is referring to but these aircraft have a one piece wing and require lifting the fuselage above the wing to remove it. It would also require probable removal of the engine for protection plus it would need protection from the elements while the dismantling was going on.

After reassembly the aircraft would require a full and thorough inspection by a qulified engineer before any flying could resume.

Are SHH going to pay for all of this as I am sure that the insurance company would certainly be pursuing them for reimbursement should/if they were willing to pay out to the owner.

The aircraft is covered by insurance so there is no liability to SHH for permitting the aircraft to take off.

Odd how commercial aircraft could operate safely out of the Airport but a small light aircraft cannot.

Air Traffic Control is not required as, to my knowledge, there is no controlled airspace affecting flight around the disused airport.

 

[pigfoot]

Incidentally, the Jodel is a fairly straightforward aircraft to derig and move by road. I know someone who built one.

But do you know someone who dismantled one? According to various owners, it's a complex, complicated and thorough pig of a job.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I'm new here, but I am a pilot
it is perfectly legal to take off and land at an unlicensed airfield, without asking anyone

I'm based at such an airfield
we use the radio to inform one another using an agreed radio frequency 135.475

there is nothing in "the rules" that prevents the Jodel from taking off
CAA have said they're happy
Insurers have said they're happy
SHH are just being silly, for no obvious reason

just imagine sailing into Portsmouth to shelter from a storm, only to be told you didn't have permission, so have to dismantle your boat and take it out by road
and, by the way, you're prevented from protecting the boat from further weather damage

the owners then claim the reason for their decision is you might damage something on your way out

the real nub of this is that the Jodel ran into bad weather and made a precautionary landing
would it have been better to press on and risk having an accident - what do you think?

incidentally, Plymouth airport signed up for the Strasser scheme that allows aircraft to land without landing fees in the event of a weather diversion
that permission is still in place!

still nothing like a nice bit of publicity to help their share price!

If you're replying to my previous post on this thread, you're missing the point about licensed airfields - which is that if you want to take off or land in a built-up area, then you can *only* do this at a licensed airfield. In this particular case, the airfield is in a built-up area so needs to be licensed. For the aircraft to take off, it needs an exemption from the CAA (which shouldn't be difficult to obtain, in context) and permission from the landowner, which seems to be the sticking point.

Nobody's saying that you can't use unlicensed airfields per se - the specific point being made is about built-up areas. Otherwise all those take-offs and landings I've made at hotels and even the occasional boatyard would be illegal. Incidentally your comment 'without asking anyone' is also incorrect - you need the landowner's permission. So the only time you wouldn't need to ask anyone is when you are the landowner.

 

[rbcoomer]

They're probably hoping he'll just quietly vacate with telling them - then they can absolve themselves of any responsibility and if anything happens simply claim they didn't give consent!

 

[Smaragd]

If you're replying to my previous post on this thread, you're missing the point about licensed airfields - which is that if you want to take off or land in a built-up area, then you can *only* do this at a licensed airfield.

Wrong - see Rules and Regulations:

Landing and taking off within congested areas and near open-air assemblies
5.—(1) An aircraft must not take off or land within a congested area of any city, town or
settlement except—
(a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
(b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with the permission of the
CAA.

 

[longjohnsilver]

They're probably hoping he'll just quietly vacate with telling them - then they can absolve themselves of any responsibility and if anything happens simply claim they didn't give consent!

That would be difficult with an effing great concrete block blocking him in!

 

[rbcoomer]

That would be difficult with an effing great concrete block blocking him in!

Ah, hadn't realised they'd done that - assumed he was stuck on the airfield!

 

[cirrusvfr]

A light aircraft Pilot (and also Day Skipper) myself. Quite astonished by the actions of SHH , they clearly have no clue about aviation matters and seem to be digging an even deeper hole each day this drags on. A quick summary............ ( borrowed from another pilots posting on Flyer Forum )....

After hundreds (if not thousands) of people internationally have commented on this all saying the same things
1) Causing any hindrance to the aircraft leaving at this point has a detrimental effect on the safety of other pilots and people on the ground when facing a precautionary landing.
2) Under the CAA, LAA and uk law the aircraft is allowed to take off without anything more than permission from themselves as a landowner (it is up to the pilot to asses safety, insurance, airworthiness of the aircraft).
3) Leaving a cloth and wood constructed aircraft outside in this weather will is detrimental to the aircraft and could lead them to a criminal charge if damage is caused
4) Their own council have told them to let it leave
5) The MP in charge of 'Parliamentary Aviation Group' has told them to let it leave
6) Several Aviation expects including Charles Stasser have told them to let it leave.

What have SHH done in response this.
1) Blocked the aircraft in with concrete blocks
2) Refused to talk to anyone publicly as to why they are acting in the manor they are (if they did we could quickly work out what is stopping it leaving and address that promptly)
3) Used safety as the issue witch is the exact opposite of what they are doing (they are putting lives at risk in future)
4) Used the 'Built up area so not safe to take off' argument when the airfield hasn't changed since passenger flights, and the Jodel can happily operate from a farm strip with no services available at all (fire and rescue, ATC etc)
5) Used lack of on site ATC as a safety concern when no on site ATC is needed for an aircraft to take off
6) Told the pilot not to speak to the media
7) Forced the Aircraft to be left outside in the storms by blocking it in when they have hangers on site
8 ) Telling the pilot he will be allowed on site to cover the aircraft and then their security not allowing him to do so.