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

[mmcp42]

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.

no requirement for a licensed airfield in a built-up area
only for commercial operations

agreed landowner permission is required
seem to recall that's the council not SHH!
maybe they have allowed SHH to act on their behalf
but either way - it's only SHH being <<insert suitable sweary>>-minded that turned a no-event into a farce

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

no requirement for a licensed airfield in a built-up area
only for commercial operations

agreed landowner permission is required
seem to recall that's the council not SHH!
maybe they have allowed SHH to act on their behalf
but either way - it's only SHH being <<insert suitable sweary>>-minded that turned a no-event into a farce

Whilst I do completely agree your last sentence, you're arguing a very fine point about whether or not you need a licensed airfield in a built-up area. Try asking the CAA for permission for a landing/take-off in a built-up area, as a PPL, and see how far you get. Either way - I would expect that in this case the CAA would be absolutely fine with an application for permission, given the circs.

 

[Mike Cross]

Good morning all

Jimmy the builder said

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.

I am a boater (both sail and power) and a pilot. I've held a pilot's license for over 40 years and am a Director of the UK Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association.

Earler this year the law changed and with it the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007, of which he has quoted the old Rule 5, which governed low flying. They have been replaced by two new sets of rules (there's simplification for you), the Standardised European Rules of the Air and the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015.

As you're all probably aware EU Regulations take precedence over National Regulations. In this case it's COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 923/2012 and the specific part of it is SERA.5005 Visual flight rules

(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

So there is no problem with it overflying a congested area when taking off.

The Jodel is a wood and fabric aircraft that is not designed to be left exposed to the elements. Nor is it designed to be readily disassembled for transport by road. If it were to be disassembled then a covered workshop area with lifting equipment would be required and special jigs would have to be constructed to hold the component parts. By far the simplest solution would be for SHH to allow it to be flown out. The whole issue would be over in a matter of minutes.

So far there has been no public explanation from SHH of their stance.

 

[colhel]

This is starting to sound all Donald Trumpish.

 

[aquapower]

Never seen so many new users posting

 

[Blue Sunray]

Never seen so many new users posting

so?

 

[aquapower]

so?

My point is that this has attracted a lot of Input from those who would not normally post , ie from aviation knowledge rather than marine. This is not a problem always nice to have input from all sides.

 

[mmcp42]

for further amusement take a look at The Herald website
any post about the incident has a half-life of nanoseconds
complaints about freedom of speech and deleted posts are ok though
weird or what

BTW who owns The Herald I wonder just saying

 

[Uricanejack]

The biggest problem with the attitude of the lease holder.

Its a direct impact on safety. Knowing this will the next pilot who is in a similar situation where the flying conditions or aircraft conditions are marginal. There is a good chance the the pilot may may a poor decision to continue.

As long as the aircraft is inspected and found to be airworthy there is no practical reason to restrict it from taking off and frying away.
More than just public condemnation for SHH they should face legal action.
One of the post's suggest the areodrome is still on an active list of areadroms for an emergency landing. If so the actions of the lease holders is appalling. If I lived in the area I would oppose any application they ever make for planning permission.

 

[mmcp42]

could so easily have been
"pilot makes precautionary landing at disused airfield due to bad weather
on-site security open disused hangar so aircraft is protected from ever worsening weather
following day landowner graciously aircraft to depart uneventfully
fellow pilots praise decision to land and thank landowner for not making a drama out of a crisis"
sigh

 

[rbcoomer]

There was an updated news item & statement from SHH yesterday: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Ply...-speculation/story-27661117-detail/story.html

 

[doug748]

Or in the words of Adolf:

"You get your lardy arse over there and start back pedalling or I will have you upside down on a billhook before you can say Mein got in Himmel"

 

[longjohnsilver]

It's been reported over the last few days that permission has now been given for the plane to fly out.

 

[Mike Cross]

It flew out this morning, a total non-event and something SHH should have agreed to right at the beginning.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeTheJodel?src=hash
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Cro...outh-airport/story-27694397-detail/story.html

 

[TheOrs]

Flew out at 11:30 this morning.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Good to hear. Sounds like common sense prevailed in the end.

 

[rbcoomer]

Good to hear. Sounds like common sense prevailed in the end.

Can't help wondering if they would have without all the negative press...

 

[Uricanejack]

This company could have come across so much better if they had just tried to be cooperative at the beginning.

 

[Vitesse]

The pilot was interviewed for local news and he had nothing good to say about SHH, and that was before he flew out.

I can't imagine SHH had a sudden change of heart 'cos they're good chaps, really.