Glastonbury Festival -- (And a cautionary tale!)

[lomcevac]

Hi
Does anyone have a copy of any old AIC's relating to the restriction of flying regs for the Glastonbury Festival? Or can anyone give me an idea of typical procedures for the event?

Any info appreciated. (Doing a bit of very advanced planning)

Adrian

[jemax]

From memory last year there was a TRA set up to 2.5 or 5 miles I forget which.

The Landing site is to the North of the main crowd area.

Entry to the zone is from the east through an entry and exit corridor which uses Pylons as the separation marker.

You will need to book in, they will landrover guests to/from the landing site to the festival area.

Make sure you put down lots of protective material in the aircraft, last time it was really very muddy.

Very straightforward.

[MBJ]

James Ford was involved with the running of the helipad. 07836 223189

[Flying Lawyer]

Be warned:

If that's the same Mr Ford who's run the helipad in previous years, make sure you comply with the procedures or there's a serious risk the first thing you'll hear about it will be an investigation by the CAA.


FL

[oldgit]

FL, Do i detect a hint of malice in that post? Surely if there are procedures notified it is incumbent upon all pilots to follow them? I had always thought that ignorance was no defence in law, let alone wilful non adheherence??!

[Flying Lawyer]

FL, Do i detect a hint of malice in that post?

Malice? Not one iota.

Surely if there are procedures notified it is incumbent upon all pilots to follow them?
Yes, of course.
'I had always thought that ignorance was no defence in law'
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but I realise what you mean in this context and I agree.
'let alone wilful non adheherence??!'
Whether non adherence was negligent or willful.

However, none of those points is relevant to nor detracts from the particular warning I gave.
Nor, in case there be any further misunderstanding, do I suggest that it is necessarily excessive/OTT to report pilots who fail to comply with procedures to the CAA. My view would depend upon the nature of the breach and all the circumstances in which it occurred. For example, but not exhaustively, whether the breach actually caused any danger.


I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible.

I consider the warning I gave to be entirely justified, and I stand by it.

[oldgit]

FL, You are correct 'malice' was not the right word, I think it was more a case of sour grapes maybe. Perhaps you would be so good as to let us know why you hold the aforementioned gentleman in such contempt, as my dealings with him have always been absolutely fine.

[Flying Lawyer]

Oldgit

No, your “sour grapes” suggestion is also wrong.
That’s not my nature but, even if it was, I'd have no reason for ‘sour grapes’ re Ford. His conduct contributed to my income that year.

“Perhaps you would be so good as to let us know why you hold the aforementioned gentleman in such contempt”
I didn't suggest he was a gentleman, but I'm happy to answer your question.

Background:
On a Sunday morning, a helicopter pilot flew to a house inside the Glastonbury temporary zone. He had not obtained the necessary permission.
There was no other flying activity at the time.
Ford reported the matter to the CAA.
The pilot was in due course prosecuted for 3 offences relating to breaching the temporary restriction.
The CAA conceded that there was no other flying (actual or expected) at any of the relevant times, and that no danger was caused to anyone.
The pilot had no defence, pleaded guilty, was fined and ordered to pay costs to the CAA.

(I make no comment upon the CAA’s decision to deal with the matter by prosecution rather than other means; that is an entirely separate issue and would be a distraction.)

The Facts:
Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)
Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.
Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)
He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.

Basis of my Contempt:




Ford’s sole interest was in obtaining the registration in order to report the pilot to the CAA.
He made no attempt whatsoever to find out, or arrange for anyone else to find out, if the pilot was aware of what he’d done. Even if Tolley had not actually seen the pilot, it was obvious that he was visiting the house.
Although the first breach/offence occurred when there was no other helicopter activity, there was an obvious risk that the pilot would depart later in the day at a time when movements were expected. As it transpired, he left before the helipad became busy later in the day, but Ford didn’t know the pilot’s intentions.
The second breach/offence would have been prevented.
The third breach/offence would have been prevented, either by the pilot not departing during the period the restrictions were in force or by departing with permission.
If Ford had the slightest interest in flight safety, as opposed to getting the pilot into trouble with the CAA, he would have taken steps (readily available to him) to prevent the second and third incidents.I believe we should help each other in aviation, and that it's in the interests of flight safety that we should. If we see someone doing something wrong, and have an opportunity to speak to them, a simple 'Do you realise .........? ' is IMHO not only preferable to keeping quiet, letting them carry on and then reporting them, but self-evidently in the interests of flight safety.

Even if Ford intended to report the first breach regardless of what the pilot might have said, he could (and in my view should) have taken the steps readily available to him.
Whether or not he was under any duty to do so, not doing so is IMHO, behaviour deserving of contempt for the reasons I’ve set out.

Now would you now be so good as to answer a couple of questions for me?
(1) I’m interested in your attempts to attribute some unattractive/ulterior motive to me. Are you by any chance the same person who used to post as old heliman in this forum? I ask because he had a similar style
(2) Are you, or were you, employed by the CAA?


FL

[oldgit]

FL,
In answer to your 2 questions:
1. No i am not 'old heliman' whoever he may be. The only reason I had an issue your post, was that I have always had the greatest respect for your work on behalf of the helicopter community and your opinions.I just found the post regarding the'Glastonbury incident' somewhat lacking in the normal calm, non confrontational style I have become used to. Thank-you for the reasons you gave for your 'contempt' I can now understand why!
2. I most certainly do not work for the CAA, never have, and godwilling never will!!

[finals09]

Dear All

I do believe it is time that we (Glastonbury 2003 Heliport Operator) put our side to this story.

FL I am rather disappointed in your comment in your earlier thread

'I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible'

That person is obviously me and as I have never met you, spoken to you or corresponded with you over this issue I think you may be jumping the gun.

As I understand it the 2003 was only the second year a heliport was considered and in the previous year the landing area was in a different location. We were asked to look at setting up in another location due to the expected movement rate out growing the existing location.

Setting up any heliport requires a number of boxes to be ticked and permissions granted. This we did and the AIC stated the following:

'a Subject to Paragraph b, between 06:00 hours (UTC) on 26 June 03 and 17:00 hours (UTC) on 30 June 2003 no aircraft shall fly below 3,100 feet above mean sea level within the area bounded by the circle having a radius of 2.5 nautical miles whose centre is 510921N 0023510W

b Paragraph a shall not apply to any aircraft flying with the permission of the Chief of the Police for the Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Telephone 0117 xxxxxxx) or aircraft under the control of the ATC unit at RNAS Yeovilton flying above 2000 feet on the Portland Regional Pressure Setting.'

The restricted area covered the whole of the festival site and the outlying villages. To operate any heliport within this zone we therefore had to apply for and get the approval of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. This was something that was not straight forward and I firmly believe that if it wasn't for the fact that we had a great deal of experience between the various people involved then we would not have been granted approval. The bottom line was that they trusted us.

We were then granted a clearance to restriction in flying regulations for this area by the Avon & Somerset ASU Chief Pilot which stated:

'You are authorised to act on behalf of Avon & Somerset constabulary to grant entry clearances to visiting aircraft to enter the restriction in flying regulations area, subject to the following:

PPR authority is for your site only at Clover Hill Farm'

The AIC had the Avon & Somerset ASU's phone number and anyone wishing to enter the area had to phone them. They would have then passed on our details and phone number, which during the four days of the event was a mobile phone, with an answering service.

The important fact here is that we were only allowed to operate the site with the express permission of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary and had their authority to grant access to visiting aircraft to our site only on a strictly PPR basis. Again they trusted us and we therefore had a responsibility to carry out this authority.

So to reply to FL's statements in his earlier thread

Background:
On a Sunday morning, a helicopter pilot flew to a house inside the Glastonbury temporary zone. He had not obtained the necessary permission.

Correct

There was no other flying activity at the time.

Correct

Ford reported the matter to the CAA.

Incorrect - The matter was reported to the Avon & Somerset Constabulary ASU

The pilot was in due course prosecuted for 3 offences relating to breaching the temporary restriction.

Correct

The CAA conceded that there was no other flying (actual or expected) at any of the relevant times, and that no danger was caused to anyone.
The pilot had no defence, pleaded guilty, was fined and ordered to pay costs to the CAA.

Correct


(I make no comment upon the CAA’s decision to deal with the matter by prosecution rather than other means; that is an entirely separate issue and would be a distraction.)


The Facts:

Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)


Correct

Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.

Correct

Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)

Correct

He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.

Correct


Basis of my Contempt:






Ford’s sole interest was in obtaining the registration in order to report the pilot to the CAA. Incorrect

As stated above the Avon & Somerset ASU had given us authority to allow entry to aircraft to our site. The aircraft in question was not intending to land at our site and therefore was entering the restricted zone without any permission from the Avon & Somerset Constabulary, who as per the AIC were the only one that could give permission to this particular landing site. The matter was therefore reported to them.

He made no attempt whatsoever to find out, or arrange for anyone else to find out, if the pilot was aware of what he’d done. Even if Tolley had not actually seen the pilot, it was obvious that he was visiting the house.
Although the first breach/offence occurred when there was no other helicopter activity, there was an obvious risk that the pilot would depart later in the day at a time when movements were expected. As it transpired, he left before the helipad became busy later in the day, but Ford didn’t know the pilot’s intentions.
The second breach/offence would have been prevented.
The third breach/offence would have been prevented, either by the pilot not departing during the period the restrictions were in force or by departing with permission.
If Ford had the slightest interest in flight safety, as opposed to getting the pilot into trouble with the CAA, he would have taken steps (readily available to him) to prevent the second and third incidents'If Ford had the slightest interest in flight safety' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Having run the odd heliport over the last 8 years I think that I do know a thing about flight safety. I can safely say that the other person involved who FL correctly identifies as 'Ward' has probably got more experience in running the air traffic side of heliports, both permanent and temporary, than anyone in the UK today. Just coming up to his 80th year and still involved in the biggest temporary heliport, I would think that if he thought there was a case to answer then there probably was. I think it would be a fairly safe bet to say he has a very big interest in flight safety. I would also say that he would be very reluctant to report anyone unless there was a very good reason for it. Again as stated we did not report this to the CAA.


As for taking more action on the ground when two personnel were sent off to investigate, perhaps in hindsight they should have climbed over the wall or rung the bell on the gate. Knowing my luck they would have probably have been done for trespassing ! In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally so did not want to have them off site for too long.


I do agree whole heartedly that we should help each other in aviation and I personally believe I go out of my way to assist others in this business when I can. I would hope that people who know me in this industry would agree. The same certainly goes for David Ward.


So finally just to reiterate, we were given permission to operate the heliport by the Avon & Somerset Constabulary. This was a responsibility that we took very seriously. If we hadn't reported the matter to them, and they had later found out about it, which was highly probable, then I can imagine that they would have thought us completely unreliable, unprofessional and amateurs, something which we are quite clearly not. It was therefore our responsibiity to report any breach of the restricted area to them.


What they did with this information was up to them and as we know now they thought there was a case to answer.


As for the Pilot's comment that he tried to call the site but no answer.
I presume he called the number on the AIC and then was given the heliport's mobile number. I can't prove he couldn't get through but the phone worked successfully all day for other people and I had no messages.

I apologise for the length of this thread but just wanted to get the facts out.


Many thanks


F09

[mikelimapapa]

Even though I have no interest in this matter whatsoever, seems to me that if I took the time to join PPRUNE and write a long winded response like that to defend my honor, I'd at least post my name at the end.:suspect:

[heli1]

mikelimapapa...I think the clue is in the opening sentence and the pruners base...Lasham.
Deduction ..it is James Ford himself,showing there are always two sides to a story !

[Outlook]

I have no interest or bias in any way...

However, I do have one question


"In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally"

Then why send them offsite to obtain a registeration instead of just reporting it, and therefore ending your obligations?

[finals09]

Thanks Heli1

Outlook, any report would need a registration and due to the paint scheme it wasn't easy to make out the registration in the air, hence sending two people off site to investigate.

As reported there were no planned movements at the time so it was possible to deploy these assetts, although not for long.

[[email protected]]

Possibly the moral of this is that times have changed and when the police say you can't fly in an area it is probably for very good reasons. Although I don't like the idea of dropping people in the poo - it would have looked very different had the offending helo performed a '9/11' on a crowded Glastonbury festival; many questions would have been asked.

Restricted airspace is restricted airspace and ignorance is no defence....just because you are a low time PPL (and I am generalising here) doesn't absolve you from the need to obey the rules.

[finalchecksplease]

Crab,

Sorry but don’t think a 9/11 scenario has anything to do with this, don’t think the terrorists would be stopped by the prosecution that might follow afterward. If the terrorist threat was part of the reason of reporting the registration it would have made more sense to send somebody to check / speak with the pilot. These days IMHO the government and other services seem to use the “terrorist” trump card too much to justify some of their actions. Not saying there is no risk but don’t think restricted airspace would stop that specific risk in this case.
As you I do agree “dropping in the poo” isn’t the thing to do and would I think it would have been better if finals09 would have tried to speak with the pilot involved after he landed nearby. First so he could have made sure there would be no safety risk later in the day (as in FL argument) and secondly depending on his /her reaction, attitude and story taken it further or just give him a “warning” so to speak. All this based on his and his colleague claimed great deal of experience (not doubting this, just don’t know any party involved).

Greetings

Finalchecksplease

[scooter boy]

I agree with the above.
The way the infringing pilot was dealt with all seems rather heavy handed to me.

Anyway, about this heliport, is it rockstars only? or are the rest of us invited (provided we call for PPR?)

SB

[Heliport]

Restricted airspace is restricted airspace and ignorance is no defence....just because you are a low time PPL (and I am generalising here) doesn't absolve you from the need to obey the rules. :confused:


Nobody's suggested it does or should.

[rotorboater]

Car park attendents are all the same "it's more than me jobs worth guv"

[ShyTorque]

A more sensible way would have been to seek out and inform the pilot in person that he had made a mistake. He could have been urged to call the helipad operator by telephone when he wanted to depart and to call on the radio before re-entering the restricted area next time. That would have made it safer for all involved, surely that is why the restriction was put in place? Even if the reporter believed that the airspace restriction was known about by the pilot in question and deliberately ignored, this would surely have been a more reasonable option.

To allow him to continue and fly unbriefed in radio silence was surely a derogation of responsibility, it certainly did NOTHING to fulfil a safety responsibilty on the day. To do nothing except report him was just a 'rear-end covering' exercise after the event and had nothing to do with safety as far as I can see.

Whatever happened to good old common sense? It seems to have been replaced with a willingness to stitch up others in the industry and that I hate intensely. :hmm:

[AlanM]

As fair/unfair the whole affair is, the prosecution and subsequent discussions might raise awareness for future RA(T)s.

Then again......! :ugh:

[jemax]

And I was foolish enough to say it was a straightforward place to land!!!

[[email protected]]

Finalscheckplease - everything has a potential terrorist threat attached to it nowadays, to pretend otherwise is naive. That is why the police take things so seriously.

Heliport - the pilot in this case ignored the restriction even though he knew it was there which is worse than not knowing it was there in the first place. He could have checked and completed the flight another day but he felt he had tried to contact the heliport and therefore absolved himself of responsibility.

Just to underline what Finals 09 said - he did not report the pilot to the CAA, the police chose to do that because the law had been broken, Finals 09 simply informed the police as he was mandated to do, there is a subtle difference.

However, I still agree that this could have been sorted out much better with just a phone call - discretion seems to be a thing of the past in modern policing.

[ShyTorque]

How does the nomination of restricted airspace protect anything or anyone on the ground from an act of terrorism?

[finalchecksplease]

Crab,
My reasoning was / is that it would not have stopped the terrorist threat not there is not such a threat. Also if that was one of the Avon & Somerset constabulary main reasons for the RA more reason to go and speak with somebody who landed inside the that RA, just to make sure he /she wasn’t about do to a 9/11.
I’m not justifying the pilot who after all infracted the law of the air but I think like ShyTorque:Whatever happened to good old common sense? It seems to have been replaced with a willingness to stitch up others in the industry and that I hate intensely.
Greetings,
Finalchecksplease

[[email protected]]

Shy, why then do we have restricted airspace around prisons with Cat A prisoners, nuclear power stations and chunks of central London? A fence round a military site won't actually prevent an attack but anyone who is inside the fence and shouldn't be can be assumed to be hostile. If pilots fly into RA without clearance then they are either lost or possibly up to something dodgy, in which case you can start to take action without waiting for them to act.

Finalscheckplease - I understand your point and, as I said, agree that the handling could have been different but no common sense was exercised by the pilot in this case either.

[Bravo73]

Shy, why then do we have restricted airspace around prisons with Cat A prisoners, nuclear power stations and chunks of central London?

Why indeed?

The words 'stable door', 'horse' and 'bolted' spring to mind. In the case of prisons and central London, the 'powers that be' (ie Gov't/CAA) have to be seen to be doing something.

The restricted airspace around a prison isn't actually going to stop any further breakouts. Wires across any compounds ARE going to stop any further breakouts.

Which is the point that Shy was trying to make (I imagine).





.

[[email protected]]

Bravo, if you are in charge of the prison and a heli flys into the RA around it, you have at least half a chance of getting the prisoners secured before any landing could take place. It ain't perfect but it's better than nothing and a RA(T) around any sensitive area is just a first line of defence.

[Heliport]

Crab

Nobody's disputing the pilot was wrong to do what he did. Everyone is agreed on that.

The discussion is about what the personnel at the helipad did.

Even if what you've said in your last post is 100% correct, they didn't know that at the time.


H.

[ShyTorque]

Crab,
Of course, I can fully appreciate that NOTAM reading, law abiding pilots will normally stay out if they have any common sense - BUT my question was - exactly how does the establishment of a NOTAM'd RA(T) area, as they seem to be calling them this year, prevent terrorist action by the use of aircraft at a folk festival? Or a nuclear installation or central London for that matter?

BTW, I think the reference to restricted airspace around H.M. prisons is something of a red herring in this discussion as the motives for an attack would presumably be rather different.

As Bravo 73 has picked up, my point was that terrorists about to commit suicide or whatever don't read NOTAMS or care about them one jot (except perhaps to pinpoint the co-ordinates of a target). 9/11 proved exactly this. It's all smoke and mirrors, so it can be said: "We have done something - Survivors will be prosecuted".

There is actually no practical counter to this type of threat, at least not in the present home situation. Should an errant aircraft turn up at the edge of a RA(T) it is far, far too late, an imaginary line in the air is of no significance.

[Bravo73]

Crab,

As a final word on prisons (before this thread drifts too far away from Glastonbury), surely the guards are going to start securing the prisoners with the approach of any heli, regardless of restrictive airspace?

I do however accept your point that without this airspace around prisons, there is a higher chance of spurious 'warnings' set off by errant helicopters. However, if there were wires across the compounds then these surely these wouldn't be 'warnings' at all.


Anyway, back to Glastonbury...

[AlanM]

Ahhh, but Bravo73....
I have lost count of the number of phone calls we receive from the DPG/LHR tower/Watch manager asking us what the **** the helicopter is doing just outside Belmarsh at 700ft!

(err - it's "Police 251 boss"!!!!)
Seriously, it takes at least 10 minutes after being on site for anyone to call ATC.

back to the thread...... :)

[Bravo73]

(We're still adrift, Alan...;))

Surely that just confirms what we're saying about the futility of the restrictive airspace?

The only actual way to stop an inbound heli is with a physical obstruction ie wires. AckAck might be a bit excessive. ;)

[Heliport]

If you want to discuss flying near or over prisons,
start another thread and discuss it there.



Heliport

[[email protected]]

OK Heliport no need to shout:)
Back to the thread - Finals09 reported the pilot to the police - he could not do otherwise as it was his responsibility to control flight within the RA(T). Someone infringed the airspace and he reported him to the police (as he was required to do)- did he have a choice in this matter? I think not.
If you want to berate someone for reporting the pilot to the CAA then criticise the Police since they had the opportunity to exercise discretion and talk to the pilot without going through the CAA.
I think Finals09 was just unlucky that he sent someone else to check the registration (who did exactly as he was asked) when someone else with a bit of common sense might have taken the extra step and knocked on the door as well.
Whilst we might not like how the situation was handled, we are trying to defend the indefensible....the pilot broke the law...knowingly not accidentally, and got caught.

Shy - according to your logic we might as well dispense with RA entirely. If there was no security consideration regarding Glastonbury, why was the unusual step of having the RA controlled by the Police taken.

[ShyTorque]

Crab, My point is that RA is no good for defending against terrorism and those who think otherwise have false logic and a false sense of security. The police don't physically "control" any airspace, only on paper.

[Heliport]

Finals09 reported the pilot to the police - he could not do otherwise as it was his responsibility to control flight within the RA(T). Someone infringed the airspace and he reported him to the police (as he was required to do)
What's your basis for "he could not do otherwise" and "as he was required to do"?
Are you saying he was legally required to report the pilot?
Can you could point to where we can find that?

I'm not suggesting it would be conclusive (people have different views about reporting or using discretion), but it might help the discussion if you could.




"we are trying to defend the indefensible"

Who is? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Nobody's disputing the pilot was wrong to do what he did. Everyone is agreed on that.
The first post says even the pilot didn't dispute it. He pleaded guilty.

For some reason, you keep trying to fight a battle that doesn't exist.

[007helicopter]

So the CAA prosecuted, out of interest how much was the fine?

Did he have to pay court costs which I imagine could be hefty?

Does it effect his license in any way?

[[email protected]]

Heliport - as I understand it Finals09 was allowed to control the heliport within the RA only after getting express permission from the Police to do so. Therefore the onus was on him to ensure his professional reputation (and any further concessions to manage such heliports) was not tarnished by running a sloppy operation which I read as reporting any infringements of the RA.

Now you can argue that he could have ignored the infringement or just contacted the pilot and not reported him to the Police - but what if someone else had reported the pilot to the Police who then asked why Finals had not done so since it was he who was charged with the safe operation of the airspace. He may well have blotted his copybook with the ASU and not been allowed to operate the heliport in subsequent years or he may have found himself reported to the CAA.

I am just trying to argue against the playground ganging up that has been going on against Finals09 - I admire and respect FLs work and knowledge but I think his contempt is ill-founded. Pilots by and large love to blame air traffickers for all cock-ups and this thread has some bandwagon jumping on it.

Many of the posts here indirectly absolve the pilot since they only find fault with Finals09s actions - I think reprehensible is too strong a term for a bloke just doing his job.

[ShyTorque]

Finding the pilot, speaking to him and pointing out the error of his ways and the correct procedures to be used might have gone quite some way to showing that there was proper control of safe aircraft operations inside the airspace. I fail to see how anyone might argue otherwise.

[Xavier Dosh]

I’ve read the post with interest and although we seem to have digressed onto previous ops at Glastonbury – I do feel that I should at least have my say…

In Finals09 post he says the following:

‘We were then granted a clearance to restriction in flying regulations for this area by the Avon & Somerset ASU Chief Pilot which stated:’

'You are authorised to act on behalf of Avon & Somerset constabulary to grant entry clearances to visiting aircraft to enter the restriction in flying regulations area, subject to the following:

PPR authority is for your site only at Clover Hill Farm'

So, the Glastonbury Heliport Operator was obliged to inform the local Constabulary of the unauthorized movement.

The pilot who entered the TRA without permission, pleaded guilty.

I have worked with Mr. Ford and Mr. Ward in the past and will continue to in the future. My personal opinion is that they both operate to the highest standard (particularly Mr. Ward – no offence James) and would suggest that even if they had spoken with the pilot on the day – the outcome would have been the same.

In answer to the original question – Glastonbury, in my experience is very straight forward and if you have any questions, contact James Ford!

I’m not seeking to criticize anyone who has posted on this thread, but Flying Lawyer – I do think ‘Utter Contempt’ is a bit out of character for you?

XD

[AlanM]

Being Devil's Advocate, is it not the case that it is not the job, right or even requirement of an aerodrome authority to seek out miscreants to it's airspace!?

We had a helicopter land in the LCTR between Waltham and Ascot once... primary only with no clearance. I had a heliopter on freq and he said it flew fairly close beneath him (not bad as my helicopter was on "a not above 1000ft" clearance!)

Anyway - I just reported the facts..... Should I have made sure the infringer didn't depart the next day? (as it did - ironically, I asked a transit if there was a heli on the ground and he said no)

As an aside, I know James and Tudor professionally and socially, and find them both thoroughly good chaps. (along with many other fine people contributing here)

Nothing is as black and white as it seems.

As for the security issue: No amount of line drawing on the quarter mil will actually stop an infringer..... but it does mean that there are extra sensitivities involved.

[Xavier Dosh]

AlanM,

I think that your post was more balanced than mine!

James and Tudor are both good chaps – well said!

Maybe we should ask the ‘Man of the Moment’ SkyNews1 for his views???

He can’t put a foot wrong at the moment!

What say you??

XD

[AlanM]

As I have always said....
"SkyNews One - Thames Radar Two!" But he is miles better than the rest (apart from MBJ and "The Butcher", n'est pas??!?!!)

[Xavier Dosh]

I couldn’t possibly comment – nor would I want to!

Those three are always telling us how great they are! Now, we had better move on before Heliport comes online and tells us off!

All the best

Xavier Dosh

[AlanM]

BET HE SHOUTS!!

[Heliport]

Just coz I ain't posting don't mean I ain't watching.
( Can't wait to see what Crab comes up with next. :) )

H.

[Raymond Kertezc]

Am I correct in assuming that even if contacted, Finals09 could not have given the pilot permission to do what he did even if he wanted to. His authority it seems was:
"You are authorised to act on behalf of Avon & Somerset constabulary to grant entry clearances to visiting aircraft to enter the restriction in flying regulations area, subject to the following:
PPR authority is for your site only at Clover Hill Farm."

[[email protected]]

Now, back to prisons...............................:)

[skysmurf]

Has anyone got info on how, and where, to get PPR for landing at Glastonbury.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! :ok:

[Brilliant Stuff]

Ring these helpful Chaps they can help you. 01934-877000 after all it's local to them.

[Head Turner]

Well said, ShyTorque.

Are we following the American trend, shoot first, ask questions later!

[Marco]

Polo Aviation are running the Glastonbury Heliport and are allowed to grant entry clearances to the heliport only. All other requests are to be IAW AIC 45/2007 (Mauve 226).

[Brilliant Stuff]

Polo Aviation 01934 877000