Lee on Solent - Latest dirty tricks

[Mike Cross]

I know you all enjoy a good joke, perhaps you'd care to comment on this one. (http://www.tug.eu.com/eghf/eghfweb/hampshire_police.htm)

Hampshire Police lease the runway at Lee on Solent from DfT. It is just a runway, no parking for cars or aircraft, hangarage, fuel, toilets, catering - nada. The airfield is unlicensed.

The Chief Constable required users to produce a solution to his safety issues that involved no additional cost to the Police. As Aerodrome Authority safety was his own responsibility but what the heck. Lee Flying Association with assistance from AOPA came up with a regime that met the requrement and had the support of CAA, MoD, and the Senior FISO at Fleetlands whose ATZ covers Lee.

I'd appreciate info from anyone who operates from an unlicensed field on what their annual landing card costs and what they get in return. For example at Popham my £105 membership fee includes unlimited landings, free car parking, use of the Clubroom and Pilot's Briefing Room with free internet access and use of the toilets. The a/d has an a/g radio service, fuel is available and there is a maintenance organisation on the field. Overnight parking is available.

The Chief Constable proposes £2137 plus VAT for runway access only. No other facilities, as indicated above.

Mike

[Say again s l o w l y]

:eek::eek:

I suppose kicking him in the knackers won't help?

I'd be asking how they arrived at such a figure and why they feel the need to be so far removd from what is considered "normal".

£500 a year with no landing fees I could understand, but over 2 grand? Not even close to being alright.

[PompeyPaul]

The police are as commercial an operation as McDonalds, StarBucks or any other money exchanging organisation.

Hence why a speeding ticket will be enforced until the money changes hand, whilst a burglary investigation (which involves the police distributing their own resources) will go the same way as any loss making proposition goes.......

If you don't believe it then follow this http://coppersblog.*************/

Plod, as any other commercial enterprise, is just trying to make £££££££££ out of LOS. That's just what they do....

[Mike Cross]

No problem with that PP, however that's not what they are doing. McDonalds and Starbucks would both go bust very rapidly if they hiked their prices to 600 percent of their current level. I'm not at all against HC making money but go have a read of the CC's report and then tell me if you think his proposal will do it.

[TheOddOne]

Mike,

For a PA28 we're paying £714 + VAT PA for 'airfield use' i.e. a landing card. Parking on the grass is £1072 + VAT PA, totalling £1786. This is for a licenced aerodrome just inside the M25. We also have a/g radio. The only benefit of a licenced aerodrome for us is the ability to do ab initio instruction. Try enquiring specifically about keeping and operating an aircraft at White Waltham, I think they're about as expensive as it gets and probably still considerably under your Chief Constable's figure.

I've no doubt he took the cost of operating the aerodrome and divided that by the number of people he thought might use it. A bit simplistic!

Keep up the good work, i'm still looking forward to finally being able to fly in.

TheOddOne

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Is that nice PBY I left there ever run up?

[Nibbler]

Old Sarum is £10 including VAT per single landing (not ex VAT) and ONLY £25 excluding VAT per month unlimited landings. £20 ex VAT for microlights. The comment...

** To accommodate a similar requirement, this level of service would require an additional 3 members of staff to count / log the landings and provide monthly invoices on a retrospective basis

Is rubbish as Old Sarum, like most airfields, has 1 person to take landing fees from any VISITING AICRAFT, payments are taken on landing, no invoice and the pilot fills out the log. BUT are we are talking about 39 resident aircraft who would've paid already? Now if we are talking about visiting aircraft who exactly receives these fees? Surely it should be the resident GA who are being charged for the whole service....?

Why are they charging their their electric bill, rent etc (when they already removed the heating oil, window cleaning etc) all to GA - these are not all GA costs surely?

£30k pa for 'gate maintenance'?? WTF are they doing with my taxes?? these are NEW gates that only cost 6K (as they indicate) to replace every 20 years!!!

Why are they charging a yearly fee for 5/6/10/20 and 25 year items??? These should be divided by the years they are quoted for!

80,700 - QUESTIONABLE costs
850 cost of insurance
30,000 for "GATE MAINTENANCE"??
7,300 grass cutting
8,200 for landlord building maintenance
6,000 for bunding the runway
300 to replace the gage
1,200 for the fence

I make this £ 134,550

Now for the GA 'specific' costs:

A charge for the Air Support Manager of £10,500 which is a cost already being incured anyway and is not therefore GA specific and his pay rise as well?

An extra £500 quid to answer the phone and get the gate?? Come on he's on £ 72,500 a year already!

Profesional charges amounting to £350 per 'client' for a rolling lease??? What sort of rip off is this? These are not new contracts, the agreement automatically terminates if the the 'client' fails to pay so WHY the fees?

And the last laugh - being charged £30 each to run off an invoice. Hahahaha.

I think you'll find most of this falls under the unfair charges remit.

BUT lets say these charges ARE added then we have a total of: 134,550 x 20% = 26,910 plus 39,490 is 66,400 / 39 clients = £1,702

minus of course a 39th share of all the landing fees collected in the year.

If eveyone is parked in a hanger then these charges look more realistic.

[Zulu Alpha]

Is the £2137 per aircraft.

Otherwise, why not form a user group and pay the £2137 for all members of the group. Assuming this is reasonable to each of the users it might be a way of avoiding the Police having to back down and might produce a solution.

BTW £2137 is less than our annual rent of a 900yd grass airstrip which we mow ourselves.

[paulc]

The Chief C suddenly needs to find some extra cash as the figures to keep the islander going seems to have gone up quite a bit! Perhaps they should close the ASU down (saving money) and let the airfield be run by people who are interested in aviation because its aviation rather than people (1 individual in mind) who only wants the airfield for the ASU use. Every trick in the book (unwelcoming to visitors / the gates / access difficulties) has been used to annoy and frustrate those with an interest in keeping the airfield as an airfield. Several business have either closed or been forced out because of the uncertainty over the airfield's future. Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of 1 individual whose attitude towards other airfield users, ever since it was handed over to the police in 1996, has ranged from just un-cooperative to downright hostile.

Chuck - in answer to your question the PBY is still there, rumours are that it has been sold but I have heard that before. Aircraft has not been run since the day you flew her in which is a shame. It has been surveyed by CE and it is still in a reasonable condition considering the location.

[Mike Cross]

Is the £2137 per aircraft.

Yes £83,340 divided among 39 aircraft "However it should be noted that any reduction in these numbers will represent a further increase in this total"

Oh, and add VAT to it as well. :ugh:

This is more than the entire cost in 2005/6 of keeping the Police Islander at Lee for a year, including the lease of the aerodrome! See this answer (http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A43EC025-4134-4965-9F07-82ECA4A9FE7D/0/HC0006107.pdf)to a FoI request.

They are now claiming that the cost of running the airfield is £219,250 plus an additional £39,490 attributable to GA.

As recently as November last year the Chief Constable told the Police Authority that the cost was "in the region of 80k", later confirmed as £80,70. As someone who pays the Hampshire Police Precept I'm wondering if a Chief Constable who can't count is a good idea.

The alternative is that he knows exactly what he is doing and just thinks up a figure. Not sure whether "If you want to know the time ask a policeman" is a good idea hereabouts.

[Nibbler]

You might have gathered from my previous post on this but in case I didn't actually state it -

This is blatant anti GA behaviour. They all sat round a table and threw as many 'charges' they could make up on a list and are trying to price all GA out of the airfield - which was what they were trying to do in the first place.

Many of these charges either don't add up or would be illegal. £30 for an invoice, £350 a year for contracts, oh PLEASE.

Fight every penny and argue every cost - this should not be allowed.

[Mike Cross]

Fear not, we intend to. It's patently obvious that they invent whatever figure they think will suit their purpose at the time and that the point of the current exercise is not to reduce the demands on the Police budget.

"Someone's asking what it costs to keep the Police Islander at Lee."
"No problem - think up a low figure so we can say what good value it is."

"We want to kick everyone out"
"No problem think up a ridiculously high figure and charge them a chunk of that."

A key point here is that it is for the Police Authority, not the Police, to set the level of charge. Anyone who pays the Hampshire Police precept as part of their rates would do well to have a go at their representative on the authority. Details here. (http://www.hampshirepoliceauthority.org/hpa/abouthpa/hpamembersstaff.htm)

[aviate1138]

Tell them you are a Mason. :rolleyes:

[Fuji Abound]

Mike

Please tell me something.

I support the work you have done on this issue to the end of the earth. It is a brilliant effort. I am very much opposed to those who can take matters into their own hands without consultation or respect for other users.

Without wishing to thread drift what I don’t understand is why you appear to take a different view with regards to NATS and the current farce over the change in the data stream.

It seems to me there is a similarity. NATS can change the stream because they can in the same way that the boys in blue can presumably change the pricing structure because they can. In both cases neither appears willing to consult or to consider the impact of the changes.

I promise you I am not looking for a fight - just interested in your views as to whether there is any similarity between the two?

['India-Mike]

I suspected that the upbeat article in AOPA's latest mag was too good to be true. I imagine this Chief Constable's salary has an element of performance-related-pay in it? And this will sit very nicely with that, thank you very much. Plod by name, plod by nature:ugh:

[Mike Cross]

FA

To avoid thread drift I'll PM you

[Rugbyears]

What can we do to prevent such bully boy tactics? With this forum, we have at our disposal a wonderful means to communicate with the masses, surly one of us is in a position to suggest a productive way forward! Such tactics are becoming an ever prevalent issue!

[Mike Cross]

AOPA UK is working closely with Lee Flying Association. The strategies pursued so far have paid off. Needless to say strategies are also in place to deal with the latest developments.

More details here. (http://www.eghf.co.uk/)Anyone who has an interest in Lee on Solent as a user or potential user can help by joining Lee Flying Association. Even if you are not in the area please keep an eye on the site to keep up to speed with developments.

The police are now admitting that they fibbed to the Police Authority over costs. There are three other Islanders operated by the Police in other areas apparently at much lower cost so one questions why Hampshire feel it essential that they should lease the entire airfield rather than simply pay to use it.

The avowed intent of SEEDA and the local authorities is that aviation will continue at Daedalus, 57 percent of respondents to SEEDA's consultation exercise supported the continuation of aviation. The Police are pulling in the opposite direction.

The Police as Aerodrome Operator are responsible for safety, yet appear to be not competent to run the a/d. It took LFA and AOPA to come up with a scheme, backed by the CAA and MoD to sort out the safety issues.

THe CAA's Aerodrome Standards people are at the airfield today and tomorrow. CAA is of course an agency of DfT, who own the airfield. It's their minister who has had to stand up in the House to explain what's going on as a result of Hampshire Police's antics.

So, in terms of what you guys can do:-

If you pay the Hampshire Police precept, lobby Hampshire Police Authority on costs.
Write to DfT asking why their lessee is being allowed to operate in the way it is. Why it took external people to sort out the safety issues. Why their lesssee is being permitted to continually block the aspirations of the local community and prevent investment by the aviation industry.
Write to Fareham Borough Council planning dept asking to be informed of any planning applications and oppose anything that involves non-aviation use of the DfT land.
If you would like to operate from Lee or if you have an aviation business that would like to operate from Lee write to Clare Chester at SEEDA telling her so. The more expressions of interest SEEDA get, the more importance they will attach to aviation.

If you need more info on anything please ask.

[Fuji Abound]

Thanks Mike