Down Fall CHC North Denes

[Banksman]

With Conoco 2 Bristows and Perenco 2 Bonds is this the down fall of CHC North Denes with CAA wanting airfield fenced off 4 security and other clients not happy with there service there getting from them will it close sooner than later????:hmm::hmm:

[SFIM]

on a vaguely factual point, Perenco hasnt been lost, only the Leman based shuttle a/c from 2010.

sorry to get in the way of some doom with less interesting facts :(

[rufus.t.firefly]

Okay so the CAA want it fenced - not a major issue , I'd expect it to be in this day and age it's a no brainer with regards to basic requirements !

As for loss of contracts due to facilities - you get what you pay for at a grass airstrip = no ILS , limited facilities , limited capabilities. If you want the whole shooting match you need to operate from a full blown airport with the facilities and in built enhancements provided at the increased operational costs that can be incurred for the priviledge or live with the daily consequences of grass strip flying and its basics.

Loss of contracts due to level of service :bored:.... well the oil companies predicted a downturn in the requirement for heli support a couple of years back and got it totally wrong - nothing new there then !. Demand this year due to oil prices and exploration in the area has probably pushed resources to the max and possibly to the detriment of the existing operations , something all customers need to put their hands up to at some stage and take some flak , instead of just blaming the operator - you can only stretch something so far until the elastic starts to break given resources available at the time - especially if thw the workload has exceeded predictions and practicality.

:mad:

[Brilliant Stuff]

What about GPS letdown, would that be a good alternative to the ILS?

[MamaPut]

Brilliant Stuff,

My thoughts precisely! Here we have an airstrip on the coast and helicopters equipped with radar and GPS. Anywhere in North America it would be a no-brainer with a GPS approach down to reasonable limits. But then again in North America they don't have the Campaign Against Aviation to deal with :ugh:

[TCAS FAN]

As an active promoter of RNAV/GNSS (GPS) instrument approaches I'd make two observations.

On checking the UK AIP, North Denes does not appear to be a licensed aerodrome or heliport. It is therefore doubtful that CAA would consider any instrument approach procedure.

If they are licensed, which would include an obstacle survey, a RNAV/GNSS procedure would probably not be considered by CAA unless ATS is provided (ie ATC, or exceptionally FIS).

[SASless]

Just why is the fence such an issue all of a sudden?

Has there been a sudden influx of aggressive sheep in the neighborhood or something?

We are talking a heliport here....right?

Is there a perimeter fence all the way around every other airfield in the UK?

TCAS,

So I was have to assume all the GPS approaches to uncontrolled airports in the USA would be ilegal under the CAA rules then?

ATC is provided for IFR aircraft by means of either Center or Approach Control nearest to the uncontrolled airport.....some uncontrolled airports have Unicom stations that can provide traffic advisories but are not part of the ATC system.

In the UK...can you not operate IMC outside Controlled Airspace without ATC control? Re-phrased....however did the operators manage to operate day in...day out....all these years of lovely UK Winter weather without the facility being "licensed"?

The argument should be on "how can we make this happen...." and not "this cannot happen because.....".

But then that is the very essence of the difference between the US/FAA and the UK/CAA.

[rufus.t.firefly]

I believe the facility has ATC Mon-Fri and Ground to Air at the weekend ...but I could be wrong on that , can someone confirm.

As for the fence ..... if you have a good few heli's on site wouldn't you want the facility fully fenced ..... just to stop trespassers :ok:

I visit the US regularly , access at many airfields used to be non fenced in certain areas which was great at the time ( I wish it still was ) ...sadly it isn't now ....... times have changed since 9/11

[SFIM]

I believe the facility has ATC Mon-Fri and Ground to Air at the weekend ...but I could be wrong on that , can someone confirm.

ATC is 7 days a week.

[RedWhite&Blue]

Happy New Year to all.

Just to put the record straight. Contracts come and go. Yes, some have left North Denes recently. Not surprising when you appreciate how much work was being done out of Denes. That said a lot of profitable ad hoc work is being picked up. Ironically, some of it to support the lost contracts.

North Denes is an unlicensed aerodrome. It has two instrument approaches (for approved operators only) based on the NDB at Denes and the DME at Norwich. The DME at Norwich is associated with the ILS. Denes is aprox 23 miles east of Norwich. Denes is also at Sea level which puts it about 110 ft below the runway at Norwich.

The MDH at Denes is 320ft for runway 27 and 340ft for 09. The ILS DH at Norwich is 200 ft. As the weather for most of the year is similar at both the cloud base makes little difference to the day to day practicalities of operating for one over the other.

Visibility does on the odd day have an effect. Minima for Denes is 1000m Met vis and at Norwich it is 500m RVR for the ILS. But on those odd day when viz hampers recovery to Denes, the crews can use Norwich.

Fog occasionally affects both Airports. Radiation Fog affects Norwich on more days a year than Denes as the coastal effect helps at Denes. Sea fog some times hinders Denes. On some occasions the coastal effect allows Denes to continue when Norwich ops can’t. Swings and roundabouts really.

The upshot of this is that the fact that Denes doesn’t have an ILS of its own is no real operational hindrance. On the very odd occasion it’s needed it’s available at Norwich. Of course the associated costs are only incurred when needed.

Another thing to consider is that Denes crews can also plan to use Norwich as an IFR alternate. Denes is not routinely available to Norwich crews as a weather alternate. This has payload implications for the customers.

And, of course the customer has to pay for the extra 10 minutes each way per flight when operating eastwards out of Norwich.

Many (not all) of the Offshore workers prefer Denes too. The diner is cheaper and they don’t have to compete with fixed wing passengers in the terminal.

Crews can rotors run refuel at Denes not at Norwich. They don’t normally have to wait for a bowser. Denes can be used 24hrs a day, 365 days a year, unlike Norwich. Freight can quickly and easily dropped off for offshore. All still X-rayed of course. All in all less hassle than a ‘real’ airport.

The truth is that the only thing Denes lacks is a hard runway. The main grass strip has “tank matting” underneath it through which the grass grows. It offers a firm and stable surface to reject on to. Rejects are regularly practiced on it. Of course should an aircraft suffer the likes of a tail rotor control problem the runway at Norwich could be used.

ATC operates from Denes Tower from 06.30 to 18.30 seven days a week. Out of hours is Air to Ground from Operations at Denes. Radar sevice is available from Anglia and Norwich.

Contrary to what may seem to be current popular belief the Heliport at North Denes works very well and has done for some 30 years. It has a lot to offer the Offshore companies.

CHC also seem to be spending some cash on it too (new hangar doors on both the old Bristow hangars, new office and training block, new fire truck access roads, improved fencing around the fuel farm etc). Who knows what the future holds. Maybe a differential GPS approach.

It might even make a good East Coast SAR base.

Denes is somewhat unique, in that CHC own the real estate and therfore incur all its fixed costs as well as the variable costs of operating the business. In the future the bean counters may prefer the concept of higher variable costs with minimun fixed costs. By that I mean concentrate on operating helicopters rather than an aerodrome. In which case who knows what the future holds for Denes.

On the other hand CHC may see the fact they own the airfield as a huge advantage and plough even more money and resourses into it. Who knows they may even invite other operators back in, and compete against Norwich.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[Impress to inflate]

Well said, could not have put it better myself

[Cyclic Hotline]

In 1966 North Denes represented the state of the art offshore helicopter base.

Nothing much has changed since then. :8 Can you still smell the dog 5hit when the wind is in the right direction?

[Whirlygig]

Cyclic Hotline, no, improvements in the dog track's facilities and the quality of a greyhound's diet have meant that that shouldn't be a problem now :}

Cheers

Whirls

[heli1]

Question....if North Denes is unlicensed how do they operate PT flights from there to the rigs?

[212man]

You can operate a Public Transport flight in a HELICOPTER from an unlicensed aerodrome, if it's not a SCHEDULED flight.

On the other hand, you can't carry out Type Rating Training.

(See Article 126)

Are we sure it's unlicensed? I'm sure it was licensed when I was there (95/96.) :confused:

[SFIM]

Are we sure it's unlicensed? I'm sure it was licensed when I was there (95/96.)

yes we are sure its definitely unlicensed

[ericferret]

There are many who think that Bond made a huge mistake when they pulled out from Strubby and moved to Humberside. Especially as it wasn't built on a bog next to sewage farm and it had an 800m hard runway. All the convenience of a private site given up for the hassle, cost and restrictions of using an airport. Top decision!!!!!!!!

The hangar is still there and the runway is still in use for light aircraft. Could be reopened with a bit of push from the oil companies.

[Whirlygig]

I'm also pretty sure it was licenced in 2003 as I landed there for my qualifying cross-country

Cheers

Whirls

[Shell Management]

The other part of the Perenco work is the 7 year AB139 contract which started in 2006. Though the original Tullow 139 contract finished this July. Can't say North Denes eevr impressed me.

[slyguy]

Gents,

Let me put a few things straight.

1. North Denes is unlicenced
2. It gets audited by the CAA annually, as an aerodrome
3. It has no restrictions on flying hours or days
4. It has an ATc operation everyday until at least 2300 hrs, extension available.
5. It does have matting under the main runway (but only half of it)
6. only one runway is lit 27/09
7. Yes it has lost a couple of contracts, this has more to do with CHC management in aberdeen than the aerodrome and the staff there, and the fact that a certain member of ex staff has a bit of a mission and is now working for an operator.

North Denes is everybodys favourite travelling destination if you are an offshore traveller. the people are friendly, and make an effort to get to know regular travellers. It is much easier to travel through, than any other heliport. It is far easier to get too.

Yes it does look run down a bit, but for roughly 16000 movements a year it is hardly surprising. Yes it would be the east coast base of choice for SAR ops, the plans are in place.

With regards the concrete runway option, this would be poo-pooed by the local council as the runway is at points below sea level and this would pose a flood risk, there is talk of pad extensions also but again the council may poo-poo, if this is the case i beleive chc would look at other options.

this along with the government now allowing brownfield sites to be used for housing, this would be a very profitable sale if it were to go ahead.

All in all CHC will carry on, there is plenty of work out there, and North denes will continue to be the hub, it is so much easier for operators, for passengers and for freight.

It is CHC who needs to wake up and smell the roses, it should be the pearl to their oyster, not a thorn in the side.

[500e]

"With regards the concrete runway option, this would be poo-pooed by the local council as the runway is at points below sea level and this would pose a flood risk, there is talk of pad extensions also but again the council may poo-poo, if this is the case I believe chc would look at other options.
this along with the government now allowing brownfield sites to be used for housing, this would be a very profitable sale if it were to go ahead."

Now there is a thought flooding if concrete runway !! but not if housing Keep that thought in mind.
A quote worthy of HMG.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[The Flashing Blade]

Just to agree with SlyGuy and RW&B. ND operates their 16000 pa movements well despite the aged facilities and sometimes confounding CHC management. This little, undervalued, under resourced airfield could be a gold mine if the top brass in Aberdeen could see beyond the end of ABZ's threshold.

Positives - no opening hours restrictions, no fitting ion with fixed wing, no waiting for fuel, a lot less security hassles for crew and pax, hard working air and groundcrew, shorter flights and free parking!

Negatives - well it looks old and uncared for. It doesn't have an ILS but that is not necessary (see previous posts), it doesn't have a hard runway for the thankfully rare occaisons that it would be needed. Can't think of much else.

[slyguy]

500E

a worthy point but houses can be raised the 1-2 mtrs above the sea level, at relatively little cost (stick a garage underneath it.)

wheras nearly the whole 37 acres would need raising for the runway option.

the question though has never been raised with the council, so we may never know

[Shell Management]

The issue of a concrete runway is more to do with rain water run off IIRC.

The caravans must just float away:

PLANNING APPLICATIONS CLEARED BETWEEN 01-JUL-08 AND 31-JUL-08 FOLLOWING
DETERMINATION BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCE
06/07/0948/F
PARISH West Caister 3
PROPOSAL Re-development of site to form Motor Home, Caravan Sales and
Accessories with customer parking and offices
SITE Former CHC Scotia Heliport Base Yarmouth Road
West Caister Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
APPLICANT Beck's Motorhomes
DECISION

APPROVE------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Farmer 1]

There are many who think that Bond made a huge mistake when they pulled out from Strubby and moved to Humberside.

They didn't have all that many choices. The land was owned by the client, Conoco, and they moved out. Not a lot of point in staying on land you don't own for a client who isn't there.

[slyguy]

excellent well researched,

although!!

This permission was granted, using the buildings and concrete area, from the old bond termonal and pad, so no redevelopement required as per new build but just replacing old for new.

this incorporated the existing atc tower in the building, and rebuilding where the old hangar used to be with a semi permanent building.

And therefore gained permission fairly simply, although two councils had to give approval as the boundary between great yarmouth and caister parish, is three quarters the way along the carpark.

Rain water run off is achieved by a bank of around 2 degrees on the runway, and outfall would go to surrounding dykes system and not therefore an issue over the relatively small area the runway would cover, the already sodden land drains there now (below sea level remember)

[500e]

You chap are missing the point, runway or houses have footprint, No of houses + roads = fairly large footprint
10 helipads relativity small footprint and flood plain still there :ok:

[pitpilot]

Bond just reaquired stubby FYI

[AllyPally]

I know some of Bond's pilots may be vertically challenged but I didn't know that my old mate Stubby had rejoined. Must be for the N3 contract;)

AP

[doshgone]

SlyGuy touches on the issue of a 'ex member of staff'.

Wished i had the courage to expand THAT.:ouch:

[ericferret]

Bond haven't reaquired Strubby FYI!!!!!!


Mike Taylor (5' 0") used to fly 365N's out of Strubby, could be him that Bond have reaquired!!!

[goatface]

R, W & B sums N Denes up nicely but the long term future of the place is far from secure.
Last year I understand, CHC were going to build a hard runway to replace the current grass facility, but have now decided not to as it's not an economically viable project.
The construction of the new heliport/terminal at Norwich starts in March/April, it will be big enough to accomodate all of the Bristow AND CHC current and future contracts.
The Perenco contract lost by CHC, oddly enough, went to..... Norwich, it's been operated by a Belgian company with 2 AS365s seperately from the Bristow Operation with every indication that it's there for at least 5 years.

I doubt that mant of they rig workers "enjoy" having to go to North Denes rather than Norwich, in fact I'd wager that it's only those who live in the Yarmouth/Lowestoft area who see it as an advantage, the majority of the rest fly into Norwich anyway, so who wants to do that and then have a 30 mile journey to Yarmouth.

As far as weather and landing aids are concerned, there's simply no contest, Norwich has far better facilities and a far better weather record than Denes, a factor which all offshore customers look very closely at, although I do accept that painting the top of the lamposts on the road adjacent to Denes Rwy 26 approach dayglow orange is a unique idea and should be in the top ten for approach light replacements.
Denes does have it's own ATC service, but this is an extremely expensive luxury.
If CHC were at Norwich, the cost of the ATC/Navigational service charges would be significantly less than employing individual ATCOs at Denes.

The one thing Denes has going for it is that CHC own everything, including the smell of the dog crap which wafts over from time to time. They spend as little cash as possible on the place and keep it to the standards which will muster a pass by the CAA.
Good enough for CHC and this all leads to reduced costs in the short term, but when there are established and much better facilities elsewhere, which are also being improved, such as Norwich and Humberside, it seems ineviatable that CHC will be told by their customers that they have to operate from elsewhere or lose out to other companies.