Airfields that ban some of us, plus the "no fees for safety diversions" scheme

[Genghis the Engineer]

A bit of a "name and shame" effort, and a bit of a public information thing on my part.

What precipitated this was that I was flying a flexwing microlight the other day in the midlands, when my comms system decided to go t**s-up; so deciding that being close to controlled airspace and unable to talk to my pax who was presumably wondering what the heck was going on, I should divert to the nearest GA airfield and sort it out on the ground.

So I slotted into the circuit at Tatenhill, which I did not have details for but could see on the chart nearby, and landed.

Securing the aeroplane (it was rather windy and I was NOT leaving it alone until firmly tied down) I met a duty jobsworth storming out looking somewhat red in the face who confronted me with "The BOOK says that this airfield does not accept flexwing microlights, and does not accept non-radio arrivals". Telling him that I'd had a comms failure simply precipitated demands to remove myself and my aircraft as quickly as possible, and a £12 landing fee.

So, who are the, well, less friendly, airfields we all know of? Offhand I can offer:-

Bans flexwings
Tatenhill
Turweston
Thruxton

No free emergency diversions
Tatenhill (despite AOPA claiming they do (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=278))

Bans "Group A"
London Colney

Bans powered
Lasham ("except on gliding business")

G

[Jim59]

Bans powered
Lasham ("except on gliding business")

That's true of many gliding sites. Frequently, as at my club, it is due to planning restrictions. Many PPLs will not be familiar with gliding hazards such as 'invisible' cables on the ground or in the overhead and people on the manoevring area, so where visitors are permitted they often restrict them to pilots with gliding experience who tend to be on gliding business. Many gliding sites have relatively rough or undulating surfaces that don't have marked runways so briefings are required (think Dunstable).

P.S. Lasham does take airliners though...

[ShyTorque]

And night flying Navy Wessex who were supposed to be landing at Odiham... :oh:

[piperboy84]

Do they provide a reason why microlights are discouraged/banned over other GA traffic?

Is it possible that some microlights are equipped with 2 stroke engines and I assume they may be noisier than other aircraft and may exceed noise abatement guidelines for certain fields. Not saying this is the case just asking a question

I know in some US states 2 stroke jet skis are banned on certain lakes where 4 strokes are acceptable, granted this was partly due to the increased oil a 2 stroke throws out but I believe noise was a factor also.

[Pitts2112]

You told him to stuff his fee up his tailpipe, presumably?

I had a very similar experience in 2008 in the Pitts at Henstritch. Had set off in company with a Luscomb from Popham to Compton Abbas but had to divert, so chose Henstritch. By the time we arrived there I was short on fuel and wasn't going anywhere else comfortably.

There was some mix up in word from the ground station while I was in the circuit, only to then be told just as my wheels were about to touch the ground that the radio operator wasn't sure I was allowed to land there. Well, too bad, because a) I already had and b) I wasn't going anywhere else without some petrol.

There then ensued a most inhospitable bollocking from some officious jobsworth **** who told me Pitts Specials were specifically forbidden, that I was told not to land (not true) and a whole load of other twoddle I promptly forgot. After hearing all of this, two club members seperately came up to me afterward and apologized for the cantankerous Good Humour Man and said they were glad to have me there.

I never cast my shadow over their tarmac again.

[chevvron]

piperboy84: obviously you are unaware that UK reg microlights whether 3-axis or flexwing have to have a notarised noise certificate.
Flexwings are banned at Fairoaks too, (although you're unlikely to be turned away if you declare an emergency) presumably because their low landing speed might cause problems to aircraft following them as being a FISO airfield, only one landing aircraft is allowed at a time, and the only place to vacate is the runway end taxiway.
NB: The FISO cannot prevent you landing if the runway is occupied, but the CAA require an MOR to be filed if you do!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I could understand a mandatory briefing. A two stroke ban on noise grounds perhaps makes some sense. But a whole control system? And airliners and gliders hut not light fixed wing?

G

[BEagle]

Genghis, if you are an AOPA member, perhaps you could pass on the details of your incident to the office, including Tatenhill's alleged failure to observe its obligations as a member of the Strasser Scheme.

Normally if there's any misunderstanding, a few words from AOPA to the aerodrome manager sorts things out.

[Talkdownman]

Lasham does take airliners though...
...but not without considerable prior arrangement and instrument runway sterilisation. Airliners may not just lob in.

[Genghis the Engineer]

BEagle, not AOPA, but I have spoken to BMAA who I think are going to have some words.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Playing devils advocate, the Strasser Scheme is for genuine emergencies, I have landed at Tatenhill following an inflight loss of oil pressure in an Rockwell 114. No oil pressure, temps going sky high, rpm / manifold pressure falling. I did not get charged any landing fee. I was 6 miles away with Tatenhill on the nose when the emergency started.

The Flexwing flight - a VFR flight in an aircraft with relatively slow ground speed, no legal mandatory requirement to have radio and during the flight you lost Com's. To me that's not a real emergency, a little uncomfortable maybe, a quick landing somewhere to sort it out if it bothered you.

The comments about controlled airspace, you knew it was there and could avoid it, so no great issue there. I can understand the view that it was a precautionary landing rather than a real emergency under the terms of the Strasser agreement.

With regards restrictions at certain airfields, the airfield owner writes the rules, he decides who can and can't come to play. This may be influenced by local factors which we may be unaware of. Ultimately its his right to decide who can visit and in what. A little like a homeowner deciding who they want to let into their house.

I am a little puzzled as to what the real problem is?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The problem for me, personally was that I was being bluntly lectured for having broken rules without any inquiry about why I was there or whether I had a problem. I offered to pay a landing fee to calm the man down, but having explained the precautionary landing, did not expect the offer to be accepted: that it was is rude, but a lot less rude than the rest of it.

There's also absolutely no way you can look up Pooleys in a flexwing in flight also, and I was not going to do another hour with my pax not knowing my ongoing intentions.

My call to take a precautionary diversion, which I still think was the right one.

G

[peterh337]

Aviation is a funny business. Arthur Scragill should have been in aviation, not coal. Every time Maggie tried to whack him with her handbag (unlikely in the first place in aviation) he could have just held up a banner with the magic "S" word and everybody would have backed off.

The "S" concept has enabled aviation to engage in a lot of empire building because most of those bankrolling the businesses haven't got a clue about it.

The problem with this business culture is that attracts (via job applications) and breeds anally retentive types, who think that not wearing a yellow jacket is the end of the world and is going to kill everybody within 10nm. God knows what these character types do when they get home. Perhaps becoming an ISO9000 quality manager, or maybe even a chief REACH (http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/) compliance officer, is the holy grail?

[goldeneaglepilot]

I can understand your feelings that the guy did not perhaps handle the matter in a friendly way. Equally there may be other factors (planning, noise for example) that influence the way he reacted.

[Pace]

Strasser Scheme (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=278)

Here are the details and principals of the Strasser scheme

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I said, the landing fee issue for me was pretty trivial. The implication that as I was in the wrong sort of aeroplane, I shouldn't have diverted *there* was not.

G

[mad_jock]

G to be honest these people are pretty much standard now across the UK working at airports..

It doesn't matter what the airmanship reason is why your are doing something if it doesn't fit in with what there interpretation of the rule book is it is there right to throw a fit. And I think that pilot being in the main alpha males (including the burds) don't instantly recognise the percieved status of ground ops director little piddlington intergalatic space port.

The fact that later in the main they find out the are largely impotent in the grand scale of things annoys them even more, and the next breach of their labour of love rule book incures an increased rath.

You won't change anything by complaining. But at least posting on here and making it public will annoy the pillock even more.

There are a few goodun's out there though. It does seem related though to how much of an aviation god the SATCO is and how much control they have over the ground ops.

[Sillert,V.I.]

My call to take a precautionary diversion, which I still think was the right one.


IMO that's beyond doubt. The fact that you, as PIC, felt a precautionary landing was justified is reason enough.

Any inflight failure should prompt the question "where would this leave me if something else were to happen". If, let us say, you were unfortunate enough to lose the engine later in the flight, the loss of comms with both ground & your passenger could have made a catastrophic difference to the outcome.

The whole point of the Strasser scheme is to remove any cost/permission issues which might influence a GA pilot's decision to make a precautionary landing. Unless someone is obviously taking the p**s, subsequently questioning that decision undermines the principle of the agreement and IMO this kind of behaviour by Tatenhill harms us all.

[cumulusrider]

Any inflight failure should prompt the question "where would this leave me if something else were to happen". If, let us say, you were unfortunate enough to lose the engine later in the flight, the loss of comms with both ground & your passenger could have made a catastrophic difference to the outcome.

You lose the engine and thus the noise of it so you can speak to your passenger. The thing dosnt just fall out of the sky without an engine you can glide to a safe field landing even without the glide angle of a glider. Hundred of people fly cross country without radio or engine each year.
Aviate, Navigate , Comminicate.
I dont agree with Ghengis reason for the divert but I totaly agree with him about his reception. GA is only a small group of people in this country. Why cant we all get on : be it group A, microlight, Balloons, gliders etc.

['India-Mike]

G to be honest these people are pretty much standard now across the UK working at airports..

Last year, preflighting Chipmunk (well that's my excuse for the green growbag). Ops man charges half-way across aerodrome to castigate me for not wearing yellow jacket. Conversation something like this...

Me - 'I'm not wearing one 'cos I'm about to go flying'
Him - 'Well take it off in the aeroplane'
Me - 'Wait a minute...I'm wearing camouflage and you still spotted me from way over there. Aren't I conspicuous enough then?'

Serious sense of humour failure then followed:ugh:

Suppose the guy was just doing his job.

[mad_jock]

Yes but your risk is increased if you do.

And if you don't want to accept that increased risk you shouldn't have to because of some pillock's rule book.

I am more than happy flying a flying school standard heap of crap sans ASI alitimeter, radios and everything else as long as the engine is running and is unlikely to stop, around the highlands of scotland with only me onboard.

Doesn't mean I would be happy doing it in deepest darkest england next to CAS or with pax apart from another ex reprabate FI that knows the score.

And neither would I expect another pilot to be happy doing what I would accept.

[Pace]

CumulusRider

That is not the point as ones mans "its just a nuisance" might be another mans "I want to land."

The whole point is that we all have failures of one item or another and make a decision on whether to continue the flight or not.

As a general rule It is far better to be on the ground and sort it out rather than to press on.

Press on maybe ok but you then need to consider other future events along the line where loss of radio would make those worse.

Frankly self proclaimed Hitlers like that? You are probably best holding your ground and giving them a mouthful back as to feed their Ego just encourages the same attitude to the next person and there is no excuse for rudeness.

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

I do think that the person's reported attitude to Genghis was poor. But you do have to look at the big picture. We are not aware of the reasons that Tatenhill does not want flex wings, however its their choice. You also have to look at the situation, no radio and no intercom in a flex wing, does that threaten the safety of the flight? If not then according to the wording of the Strasser agreement it's not a "real" emergency. If the engine failed was the com's kit required for a safe outcome - of course not. In fact historically there have been many instances of engine failiures in flex wing, the vast majority not reported to anyone. I know this first hand having spent time over the last twenty years at Long Marston (the engines are much better now).


I have a large field at the back of my house, there is often something that fly's parked there. Would I be upset if someone dropped in? If they had a genuine emergency (something that threatened the safety of the flight) then NO. However if they dropped in for a problem with something that they could have safely continued the flight with then I would not be happy. Simply because of the likely raised eyebrows of my neighbours and my sensitivity to not upsetting them (and not wanting them to think the field might get busy...). I have to get on with them after the visitor has gone.

Genghis obviously did not know the restriction at Tatenhill, an innocent mistake with a disproportionate response by a jobsworth. But is it really worth blacking the name of Tatenhill over that?

Personally the only time I take a jobsworth seriously is when they are dressed in DPM holding a gun!!

[ShyTorque]

But is it really worth blacking the name of Tattenhill over that?

Is reporting the facts of an upsetting incident by an individual really seen as "blackening the name" of the whole airfield?

Btw, the airfield is Tatenhill, only one "t" in the middle.

[riverrock83]

While we are naming and shaming, can pressure be exerted on Belfast-Intl., Cardiff, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton and Manchester?
I'm guessing that Luton and Manchester claim they are too busy (but then Stansted, which is twice as busy as Luton and pretty similar to Manchester is on the scheme) but what is the excuse for the others?
In NI Belfast-Intl would be a much easier approach in an emergency than Belfast-City / George Best.

[Pace]

GEP

I used to fly into Tatenhill a lot in twins and never had a problem! It was always a very quiet do your own thing sort of place.
I wonder if the attitude would have been the same if Genghis had arrived in a Cessna 150?
Maybe it was the type of flying machine the guy reacted against!
While a radio failure may not be a big thing in an aircraft like that it maybe to some and it is for the pilot to state his case and reasons.
Was it an emergency NO! is the Strasser designed for emergencies? NO
The Strasser was designed to stop an emergency situation developing by a pilot passing a useable airfield purely based on cost.

I once moved a Cessna 150 which had no nav kit apart from the radio.
The cloudbase was 1000 feet in light rain and as a river line went almost to my destination I decided to fly VFR below cloud knowing that if I kept the river below me I could not hit any high ground.
I was pushed down and down and now at 2-300 feet with more intense rain and cloud appearing below the aircraft I decided enough was enough climbed in cloud to the SSA and contacted a military base with the intention of using the radio for a PAR! luckily 25 miles on the weather cleared but no radio???

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

Pace - I agree, every time I have been there its been quiet, but the people I have seen have been friendly. Might be that the jobsworth just hated flex wings!!

[Pace]

Ghengis

On the way out shutting the door you should have flour bombed him from 30 feet :E splat splat splat!! :{

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Was the jobsworth a grey bearded gentleman?

To be fair, that description also applies to my favourite uncle and many other very pleasant people.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Ok - Ginger and fat?

[Genghis the Engineer]

My uncle is grey and bearded. Not all people who are grey and bearded are my uncle.

G

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Bans powered
Lasham ("except on gliding business")

I've landed several times at Lasham in powered SEP aircraft, admittedly for a purpose but certainly not on gliding business. Parham, Wormingford, Challock, Upwood and Rattlesden as well. Some have planning issues or movement limits for power aircraft. I personally think it's more like: "you power pilots can't possibly be as good as us glider pilots, so be a good chap and buzz off"

If you want to land at a gliding airfield that 'bans' power, just lob in unannounced, land exactly where you want, start making phone calls and when challenged, tell them you ran out of ideas and "landed out'. Works for gliders at the private strip I fly from which only accepts any aircraft by invitation...:E

I have been banned personally from the Hertfordshire hell hole that is Panshanger..... for force landing on the runway with a total & terminal engine failure without the owner's permission and for not asking permission on the radio. When I explained I would have landed at Heathrow in similar circumstances, it all got a bit heated. :rolleyes:

[Pace]

Another thing which works but takes some practice is to break out in uncontrollable and hysterical laughter occasionally pointing a finger at him then doubling over splitting your sides!
Works or you get carted off to the nearest Looney Bin :{

Pace

[EddieHeli]

Like Genghis, don't think its ok to carry on at all if you have a sudden comm failure and don't know what has caused it.
I had a regulator burn out in an R44, the first symptom was the radio and intercomm cutting in and out. As I was deciding on which field to carry out a precautionary landing, several warning lights started flashing like a christmas tree along with the needles bouncing around. by the time we landed in a field we had lost all electrics, and had a completely burnt out regulator. Who knows if a fire might have ensued, had I not landed and shut down.
Different thing altogether having comms then losing them, than flying non radio, which is how I learnt to fly.
Also in a flexwing how do you know its not a loose wire thats about to go through the prop.

[max roll rate]

Hi folks

I have seen that you have put Turweston in the bad place list , please remove it , the owner the staff and the pilots at Turweston have no problem with flex wing microlights but the local council AVDC does, at the last planning appeal we fought hard to lose the restriction that had been imposed ,we did manage to get 3 axis microlights allowed but the flex wing rule was kept in place by the inspector running the appeal , this said we would never stop or chastise any flex wing pilot for landing if safety was involved .
2 weeks ago I had a flex wing land after the pilot was caught short after encountering a strong headwind, no charge and a happy chap, so do get your facts right before you go naming and shaming.
Regards Chris
.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Max, it seems to me that your post explains things much better than my just removing Turweston from my original post.

G

[Pace]

Chris

That does explain things far more. Having been a regular visitor to Tatenhill in the past I was surprised as I have always found the airfield laid back and its people friendly.
Nevertheless there is little excuse for being bombastic arrogant and dictatorial??
Some pilots may ask for such an attitude but not our Ghengis who is a highly respected individual here.

Pace

[BEagle]

Btw, the airfield is Tatenhill, only one "t" in the middle.

...and one 'tw@t' on the ground?

[mad_jock]

Maybe the bath colour clashed with the tent fly sheet strapped to the top.

Must admit there is so many ways these things can kick off.

My usual one is the old park into wind when its over 20knts in the work machine even when you tell tower what you are doing.

You can have a frothing at the mouth gorilla jumping out of the ops wagon screaming that your not parked as per the yellow lines. And you can have a ramp cop that smiles and opening line is "its a bit hairy today" and finishing line after shooting some krack is "take it you parked like that for start?"
And everything is fine. Were as the gorrilla you would have thought you had tampered with is 10 year old. And it can even be at the same airport just different shifts.

BEagle :ok: like

[FleetFlyer]

I've found the ground staff at Blackbushe to be universally charming and helpful, as well as their resident instructors, but the guy on the radio in the tower is quite the most officious annoying man I have so far had the misfortune to encounter.

Also Popham is an airfield that touts itself as being microlight friendly but infact their service is extraordinarily poor. I regurlarly find myself stopping by for fuel as its the only convenient place for me and I walk up to the ops desk and am ignored for anything up to 5 minutes before being asked whether I want avgas for my motorbike and looked up and down like I'm going to steal anything thats not bolted down.

Airfields that are good really seem to stand out. Dunkeswell has always been fantastic with a warm welcome whenever I stop by. Oxford was great for a proper airport and as such made an intimidating place much less scary for me when I was a low hour pilot. There is also a small airfield near Penrith that was unbelievably welcoming, with free hangarage and a donation of whatever you wanted to give for landing fees. The guy that owns it is a real gent as well.

[ShyTorque]

...and one 'tw@t' on the ground?

Sounds like it...

Whatever the rules, there's nothing wrong with a firm but polite attitude, rather than a red-faced rant.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Maybe the bath colour clashed with the tent fly sheet strapped to the top.

Probably guilty, they are quite different shades of yellow, and don't match the blue flying suit at-all.

G

[mad_jock]

So you were thrown off the field for being obviously straight with an Engineers normal sense of colour coordination.

Puts a completely different picture on the event.

[chevvron]

Blackbushe man on the radio 'officious annoying'? I wonder who that is.

[maxred]

So you were thrown off the field for being obviously straight with an Engineers normal sense of colour coordination.

MJ Are you insinuating that Tatenhill (one T note!), is populated by other gender preferers, with a keen fashionista sense of colour??

Just like Fife then:uhoh:

[jjones666]

bedford - microlights banned

Pilot Information :: Bedford Aerodrome (http://www.bedfordaerodrome.com/pilot-information.aspx)

[chrisN]

Ghengis, at my gliding site, we have a planning condition that precludes powered aircraft, other than glider tugs, except in emergency. So No, we do not welcome visitors who just want to add it to their logbook collection or visit a nearby friend. It would be illegal for us to, and we have already had many visits from the council enforcement officer, and more than one enforcement notice in the past, when they think we have infringed some condition or planning rule.

We have, however, welcomed in the past: 2 Flexwings who encountered bad weather and turned back to us - we fed, watered, and warmed them up, until they were happy to continue; then a chap on the way from France to Scotland, landed here late – we gave him a bed for the night in our caravan/clubhouse (all we have – the council refused planning permission for anything better); and sundry other people with varying degrees of urgency or distress.

It has nothing to do with a snobbish attitude that gliding is superior to power.

Chris N

[piperboy84]

Max R R
we did manage to get 3 axis microlights allowed but the flex wing rule was kept in place by the inspector running the appeal

Did the planners give a reason for 3 axis being OK and flex wing being unacceptable?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hard to see much rational difference between, say, a Flash 2a and a Thruster TST - or between a Quik and a C150 in terms of speeds and noise.

Mind you, does the planning system have to be rational?

G

[AnglianAV8R]

Very sad. I'd expect a person employed in aviation to respect the decision of an aircraft Commander to make a precautionary landing when having tech problems.

Tatenhill 0/10 :=

Here's a good news story: Landed at Wolverhampton/Halfpenny Green last week for fuel and overnight stop. Next day was not flyable and we were stuck for another night. No further charge as they treated it as a 'weather diversion' and extended the same benefits to the flexwing who arrived 5 minutes after us and found themselves in the same predicament.

Wolverhampton/H'penny Green 10/10 :ok:

Planning restrictions seem to be a throwback to the early years of microlights with very noisy (Robin?) engines. They are in the minority nowadays. I know of an airfield in my locality that has a 'no microlights' rule due to planning. However, it is applied flexibly for aircraft such as my Rans S6 because it looks like a "proper plane" :cool:

Perhaps it is time for the likes of the BMAA & LAA to join forces and seek to tidy up the outdated misconceptions ?

[piperboy84]

Anyone want to have a guess at what percentage of flex wing have 2 stroke v. 4 stroke?

And if i was gonna hazard a guess the 2 stroke thing may be the reason for differentiating between the 3 axis and flex wing as far as planners and field owners are concerned. I'm definitely no expert on microlights but i assume most 3 axis would have larger 4 strokes and the flex are suited for either, and its probably a bit of what AnglianAV8R said regarding "what looks like a proper plane" to non pilots such as planners

[Genghis the Engineer]

Wolverhampton / Halfpenny Green has transformed out of all recognition recently. Back in the "Wolverhampton Spaceport" days they were inflexible, expensive, and generally unfriendly.

I'm not quite sure when the change happened, but I've heard nothing but good of the place recently - and several recent visits I've made they couldn't do enough for us.


Piperboy - the 2-strokes are cheaper to buy, have a better power-to-weight, and for a sole-owned aeroplane that fly low hours, probably only need a significant service every 5 years. So for older, and privately owned aeroplanes, they make a lot of sense. The 4-strokes are heavier, more expensive, but for a high-useage aeroplane the longer service intervals and lower fuel burn are really worth having. So, the 2-stroke aeroplanes tend to be either the older (pre-1999 when the microlight weight limit changed from 390kg to 450kg) aeroplanes, or the sole-owned aeroplanes. Not a universal rule, but a common one.

In reality however, all microlights have had to meet strict noise limits for years, whilst light aeroplanes have yet to have such limits applied in the UK. So it's really not clearcut.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

does the planning system have to be rational?
Pretty much. Decisions have to be in accordance with policy, and policy has to be found to be sound and in accordance with evidence.

Which is not to say that committees don't sometimes take odd decisions for political reasons, but where these are decisions to refuse they can be overturned on appeal (there's no appeal against granting permission). Or an unsound policy can be overturned by inspectors or, I imagine, at JR.

[mad_jock]

I wasn't actually but now you mention it.

I was having more of a comment about engineers and engineering academics.

Hair length and colour coordination is a handy way of spotting a member of the product design mafia approaching to ruin your day.

Manky cords/chinos, brown brogue shoes with a clashing shirt and tie usually signifies someone that knows what they are talking about.

[cumulusrider]

I've landed several times at Lasham in powered SEP aircraft, admittedly for a purpose but certainly not on gliding business. Parham, Wormingford, Challock, Upwood and Rattlesden as well. Some have planning issues or movement limits for power aircraft. I personally think it's more like: "you power pilots can't possibly be as good as us glider pilots, so be a good chap and buzz off"

If you want to land at a gliding airfield that 'bans' power, just lob in unannounced, land exactly where you want, start making phone calls and when challenged, tell them you ran out of ideas and "landed out'. Works for gliders at the private strip I fly from which only accepts any aircraft by invitation...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

As lasham pilot can I explain why we discourage power without prior permission. We have a very large site and are trying to make everything within the perimeter track landable and currently have part of the site recently seeded.
Normal gliding operations will have the control bus on the main runway. The winch will be placed on the grass with the cables towed out on the grass parralel to the runway. Club aerotows use the main runway starting level with the bus. Trial flights start from outside the club house. We thus have 3 launchpoints coordinated by radio.
Circuits can be both right and left handed landing on the grass on the appropriate side of the runway without crossing the centre line.
We also have ATC a Boing maintenance organisation on site who have jets, helicopters and twins arriving and departing.
Overhead joins are forbidden as we have steel winch cables to over 2000ft. During the summer the site can get very busy with movement peaks of over 200/hr. Total movements 59,000pa busier than most regional airports.

This set up is very different to a normal power airfield. We are not better just different.

As an example we had a visiting pilot last year who insisted on doing 5 mile 3 degree approaches. After 4 go rounds because gliders cut in front of him he finaly wised up and flew the same tighter steeper circuit.

[Genghis the Engineer]

cumulusrider. Sorry, but I really don't accept your arguments. There are many very busy airfields around the country which mix some combination of gliders, microlights, fixed wing singles and twins, parachutists, helicopters.... It really isn't hard to do. The fact is, Lasham has always been quite clear in it's collective mind that it simply doesn't want powered not there on gliding business, and will continue to arrange things to ensure that.

G

[Pilot.Lyons]

Meldex..... I know who you mean and have had a couple of problems... But i fly from tatenhill and refuse to fly when he is there!

I find everyone else there to be extremely friendly and have never had a problem with anyone of them (exception to a bearded chief)

Not sure what was happening on the day you landed G just goes to show though.. People should look at the facts before ranting and raving... You could have been having a heart attack or something! And then get verbally attacked! ...... Ive learned to never snap at anyone without knowing the facts..... But thats just me.

Dont rule tatenhill out though people its just one guy having a bad day and taking it out on G.

[pudoc]

CAA need to get their finger out their backsides. It should be illegal to charge a landing fee for a safety reason. I'm sure many pilots have wanted to divert for something but haven't because of a large fee... :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Pace]

Flying OCAS and IMC into Biggin Hill in a Seneca Five I have twice in the past had to miss off the ILS due to low cloud.
Both times I took a diversion into Farnborough and got away with no charges.
This was about 10 years ago ;)
Then again with a position OCAS in a Citation tried the same technique after missing at Biggin (all my misses at Biggin :E I again diverted into Farnborough with a comment of not you again :E and if my owner could afford that thing no way :sad:

Oh well some you win some you loose

Pace

[Prop swinger]

Genghis,

Lasham have no problem with powered aircraft. There are several SEPs based there (& I'm not just referring to the tugs.) Nor do you have to be on gliding business to fly into/from Lasham; Bill Brooks was there earlier this year in a flexwing & he wasn't there for any gliding related purpose.

What they absolutely do not want is to be part of the £100 bacon butty circuit. On a good day (:mad:), Lasham will be launching almost continuously from 10am until sunset (ATC permitting) & any delays are resented. Powered aircraft, particularly visitors who aren't used to operating @ Lasham, inevitably do delay launches & that's why Lasham is not a drop-in destination.

People with a reason to visit, usually (but not always) a gliding reason, will be welcomed. Casual visitors will be told thanks, but we would rather you went somewhere else.

[BabyBear]

Lasham have no problem with powered aircraft. There are several SEPs based there (& I'm not just referring to the tugs.) Nor do you have to be on gliding business to fly into/from Lasham; Bill Brooks was there earlier this year in a flexwing & he wasn't there for any gliding related purpose.

What they absolutely do not want is to be part of the £100 bacon butty circuit. On a good day (http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif), Lasham will be launching almost continuously from 10am until sunset (ATC permitting) & any delays are resented. Powered aircraft, particularly visitors who aren't used to operating @ Lasham, inevitably do delay launches & that's why Lasham is not a drop-in destination.

People with a reason to visit, usually (but not always) a gliding reason, will be welcomed. Casual visitors will be told thanks, but we would rather you went somewhere else.

Absolutely understandable and how it should be, why should any pilot, irrespective of the flavour, feel they have the right to fly in to an airfield of their choosing disturbing the activity and throw the teddy out the pram because they can't. Ridiculous!!

Fair enough naming and shaming down right ignorance and obnoxiousness but to extend it to including those that choose not to let you play with their train set is a step too far, IMO.

BB

[xrayalpha]

You know, everyone who has come into my field because of bad weather has been so grateful to be on the ground, safe and with people who will help them with anything they want....

They have all volunteered to pay a landing fee! (I purposely do not mention landing fees just to see what happens)

ps. Myself, I wouldn't expect to fly in an aircraft worth thousands of pounds upwards and be let off with a landing fee. And if I valued my life at less than a landing fee - otherwise why on earth would I let a few digits on my credit card worry me into making a bad pilot decision - then I would question my sanity as a pilot. And if I had pax, my responsibility for them.

Maybe I just think diffferent from other people. I laugh when I get "pay day loan" texts offering me a £100 within an hour - it feels like I am spending almost £100 an hour at the moment! (well, this month's CC bill is 11k and last month's was too)

[Pace]

XRAYALPHA

I do not for one minute think a pilot who is in fear of his life will think, "Oh my God I am about to die but I cannot afford to land at airport X".

Normally an accident is a succession of bad decisions and the accident occurs as a culmination of those decisions.

Early on in the process Pilot Y may fly past an airfield thinking he will press on because he cannot afford heavy costs but at that point he maybe just slightly uncomfortable with something not quite right.

Pace

[chevvron]

Years ago 3 Counties Aero Club at Blackbushe used to get its 150s/152s serviced at Lasham in 'Ned's Shed' situated just west of the main hangar on the north side. I was one of the club members occasionally asked to ferry aircraft down there.
SOP was to land on the grass area between the runway and the clubhouse/northern taxiway.
Going in there one day, I did a wide left hand circuit to 27, knowing the glider tugs normally but not always did right hands. Sure enough as I established at about half a mile, a tug with cable attached turned final from a right base in front of me. No sweat, he was clearly visible, but what did concern me was the glider/tug combination lined up on the grass, the glider with wings level, fortunately right next to the runway, thus leaving a strip to the right available for the tug and myself. Anyway I landed and taxied to Ned's Shed. After about 10 minutes, a guy wandered up from the cluhouse direction wearing a flying suit, pebble glasses and a cheesy grin. He asked if I was the one who had just landed and I said yes. He then berated me for landing on the wrong bit of grass, stating that where I had landed had been reserved for turf cutting and had large white crosses on it. I stated there had definitely been NO white crosses where I landed (I hadn't seen any anywhere in fact, and I checked for them when I taxied out to return to Blackbushe and still couldn't see them) and anyway a tug had landed on the same bit ahead of me. He refused to accept this saying I should have landed OVER the glider and tug, which as I said, had the glider at 'wings level' thus indicating it was about to depart! Now I'm not a fantastically experienced pilot, but I have done a fair bit of gliding as well as powered flying, and no way am I going to fly over a glider from 'above and behind' if I suspect it is about to launch, and I told him this. He left still maintaining I was in the wrong.
I think the attitude of this person was that although I was entitled to land there, he felt he had to make his mark to show I wasn't really welcome. Thankfully this was just one individual at Lasham and everyone else I've met there doesn't share this attitude.

[Fourbyfour]

I find this whole event rather saddening.

Whilst there are differing views on whether this constitutes an emergency (and that is purely the PICs decision) and Tatenhill's 'no flexwing, no non-radio' rule, had it been handled differently then Ghengis could have been posting a very glowing report of the airfield.

Tatenhill have gained one £12 landing fee and generated bad feeling in what is a small, close knit flying community. Handled differently, they are likely to have recouped that landing fee many times over, picked up a couple of prospective students and maybe another maintenance or avionics order.

I fly from Tatenhill and enjoy what it has to offer. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives but I find G's experience a great shame.

4b4

[Esperanza]

Genghis:
I'm one of the full-time instructors at Tatenhill. I'm so embarrassed, and can't apologise enough. It's unfortunate that you came in on my day off. If I had been on site then I would have helped to diffuse the situation. I shall be having a chat to the chap involved and management over the next couple of days.
What's really sad is that some of us are doing are best to make Tatenhill Airfield a more attractive place to visit.
I don't know what else to say.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Esperanza - thank you, and for the record, everybody else I met at Tatenhill was either looking embarrassed and staying out of the way or, far more commonly, utterly friendly and helpful.

The tower in particular were absolutely great when I went up to discuss departure procedures with them after I'd managed to get my intercom working but was still unsure of my radio.

G