New Penzance Heliport on the way??

[Geoffersincornwall]

A press release from the owners of the Island of Tresco announces their intention to seek planning consent for a new heliport at Penzance.

More later - check out www.penzanceheliport.co.uk


G.

[Ex Machina]

Interesting choice of airframe. I'd have thought the 189 would be better for the role :)

[badbackanddeaf]

Any idea who is going to operate it?

[jeepys]

Nice idea but I assume someone has done the sums.
If I was a gambling man I would put money on the new proposed heliport obtaining revenue from space they have strangely found for office and industrial use which would increase the value of what currently is a green field. Well, that's what I would do to earn a few quid and use a 'vital helicopter service' as a front.
Either way I hope it works and the industry opens up a few more jobs.
Good luck.

[[email protected]]

Well they need to sack their web-designer for a start - that webpage has grey writing on a grey background:ugh:

[Geoffersincornwall]

Proof reading wasn't that brilliant either!!

G :confused:

[chopper2004]

According to Helihub will be AW139 used,

Cheers

HeliHub UK ? New Scilly Isles helicopter service proposed with AW139s (http://helihub.com/2016/08/25/uk-new-scilly-isles-helicopter-service-proposed-with-aw139s/)

[Pozidrive]

A press release from the owners of the Island of Tresco announces their intention to seek planning consent for a new heliport at Penzance.

More later - check out Penzance Heliport Ltd - Proposal information (http://www.penzanceheliport.co.uk)


G.
Wouldn't it be ironic if Sainsbury's objected to this.


But seriously, the old phrase about "proper planning..." comes to mind.

[piperpa46]

Nobody is getting me into a 15 seat AW139, 12 seats is IMO the limit for that helicopter

[Ian Corrigible]

Nobody is getting me into a 15 seat AW139, 12 seats is IMO the limit for that helicopter
Hey, not so fast, there was a guy on here a few days back looking for new business ideas (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/583129-helicopter-business-ideas.html). How about:

"Free breast/testicular exam with every flight.*"

*Name and sex of your seat neighbor/examiner will be determined at time of boarding. Note, examiner may not be a registered physician. You may wish to consult with a qualified professional to determine the accuracy of your in-flight groping. Offer does not apply to sheep or other pets carried on board.

:E

I/C

[Sir Korsky]

still sounds better than commuting on the Southern railway IC

[Geoffersincornwall]

Yes it will be cosy but devoid of immersion suits and with women and children in the mix it is at least worthy of a go. Maybe a smart move would be to put a row of four in row 1 so that the 'biggies' get a bit more room, fourteen seats is still a good deal. I've had 26 on board during one flight in the S61 although I think one flight with babes in arms got up to 30!!

The real test is going to be the baggage. They may have to run a baggage only flight last thing or maybe use a single to take it all over. I wonder if that angle has been thought through?

Macau - Hong Kong Shuttle uses a 15 seat configuration but the run is well known for carrying little baggage beyond some severely stacked wallets.

Aye

G.

[Ian Corrigible]

Geoffers,

Is that a recent config change? When I did the hop a few years back they were still 4-abreast.

/Wallet wasn't so stacked flying back... :(

I/C

[Geoffersincornwall]

Ian

No first hand experience but that was the arrangement described by some of the guys that have passed through here at Sesto. Maybe they have a mix or maybe they have even changed. Would be useful info for Mr Robert Dorrien Smith.

G.

[212man]

'NM used to be 32 seats! 139 comes in a 15 seat option but most IOGP customers want 12.

[Self loading bear]

Although listed under AW149 this looks like a AW139 cabin.
This is a 5-5-5 seating arrangement.
I would love to see this cabin filled!!!
15-seat layout (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/aw149-helicopter/aw149-helicopter5.html)

4-4-4 filled looks like this:
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/08/121aw139_58.jpg
But tourists and Scilliers are skinny people and they can be sheepishly compressed?

Cheers SLB

[RedhillPhil]

I'll put up with that. Anything to avoid the vomit cruise on the Scillonian III.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I can tell you stories about day-trip passengers who arrived in the Scillies on The Scillonian on their knees at the Helicopter Ticket Desk begging for a flight back to PZ. Sometimes they didn't like to be told that all seats were sold out and things got a little heated, especially if they had enjoyed a liquid lunch. :uhoh::{

[treadigraph]

A mate and I have some unfinished drinking business in the Scillies (New Inn and Turks Head!); he wants to go over on the Scillonian despite the warnings about mal de mer - he's welcome to it. I'm hoping to sample Rock Hopper's Islander one way and Twin Otter the other. Last time we went out courtesy of BIH, just before the service was chopped, and very nice it was too.

Hope the new venture succeeds.

Potential objector? (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/583454-nasty-noisy-jets.html) :mad:

[Geoffersincornwall]

I'm told by a colleague that a 15 seat AW139 has been serving the Norwegian Islands for more than 10 years and is still going. They love it so the idea would seem to have a lot going for it.

G

[[email protected]]

This might sound like an odd idea, but why not base the aircraft at St Mary's instead of the mainland?

It could then double as an air ambulance outside shuttle operating hours and get casualties to the mainland far quicker than waiting for AA or CG from the mainland..

And create some more jobs in the Scillies. Just a thought as I watch Spotlight news on BBC talking about the Scillies regatta tonight.:ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

But Crab .... that would mean the crew would have to live on St Mary's .....Wow...Yes... what a good idea. If I was 20 years younger you would have to start the queue behind me. :-)

Not a bad idea but unfortunately it would never be acceptable to have combined roles. The commercial considerations would make the AA role impossible for a number of reasons not least of all you would need to have a quick change stretcher fit plus racks for the monitoring equipment. These days you don't 'busk-it' in the way we did in the old days. The Mil can get away with it but CAT operators cannot. I guess you have never seen PZ heliport when the terminal is crammed with delayed pax on a foggy days. It's not a pretty sight.

G.

[Self loading bear]

The fifteen seater AW139 would have to be the LN-OLV of Lufttansport as on the route Bodo - Vaeroy
Website Lufttansport as (http://www.lufttransport.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=61)

Actually an AB139 !

I found 1 photo on a blog site. If you zoom in you can see 5 head rests on a row.
blog site (https://www.google.nl/search?q=helicopter+bodo&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=nl-NL&prmd=ivmn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7oq2oiODOAhUFvBQKHWrkCYkQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=lodk7nVnxvFA_M%3A)

cheers SLB

[MHG]

Not just Lufttransport´s LN-OLV that runs BOO-VRY-BOO is config. as 15-seater.

Also Alidaunia´s AW-139 I-LIDE that serves the scheduled route FOG-TQR-FOG twice daily year round (thrice daily in summer though midday service is operated usually by an AW-109 ...) is in 15-seat config.
See: Home Page - Alidaunia s.r.l. - Società di navigazione aerea (http://www.alidaunia.it/en)

On another note:
Anyone in the knowing who will be the operator of the new Scilly Island´s service ?

[John Eacott]

30/5/2017: An Update from Robert Dorrien-Smith (http://penzanceheliport.co.uk/3052017-update-robert-dorrien-smith/)

Dear Supporters,
In recent weeks, we have received countless enquiries as to progress on the reinstated helicopter link to the Isles of Scilly.
I am contacting you today with an update – albeit not the one I had hoped to send. I feel it important that islanders and visitors know the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, even if others will not publicly admit to their actions.
The Current Situation
Construction of the replacement Penzance Heliport has been paused temporarily, after the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company began proceedings for a judicial review. This process would see a judge examine Cornwall Council’s unanimous decision to grant planning permission for the project, secured on 2nd February. This move follows a failed anonymous bid for the Secretary of State to review the decision in March.
I want to absolutely reassure you that I am as committed to this project as ever. In fact, I am now even more determined, as I do not see this just as an attack on our project, but an attack on the islands, islanders and our visitors by a company that claims to be proud of its Scillonian heritage.
This issue is bigger than just the heliport; the islands are facing a critical challenge to their independence. On the one hand we have a transport monopoly trying to prevent improvements to the transport system, against the wishes of islanders and Penzance people. On the other hand we have an entire community wanting something better.
This is an abuse of power on a very serious scale because we have no other options. It is not comparable to a planning challenge on the mainland where alternatives exist. In theory this behaviour by the Steamship Group could put us in a position in the future whereby they have the final say on anything and everything that happens in these islands.
This obstructive move by the Steamship Company will only ever be seen for what it is: an anti-competitive action, dressed up in as much legal fog as they can muster.
The fact the heliport project received the greatest swell of public support Cornwall Council has ever seen for a planning application, as well as the backing of dozens of influential and high-profile bodies, proves absolutely that it is right for these islands, and for west Cornwall. Thank you again for your ongoing support for this project.
The Way Ahead
I have contacted the Board of the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company in recent weeks in an attempt to find a way forward, even offering them an opportunity to invest in the heliport. They responded with a proposal to allow the helicopter to operate from Land’s End Airport, which they own. After studying their proposal in detail, we have concluded this would not deliver the weather resilience and passenger growth benefits that are core aims of this project; nor would this proposal be commercially viable.
My intention remains to strengthen the transport system to these islands for the benefit of all. Unfortunately the Steamship Company’s response to this whole project has demonstrated they are motivated purely by an obsessive defence of monopoly, led by the misguided belief that a reinstated helicopter service will be damaging to their company. For many years the helicopter and other transport services to the islands worked in harmony and cooperation, and I do not accept the Steamship Company’s view that this could not happen again.
Ultimately we have got to put islanders and visitors first, and we must design a transport system that will enable improvements in resilience, reliability and customer experience, as well as facilitating future growth in the islands’ tourism economy.
I hope the Isles of Scilly Steamship Group will take the sensible decision to withdraw this malicious obstruction. If they do not, we cannot say how long this process may take, but I remain absolutely committed to launching a reinstated helicopter service to the Isles of Scilly in 2018 and will keep you informed whenever I have news to share.
Today, I reaffirm to you my commitment to this project, and to the future of the Isles of Scilly. I look forward to being able to share good news with you in due course.
Yours Sincerely,
Robert Dorrien-Smith DL

[jimcarler]

It is not really clear to me how this has been granted a judicial review. This must be a challenge to the way the decision was made - and I can't see where there has been deviation from any normal process here...?

[jeepys]

I don't have a great deal of confidence in the whole process unfortunately.
Even if you build a heliport you still have to then find an operator to provide the service. I don't think you can make it pay.

[POBJOY]

The sad fact is that the original Heliport location (now a supermarket) should never have been allowed to loose its 'transport' planning stamp. The location was much better than any alternative and had 'rights' that made another Helicopter operation much more simple. The new location will have to satisfy the latest CAA/EASA regs, and the area has far more buildings in the vicinity nowadays. The Isles of Scilly Steamship Co have filed for a review, but they are going for a potential flaw in the planning process rather than objecting to the service. In fact they are suggesting that the helicopter could operate from the St Just airport (400 ft amsl) but of course this would rather defeat the benefit of operating from a sea level site at Penzance with the associated better transport links. In fact the new service will probably be difficult to pay it way with such a small payload, and someone should look at one of the Russian 30 seaters built to EASA standards that can have either the American or Russian engines. Skybus have struggled to make Lands End 'more 'operational' even after spending a huge amount of money on the new runways, as the FOG does not recognise such modern surfaces !!!! The winter waterlogging has been sorted, but the load factors then are very low. Lands End (St Just) also now has GPS approaches , but in practice the local terrain and lack of approach lighting does not really improve matters enough to repay the cost outlay. On really marginal days the 'diversion' requirement (nearest Newquay) reduces payloads accordingly. Culdrose not an option at w/ends or in the peak summer time.

[TipCap]

So has this killed off the Penzance Heliport?

HeliHub.com New Isles of Scilly helicopter link to use AW169 (http://helihub.com/2018/02/15/new-isles-of-scilly-helicopter-link-to-use-aw169/)

[rog747]

well its all kicking off on Facebook - alot of happy and alot of very unhappy folks

the family who own Tresco are behind the PNZ heliport and have issued a p/r
Tresco (http://newsletter.nixondesign.com/t/ViewEmail/r/396989074E89A9042540EF23F30FEDED/3AA693720FBF6675C4DA2C823DDA3384)

[Crystal Clear 247]

Hmmmm... interesting comments, although those in the know have always stated that the Heliport NEEDS to located next to or near a main line station. Yes PNZ is the ideal spot due to the protection afforded by the bay, other companies have looked further up the main line towards St Erth and Hayle, but objections raised by the locals stopped that line of enquiry quickly. Most consider Lands End folly, due to the weather and the transport links to and from the main line.
It will be interesting to see how it develops.

[RedhillPhil]

Well I suppose that it's diverted attention from the farce that's become the IOSS replacement freight vessel currently moored in Pz harbour. Named "Mali Rose" it's now known as "Mali Celeste".
Helicopter service from Lands End - cynicism at it's worst and just how impractical is that for visitors?

[Ant T]

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/operator-chosen-for-penzance-scilly-helicopter-route

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/penzance-heliport-group-signs-up-1338409

Sloane helicopters chosen to operate the Penzance - Scilly route, using AW139, commencing 2019.

[POBJOY]

The original hiccup that 'allowed' a potential judicial review of the planning process was with the 'process' of the original application rather than the content.
I do not think that a revised application can be refused and with an 'established' company providing the service this will be a much easier 'regulation route' as Sloanes are well versed with regulations of both operating aircraft and landing sites.
I am not sure what they plan to do about parking as the original heliport has considerable space for this, and perhaps the nearby Sainsbury site will play a part in this.
I am pleased this is going ahead, as the ISSCO had really shot themselves in both feet over all this and lost the PR battle big time. The Tresco element of the service will cover the costs and in fact they do not even have to use St Marys as Tresco could provide a quick boat service across the sound thus saving both airport fees and dealing with an expensive overhead of the main airport.
The real factor is how the Steamship co have been seen to ignore popular public opinion, and tried to utilise 'bully boy' tactics to force someone to use the Lands End facility.
Anybody with a grain of flying knowledge knows that with all the 'aids' in the world a 400 ft airfield in a fog prone location can be unreliable and also uncertain for schedules. That is why BEA relocated to PZ as soon as possible, and why the service from there was a revelation of reliability and convenience; and so it will be again. I wish them well and look forward to 'calling' PZ Heliport again on the radio and hope they get the old 118.1 freq back.

[SARWannabe]

Anybody with a grain of flying knowledge knows that with all the 'aids' in the world a 400 ft airfield in a fog prone location can be unreliable and also uncertain for schedules.

Hmm, I'm not sure I share your sentiment here.

1) Popping out the bottom of an LPV approach, at a controlled airport with fire cover at 200-250ft, to a high intensity runway lit environment in an RVR of 750m (500m met vis)

VS

2) Popping out the bottom of a PinS approach to no lights and a 1500m vis, to proceed VFR with no further aids to a heliport in unprotected airspace with basic fire cover?

I know which I'd rather fly, but isn't the more relevant consideration that the airport can also operate to much lower met visibilities?

[POBJOY]

SAR WB

When Lands End airport is fog bound no one is popping anywhere even if it had high intensity lighting (on the approach) which is does;nt and regardless of what approach you had made (The GPS approach only allows you down to 400 ft 'above' the airfield).

PZ is at sea level and for decades the aircraft were able to transit the Scilly route at 500 ft in the knowledge that they would be able to conduct a visual approach to the Heliport.

No one is suggesting that IFR arrivals are going to be the norm or even allowed. The point is that on the NUMEROUS days when L-end is clamped PZ is still open, because it is both lower and in the shelter of the peninsular.

I have known 3 day clamps at L-End when the S61 operated as normal from PZ, and that was with the old St Mawgan as a diversion. Of course it can also operate with Scilly as a diversion if deemed to be wx satis.

[Averageiseverything]

The GPS approach allows to 503ft above Lands End airfield currently, its on a 6 month trial at these heights, after this 250ft is taken off the DH that’ll put it at 253ft above airfield height. RVR being a copter approach would be 1000m (500m less than FW and 500m less than VFR for PH). Further lighting enhancements would reduce it to 750m on a Copter approach (750m better than PH).
Cloud height therefore 610ft at Lands End or 600ft at PH but RVR at 1000m or 750m at Lands End, 1500m at PH.

Based on the weather data used from 2016, only 12 days would have been ‘unflyable’ for the helicopter due to Lands End Weather a further 12 due to fog on the Isles of Scilly.

Previous benefits of the Heliport over Lands End are based on a VFR Helicopter operation at sea level against a VFR FW operation at an elevated airport. Helicopter IFR at an elevated airport vs Helicopter VFR at sea level (39ft elevation to be exact) is a different matter.

The ‘propaganda’ campaign for PH is very impressive that can’t be argued. For example: AW139 operating at 6400kg for CAT A ops to and from non-elevated helipads (Tresco and PH) would be closer to 12 pax with luggage rather than 15. Or 15 pax with no luggage.

It appears very much as not letting the facts ruin a good story.

[chopjock]

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/operator-chosen-for-penzance-scilly-helicopter-route
Northamptonshire-based Sloane Helicopters will operate the route to the islands of Tesco and St Mary's from 2019.
LOL

[POBJOY]

L-End is a very small airfield by 'Airports' standards; it also has substantial 'terrain' in the actual circuit, and no H-int approach lights, or indeed any lights outside of the airfield boundary. Despite what has been stated ie number of non flying days I can assure 'readers' that the actual number of non flying days has been considerably more than 12. Lands End does not have a met station or produce forecasts, and indeed the rapid change of WX is a main consideration when having to operate 'schedules'. The SSCO have always had a surface vessel to move PX when needed and also PZ Heliport would take what it could plus have in the past put on extra flights. The nature of the holiday trade on Scilly makes the Saturday turnaround quite critical as there is no spare bed capacity on the Isles in the season. It is therefore quite reasonable for an 'operator' to wish to base themselves at a location that suits 'their' purpose, and history shows us that PZ for many decades has proved its worth, and indeed was responsible for making Scilly a far more accessible tourist venue in modern times. The ISSCO have not handled this situation very well and have lost the confidence of Islanders that make up part of the customer base. At the end of the day operators should be allowed to decide on what sort of operation they wish to operate and not be forced to use a facility that they feel is less than ideal for the purpose.

[Fareastdriver]

1) Popping out the bottom of an LPV approach, at a controlled airport with fire cover at 200-250ft,

Plus the 600ft. elevation, plus the diversion fuel to an area with a marked difference in meteorological conditions, plus the holding fuel, plus 10%.

I'd rather go VFR to Penzance.

[POBJOY]

It happens that I had lunch at the 'old heliport' today and looked out over the bay remembering what an ideal site this had been.
Unrestricted approach from the south with no buildings or other problems, and 'as was' good radar coverage from Culdrose.
There was an NDB on site and the S61 carried its own radar in the nose.

Any height to be lost was always carried out over the sea so the machine was always VFR for the final few miles. It also so happens that the approach path was directly over a British Rail freight/terminus yard which had the added advantage of being festooned with very bright lights at all times,and therefore an excellent reference point for the final approach. The Heliport had its own pad lights and was licensed for night operations which meant that that extra flights did not have to cease at dusk. The real tragedy in all this was the failure of the local planning authority to protect this vital transport link for future use as the loss was indeed a blow to the Scillies and the PZ local economy. The new Heliport will have to contend with a more built up area and a subsequent increase in regulations but it still will have a far better WX factor than L-End and is closer to the existing transport links, plus even more brighter lights from British rail !!!!.

[TipCap]

I know which of the two aircraft I would rather fly in!!

[mcnab]

The lands-end service will be single-pilot IFR in an AW169. Ticket cost £215+

The Penzance service will be two-crew IFR in an AW139. Ticket cost - ????

From the Penzance Heliport information site..

What will a ticket cost?

We anticipate a standard adult return fare will cost around £230.

[SARWannabe]

Plus the 600ft. elevation, plus the diversion fuel to an area with a marked difference in meteorological conditions, plus the holding fuel, plus 10%.


Point was, if the weather is that bad I'd rather fly routine IFR to a lit IFR runway with IFR reserves (and continue operating down to a met vis of 500m), than 'VFR' to Penzance in marginal weather with a minimum met vis of 1500m. The IFR fuel reserves (if workable) ADD safety over flying marginal VFR, and I'd rather plan a straightforward IFR routing than have to convert to IFR when VMC is lost and end up diverting to an IFR airport anyway, perhaps without IFR reserves?

[POBJOY]

The operator of Tresco heliport has made it clear that the ISSCO helicopter service will NOT be able to land there.

As this is the 'valuable' sector/service it rather defeats having a service at all from L-end.

Sad that this unique service that started so long ago, and was a major factor in promoting all the Isles, has been the subject of such squabbling and poor decisions by those that should know better.

[SARWannabe]

The operator of Tresco heliport has made it clear that the ISSCO helicopter service will NOT be able to land there

Quote from Dorian-Smith on 15th Feb 18 -
The public reaction to today’s announcement has shown that people want genuine choice and real resilience in the Isles of Scilly transport system. That has always been our vision, and today we reaffirm that commitment.

The hypocracy. Wouldn't genuine choice and resilience be to set up both operations without prohibiting one operator from landing at Tresco and offering the public their choice?