Pilotage
3rd Jun 2003, 21:10
(1) I don't know if anybody else was a fan of the "Nicks Micropages" monthly wallpaper, but I see he's started updating it again. http://www.micropages.co.uk/calendar/monthly.html
(2) I've nothing to do with the above, or below, but it was posted in "another place" and is seems worthwhile and to all our benefits...
P
MAKING ECONOMIC SENSE OF FLYING
Or BRINGING ECONOMIC CLARITY TO FLYING
A recent survey showed 26% of aerodrome operators are gloomy about airfield
survival rates and a similar number reported operating under some form of
planning restriction affecting aircraft movements. So it is no surprise
there is a widespread belief that planning authorities are biased against
flying. But are they the villains or are airfield operators and pilots
somehow letting themselves down?
Getting an unbiased view is not easy but should be helped by the survey
which forms part of a four year University College London research project.
It was initiated by the General Aviation Awareness Council (GAAC), with
support by the Department for Transport, to investigate the economic
contribution of small airfields. It is said that the issue of economics is
often the weakest link in the defence of individual aerodromes when faced
with the planning appeal process.
In fact an earlier academic study# showed clearly that many local authority
planners did not perceive flying to be beneficial to the local community. If
the economic benefits are not obvious, is this because they do not exist or
are they just difficult to calculate? Do planners only see the land occupied
by an airfield rather than the air space and customers it services and do
they consider what happens at one site might impact the overall network?
In an attempt to understand the policies and attitudes of local authorities
the project is set to survey the planning community, probing their attitudes
towards small aerodromes and the effectiveness of the Government's planning
policy guidelines that relate to General Aviation (essentially PPG13 and
PPG24).
But in order to get to the full facts about the economic impact of GA, in
addition to surveying airfield operators and planning authorities, the
project needs to better understand the habits and expenditure of pilots.
This is where you can help, as the study needs data from as many pilots as
possible. Not just single engine PPL'S but from helicopter to microlight and
glider pilots, flying for leisure or as a living. What ever you fly, if you
are a qualified pilot, living in the UK, please log on to:
www.gaac.co.uk/survey
<http://www.gaac.co.uk/survey>
Remember, the greater the response the more believable the conclusions.
Using data from pilots, airfield operators and planning authorities the next
stage in the project will be to examine the daily life of airfields and the
impacts on their local area using a case study approach. It is hoped the
result should be a clear framework for evaluating GA's economic contribution
and a far better understanding of why so many feel gloomy about the future.
# For a summary see, Re-use of small airfields: a planning perspective. Bell
P, Gallent N, Howe J, Progress in Planning, Pergamon, Vol. 55, Part 4, May
2001.
(2) I've nothing to do with the above, or below, but it was posted in "another place" and is seems worthwhile and to all our benefits...
P
MAKING ECONOMIC SENSE OF FLYING
Or BRINGING ECONOMIC CLARITY TO FLYING
A recent survey showed 26% of aerodrome operators are gloomy about airfield
survival rates and a similar number reported operating under some form of
planning restriction affecting aircraft movements. So it is no surprise
there is a widespread belief that planning authorities are biased against
flying. But are they the villains or are airfield operators and pilots
somehow letting themselves down?
Getting an unbiased view is not easy but should be helped by the survey
which forms part of a four year University College London research project.
It was initiated by the General Aviation Awareness Council (GAAC), with
support by the Department for Transport, to investigate the economic
contribution of small airfields. It is said that the issue of economics is
often the weakest link in the defence of individual aerodromes when faced
with the planning appeal process.
In fact an earlier academic study# showed clearly that many local authority
planners did not perceive flying to be beneficial to the local community. If
the economic benefits are not obvious, is this because they do not exist or
are they just difficult to calculate? Do planners only see the land occupied
by an airfield rather than the air space and customers it services and do
they consider what happens at one site might impact the overall network?
In an attempt to understand the policies and attitudes of local authorities
the project is set to survey the planning community, probing their attitudes
towards small aerodromes and the effectiveness of the Government's planning
policy guidelines that relate to General Aviation (essentially PPG13 and
PPG24).
But in order to get to the full facts about the economic impact of GA, in
addition to surveying airfield operators and planning authorities, the
project needs to better understand the habits and expenditure of pilots.
This is where you can help, as the study needs data from as many pilots as
possible. Not just single engine PPL'S but from helicopter to microlight and
glider pilots, flying for leisure or as a living. What ever you fly, if you
are a qualified pilot, living in the UK, please log on to:
www.gaac.co.uk/survey
<http://www.gaac.co.uk/survey>
Remember, the greater the response the more believable the conclusions.
Using data from pilots, airfield operators and planning authorities the next
stage in the project will be to examine the daily life of airfields and the
impacts on their local area using a case study approach. It is hoped the
result should be a clear framework for evaluating GA's economic contribution
and a far better understanding of why so many feel gloomy about the future.
# For a summary see, Re-use of small airfields: a planning perspective. Bell
P, Gallent N, Howe J, Progress in Planning, Pergamon, Vol. 55, Part 4, May
2001.