Letter published in the Daily Mail today. More NIMBY Crap. trouble is the Daily Mail published this mis-leading letter
Low-Flying aircraft from private airfields are a problem in many parts of Britain. These airfields are unregulated and aircrfat can fly at any height on take off or landing over properties and people, within several miles of an airfield without any legally designated and enforced flight-path. The CAA has no interest in acting unless eveidence is provided that the Civil Aviation Act has been broken. There are no restrictions on noise, over-flying or pollution from these airfields. One is prevented from suing for noise nuisance under the Civil Aviation Act. One cannot claim compensation for blight or obtain free sound insulation. Large airports are subject to more restrictions. In Swindon, some of us who's lives have been ruined by low-flying and noisy aircraft, have been hoping someone in government takes responsiblity for private airfield regulation. We have been passed back and forth between DEFRA and the Dept for Environment, Transport and the regions. and at one time Baroness Andrews was looking at this matter but we heard no more. There are campaigns against nuisance from activities at private airfileds all over the Uk. Surley some government department will agree to take responsibilty and act?. K Lacey, Swindon. Wilts
Yeah but living in Swindon, surely about the only low flying aircraft you get are from Lyneham NOT civil GA traffic. And if small private airfields ARE well used, (ie more than 28 occasions/year)then they must be operating under conditional planning permission from the local council, so they ARE regulated.
Wrong. Planning matters control the use of airfields. The ANO regulates even unliensed airfields.
aircrfat can fly at any height on take off or landing over properties and people
Wrong. Even when taking off and landing at an unlicensed airstrip there are many parts of the ANO that apply and prevent aircraft from operating too low over people and properties.
The CAA has no interest in acting unless eveidence is provided that the Civil Aviation Act has been broken.
Correct. That is a requirement in a democratic civilised society. Do you prefer to live where the Police can act without you having broken any law? The normal method is to have the law changed if it is not suitable.
There are no restrictions on noise, over-flying or pollution from these airfields
Wrong. All aircraft are required to have a noise certificate. The polution caused by all aviation represents a tiny percentage of the global polution and general aviation represents a tiny percentage of that polution.
If one compares polution caused and availability of open green space, lawnmowers in small urban gardens produce vastly more polution than aircraft operating from wide open spaces of green.
Large airports are subject to more restrictions.
No. In general larger licensed airfields will have less onerous restrictions on their operation and the times as well as weather conditions during which flights can operate.
The operation of aircraft is regulated by the Dept of Transport through the CAA. The planning aspects of airfields is regulated by local government. Everything is 100% regulated.
The biggest operator in the Swindon Area is the RAF. They are the responsibility of the MOD.
There were very few facts and quite a lot of rubbish in that. No wonder the politicians ignore them. If that was all that GA had to worry about then they could sleep easy. Unfortunately in other areas the NIMBYs have better informed members and are better able to cause problems even if they do not have access to the national press.
From a bit of snooping, I don't believe the person in question to be a he CottonEyeJoe. I would also assume it's the same person who has complained of having "experienced planes flying at no more than 30 feet above my roof" (Click) and a skydiving centre causing "noise nuisance". With a little more snooping, you could publicly find an address, and with an aerial view see the previously mentioned nearby sky diving centre.
I think a little education for the NIMBY's would be money well spent by the CAA. I'm sure if it came to them not being allowed to go holiday to the Costa del Sol because they don't have any trained pilots their view would be a little different, pilots have to begin training somewhere!!! (Ok a little exaggeration, but you understand)
A little less conversation, a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Originally Posted by IO540
One aged 70+ goes around in a miniskirt with no knickers and does her gardening (i.e. bending over) at 3am under a spotlight
Say what you like, she was undoubtedly the finest Prime-Minister this country has had since Churchill, and shame on you for spying on her indulging in a little semi-naked gardening. 3am, for pity's sake.....
Google *K Lacey* and you will see she comes up top of the pile with much interesting stuff about her including details of many of her anti-aviation crusades , but also you will see a very damning letter highly critical of her motives and time/ money wasting activities by a local councillor.
What really made me angry was when reading 'Ms' K Lacey in the Times; she was trying to link the Biggin crash which she described as "an accident waiting to happen" with her experiences of living near a microlight strip in Wiltshire.
I agree with bose though, she has a right to her opinions just like the rest of us and we shouldn't insult her just because we disagree with her views.
Clearly she's a serial whinger, but I agree with Bose, Contacttower and others. She has a right to her views and has a right to air them, however irritating, ill-informed and self-serving they seem to be. And we have a right to put our views, as pleasantly but as forcefully as we can, and to present ourselves as exercising our rights while being mindful to minimise the inconvenience and annoyance to others. Live and let live.
In this particular case, it's not hard to correct the many errors in what she says, all the while remaining reasonable in the face of her silliness.
IO540 What we need is photographic evidence of the nocturnal gardener and then we can write a letter of complaint citing pollution of the enviroment through excessive electricity consumption utilising spotlights instead of working during daylight hours. OK forget the photo.
Why don't we just have a whip-round for this wonderful fun loving person to have a trial flight? I remember a post about him/her talking about a/c coming in with engines goin "phut...phut...phut" then putting on power coming in to land. Needs a flight.