Amazed by the machinations and convoluted argument; massaged definitions of 'air transport', intrigued by the misguided analysis of aircraft certification performance data and confounded by the naked greed, I thought it meat to have a look at this storm in the minuscule teas cup. The problem is one of remarkable simplicity – it is an aerodrome. Which implies that aircraft will use it for take off and landing (gods willing, weather permitting).
It is, amongst other things, a training aerodrome, which implies that folk would go there to take flying lessons, this inevitably leads to inexperienced pilots, grappling with their lessons often without an instructor inboard.
The safety case therefore must allow for the most reasonably probable 'worst case'; lets take a nervous neophyte sent out on second solo, the instruction for EFATO burned into the forebrain. Land straight ahead. But on what asks the newbee?, perplexed.
There's the rub – if an aircraft cannot safely GO – it must be able to safely STOP.
Expecting aircraft not certified or guaranteed to climb on one engine; or aircraft which must, by the laws of physics, land in the event of power failure to do so, within some mathematically manipulated, minimum 'take off' distance: a distance only required to achieve a speed slightly above the 'stall' is not only preposterous, but risky.
When our nervous neophyte lobs into McDonalds as a fireball; or a Chieftain full of big blokes on their way to work punches a bloody great big hole in Westfields; who then is going to responsible for that. Obviously, the pilot for operating from a runway too bloody short. As no one can operate from a field without the mandated distance safety margins; exit aircraft, enter developers and Whallop. Someone (or two) makes a bundle.
It's bollocks, Wazza. Go hard AACCI. Put the fear of insurance litigation into the buggers.
Archerfield, bringing crispy critters to a mall near you....
