Originally Posted by
phokker
The owners have had alot of grief for decades from a pilot with a hangar at rednal.
This person has left after a succesful legal fight.
The owners do not want general aviation at rednal because it is an unsafe site with high-voltage UK-nat-grid pylons crossing it (height under-reported in flight guides), roads and access at each end and parallel, fencing and cattle next to runway, farming access across it, remote control aircraft club, amateur rocketry and occasional ballooning, aerostats, drones and gyrocopter flying by the owners.
The runway is pitted, weed-infested and potholed in places and there are no plans to maintain it.
The departed pilot made a habit of noisy aerobatics over and around rednal, advertising the place and putting it about he was the owner. this has fed into a notion that it's ok to go and have a blast at rednal - it isn't.
Countermeasures? Well put it this way: we've already had a near miss between someone flying low and a gyrocopter just taken off.
So if pilots think it's OK to carry on as they want to in spite of owners, tenants and stakeholders wishes, then they ought to be prepared for the unexpected.
Sorry if we don't sound very nice, but it's been decades of hassle and we're no longer in any sort of mood to be conciliatory.
It's really very simple - THE OWNERS OF REDNAL AIRFIELD WANT PILOTS TO RESPECT THEIR WISHES FOR ITS USE.
And those wishes are that it be a private, mostly closed, facility. Does it need any further explanation?
So phokker, is there a 'downside' side to visiting Rednal ? Sounds like a fun place !