Lee On Solent - The End?

[Nipper2]

Much nonsense has been written about the status of Lee on Solent and the reasons why things are as they are. I don't propose to add to the rumours and rubbish but it is now clear that crisis point has been reached.

If they get their way, Hampshire police (and their truly odious henchman) will finally get their way and have their own private airfield. All the tennants have been given notice to quit.

See http://www.eghf.co.uk./ for the nearest to the truth you can find.

The best we can hope for is that the looming crisis will finally galvanise the politicians into some action....

Don't hold your breath.

[Saab Dastard]

If they get their way, Hampshire police (and their truly odious henchman) will finally get their way and have their own private airfield.

And who funds the Hampshire police?

That's a rhetorical question, BTW. Like so many things in this country, the tax (or council tax) payer pays, but gets little or no benefit from what they pay for.

SD

[stickandrudderman]

I feel like a right mug for letting our "elected" MPs do this kind of stuff to us.
So much goes on nowadays that the electorate clearly don't want.

Distant shores beckon me thinks.

[englishal]

But (as discussed on Flyer) Lee On Solent would never allow GA visitors anyway, so from our point of view what difference does it make?

[paulc]

Nipper2,

it is only 1 odious henchman who is causing all the problems and has been doing so ever since the airfield was handed over from the Navy in 1996.

Lee does / did allow visitors providing you jumped through numerous hoops re insurance and had a good reason for visiting other than just wanting Lee in the logbook.

[Nipper2]

Paul

I know. It's a great shame that one man has been allowed to destroy something so valuable - and for what I do not know.

We can only hope that the current crisis forces more rational minds to prevail. Sadly, I fear that things have gone too far ....

[poor southerner]

surely there must be some logic in the fact that Lee is a publically owned asset and there are no security issue that involve limited GA use. Hence a defacto right to use it ? or did I wake up with rose tinted glasses on today

[PompeyPaul]

Lee does / did allow visitors providing you jumped through numerous hoops re insurance and had a good reason for visiting other than just wanting Lee in the logbook.I called them and asked for PPR and was told flatly they didn't accept GA traffic.

[paulc]

Have had aircraft visit our group in the past and quite how the aircraft maintenance facility and flying school will manage I have no idea. They cannot be expected just to pack up and move out in a few weeks. The majority of locals wish the airfield to remain and be used, the alternatives of gravel extraction or housebuilding are not welcome. Maybe suggest that the police relocate elsewhere and/or swop to a helicopter hence eliminating the need for a runway and removing the major obstruction to Lee being retained as an active airfield.

[yakker]

Slightly off topic, but I hear the old Hamble airfield is to become a gravel pit, then once exhausted a housing estate.
With Southampton not really accessible to GA, and Solent heading the same way, to visit the area we will need to land on the IOW and get a ferry back!

[englishal]

Can't the police fly the plane from SOU? They can position the helicopter somewhere else - Dorset police fly the helicopter from their divisional HQ at Winfrith...I'm sure they have caught a few people riding their bikes on the pavement with it too.

I don't see why they can't share the airfield with GA - We used to have the Air Ambulance based at our field and it was no problem at all. Mind you, try getting permission to land a helicopter at the MCA base at Portland....no chance.

I'd love to see it an active GA airfield - it beats Southampton. I occasionally have to go to Walsash and it'd be ideal.

[poor southerner]

in laws live by hamble. the site was sold for housing a long time ago, but they were only allowed to build so many due to the current roads. there are plans for a relief road (i cant say anymore as the plans may not be public knowledge) and when this happens in 5-10 years the whole site will be built on.
So unless everyone clubs together for when BAA have to sell off soton to keep the c/c happy. it looks like hurn, popham or goodwood (places like l-upham and f-mount have next to no space or runway length).

:{

[airborne_artist]

Mildly OT, but does anyone know why Hampshire operate the FW Islander, as opposed to almost all other Police ASUs operating RW?

[DBisDogOne]

Poor southerner

Wouldn't bank on being able to use Hurn (Bournemouth) too much longer, the way things are going there with the increase in commerical traffic, I reckon GA is on it's way out there too in the medium term. I've noticed how much harder it is and how long it takes to get clearance to take-off/land recently. Scuttlebutt is that GA's days are numbered.

[Contacttower]

Scuttlebutt is that GA's days are numbered.


Maybe, but GA is probably more entrenched at Bournemouth than it was at Southampton...I think when it comes to it they will have trouble shifting it.

[paulc]

airborne artist,

the reasons given are a) hants is a big county b) endurance (loads of people kept awake at night longer by it now) c) carry more equipment d) allegedly cheaper than RW (not convinced on that one)

As for operating at SOU - no space available + noise complaints would increase considerably.

Flybmi - yes the restrictions imposed by Police are somewhat draconian. Not sure if the latest are there but currently if you wish to fly at weekends you must be away by 10am and not allowed to return before 5pm. The gates / fence are a hazard as well - several aircraft have hit these. Woe betide anybody who infringes these rules unless a guest of the Police (see website)
There are pleanty of airfields which mix GA/gliding etc safely but convincing people of that is proving impossible.

[DBisDogOne]

Contact Tower

I sincerely hope you're right (it's convenient for me!!) although I really don't share your confidence. I seem to recall the same was said about Southampton a few years back.

[englishal]

Bournemouth *should* be ok, but I have a suspicion that the prices will keep going up and will eventually drive GA out (or make it very expensive to operate there) - Especially with their large terminal expansion. However there are a lot of aviation associated businesses on the industrial estates at the airfield (unlike Southampton) so I suspect GA will stay for the foreseeable future.

[Dave Gittins]

This really does make me violent. :mad:

I find the occasional hire of one of Caryll's Warriors a refreshing change from my usual haunt at Fairoaks and last did so three weeks ago.

There is absolutely no operational or safety reason at all why the aviation interests on the site canot peacefully co-exist, as they do in so many other places with fixed, rotary and gliders.

My suspicion is that the first step is to declare this a field for the Coastguard helicopter and the Police Islander alone and then when a decent length of time has passed, the police will decide to go rotary and share the pad with the coastguard (who are currently having a new hanger built), there will be a big expanse of field left doing nothing and of course building houses will inconvenience nobody at that stage .. will it ?

Then of course the Naval Gliding Club, who I imagine are currently laughing smugly as they get 10.00 a.m. - 5 pm. on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday as sole users, will suddenly get something to cough about.

The possibilities to turn this into a thriving GA airfield are there in spades but nobody seems able to convince anybody that it should be done.

As usual ££££ or the lack of having to spend them not only talks but shouts.

If there was a way I could help the fight I would be happy to pitch in but the existing Lee Users seem to have already covered every possible base.

:{

[DBisDogOne]

That's about the size of it, with any luck, they'll then be in a position to sell it back to the taxpayer who paid for it in the first place, outstanding plan. Rip-off UK strikes again.

Incidently, anyone know where the likes of Carill are likely to go? We do have a fair few airfields in this area but personally, I can't think of anywhere remotely local (bar the Isle of Wight) where there is space and/or not already an established flight school/maint. facility (therefore wouldn't welcome a competitor).

[Dave Gittins]

That is what concerns me. I like Caroline and her organisation and I'd like to do business with them for a long time to come.

AFAIK the nearest place is Goodwood, but the noble lord already has a thriving enterprise.

Other than unlicensed grass strips (such as lower Upham) I don't know of many places before I end up back at Fairoaks.

This is terribly sad for (or more like a delberate and cynical move against) GA on the south coast. With the comments above about Bournmouth, the loss of Southampton and other troubles besetting Shoreham. Lee is really a pretty good "last" place, between two major centres of population that could really thrive in the right hands ... but more importantly it has to have the will of officialdom to make it work.

I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????

DGG :ugh: :mad:

[execExpress]

"If there was a way I could help the fight I would be happy to pitch in but the existing Lee Users seem to have already covered every possible base."

Dave - there are practical, discrete "task-lets", that folks like yourself can help with if they would like to pitch in and help.

If you wish, email me for a picklist of doable tasks, and choose one you are happy to take on for us (we cant get to them all as fast as we would like, so are are prioritising hard).

These are dark days right now, but strange as it may seem, as a result Lee is probably closer now than it has ever been to becoming be a normal shared GA airfield, with Police (priority) and MCA (priority) flying operations.

Lee Flying Assocation (http://www.eghf.co.uk (http://www.eghf.co.uk/)) have a lot a significant actions and planning in hand (not all evident on the website!). Nonentheless LFA would really appreciate additional help with from the aviation community.

LFA 'open' meeting being held at Crofton Community Centre, Stubbington 1900, Sunday 28th October.

[execExpress]

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for Dave?
(From another forum with authors permission)
-----------------------------------------------------

Stephen asked how the wider GA community can help to secure for want of a better term right now, "Lee For All".

1) FIRST AND FOREMOST - be aware that Well intentioned 'help' that is uninformed is very likely to be damaging rather than helpful - the situation is VERY complex. So, first help to ask for is please do not inadvetantly harm is being attempted with efforts from the sidelines. (I hope you know what I mean, because I have fallen into this trap myself when I thought I was being helpful early on).

Instead work with the Lee Flying Assocation (LFA), see http://www.eghf.co.uk

2) Specifically, LFA need additional information on how much it costs other Counties Air Support Units to be based at the various arifields around the UK. We need to build up a more detailed view of what is costs other UK police forces to do bae their ASUs at Shoreham, Rochester, and the like.

We are swamped with core focus activities right now - Is there a volunteer to collate this information from the GA community and its network in the industry on LFA's behalf please - by collecting in PM's from people who have some insight of those costs - we do not want this data gathering to be done in a public thread on a forum..

3) In a similar vein - so, who wants to use Lee? We are 'told' that there is suffient GA capacity in the area such that accessibility to use Lee in not required. Which means that the latent demand for GA use of Lee is not visible to the (Non-Aviation) decision makers. We need to surface that, in spades.

Is there a volunteer, please, who will offer to collate, again PMs, from the GA community expressing their wish to use the facilites, and thus build up evidence of unsatisfied demand which will further strengthen LFA's business case?

LFA will be a public meeting at Crofton Community Centre in Stubbington, Hants on 1900 Sunday 28th October.

Just an observation: the day GA was told it was to be finally be fully closed out Lee... ...was also the day XH558 flew again.... the art of the possible can be demonstrated again... ...who's in? Help like the above would be very valuable.
_________________

[execExpress]

"I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????"

Does PPRUNE have contacts with the "Flying Lawyers" or other PPL's with legal skills?

Such would be revered by GA forever if they helped Lee Flying Association bring Lee airfield to a long-overdue normality.

[Spamcan defender]

In a similar vein - so, who wants to use Lee? We are 'told' that there is suffient GA capacity in the area such that accessibility to use Lee in not required. Which means that the latent demand for GA use of Lee is not visible to the (Non-Aviation) decision makers. We need to surface that, in spades


How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??

Spamcan

[neil666]

Dave G says that.... "Then of course the Naval Gliding Club, who I imagine are currently laughing smugly as they get 10.00 a.m. - 5 pm. on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday as sole users, will suddenly get something to cough about."

As someone close to the Gliding community onsite, and to a number of our GA friends there, this assumption is WHOLLY inaccurate. Gliding and GA have co-existed safely, and in co-operation at Lee for some 50 years. You will find no-one in the Gliding community there who is not happy for that to continue as it was before the restrictions were imposed some months ago. Let's not play into the hands of the airfield management who appear to want to drive a wedge, by the very nature/format of their ongoing decisions.

[UAV689]

not knowing the full in's and outs of the case if the reason they are closing is because of the police wanting to operate on their own for safety reasons that is mad!

I glide and we work side by side with the police chopper, Sea king SAR, and apache/lynxs/gazzelles! (not to mention in bound hercs/antonovs etc) we have a clear understanding of each others needs and operate perfectly safely together. In fact a few years ago we held a competition and there was upwards of 25+ gliders flying in it and we still managed to operate together

[Saab Dastard]

I believe that a police helicopter (Surrey?) is based at Fairoaks. Seems to co-exist with other fixed wing & rotary traffic OK.

SD

[neil666]

UAV.... Until now, established local GA, Gliding, a Police fixed-wing Islander, the MCA Coastguard helicopters have all co-existed safely for many years.

There have been no significant incidents caused by the mix; and no rational safety-issues nor risks quantified. In fact the only significant accident on site was sadly the Police's own Optica some years ago.

The lack of any valid background for ongoing airfield policies, can therefore only be taken to be a want for "blue light" exclusivity, and where other users are presumably seen as amateur and "not worthy", or are too much trouble/displeasing to the eye.

I'm sure there are numerous other reasons, and I won't go into those here, but one now possibly starts to interweave with SEEDA (SE England Development Agency) desires to maximise the commercial return of the land around the central airfield. Housing makes a much nicer profit than flying, and meets government targets too. Us locals are being told by press releases, surveys etc that they want to build a plan to meet local public wishes. The public have voted clearly, and told them NO to houses, NO to more traffic on the peninsular, yes to green space; some light industry, GA, marine etc etc. How inconvenient....! So if the airfield operator then has a separate issue with GA (or Gliding) on "safety grounds" (shock/horror!) that is nothing to do with SEEDA.... but they've got room for more houses, and the hangars will clear - and they can make public statements that explain it wasn't down to them. Afterall H&S is sacrosanct - we all know that from being told so every day by some new trivial news item. That's handy - wow!

Anyone who understand aviation would see that the GA and Gliding operations are very safe alongside the Blue Light facilities; and in fact complement each other, and create a safer environment with better airfield and circuit awareness. There are many many airfields, and strips even where they are far far busier, but given that's not the point, it's not something that those making decisions would seem to be interested in.

[Climb Thrust]

Neil666 is wholly correct. Not only is this crass decision a disaster for the business and GA users at the airfield, it is also a disaster for the local community as a whole.

I have lived in this area for over 40years. During that time I have seen how the Navy and business have withdrawn leaving brownfield sites for developers to make money building more houses. The Gosport peninsula now has the cheapest housing in the south due to the oversupply of houses, gridlocked roads, and some of the highest unemployment. It also has one of the highest "out commutes" of any town in the country.

When SEEDA said they would develop the airfield site with a particular emphasis on marine and aviation, the local community at last felt that some attention was to be paid to providing an asset that we could be proud of. Of course it would take time to build up, but with public help from SEEDA this could have been achieved.

Instead the so called "economic development agency" has done nothing but put obstacles in the way of those wanting to develop the airfield for aviation business. Other posters are right that the Health and Safety issue is just a smoke screen. Go to the EGHF website and read the report SEEDA commissioned. You will see it was written by the management of Shoreham Airport! Yes that’s right - that lot who were investigated for fraud last year and would stand to benefit as one of the nearest competitors with a hard runway suitable for GA!

This is not just an issue for those in aviation. This is an issue which will affect the whole of the area. SEEDA should be thoroughly ashamed that they have stood by and watched this happen.

[PPRuNe Radar]

This is what one of the writers of the report by Erinaceous said in his role within the Airport Operators Association:

Noting that the role of the association is to present a case for the entire industry to government, local and national, he said: "The key message that GA has to put to the government is that it is a vital economic generator and regenerator."

The argument is a clear and compelling one. The UK's GA airports provide a vital service especially to commercial, business and executive traffic which, Haffenden notes, is usually engaged in creating income rather than exporting revenue. He uses Shoreham to illustrate his point: "We have an annual turnover of about £2.5m but if you remember that we have 45 businesses on the airport, from one-man-bands to companies employing 50 or more people and we assume that each of these companies has a turnover of £1-2m then it is clear the that the figure for the airport as a whole is £45-90m, a significant figure in anybody's terms." Expanding his point, Haffenden says that it is a ratio that can be extrapolated across the country's GA airports and shows that the sector is a "vital cog in the machine".

"It is essential that government receives the message that UK Aviation is not just about extra runways at Heathrow or Stansted, but every part of the puzzle."

Well done John Haffenden, you speak with forked tongue methinks :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: Hold your head in shame and don't you DARE associate yourself with GA when you are quite happy to stab it in the back.

[TheOddOne]

Well done John Haffenden, you speak with forked tongue methinks Hold your head in shame and don't you DARE associate yourself with GA when you are quite happy to stab it in the back.

Dear Mr Moderator,

Sorry mate, but I must be having a senior moment! Where and when is John Haffenden stabbing GA in the back? As far as I'm aware, he's been a lifelong supporter of anything to do with GA!

Please explain for those of us not yet up to speed...

Thanks,
TheOddOne

[Mike Cross]

Read this. (http://www.product-technik.co.uk/EGHF%20Web/Documents/Final%20%20report%2027%20July%202007.pdf)

[PPRuNe Radar]

TheOddOne

I have worked with John professionally in the past and my experience then was as you think he is, hence my anger at him co-writing a report which says that GA is unsafe to co-exist with 'blue light' operations, that the perception that GA is a 'rich man's sport' has not been disproven by GA at LOS, that GA adds nothing to the social and economic well being of the area, that it is in fact a disbenefit and costs the public money, etc, etc.

All this from a company (for which John has helped write the report) which states that it has no conflict of interest in seeing a nearby GA field being closed to the kind of traffic it also attracts as the operator of Shoreham.The report is full of statistics which have been spun to make the case, yet are at odds with precisely the things quoted by John with his AOA hat on.

I still think he should be ashamed of putting his name on the report.

[Fuji Abound]

Well the Heather Group should know how to run a business well if their track record is anything to go by.

And with regard to the report, I wonder how much the taxpayer paid for it?

[Contacttower]

From the report linked by Mike Cross:

"Clearly existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield are unsatisfactory to allow
shared usage involving gliders, general aviation, and “blue light” services. These
arrangements have led to a number of incidents which have endangered health & safety
and led to restrictions on operations, particularly relating to general aviation."

What are these "incidents" that the report mentions?

[Mike Cross]

What are these "incidents" that the report mentions?
I was at the Public Meeting this evening. It's a question that has been asked of Hampshire Police, who have not provided a reply.

I understand the local MP has asked DfT, who have overall responsibility for MCA, the owners of the airfield, for a copy of the report. There is a suspicion that it does not exist.

While Hants Police, SEEDA, and MCA were invited to send representatives to the meeting only SEEDA replied, sending their regrets.

Despite the absence of these people I detected an unmistakable piscene aroma. Why does the MCA sit on an asset valued at 20 million smackeroos and then do this? Do you need exclusive use of an asset valued at 20 million to operate two helicopters and an Islander? Is it good stewardship of public funds?

MCA are building new office and hanger space on the E/W runway at the southern part of the a/d. It's not hard to envisage a scenario where Hants Police switch to helo operation and presto! all the land to the north of that runway becomes surplus to requirements. The local residents want GA to continue, the local council do, and no-one wants to lose the buffer of open space between Lee and Stubbington.

As any fule no mixed f/w, rotary and glider operations take place at airfields all over the country with no H&S issues.

More info here. (http://www.eghf.co.uk/)

[execExpress]

Spamcan asked:

"How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??"

Spamcan, Would you (or someone else please) start a new PPRUNE thread titled something like "Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE" .

Indicate in your post the kind of flying you want to do, and hopefully word will get out such that many other UK flyers will append to the thread also. We can get the thread into the view of relevant bodies very easily from there... ... or transfer the expressed views into a more effective vehicle when that becomes apparent (a WIP but not top priority - we are going to pursue a High Court Injunction urgently).

Posters to the thread would not have to be local to Lee, if they would fly in to visit the local area, refuel, whatever, the point is to express the demand that is out there for public access to the Department for Transports MCA Daedalus airfield. You paid for it, the government policy is to encourage use of such facilities, so Say You Want To Access it.

FYI Erinaceous Report says
"
5.3.10 It should also be borne in mind that there are significant numbers of general aviation facilities within one-hour travel of Daedalus (see diagram 4) and there is no discernable increasing demand for general aviation of the type seen at Daedalus. Whilst we cannot comment in detail on the facilities provided by these airfields, it would appear that there is enough capacity within the region to satisfy demand."

GA Have Your Say! :ugh:
The full report is at www.eghf.co.uk (http://www.eghf.co.uk)

[execExpress]

UAV689 - Thanks for the example, we are collecting them, and that is a great one - could you clarify the level of air traffic service provided during this level of activity please - Air/ground? Air Traffic Contol?

BTW At LEE The only party who refuses to sign the Letter of Agreement regarding airspace procedures at Lee and DARA Fleetlands is Hamsphire Constabulary.

Of the four signatories - DARA Fleetlands, Bristows (Chief Pilot), the Royal Navy (for Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club) and Hampshire Constabulary it is only Hampshire Constabulary who will not sign it.

The LOA is now nearly a year old. Several of the issues Hamsphire Constabulary are apparently currently claiming as their Health and Safety concerns relate DIRECTLY to the fact the LOA has not been signed by them! For what reason is not clear - it is not an extraordinary LOA.

[execExpress]

Neil666 - allthe points you make are very valid I think, however I should just point out that the Police Optica and crew of two which was tragically lost was on its first operational mission and was operating out of Bournmouth - not Lee-On-Solent.

Lee-On-Solent has an EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD. In living memory, which is at least 28 and 38 years of operating on the airfiled, LEE's most experienced flyers do not recall any incidents leading to injury, hospitaliation or even a trip to A&E. The PNGC itslef has operated for 57 years, have around 4 million launches - and a great safety record.

Despite Hampshire Constabularies' assertions of Health and Safety Concerns and "Incidents" there are no Mandatory Occurance Reports that substanciate such claims. The filing of an MOR is a legal requirement following an incident so where are they?

No Risk Assessments have been forthcoming to substantiate the H&S assertions either. The ELFA, and the Executive Leader for Fareham Borough Council has requested , from the Chief Constable, copies of the H&S materials supporting the police decisions. Such have yet to be received and locally there is strong suspicion that such do not exist.

It is not at all clear that DfT-MCA, SEEDA, or Erinaceous did anything at all other than simply accept at face value Hampshire Constabularies statements regarding H&S concerns... ...and have been happy to repeat them:

From the Erinaceous report:
"5.2.3 There are considerable health & safety issues relating to air traffic control, the operation of the airfield and access to it by the general aviation community in particular which, in our opinion, must be addressed as an immediate priority."
"5.3.1 A strong case has been put forward that the operational and health & safety issues documented at Daedalus can be overcome by removing all gliding activity.

Who put that case forward? On what grounds? And how do LFA an others get past this loop of chasing down an spurious Health and Safey claim which the non-aviaiton organisations have (thus far) swallowed hook line and sinker?

[Contacttower]

The Report concludes by recommending that Lee be closed to all GA traffic....but it then goes on to say....

"It allows the MCA/Hampshire Police to independently develop the airfield as they see fit
which could, subject to planning permission, include constructing a number of hangars,
etc within the site A compound and inviting general aviation users or gliders to rent
these and use the runway/facilities at a commercial rate; whilst this would never be
commercially viable due to the number of movements, it would enable the MCA and/or
Hampshire Police to minimise their annual running costs."

So is it at all conceivable that actually once the Police take it over they will decide that actually, this is too expensive and start letting GA back in?

[execExpress]

"Clearly existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield are unsatisfactory "

Aren't the existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield the responsibility of Hampshire Constabulary? And have been so since 1996?

Don't the existing arrangements include:
- being a goverment aerodrome, but somehow not knowing it should by default have an ATZ of it's own? And a radio frequency of it's own rather then 'borrowing' DARA Fleetland's assigned 135.7 frequency (which AOPA understand is actually technically an illegal use of that frequency). Which may explain why the tower is manned and he frequency monitored but an air-ground service is not provided - but how hard can it be for a govt aerodrome to be assigned a frequency and an ATZ?

[execExpress]

"So is it at all conceivable that actually once the Police take it over they will decide that actually, this is too expensive and start letting GA back in?"

Let's analyse that:
1) Hampshire Constabulary took over the running of the (fully functional) airfield from the Royal Navy in 1996.

2) Hamsphire Police do not seem at all uncomfortable with the cost to them of running the airfield - what they have said thay cannot fund is an ADDITIONAL £300k on (unspecified) upgrades to airfield infrastructure which would be required to resolve the (unspecified) Health and Safety concern if GA and Gliders are to be allowed to continue their mixed operations.

3) The notion that the Police/MCA *could* invite General Aviation OR Gliding back to Lee at some future date ... ....well, what is that all about, really... ...be good, go away, and who knows one day *some* of you *might* get an nice invitation from the Police/MCA to access a government aerodrome that the DfT own? Is it credible for a Consultants report to end with a conclusion like that?

[paulc]

Execexpress,

do you really think that the airfield manager would let any form of GA back into Lee once he had acheived his goal of getting rid of it in the first place - I think not.

[Mike Cross]

From the Joint Planning Statement by Fareham & Gosport Borough Councils (http://www.gosport.gov.uk/EasySite/lib/serveDocument.asp?doc=11868&pgid=13354)
Future development should seek to maximise the benefit of the existing runways for general and private aviation use.

[Dave Gittins]

You are keeping me out of mischief !! .. that's two documents to read on the train tonight.

[Spamcan defender]

Spamcan, Would you (or someone else please) start a new PPRUNE thread titled something like "Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE"

As above I have opened a thread bearing the title suggested above HERE (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=298197).

Please post up your current/intended usage of Lee. However, dont use the thread as a playground for viocing discontent/arguements etc. Keep that in this thread if you will, that way the other thread can be used solely as a measure of useage.

Thanks,

Spamcan

[DaedalusHouseOwner]

First of all I am not a aviator, however my home backs onto Daedalus Lee Airfield. I have lived here for over a decade and therefore have an active interest in the future of the airfield.

Back in August, I was invited to attend a SEEDA meeting, chaired by Clare Chester, and including the masterplanners and Solent Groundwork. At this meeting the future of the airfield was discussed especially the future of the SEEDA owned land (the area outside the horrible blue fence).

I asked about the possibility of developing the SEEDA area to accomodate private aircraft and the willingness of the CG/Hants Police to allow flights from their runways. Clare Chester's reply...

The Police (operating the airfield on CG behalf) do not want to see an increase in flights from the current circa 45,000 per year (are there really that many?) however if a suitable operator could be found to run the airfield, then they would hand over air traffic control to this operator and an increase in flights would be possible.

Asked if SEEDA were actively looking for such an operator ther was a "non specific reply"

It would therefore appear to me, as a local resident, that the future of private aviation at the site is down to you guys actively seeking a suitable operator/invester to run the airfield under licence, and to encourage further aviation industry to occupy the site.

As a slight O/T, I do not understand why the horrible ble fence disects the western taxi-way? This should be reopened to private aircraft.

Unfortunately I believe SEEDA and the CG/Hants Police already have an agenda, and the public consultations etc are purely a front to appear to have done the job correctly before building homes on a large area of the site.

I wish you guys luck in keeping the heritage of aviation at the Daedalus site.

Richard

[Spamcan defender]

I have now emailed both MY local MP and the MP for Gosport, Mr Peter Viggers.
Mr Viggers kindly wrote a letter back to me assuring me that he IS aware of the situation and that the matter is in hand. From the tone of his letter I got the impression that he is in support of continued GA activity from the airfield which can only be a GOOD thing.

Will be interesting to see where all this leads, especially after reading DaedalusHouseOwner's post.

Spamcan

[flyems]

Having not had the opportunity to look through the planning comments that are made about Lee, is this becoming a planning issue? Should we be watching the developments at Kemble over the next while, if Kemble is forced to discontinue GA because of planning enforcement, then perhaps the powers at Lee should be held accountable for contravening the planning consent that has been granted there?
What would the requirements be for obtaining the licence to operate the airfield for GA as mentioned in previous posts? If someone has more information about licencing this specific facility would you please PM me?

[Dave Gittins]

Not quite sure I understand the point ....

However the planning issue at Lee is, as far as I can see, simply one of how it fits within the overall planning strategy for the Local Plans for Gosport and Fareham. As far as Planning PERMISSION s concerned I would not have seen a problem at Lee - specifically as an airfiled - as (at least in it's current form) it s merely continung an "established use".

There would of couse have to be permisson granted for further buildings etc and that might be used as a route to examine such things as the numbers of movements and the types of aircraft but with the Local Planning Authority apparently in favour, that doesn't immediately strike me as a problem.

DGG

[flyems]

Planning consent is granted for a specific purpose, i.e., if consent is granted on a building for use as a restaurant, it shall continue to operate as such unless change of consent is applied for and granted. The owner of the property cannot convert the facility into residential accommodation without applying for change of use consent.
The way I understand the planning enforcement notice at Kemble is that the NIMBY's are suggesting that GA does not fit the original Planning Consent granted for Kemble, the specific wording of that planning document escapes me at this time, but I recall it included the wording 'maintenance and storage'. Kemble has Planning Consent to operate as an airport, but according to the NIMBY's GA does not fall into the category(ies) of aviation specified in the consent document.
If the argument from the NIMBY's at Kemble is regarded valid, i.e., GA is excluded from that specific Planning Consent and such operations have to terminate, my observation with regards Lee On Solent is that we have a good look at the specific planning consent. If the planning consent issued includes GA, and by the sounds of it the council is backing the GA side of the argument so I cannot believe it is not the case, the owner cannot exclude GA from the use of the facility without applying for Change of Use Consent?
Maybe not such a long shot in getting GA back at the airfield...

[flyems]

Had the opportunity to briefly look through the Joint Planning Statement for Daedalus:
Future development should seek to maximise the benefit of the existing runways for general and private aviation use.

[Saab Dastard]

And by PRIVATE I assume that doesn't mean private police airport!

SD

[Mike Cross]

Here's a rundown on the situation at Lee.

Lee is a Governement Aerodrome. It used to be a Royal Naval Air Station, HMS Daedalus.

In 1996 the Navy ceased using it and Hampshire Police Air Support Unit (HPASU) took over the day to day running of the airfield. The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) operate two SAR helicopters from there.

Last year ownership of the core central area including the runways was transferred to MCA, with outlying areas being transferred to South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). The current situation is that MCA are the owners and HPASU are tenants and manage the airfield.

The ATZ at DARA Fleetlands overlaps part of the Lee site. Fleetlands provides AFIS but has no visibility of the runways or taxiways at Lee. A Letter of Agreement to regulate safe interoperation was drawn up over a year ago and has been agreed by all parties except HPASU, who have refused to sign it. The airfield management have also not applied for an ATZ or for a radio frequency. When the RN operated it Lee was the controlling station for Lee and Fleetlands.

We now have a situation where the Airfield Manager has decided on Health and Safety grounds to deny access to the airfield to anyone other than the two coastguard helicopters and the police Islander. As he's had over 10 years in post, to declare that he's mismanaged the airfield to the extent that he cannot now safely operate it looks like a severe case of foot in mouth.

It's ludicrous that anyone should for one moment contemplate the idea that the entire operating expenses of an airfield the size of Lee on Solent should be carried on the operating budgets of two helicopters and an Islander, all out of the taxpayer's pocket.

It is of course possible that the subtext to this relates to the recently concluded prosecution of the Met for breaches of H&S law relating to their duty to protect members of the public.

Those affected by the unilateral decision to close the airfield to outsiders include the Tigers Children's Motorcycle Display Team, The Lee Bees Model Aircraft Club, Carrill Aviation, a long established flying club, an aircraft maintenance organisation, a microlight manufacturer, the Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club, and of course the owners and users of all of the based aircraft.

[Nipper2]

On Friday 2nd November Hamsphire Constabulary issued a statement regarding its decision to close the Lee airfield (which is owned by the Department for Transport).

Lee Flying Association have issued a response that may be of interest:

http://www.product-technik.co.uk/EGHF%20Web/Documents/Press%20Release%203.pdf

[maxdrypower]

Just a quick response from someone who routinely crews a police aircraft. The main problem when dealing with Police and their managers when it comes to aviation is the obvious one , They havent got a clue . Most senior police officers didnt get to where they are by knowing how to be good cops , in most cases this is quite the contrary. Im sure most of you will agree that policing in this country is a joke , this is primarily due submissive leadership.
On the case in point I have seen our particular unit harrassed and questioned for years over why we dont do things a certain way and why things cost what they cost etc etc etc . Hierarchy do not realise that they do not control how we operate but the CAA do and no matter how much they kick gouge and throw their teddies this will never change . Senior police officers do not understand aviation and very rarely make any effort to understand it , but they will attempt to impose their will on others , as in this case .. The police will see this as their airfield with their aircraft and they dont want the public involved in any way with it , Until it affects their purse strings when all of a sudden you may find their minds are changing .
They will eventually have to go to a RW this is pretty much set in stone it is just a matter of when . They will then correctly not need a big chuffin A/F .
There are many A/f's that are used jointly by police asu's and GA , Barton , Halfpenny Green , Hawarden to name a few . I am not aware of any ill effects or bad relationships at any of these.
To answer one previous question , Islanders are used due to penny pinching , they are significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than Helis in fact it is more than significant . I personally dont think they are as much fun though.
But to reiterate these problems will be caused by ignorant megalomaniac cowardly senior police officers who know jack about avaition after lengthy consultation with others who know squat about aviation

[stickandrudderman]

Why don't we stage a mass fly-in?:O

[Windrusher]

How many places do we know where gliding and GA, rescue choppers etc operate happily together? Here in the UK, I can immediately think of gliding coexisting with GA at Bembridge, Tibenham, Booker and Yeovilton. On the continent, there seems no problem mixing all the above with commercial traffic as well: gliders cohabit at Innsbruck and Luebeck (Blankensee - RyanAir's 'Hamburg'), and gliders, GA and rescue choppers lived happily together at Trento. Notably, many continental airfields are run by the local authorities as a way of promoting regional development.

Lee would be by far the most convenient airfield for the now rather substantial population of Southampton/Fareham/Gosport/Portsmouth; one can certainly imagine a significant business activity, and it would be a splendid base for round-the-island tourist trips as well as flying schools like Carill and maintenance organizations like Thruxton Aviation. Hard runways, clear airspace, good road and transport connections, plenty of interest nearby - not many airfields can boast all that!

Good luck to all at Lee that are campaigning to keep (and broaden access to) flying there.

Windrusher

[Mike Cross]

I'd add Shobdon. Fixed wing and rotary schools happily ce-exist with gliding.
Then of course you have a number of places where parachuting co-exists with f/w and rotary. It's not rocket science to come up with a safe method of operation, nor is it hugely expensive.

[robin]

..... not forgetting Dunkeswell, where fixed-wing, rotary, microlight and parachuting takes place within a mile of a very active gliding site. All very safe and without serious problems.

If they can do it, I can't see the problem at Lee, except one of will.

[FullyFlapped]

Has anyone asked an MP to demand this list of H&S issues from the police ?

And would it be possible for the GA/biz community to solve the apparent ATC problem somehow ? Self-funded/operated etc as happens elsewhere ?

Good luck to the campaign. I'm sick and tired of being LIED to by this government and those who are supposed to represent our interests (and I don't just mean aviation) : it's about time we all started to refuse to accept the "because we say so" line.

FF :ok:

[poor southerner]

Come on folks. We know this will never be down to a H & S issue in the end. This is pure micro politics and anyone will face an uphill struggle to win over. No I don't mean youy should roll over and accespt it. But situations like these can often only be one with a war / total change. In this case the police would need to be removed as the airfield 'operator' and the owners leasing it to a private group / company who would operate it as a normal GA field.

Like many who used to enjoy my time at Southampton (Solent), this will be a great opertunity missed for a decent all weather (VFR) site, that this area lacks for GA traffic.

[flyems]

The Socio-Economic Analysis of Daedalus Airfield, contributed to by Erinaceous Group plc seems to have played a role in supporting the decision taken about the fate of Lee On Solent.


Two immediate comments:

1. The operations of the Erinaceous Group was the topic of an extensive discussion in The Sunday Times, 04Nov07, not particularly placing the organisation in a good light.
2. There are some suggestions that Shoreham, under the stewardship of the co-author of the above report, is under some significant financial strain.


Not sure anyone could realistically accept this report as being objective...?

[Dave Gittins]

At Fairoaks yesterday, whilst I was in the circuit (along with 4 others), the Surrey Police helicopter, who is based there .. came on the AFIS frequency and said he wanted an immediate depart for a traffic emergency in Dorking.

By the time he had got his donks running and carried out his checks, the AFIS operator had time to make a suitable gap in the traffic and hover taxi him to where he could take advantage of it.

He taxied to a spot about 50 metres north of the runway and as I "Touched" and before I "go-ed" he lifted and passed over the top of me.

Perfectly simple, perfectly safe and with no delay to a Police Emergency call or disruption to the other users.

[maxdrypower]

Yes Dave no problem at all this happens at barton god knows how many times a day with no issues whatsoever .

[Dave Gittins]

My only object, as yours no doubt, is to demonstrate how easily it works at plenty of other places (I used to fly at Barton and the same thing happens at Luton amongst the commercial traffic) and how nonsensical is the situation at Lee.

DGG

[maxdrypower]

As I said earlier in the thread its mindless beaurocracy gone mad in politically correct and ridiculous UK, if its not this is ludicrous speed limits on a chuffin big lake in cumbria , No wonder people emigrate

[Spamcan defender]

Hmm, I take it LFA have made the relevant people aware of all this and have pointed out the apparent conflict of interest with the Erinaceous report??

I think its all well and good writing threads etc but I think some form of action, and by that I mean lobbying MP etc, needs to be taken by all who have (or would like to have) an interest in flying from Lee.
I have emailed Peter Viggers (http://www.peterviggers.co.uk/)the MP for Gosport and he sounded very positive. Perhaps more people should contact him to show him how much support LOS airfield actually has in the GA community.

Come on folks...the clock's ticking...

Spamcan

[sedburgh]

From the Southern Echo Web site at:
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/latest/display.var.1826574.0.mp_to_raise_daedalus_flying_ban_in_com mons.php

MP to raise Daedalus flying ban in Commons By Matt Smith.

A BAN on flights at a Hampshire airbase which has left aviation firms facing closure is to be challenged at the 11th hour in the House of Commons.

The night before a flight ban comes into effect at HMS Daedalus, a Hampshire MP will call on ministers for a postponement.

Gosport MP Peter Viggers, pictured above, wants time to find a way to work around the health and safety ruling by Hampshire police, which runs the airfield at Lee-on-the-Solent.

It is home to flying groups, individual pilots and aviation businesses who were given just 30 days to find another home or cease trading.

Mr Viggers, a former pilot, has been allowed to hold an adjournment debate on the issue on Thursday.

He said: "I am shocked that flying should be under threat at Daedalus, particularly because there is strong local support for Daedalus to be redeveloped as a business park with an aviation and maritime engineering theme."

"I will tell ministers in advance that a simple restatement of the closure decision will not be acceptable. What we need is a delay in the decision while we work out sensible arrangements for the continuation of flying at Daedalus. This will give us the time to work out longer term plans."

The leader of Fareham Borough Council, Sean Woodward, has already written to the police demanding an explanation.

Police chiefs said they took the decision on the grounds of health and safety following the removal of air traffic control cover by the Ministry of Defence.

There have been restrictions on flights since May because of safety fears about powered planes and gliders sharing the airspace.

The Lee Flying Association, which represents general aviation at the airfield, has appointed a solicitor to take legal action.

Coastguard helicopters and police spotter planes will continue to use the site, which is also home to the Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club.

[Dave Gittins]

As a Gosport resident, I have sent a brief Email of support to Peter Viggers.

DGG

[Nipper2]

Much more information on http://www.eghf.co.uk/

LFA are fighting hard. The battle is not won yet. If you live in Hampshire, please contact your local councilor before Tuesdays Police Authority meeting.

If you care enough to write something on this board, please consider contributing to the fighting fund. Click on ‘Donate’ on the above website.

[cwd]

Nipper2,

Do you know which councillors are attending so we know who to write to?

[Mike Cross]

This is absolutely hilarious!

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/latest/display.var.1840481.0.police_flights_face_being_grounded_by_ its_own_ban.php


List of Hampshire Police Authority Members
http://www.hampshirepoliceauthority.org/hpa/abouthpa/hpamembersstaff.htm

[Nipper2]

You will need to telephone the members of the Hampshire Police Authority. Their telephone numbers are mostly published as per Mike's link above. One can only assume that as the numbers are published they will not mind taking your call. The meeting is on Tuesday.

You can view the report that the Chief Constable proposes to give as part of the meeting agenda here: http://www.hampshirepoliceauthority.org/item_13_maritime_coastguard_agency__mca__daedalus_update.doc On the basis that things have moved on a bit since this report was written it will be interesting to see what the Chief Constable really has to say.

It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Chief Constable is being very badly advised - how the Hampshire Constabulary think they can revise the terms of the Chicago Convention is beyond me. My suggestion to him would be, 'When in a hole, stop digging'. Hampshire Police would be well advised to get back to their core business of catching criminals and leave running airfields to those who are actually competent to do so.

[stickandrudderman]

Thanks for the updates.
It's good to see people standing up for themselves, which is all too rare in this modern police state we live in.
UK populace apathy makes us all complicit in the demise of our rights.:D
I do not exclude myself in this statement.

The threatened closure of LoS is just another bookmark in the continuous errosion of all that we in this country have taken for granted for so long, and have allowed to be taken from us or "carried out on our behalf" without so much as a wimper.
And I don't just mean in aviation.....:ugh:

(looks like the dog's in for a bit of grief this morning!)

[ANW]

Hampshire Police would be well advised to get back to their core business of catching criminals and leave running airfields to those who are actually competent to do so.

As to catching criminals (read motorists!), I happened to look at one of the other links which featured alongside the Daily Echo newspaper report as linked to by Mike Cross, in his 'hilarious' post # 76. For easy of reference the link is below. Although it is not connected to aviation, it is a subject dear to many of us. If what has been written is correct, then it makes you wonder about the competence of these people.

The Hampshire Chief Constable seems to think he is the Law, instead of what he really is, a servant of the Law.

Good Luck to all at LoS!

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1840482.mostviewed.speed_trap_scrapped_after _judges_ruling.php

[Nipper2]

We have no doubt whatsoever about the competence of these people in respect of aviation matters.....

[Sir George Cayley]

Just watched his adjournment debate on the web. It was marvelous.

Several reasons:

1) Parliament, democracy in action. Fascinating,
2) His eloquent putting of the argument (Unlike my last sentance)
3) Dragging a Govt Minister away from his:

Family/Girlfriend/Boyfriend/MasonicLodge/Opus Dei meeting/Pub (delete as nec)

4) The support from neighbouring MPs

All in all, a tour-de-force which actually appears to have worked:ok:

A lesson for all of us fighting against restrictions or reducing access to facilities. Clearly, even if we don't listen to what goes on in the House late at night, Chief Constables do and take note of the preceedings.

I actually don't know which Party Mr Viggers represents but he can be Minister of Transport any day.

Sir George

[Nipper2]

I understand the matter will be discussed at Hampshire Police Authority today and again at the main County Council Meeting on Thursday.

If you live in Hampshire, you can find details of your county councilor here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/yourcouncil/whogovernshampshire/findyourcouncillor.htm

Please write or e-mail them before Thursday with your (constructive) views. Abuse and ill informed comment is not helpful. It might be useful to give them direction to this forum which puts most points that need to be raised.

[Nipper2]

There is more....

From the Southern Daily Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/latest/display.var.1846030.0.airfield_row_could_end_in_high_court.p hp


"Airfield row could end in High Court

A ROW over plans to ban flights from a Hampshire airfield could be set to go all the way to the High Court.
Today there was a dramatic development in the controversy surrounding the Daedalus airfield at Lee-on-Solent after it was revealed that the Lee Flying Association had started the first step in getting a judicial review.
It came as the Hampshire Police Authority were about to debate the issue, which has caused a storm of protest.
The association had been given a stay of execution for one month after it was announced that the gates would close to general aviation on December 14.
Police spotter planes and coastguard helicopters would continue to use the airfield, which is also home to Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club.
But Police Authority members decided that while legal proceedings were in the air they would postpone their debate on the Daedalus issue."

[flyems]

Police spotter planes and coastguard helicopters would continue to use the airfield
The coverage from the Echo has been very level-headed, if not a little in LFA's favour, and I realise I may be focussing on details, but there is only one police aircraft flying from there. If the impression was created that the police had a fleet of aircraft operating from there it may be that people would start viewing our fight differently.

A large portion of the momentum of this case is subjective perception, I guess that the Health & Safety "Silver Bullet" is not working as well as expected by the person in the Aerodrome Manager office, we need to have accurate facts to keep our momentum going.

[Major Major]

I emailed Mr Viggers MP last week as did others on this forum and he's been kind enough to mail myself and a couple of others with his thoughts on the way ahead.

I don't want to publish them here as I don't yet have his permission.

Nipper2; I've assumed that you're one of those on the email. If not, PM me.

I'm pleased that Sir GC was able to watch the debate and that the case appeared to be put successfully.

But in answer to the original question - not the end, not yet.

[Fuji Abound]

So are visitors welcome in the meantime? Who do I contact?

I will be in the area on Tuesday for business.

If not I guess it will be Southampton as usual.

[Major Major]

Fuji
As per Nipper2's post, GA operations extended until 14th December, but whether that's just based aircraft I don't know. Could always phone for PPR, see what happens?
MM

[Fuji Abound]

MM

Thank you. I dont suppose you have the number at hand?

[BRL]

Thank you. I dont suppose you have the number at hand?

999?????? :}









Sorry, coat, door etc etc..........

[Major Major]

Um, in an idle moment I've turned up 02392 551714 but that's just from UKGA and a airfield manual dated April 2006 I managed to find on Google.

Apologies if it's wrong...or they're not accepting visitors. Would be interested to know...

MM

[Mike Cross]

If you want more info go to www.eghf.co.uk

For more info on the airfield and procedures click here. (http://www.tug.eu.com/eghf/eghfweb/airfield.htm)

Be interested to hear the answer you get.

BTW you might find this (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/latest/display.var.1846030.0.airfield_row_could_end_in_high_court.p hp) interesting!
Mike

[Fuji Abound]

I did call.

The answer was no private flights are being accepted at all.

I was told that a temporary reprieve has been granted but the purpose of the reprieve has been totally mis quoted. The reprieve is only intended to give people the opportunity to move out before the airport finally closes to all on the 19/12.

So that was a waste of time and the operators would seem to have a very different agenda.

[execExpress]

Not a waste of time. Far from it. The airfield was due to close on safety grounds. Now its "open". And due to close again no Dec 14. Aviation safety just isn't as 'pick and choose' as that. The safety case has to be shared, not withheld.

Aviation safety data is being withheld from aviators!? By the police!? Who then say, use at your own risk!? WOW!!

As one councillor is reported as saying in the press: if the deadline can be extended once, it can be extended again. Indeed a request for a SECOND extension has already been made. At the Hampshire Police Authority meeting yesterday. The Chief Constable undertook to consider the request with his legal advisor.

It is perhaps beginning to look like the *real* "safety issue" *might* really be an internal wrangle between government departments as to who should have done, or do, what to ensure safety and airfield operations to an appropriate standard -regardless of what aviation activites occur there.

That the businesses, jobs, expressed will of the people, their representatives, public consultation results, joint planning statements, an invaluable airfiled resource, community relations, Ministerial visits , ..., all go hang while some sort of wrangling goes on seems to be of little consequence to those involved in it.

Whoever they are they seem unable to appreciate how achieveable a win-win result is for everybody, if they could step back and take a fresh perspective.

Perhaps it is time for the Secretary for Transport get involved, along with the leaders of whatever other government departments need to assist in appointing an aviation regulator for the airfield.

[Mal S]

I have been following this thread for some time with a growing sense of gloom, however the latest news has cheered me a little. I have one question, as a Government body, are we not entitled to demand sight of the so called "safety review" conclusions under the freedom of information act? Or is the some form of time constraint?

Mal

[Fuji Abound]

I agree.

The campaign is far from a waste of time.

It seems odd the closure has been delayed, but in fact it clearly is not open to visitors either - is there a contradiction there somewhere.

[execExpress]

The airfield has never been freely avialable to visiting aircraft.

The process is, and has been for sometime, along these lines:

1) call up the police airfield manager, tell him you reason for visit
2) if reason acceptable (e.g. fly in for maintenance), and
3) you had a named sponsor (e.g. maint company manager)
4) provide you with an airfield briefing) and
5) sent a fax of insurance with £7.5m Crown Indemnity, to police
6) you get a logged PPR number, which is your permission to visit

Acceptable reasons are basically "business purpose visit to companies, clubs on the airfield".

Visiting businesses, even your own business, relatives etc in the area are not the type that cut an ice. Other govt MOD/RN/RAF aerodromes support a policy of enabling civilian use - the majjority of MOD/RN/RAF airfield are less restricted than Lee in this regard.

Where did Polly Vacher get to on her charity tour this year? Where not? Why not? Lee is not in the flight guides. and even if it were, it is unlikely that permission would have been granted to include Lee in the UK tour. I may be wrong on that, so if someone is proposing a charity flight they should still ask.

[execExpress]

there is no time constraint on making FOI requests, google for the details - you want information you can ask for it, 20 working days to respond to your request.

There are FOI, and legal, requests in for the Lee safety data, raised after a 24th October letter to the Chief Constable for the safety case failed to yield any response, let alone the safety case.

[Dave Gittins]

Just had a brief look at Polly Vacher's itinery for her round Britain tour and I cannot see sign of her having been to Lee.

Looks like she flew right past en route from Southampton to Goodwood on 11 July 2007.

(off topic .... but I'm jealous as hell of her getting all those airfields and hours in her logbook in a 3 month period - fantastic acheivement)

DGG

[Nipper2]

I think you will find they have an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act to provide all relevant safety information to interested parties. Anyone care to apply?

[paulc]

in addition to Mike Cross post 57 - aircraft owners did pay a fee to be on the airfield (400 pounds / yr) business pay rent on hangars etc (some of which are in a poor state)

[Mike Cross]

paulc

Affirm, to the best of my knowledge aircraft owners paid £410 a year per aircraft access charge to use the airfield. This was in addition to any hangarage/tiedown charges.

Users paid in advance every six months and paid up until Sept 2006. Hampshire Police then stopped invoicing and no further payments were accepted from users. To date 18 months worth of fees that should have been invoiced have not been. If there were 100 based aircraft that's 61,500 of money due to the public purse that's not been collected.

Hampshire Police appear to have deliberately manipulated the situation so they could say that users paid nothing, had no right to be there, and had only been allowed to use the airfield on a grace and favour basis. Draw your own conclusions.

[aviate1138]

The only difference between Police and Crooks is the Police wear uniforms. IMHO

Second thought. Maybe the Police and the local Land Developers are in the same

Masonic Lodge? After all it must be a prime housing site?

[Mike Cross]

Hampshire Action Team supports flying at Daedalus (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=191912&stDate)

More updated info at www.eghf.co.uk

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Is that PBY still parked there?

[neilmac]

If Lee On Solent not mentioned in Jeppensons Flight Guides then that is your answer, that was the main reference for the record breaking flight as they were major sponsors.

NM

Wonder if a service flying club plane could use LOS?

[paulc]

Chuck,

yes - it still is. I remember the day you flew it there - impressive

[execExpress]

You don't ask dont get. I heard that the Police Flying Club got permission to fly in sometime in the last year of so. Airfield manager will answer your question on service machines I guess, tel number is 02392 551714

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Chuck,

yes - it still is. I remember the day you flew it there - impressive

It would be nice to see someone buy it and keep it flying like the Dutch are doing with their PBY.

That was a nice flying machine and should not be just parked.

Glad you enjoyed the show, by the way all the turns were done at cruise power and cruise RPM.....

.....

[neilmac]

Exec , thenks very much for the info.

[Mike Cross]

Latest Parliamentary Q & A (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-11-27a.168236.h&s=daedalus)

[Newforest]

A temporary reprieve of five months.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/display.var.1878642.0.flights_to_continue_from_daedalus_for_ now.php

[Mike Cross]

If the Press have it right that's great news.
Police want to ban all flights from the airfield aside from their spotter plane and the coastguard's helicopter, because they say the site is not safe as it has no air traffic control and no dedicated fire fighting service.

However last night the force agreed to postpone the ban while talks continue between them, the Lee Flying Association, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and the South East England Development Agency.

Cllr Woodward, said: "I'm very pleased and at least this gives us some space to work out how flying can continue from the airfield in the long term."


The AOPA UK representatives working with Lee Flying Association look forward to working with all the parties concerned.