Anti Airfield letter in todays Daily Mail

[Ken Wells]

Letter published in the Daily Mail today. More NIMBY Crap. trouble is the Daily Mail published this mis-leading letterLow-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 I advise all of use who care about the future of GA to send an email to [email protected] , I have.

[chevvron]

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.

[DFC]

These airfields are unregulated


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.

Regards,

DFC

[robin]

That is the tw*t who wrote into newspapers about the Biggin Hill incident.

On another site, they have identified this person as a persistent complainer, and even local councillors in the Swindon area are getting fed up with them.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In other words ...

"If the pilots aren't doing anything illegal then it's not illegal."

Er, yes, that applies to everybody else as well ...

... including even Daily Mail readers, worse luck!

[matspart3]

We don't do ourselves any favours though, do we? Your next door neighbours lawnmower has to have a silencer, yet we're still flogging around in old aircraft without them!

[Lost_ethics]

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 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article3655029.ece)) 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. ;)

[L'aviateur]

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)

[mcgoo]

And the complainers website and phone number:

http://www.audleysquare.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.html

[S-Works]

I suspect the fact that she works from home gives her more exposure to any noise and more time to complain.

However just because we do not agree with her does not give us the right to insult her. She is entitled to an opinion and the right to free speech. It is one of the great benefits of a democracy.

I don't support her but neither am I prepared to abuse her. If we want to be taken seriously in any debate then perhaps moderation is called for.

[eharding]

However just because we do not agree with her does not give us the right to insult her.


Right, a) who are you and b) what have you done with the real Bose-X?

[IO540]

I've sent in my response...

[eharding]

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.....

[hoodie]

We don't do ourselves any favours though, do we? Your next door neighbours lawnmower has to have a silencer, yet we're still flogging around in old aircraft without them!

Yeah, but I bet there'd be some bl**dy long grass outside people's front doors if it cost well into four figures to fit a silencer to your Qualcast. :}

[ShyTorque]

One aged 70+ goes around in a miniskirt with no knickers and does her gardening (i.e. bending over) at 3am under a spotlight.

IO540, what are you doing out at 3 am with a spotlight? :eek:

[Cusco]

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.

Cusco.

[Contacttower]

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. :ugh:

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.

[FREDAcheck]

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.

[Solar]

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.

[al446]

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.

[robin]

Not a lot of point with this sort of complainer

They are almost rabid with their hostility to aircraft. They are the sort who complain about the noise levels of gliders, the fact that their yappy little dogs get disturbed by the sight of aircraft, their sheep miscarry lambs in fear of these gigantic birds of prey (at my airfield, the sheep seem to have no problem lambing this year, however)

No, they want piece and quiet and they'd like their property values to increase.

What we need the owner to do is to suggest using the property as a travellers site or set up industrial units on the boundary

[Mariner9]

Can we not all do a formation fly past at 30ft on a nice quiet sunday afternoon waving at the nice lady

No, that would be incredibly stupid because:


It would be illegal
It would add credence to her claims that aircraft fly at 30' over her house
A "Lady persecuted by aircraft menace" story would soon appear in the media (probably on the front pages rather than just the letters section)


Bose's measured response is the correct line to take.

[Captain Smithy]

I would agree that perhaps actually engaging with these people is a good idea.

It is always easy to criticise from a point of ignorance - and the writer of this letter shows that. Of course he/she is entitled to their opinion whether it is right or wrong, but it's now up to us to show them that they are wrong by perhaps talking with them. I agree that perhaps a trial flight would change their opinion of aviation entirely!

It is tempting to launch into slanderous remarks and insults against these sorts of people, but it doesn't really do any good at all. In fact quite often it merely strengthens the hand of those who wish to restrict our freedom to fly.

Perhaps take them on a visit to the airfield, give them a flight, I'm sure most would change their mind!

[Spruit]

Someone needs to get the "Daily Mail" to post a similar answer to DFC's on page 1, where he's taken her comments and answered them with "The Facts" something most British newspapers (and I use the word news loosely) have a very small grasp of!

But like has been said on here previously, she has a right to voice her opinion, it takes someone who knows the facts to counter her argument in a civilised and adult way, maybe she goes away when confronted with these facts, but somehow I doubt it!

Cheers,

Spru!

[IO540]

What is needed is a national GA organisation which responds to the newspaper concerned, with a measured response setting out the facts. Like US AOPA does.

[rustle]

What is needed is a national GA organisation which responds to the newspaper concerned, with a measured response setting out the facts. Like US AOPA does.

Like the one Martin Robinson of AOPA UK wrote:

Sir, The claim that non-commercial aircraft are “essentially unregulated” (letter, April 1) is untrue. Aircraft of the kind involved in the Biggin Hill tragedy (report, March 31) are extremely closely regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority and have an excellent safety record that will hopefully be maintained as Europe increasingly takes responsibility for regulation.

Biggin Hill exists because there is a need for aviation beyond the leisure industry exemplified by the major airports. Unlike most airline flying, general aviation is overwhelmingly business-related and receives no subsidy in the form of fuel tax or other concessions. The general aviation industry is worth £1.4 billion in the UK, employing more than 11,500 people directly and many times that number indirectly, and it operates on roughly one quarter of the fuel that evaporates from car tanks.

Its safety record is the envy of the world; tens of thousands of pilots have been trained at Biggin Hill, and I can recall no accident similar to the Farnborough Citation loss since it opened in 1916. Although general aviation aircraft outnumber airliners by more than ten to one in the UK, they are rarely seen or heard; they go about their business quietly, efficiently and, above all, safely.

Martin Robinson

Chief executive, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

London SW1

That was published in The Times.

[airborne_artist]

I thought this letter in the Telegraph wasn't exactly helpfull, particularly with reference to City airport:

Flying over suburbia

Sir - As a private pilot, I believe the tragic crash of a Cessna jet near Biggin Hill airport (report, March 31) should be a warning to national and local government as to the lunacy of airfield development requiring a flight path over the congested suburban areas of southern England.

Biggin Hill began life 90 years ago as a Royal Flying Corps wireless testing site close to London; but almost by stealth has now transformed itself into "Biggin Hill (London) International Airport".

It is now London's fastest growing airport. This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.

With three schools and a major hospital in Biggin Hill's immediate flight activity area, we must be thankful that there was not a much greater loss of life in Farnborough village.

In my part of south London, I look up in amazement from my garden at the ceaseless stream of aircraft approaching and landing at City Airport. Not only is dense housing at risk, but there is also the danger of an aircraft accidentally hitting the financial complex at Canary Wharf.

It may not be al-Qa'eda that next strikes a devastating blow at our financial heartland; it might happen by accident.

Now is the time for the Government and Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider the risk levels of flight patterns and airport development over southern England before it is too late.

A remote fifth London airport with excellent transportation to the centre must be the only safe answer.

David Shaw, London SE9

[S-Works]

Not sure why you don't think Mr Shaws letter does not help. There is nothing melodramatic or anti aviation in it. It is level headed and accurate and a remote airport does make more sense than another runway at Heathrow. Like it or not he has a valid point about LCY as well. It was always a strange place to build an airport.

Lets face it, the reason the airlines want another runway and not another airport is that it allows them to leverage existing facilities and resource. A much more profitable option.

[airborne_artist]

Bose-x

Shaw wrote:

This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.

What evidence is there that single-engined aircraft are safer than executive jets? My guess is he's wrong. Per movement I'd expect an exec jet to be safer, and certainly per mile flown.

[captain.speaking]

What is needed is a national GA organisation which responds to the newspaper concerned, with a measured response setting out the facts. Like US AOPA does



IO540 - you are, of course, a member of AOPA ?

[IO540]

A remote airport is a great idea but it won't happen.

What one could push for is a change in the general planning presumption, to enable development of a "GA" airport in open countryside (though obnviously close to a road). This would be a huge help to GA. It doesn't take much money to build an airport for GA up to bizjets. A million or two for a runway and some huts; you can raise that with a syndicate.

The difficulty with such a planning change is that, once granted, the planning permission could hardly prevent a later change of use to some industrial estate and later to housing. And the airport will need some on-site business anyway (ideally maintenance or flight training) to generate revenue. So this would be resisted fiercely, in the same way you need planning for a horse stable if you live in certain areas - not because they care about the stable but because they know that 10 years later you can use that as a wedge to build something better.

The comment

It is now London's fastest growing airport. This has happened with no real consultation with residents or with the private pilots, whose small and generally safer planes have been forced out to make way for fat-cat jets.

is unfortunately indicative of much of UK GA. "If I cannot have it, nobody else should have it either". There is NO PLACE for language like "fat cats". A "fat cat" pays an awful lot of income tax, CGT, VAT, corp tax, and finally IHT, and all this finances the hordes earning nothing and living off the DSS. It also finances State education and much of what we take for granted. There is no mileage in screwing "fat cats". If I was developing a new airport I would go all out for bizjets; they pay fat landing fees, fat handling fees, and there are relatively very few of them so they don't affect other GA traffic.

p.s. has anyone noticed the clock on the server has slipped?

[Ken Wells]

If I was developing a new airport I would go all out for bizjets; they pay fat landing fees, fat handling fees, and there are relatively very few of them so they don't affect other GA traffic.

So why did Sheffield fail then?

[SkyCamMK]

Ken, apparently in other threads Sheffield was only ever temporary but also alleged to be a land grab and Euro grant grab by a well known developer when they acquired it from Budge Bros..... it seems very complicated but I suspect there is some truth in there somewhere. Ref Peel Holdings.

[Ken Wells]

Bloody expensive temp airfield!

[tmmorris]

a remote airport does make more sense than another runway at Heathrow

Err... wasn't Heathrow remote, when they built it?

Tim

[Contacttower]

What evidence is there that single-engined aircraft are safer than executive jets? My guess is he's wrong. Per movement I'd expect an exec jet to be safer, and certainly per mile flown.

The comment that smaller planes are safer could be true if you assume that an accident would result in less 3rd party deaths, but even so it's a very spurious claim to make. Compared to commercial jet transport GA has a pretty poor safety record (although very low third party risk).

He may have a point about City, it's only been open since 1987 and there is a obviously more risk to third parties than at airports that are away from houses. On balance though it was supported by most in that area of London, has never had a major accident and the risk of it ever having one is probably outweighed by the convenience of having an airport in that location.

I thought this letter in the Telegraph wasn't exactly helpfull, particularly with reference to City airport:


It just sounded a bit like a GA pilot who is perhaps a little bitter that for whatever reason some sectors of the aviation industry are growing faster than others...I was sorry to see GA at Southampton go...but I don't hold that against the industry in general.

[Pontious a Pirate]

I posted this last week on a similar thread on the Military Aircrew forum.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=318993

There is an interesting and similar debate going on there. Well worth a look and perhaps a line of support or a new thread to pull all of these issues into on debate?

And take a look at this, it is the airfield at Branscombe refered to in the article below :sad:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301253

I do however agree with Bose - X, everyone in entitled to their opinion, as am i and my opinion is that is don't like them :mad:

If this rot is not stopped, it affect all in aviation and not just in the UK :*


More NIMBY
:mad:

Here is another one to have a look at!!!

Located next to Branscombe Airfield, East Devon. Lat and Long please ;)

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z231/Seaking111/paircraft102.jpg

I was considering putting this up for debate and then discovered this delightful thread!!!

:E

Aircraft noise: Life beneath the blight path (From The Sunday Telegraph, March 2, 2008)

Plans to cut aircraft noise are good news for some. For others, it will only get worse, says Graham Norwood

·Have your say: Has your home been affected by aircraft noise? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2008/03/02/paircraft102.xml#form)

Life may be about to become much more peaceful in parts of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex from next year - and some lucky owners could find their homes worth 10 per cent more as a result. The windfalls would emerge from plans by National Air Traffic Services to redraw flight paths into three airports in south-east England.

NATS' proposals, out for consultation until May and likely to come into effect next year, alter routes for aircraft stacking before landing at Luton, Stansted and London City airports. The plans also try to cut noise where aircraft from several south-east airports, including Heathrow, converge and turn at the start of long-haul flights.
Ian Hall, NATS' director of operations, says the proposals will reduce the number of people affected by noise from departing aircraft under 4,000ft by 20 per cent.
Winners include Brookmans Park, Hatfield, Hitchin and Royston in Hertfordshire, Princes Risborough in Buckinghamshire, Southend in Essex and Sudbury in Cambridgeshire. The losers are chiefly more rural areas including villages near Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire, along the Blackwater Estuary, north of St Albans and in south Bedfordshire.
"The impact of aircraft noise on values is often exaggerated, but in sensitive locations, house prices are affected by 10 per cent," admits Tim Trembath of Mullucks Wells, an estate agency selling homes from the northern edge of Greater London to the east coast.


Trembath says he can routinely see 17 aircraft at a time at different heights and distances from his home in the Essex village of Great Dunmow, but says the impact of noise lessens as people live longer in an area. "We have some buyers who don't live locally wanting a home with no noise at all from aircraft and we've a few spots in that category. But others who live in the region are much more used to aircraft and they buy homes in what other people might regard as noisy locations, with no complaint at all."

The difficulty for the next year, he says, is that people wanting to buy a home in the eastern half of southeast England are likely to defer a purchase until a conclusion has been reached.
What is beyond doubt is that most airports have seen an increase in complaints from neighbouring home owners. The most recent data shows noise complaints at East Midlands airport soared from 4,500 in 2005 to 7,978 in 2006; at Luton they tripled in that period. This is no doubt due to the boom in budget airline travel, with more new routes to regional airports opening every year. But concerns over aircraft noise are not restricted to large airports. Across the UK, there are about 1,750 rural airstrips - sometimes little more than fields - and these are getting busier. Action 4 Airports, a website campaigning for small airstrips, says there are 30,000 people in the UK with private pilots' licences, and this figure is rising. A4A says this almost inevitably creates disputes such as the one raging in the east Devon village of Branscombe, where a landing strip has existed for more than 20 years.

Its new owner, David Hayman - a financial adviser who flies to and from his London office - is permitted to use it 28 days a year but has applied for consent for over 500 takeoffs or landings a year.

"That's an average of about one and a half movements a day, with the peak noise lasting eight seconds and affecting literally just one or two homes," says David. "The opposition comes from just one or two people who built their homes or moved in long after the airfield arrived, and now claim they speak for the entire village," he insists. :D

David claims seven village jobs, four at an aircraft restoration firm and three at a company making aircraft covers, rely on the airfield. On top of that, the previous owner raised £110,000 for charity by holding an annual summer air day and David wants to continue that tradition.

But next door neighbour Lynn Hall says most of the activity at the field occurs at weekends when people want to relax, and she fears the village has become less attractive for potential buyers. :ugh:

"The number of flights has increased in the past three or four years. We also have a lot of planes practising manoeuvres. One took off and landed every few minutes for an hour, and people are beginning to be very worried about their safety," she says. "There have been two accidents in the past nine months, one with an aircraft stalling on take off and ending up in a tree on the edge of the airstrip. If you'd wanted to buy in the village, would you still do so after knowing that?" asks Lynn. :mad:

The issue of aircraft noise raises the blood pressure as well as the decibels, and the problem appears to be getting worse across the UK. Professional buying agents, who short-list suitable homes for affluent clients, say they now routinely have to check for private aircraft flights from nearby properties when looking for a country house or rural estate.
Passenger numbers from large UK airports are predicted to expand from 180 million now to 475 million by 2030. Regional airports, increasingly dominated by commercial airlines, have cut space for private planes while increasing landing and storage costs for small aircraft. The result is that private pilots increasingly use these small rural airfields. Soon, it seems, many more of us will be living under a flight path.

·For more information: www.nats.co.uk/TCNconsultation (http://www.consultation.nats.co.uk/), has a video illustrating new flight paths and a postcode search to check proposed flight paths and heights over houses.

The website www.uk-airport-news.info (http://www.uk-airport-news.info/) carries news on anti-noise campaigns.


The affordability index
Average house price in each region (in descending order)
1. North England: £207,663
2. Yorkshire & Humberside: £213,877
3. East Midlands: £219,384
4. Wales: £229,136
5. West Midlands: £230,375
6. East Anglia: £260,702
7. Scotland: £263,655
8. South West: £267,475
9. South East: £316,725
10. Greater London: £411,981


Personally, speaking bring them on!!! I like nothing more than belting around at 50" :ok:

[Contacttower]

Just out of interest can anyone actually name an established airfield (leaving aside Branscombe which I understand the owner has withdrawn the planning application for) that has been forced to close due to complaints?

My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.

[IO540]

If you've got planning then you are pretty safe provided you stay within the terms of the planning permission.

If I ever got my own strip somewhere, I would go for full planning from day 1. It might take a couple of years (planning officer approving it, committee chucking it out, inspector approving it) and would cost 4 or even 5 digits in noise surveys etc, but then one is safe and doesn't have to worry about whether somebody is counting the active days.

Nobody should withdraw a planning application simply because somebody doesn't like it. I know many people do exactly that but that's because they don't know that every village has at least a dozen people who object to everything.

The local planning system (the planning committee system in particular, with the dozen councillors who usually vote without ever even seeing the site) is set up to make the applicant (whose beloved application has just been viciously torn to pieces with barely a few minutes' discussion) really despondent and to make him withdraw it.

Applicants who are smarter will go to the inspector (the appeal) at least, as a matter of principle, every time, because this bypasses the local issues.

Makes me sad to see people withdraw planning applications due to local objections... it's the 'bully' winning without moving a finger.

There may be exceptions e.g. a pub with mostly local clientele where not p***ing off the locals is a sensible move. But an individual who just lives in a village should never withdraw an application at this stage and should always proceed to appeal.

[Ken Wells]

Contacttower Just out of interest can anyone actually name an established airfield (leaving aside Branscombe which I understand the owner has withdrawn the planning application for) that has been forced to close due to complaints?
My impression is that often the people who complain are very vocal, more often than not are in a minority and rarely succeed.

Incedently Burscough Airfield in Lancashire was closed due to local complaints.

Heres is a website lisiting airfileds in USA that have been closed due to local complaints. It is not just a UK problem
http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/PA/Airfields_PA_Philly_NW.htm

[IO540]

According to google (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Number/248585), Burscough Airfield closed in 1957.

[gpn01]

Ahhh....the old "I found it on Google/Wikipedia, so it must be true".....Maybe the RN operation ceased in 1957. There was a Cessna operated by the West Lancs Parachuting Club (G-FALL I think) out of Burscough in the early 80's. I know because I did the odd static line jump from it. Seem to recall there was some microlighting there a few years later too.

[Ken Wells]

The field was still active well into the eighties as a private filed. I know we used it many an occasion so Google is wrong! and anyway it was posted on Google by a tourist!! so hardly a basis for fact!!

Also had a parrachute opperation for a while till the local's complained!!!!

It also had a microlight operation for a short time in the nineties.

We based our aircraft there once from Woodvale when the Model Aircraft Show closed RAF Woodvale for the weekend and instructed out of there.

The runway is still there today as a farm store for hay and vehicles such a waste!!

Ken

[K.Lacey]

:(As someone who is a co-owner of an aviation related business with a father who used to design light aircraft I spent much of my childhood on airfields and with those in the aviation industry, so I am rather appalled at the assumptions some of you are making and the vile aspersions on my character- libellous? I do however rather like the idea of being Miss Marple, as she always won her cases! I suppose the man who called me that is a Julian Clary lookalike or on second thoughts, Michael Barrymore. A much more dubious character.
I am not anti-aviation, but I am against irresponsible, dangerous and, noisy and intrusive flying. There are always two sides to a story. Please remember this. I did not choose to live next to an airfield - I had one imposed upon me after I purchased. There was no planning permisison for a permanaent or temporary airfield when I bought. Because I have had the temerity to complain about being overflown at low height - I get attacked on places such as your forum. Why have I and other villagers been overflown at low height? Well I and others in this village have objected to planning applications, as is our democratic right, and complained about dangerous incidents to the Council, the CAA, the BMAA, BPA, and employed very expensive specialist aviation solicitors. How would you like a skydiver or a piece of their equipment landing near you? The owner of this airfield changed the use of his buildings without planning permission, has allowed light aircraft for which he had no planning permission to use his airfield, attended as a parish councillor his own planning applications at which he spoke (he and the parish council were punished for this) and made statements in his planning applications which were untrue. Well, I studied law, and I am not impressed with what has been happening: so like any responsible citizen I complained. It may be that the aviation lobby dosn't like it, but remember that there are two sides to a story... my experiences have meant that I have become an expert in aviation law. When aircraft such as G-VANA stop skimming the roof of my house at dangerously low height and when the pilot apologizes then maybe I will stop complaining. The pilot did this after the Standards Board found againt the airfield owner. Suspicious. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think vindictive. Dangerous. Wicked. Remember there are rogue pilots just as there are rogue airfield owners, remember that some airfields are not well run...for example several airfield owners in Wiltshire have put up hangers without permission. Oh, and Swindon Borough Council rewrote the initial planning application when the last application was made- also illegal, and attempted to change the permission from a personal permission to a business one...also illegal. On Saturday a skydiver narrowly missed landing on the roof of my house and only just managed to land on a field at the bottom of my garden. Traumatic and distressing? I'll let you decide.
Why should I have to tolerate planes circling for hours at a time, over the roof of my house, or 50 feet from it whilst they do training circuits? Do I not have a right to peace and privacy? If the flying business is making money why shouldn't I get compensation? How about triple glazing my house? How about compenstation because I cannot work inside because of the vibrations from these aircraft reverberating inside the house? How about buying me out? If these planes were not flying so close, in circles above and around my house I wouldn't have a problem. If they took off and flew away - fine, but they don't! They circle over me and around me - often well below 500 feet. My specialist aviation solicitor agrees that private airfields need more regulation - you may not agree, but maybe the Europen court will. If you think it's ok for pilots to behave as they are in our little village - fine - but lots of us think not. You want people like me to stop complaining and being a thorn in the side of Swindon Borough Council? Well stop buzzing my house and garden, stop dropping parachtists over it and behave better!
Oh, and there have been three newsworthy crashes at Biggin hill since 2001 so Mr Robinson is wrong, although only one landed on a house!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Now that we appear to have representatives from both sides of the fence on board, the debate can develop further :ok:

What won't be allowed will be name calling and resorting to abuse, regardless of how strong the posters views might be. If you disagree with someone, make a counter argument, don't bother with any petty attacks or you will simply be deleted and banned.

At the moment, that's mostly directed at some old hands on here, but it's relevant to everybody who wishes to use PPRuNe.

[vanHorck]

I am glad this happens. I can read the anger in your posting. But it s a start.

Respect for one another is what s needed. Tolerance

As well as the total truth, not the single sided truth, so perhaps the pilots concerned can explain their low flying escapades? their truth?

How about all of you sitting down for a coffee or a beer and start afresh living and flying together with respect for each other s lives and hobbies, without resorting to legal ways just because it s your right or to low level flying just to annoy someone?

[airborne_artist]

Why should I have to tolerate planes circling for hours at a time, over the roof of my house, or 50 feet from it whilst they do training circuits?They circle over me and around me - often well below 500 feetNone of these is at all likely, in my experience. If you have the real evidence, then present it.

attended as a parish councillor his own planning applications at which he spoke (he and the parish council were punished for this)Parish councils are consulted during the planning process, but all the parish council can do is recommend - they do not decide. District/borough councils do this.

On Saturday a skydiver narrowly missed landing on the roof of my house and only just managed to land on a field at the bottom of my garden. Traumatic and distressing? I'll let you decide.Traumatic and distressing, no. Slightly surprising, perhaps. If he landed on a field at the bottom of the garden, then he can't really have got too close to the roof of the house, can he? Parachutes descend quite fast, and can't just level off and then fly too far.

Well I and others in this village have objected to planning applications, as is our democratic right, and complained about dangerous incidents to the Council, the CAA, the BMAA, BPA, and employed very expensive specialist aviation solicitorsIt sounds to me as though you thought that an expensive solicitor could make sure it all went your way, and that really you are just very cross that you spent all that money to no avail.

[DeeCee]

I have flown from a variety of Airfields and Farmstrips and without exception they all had rules and advice for pilots regarding noise sensitive areas. Many also seemed to suffer from unfair complaints - sometimes quite unreasonable.

I have always thought that many people regard flying as an activity for the rich. Anyone that flies knows that is not so and most people have to stretch to afford it. GA in this Country struggles to get by.

I cannot imagine flying at 50' over someone's roof. If somebody did that then further action should be taken, but how do you determine the altitude of an aeroplane by sight? I know that I can't do it.

I am personally very glad that Ms Lacey has joined this forum. Let us have an educated debate by all means and try to see both sides.

I would not want to annoy anyone with any of my hobbies. There is however give and take possible here - there are some people's activities that I personally cannot stand...........

[airborne_artist]

Note the hard work put into keeping the noise down by the airfield. Ms Lacey's house is just S of the Y junction and at 7 o'clock the the threshold of 06. Not as I wrote here earlier. It is within the hatched exclusion zone.

This image is from http://www.redlandsairfield.co.uk/findus.htm

http://www.redlandsairfield.co.uk/photomap.jpg

[Bravo73]

aa,

Are you sure that Ms Lacey lives in the single house, at '9 o'clock' to the runway intersection?

The only reason I ask is that Ms Lacey refers to 'other villagers', 'I and other villagers' or 'I and others in this village' on multiple occasions.

The closest village that I can see on multimap is Wanborough, several miles to the south. I struggle to see how any aircraft using Redlands could overfly Wanborough at 50ft, unless the aircraft was in some sort of trouble.


Would you mind confirming for us, Ms Lacey, whether or not you live in the village of Wanborough or if you are actually remote from the village? :confused:

[Contacttower]

Ms K Lacey,

What I think irritated many of us was that you appeared to be 'using' the Biggin crash as an opportunity to vent your views on an issue that was only at a stretch really related...I mean the very rare occurrence of a jet crashing near houses (lets not forget that the last third party death, with the exception of a glider accident, caused by a plane was the Lockerbie bombing) out of a major airport and the problem of noise and alleged endangering of houses from a microlight strip.

That simply struck people as being a little distasteful.

Leaving that aside, are there any Redlands users who can comment on this?

Complaints about dangerous and inconsiderate flying should always be taken seriously and I hope we can give Ms Lacey a fair hearing. It was good of her to show up actually. :ok:

[eharding]

Ms Lacey.

ContactTower has provided an excellent summary of the situation. I would add that if you indeed have a genuine grievance, supported with reliable documentary evidence (particularly photographic evidence), then the CAA Enforcement Branch would persue the offender in a particularly relentless fashion, should you choose to furnish them with such evidence - and should the allegations prove to be true, I don't think there is anyone here who would have much sympathy for the pilot involved. On the other hand, if you are unable to provide such evidence, you'll understand that many people will have trouble taking your allegations seriously.

[Pudnucker]

I think noise and vibration are a moot point to be honest. We did a huge amount of noise tests and it was interesting that the lorries coming past my house and next doors lawn mower was noiser than an aircraft overhead at 500'. I will attempt to dig out the actual findings but Ms Lacey seems to be believing in a lot of subjective matter.

I think turning up here was a very honourable thing to do. Ms Lacey, I trust you will comment on our replies.

[FREDAcheck]

I support Contacttower’s comments.

I don’t agree with Ms Lacey that we need more regulation of small airfields, but…

A small minority of pilots don’t bother about noise abatement procedures, and some airfields don’t always ensure procedures are followed (I’m not suggesting Redlands is one such). Without radar or ATC you can’t track every plane, but complaints need to be taken seriously, and pilots made aware that disregard for noise avoidance procedures won’t be tolerated.

Rather than grumble about Ms Lacey’s call for more regulation (in an already heavily regulated activity), it’s better that we should demonstrate that more regulation is not necessary. I mean: show others we’re acting responsibly, not just persuade ourselves.

And please: no more talk of organising low-flying over the houses of complainers. I’m sure posters that suggested that didn’t mean it; in the end it would only be self-defeating. And about as socially responsible as chucking a brick through their windows. Kids get ASBOs for unnecessary noise in residential areas. We shouldn’t expect special treatment.

[Pudnucker]

Sorry, just re-read the thread and have to add this...

Ms Lacey, the crash at Biggin Hill cost people their lives.. Using it for point scoring is bad taste at best... "Vindictive" and "wicked" in your own words come to mind. While you have every right to complain and enter into debate about noise and intrusion using people's unfortunate deaths for your own arguments is bang out of order. By the way, it was a business jet that crashed not a SEP aircraft - VERY different flying machines.

Put yourself in this position - If you were to lose a member of your family in an accident, say on a motorcycle, how would you like it if I used it to advance my argument about the 200 or so bikes that go past my house every Tuesday in the Summer (a major issue in my village) - I wouldn't do it. Apology needed.

[airborne_artist]

Edit - Pulse one is correct. See below.

[pulse1]

Warnborough House is about 150 yds South of the 06 extended centre line and about 300 yds from the threshold.

[lauchiemb]

I must say that having a parachutist land on my patio would certainly liven up my day. I would happily make them tea and deliver them back to wherever they came from.

Wishing to have triple glazed windows paid for by the airfield owner is a great idea to cut your carbon ommissions but is not going to stop the noise when you are in your garden on a nice summers day (when the aircraft are around). I have seen some very reasonably priced airplugs at B&Q.

If you don't like where you live, why not move?

[S-Works]

Er hang on a sec guys.......

Whist I don't support her actions or the disgraceful way that she used the Biggin accident to perpetuate her own cause she does have a point however badly she has managed it. If she is indeed 300 yards from the end of the runway then when that runway is in use she is pretty close to the action. She also pointed out that the airfield came into existence after she moved their. So telling her if she does not like it move really does us no favours as pilots!!

Perhaps if she had tried more constructive discussion with the airfields operators she would not be in a situation where everyone now thinks of her as a crank and treats her accordingly. But the optimist in me says it should not be too late for anyone to hold out the peace pipe and I am sure that with some effort a compromise can be reached. Offset approaches etc. are one of many options.

[Captain Smithy]

Ms. Lacey,

I would echo the sentiments already expressed here. It's good that you've come here and now you've put across your point of view. I'm sure most of us at least understand your concerns. However... I'm not so sure about these parts:

1. "Why should I have to tolerate planes circling for hours at a time, over the roof of my house, or 50 feet from it whilst they do training circuits?"
No pilot would even think about flying at 50 feet above anywhere, never mind someone's house... even a stupid pilot would not do this... methinks you are exagerrating a little. Most pilots I know would avoid flying anywhere near someone's house altogether.
Also, aircraft cannot "train" at unlicensed airfields. These aircraft are probably flying purely for pleasure.

2. "Do I not have a right to peace and privacy?"
Yes, but people also have a right to fly. Please respect this.

3. "If the flying business is making money why shouldn't I get compensation?"
Why and for what? What does "making money" have to do with compensation?

4. "How about compensation because I cannot work inside because of the vibrations from these aircraft reverberating inside the house?"
This sounds like more exaggeration... aircraft do not cause "vibrations", or at least in my experience. Giving an excuse that you "cannot work" because of noise seems silly. How do you think people work at/near major international airports?

I don't mean any offense in my statements, I've tried to explain things, but I strongly disagreed with some parts of your post which seemed almost histrionic at times. Aircraft do not fly over anywhere at 50', never mind over houses. The noise/vibration issue seems very exagerrated... I speak from personal experience. Also, talk of compensation is going a little too far indeed.

Smithy.

[Contacttower]

Also, aircraft cannot "train" at unlicensed airfields. These aircraft are probably flying purely for pleasure.



Just a small point Smithy, I believe microlights are allowed to train from unlicensed fields, unlike Group A, which of course must train from a licensed one. Circuit bashing is often what people complain about...I don't know if this is the case here but I will can see why that could become irritating if you did indeed live 300yds from the runway.

[DFC]

Ms. Lacey,

Rather than spending thousands on lawyers and postal services, why not spend hundreds on a CCTV system to record your evidence.

If what you say is true then it should not take long for you to have the required evidence.

The Civil Aviation Authority take all complaints of dangerous and illegal flying seriously. Provided the evidence is available to bak up such reports.

Unfortunately for your case even a brief visit to the Redlands website and a check of their published procedures clearly shows the lengths they go to to minimise disturbance for residents in the vicinity.

One can see that great effort has been made to keep the circuit pattern very tight to the airfield and avoid local "habitation". What you must understand is that by insisting that aircraft remain so close to the airfield, they are in turn forced to use a circuit height of 500ft which is perfectly in keeping with normal aviation practice for such tight circuits.

Finally, I must wonder at this lenghty complain against redlands while nothing is said about lotmead farm. Can we assume then that you have no objection to aviation operations at lotmead farm?

Regards,

DFC

[Captain Smithy]

Ah, I see Contacttower, I was just assuming for Group A only. I stand corrected.

300 Yards is a little close indeed, if that is the case. However I still can't see microlights thundering overhead skimming rooftops, rattling the pans on the kitchen shelf and making one completely unable to concentrate on doing anything.

Also, if it's microlights we're talking about, I have found microlights to be very quiet indeed. Even 300 Yards away. Yes I've been to East Fortune rather more than a few times during my lifetime from a very young age.

Like I say I don't want to start slagging people off, I do have some understanding for some cases of aircraft noise, but when people come out with grossly exaggerated statements of Quantums thundering over the roofs causing much distress then I start to lose sympathy and patience. Bringing the Compensation Culture into the equation also fairly cheeses me off.

[poss]

In my experience airfields take a lot of measures to try and keep noise levels to a minimum. Nottingham airport (EGBN not NX) have 2 circuits where we ask pilots to cut their downwind and not overfly the neighbouring estate of West Bridgeford. We have noise tolerance levels for aircraft; take the boeing stearman for instance, it's very noisy due to the propellers length and the tips going supersonic and so we will allow one stearman in a day to take off and land. Every other aircraft that visits our airfield is a small single or twin prop.

Leicester, Gamston and other random airfields i've visited have included on their websites, and I believe pooleys as well, instructions for joining and landing on certain runways to avoid noise and low flying above houses.
Airfields have better things to be doing than answering complaints from local people and work towards getting noise levels as low as possible, do you think they enjoy been hassled?

It is not uncommon to receive complaints from the people that live in Tollerton (nearby village) because of the aircraft flying over head. Most of the people that do the complaining live on the otherside of the village and hear the aircraft for perhaps 10 seconds whilst it passes over head, certainly not below 500feet. This shows that a fair few people complain just because aviation is there and it's easy to attack. It is mostly why pilots start getting defensive and abusive everytime someone posts a complaint to the newspapers because from what we know of general complainers - they moved to their residency after the airfield was built (certainly the case with Nottingham as it's been there for around 100years) - they live far enough away that the aircraft only bothers for a few second and are generally quiter than traffic outside! - or the fact that these people just complain about everything they can.

Quite often I hear of another airfield under threat of closure due to councils, locals wanting rid of the airfields etc, it is rather saddening. Nottingham's future currently isn't secure, i'm not sure where Leicester stands but I don't think that airfield is in a good position. The fact is most of these complaints are usually worded in such a way as to suggest we purposely make a nuisance of ourselves, as if we want to spoil your peace and quiet. If aviation is out of the limelight then airfields can be saved and those that use aviation for recreational purposes can enjoy their hobbie hassle free so it makes sense that we are actually trying to keep out of the way.

I've seen pollution mentioned here, which is another big thing that anti-aviation activists protest about. If they'd actually done their homework aviation is quite a small contributer to greenhouses compared to most things in this world, yet airliners and aircraft manufacturers are always looking at new ways of reducing pollution load... easyJet for instance are trying to develope what they call the ecoJet which is rumoured (keyword) to produce around 35mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile; much better than a car. Their current fleet produces around 96mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile at the minute which is still better than your average car. I've seen on a few websites that aviation contributes to about 5% of the global CO2 emissions... this is lower than IT, which i've also seen on a few sites to be around 6-7%.. should people stop using computers?

From reading this I hope anyone that has had REAL bad experiences with aviation, aircraft flying low, noise levels etc that has made complaints and received insults from pilots can understand why we are very defensive and quick to throw something back. Others might just find this a bore and might pounce on something i've said but nevermind :).

:ok:

[Ken Wells]

I have to agree with Smithy. Ms K Lacey is totaly out of order.

She shamlessly uses the Biggin Hill Crash to further her biased views.

Quite plainly is she feels so strongly she should move and stop peddeling untruths. 50' above her house indeed, I would hate to see her park a car if that's her degree of distance awarness.

If the Google Earth views are of her house she has absolutley nothing to moan about.

[A and C]

I would liked to think that Ms Lacey was a person with genuine issues with Redlands Airfield and perhaps with good will on both sides an agreement could be reached. The sad fact is 99% of the issues that Ms Lacey has flagged up to the local council have been pure fiction.

A quick search on the internet will tell you that on one occasion some time back Ms Lacey accused a pilot of flying over her house at 30 feet this was investigated by the local council who found that the aircraft in question had not left the ground that day due to bad weather.

There is very little you can do to reason with people who live in a world of thear own making, it is quite clear in this case that Ms Lacey sees nothing wrong with using the deaths of a number of people in this tragic accident to futher her own ends despite the fact that the accident has not the slightest connection with her issues about Redlands.

As pilots we often think that we are on the wrong end of the thinking in the local council chamber but in this case the council has weighed the evidence and local opinion and come to the view that Ms Lacey's alligations hold little water.
This is a small victory for local democracy but as you might expect Ms Lacey is also now accusing the council of malpractice!

[modrocker]

According to Google; She seems to run a rather strange little publishing company as well. Maybe she just loves to see her name in print?

[flybymike]

"Poss" makes a point about the threat of airfield closure as a result of ever increasing complaints.

It is worth mentioning that ever increasing airfield closures simply force more and more aircraft into an ever decreasing number of airfields, thus aggravating and not decreasing the perceived misery of those on the ground.

[chevvron]

She can hardly say aviation is new in the area; there was a wartime airfield at Wanborough, and South Marston just to the north was Vickers - Supermarines factory airfield. Don't have 'Action Stations' No 6 or 9 to hand; they must be in one of those. Wroughton isn't too far away either, and on the photo, you can clearly see another private airstrip to the north west. Further north is Sandhill Farm gliding site; maybe they do aerotows from there?

[Plasticvicar]

On Saturday a skydiver narrowly missed landing on the roof of my house and only just managed to land on a field at the bottom of my garden. Traumatic and distressing? I'll let you decide.

More so for the skydiver I would have imagined. Sounds a bit like you're grasping for a bit of compensation there. :rolleyes:

[Contacttower]

More so for the skydiver I would have imagined. Sounds a bit like you're grasping for a bit of compensation there. :rolleyes:

Not that it makes it any better if what K Lacey says is true about the skydiver but modern parachutes are actually very maneuverable and unless the skydiver left avoidance to the very last minute the likelihood of actually hitting a house is very low.

[Plasticvicar]

Contacttower, you are of course totally correct. It's likely that the jumper had identified the field as his landing point and just hadn't begun to flare at the point Ms Lacey believed he was going to hit her house.

The point I was trying to make was that the person most likely to be injured in that sort of accident is the jumper, not anyone on the ground. To try to claim that you are "traumatised and distressed" is a bit much really and sounds horribly like someone positioning for a compensation claim of "mental anguish" or some other such nonsense. If one thing gets my goat it's the rapidly burgeoning compensation culture that we seem to be intent on importing from the US.

I'll be quiet now, don't want to appear to grumpy in my first couple of posts!:oh:

[Captain Smithy]

I see that Ms. Lacey hasn't returned to PPRuNE since her rant. Would she care to return and comment on our responses?

Hopefully that is the issue nipped in the bud.

[moggiee]

The trouble with "eyewitness" reports such as those by Ms Lacey (and our own local Nimbies) is that they are next to useless.

As the AAIB know well, an eyewitness will tell you that any aircraft an they could see was "right overhead" and that altitudes are almost always dramatically underestimated.

Hence any aeroplane viewed just above the horizon is always "over my house at 50" or "about to crash" because it is just a few degrees above trees in the foreground.

The normal pattern of power applications and reductions become "cutting and racing the engine" and a PFL or stall practice becomes "dive bombing the rabbit hutch at the end of my garden".

Funny how they are NEVER close enough to read a registration, though - despite the fact that a car registration plate (which is much smaller) can be read from 75ft away with normal eyesight.

[Flash0710]

I had heard of an interesting one a while ago where a resident had shone a laser rangefinding diy tool at an a/c to try to determine the altitude.

After a consultation with people trusted it was quickly realised that the law was broken by the complainant trying to catch the alleged agressor.

The compenstation, did we trip you up? culture is enveloping many people who are not good enough for pop idol but may qualify for a win on a scratchcard. Leave the house more, obviously! if you are relentlessly bombarded by a/c.....(how do they afford it?)

p.s Ms Lacy yr missing a trick.... Sell yr pad to an aviation nut.... there are plenty that would snap it up!!!!

Plus side to everything..

lotsa luv

xxx
f

[Julian]

Having done freefall in a previous life (and decided that maybe I should get a pilots licence at it seems less like controlled suicide :) ), I have to say that I find Miss Laceys comments very unbeliveable!

I stuck with the more benign canopys and not the performance type and even these have a pretty rapid rate of descent. For one to pass over her house at 50ft and make into an adjoining field she must have a very short back garden!!!!

As has been said many times before judging the height of an aircraft by someone on the ground using the naked eye is notoriously unreliable. I suspect that they were much higher and maybe her anger with the previous encounters led her to think it was lower.

I do have every sympathy if the airfield owner opened up post Ms Lacey moving in and did so without going through the proper channels, I have no idea if this is the case as dont know the area. However, if the airfield was there first then its tough luck! Dont buy a house near an airport/motorway/pub/etc and then complain about the noise, you knew it was there when you bought it - buy a house on the top of Dartmoor instead :ugh:

J.

[IO540]

I do have every sympathy if the airfield owner opened up post Ms Lacey moving in and did so without going through the proper channels

In the UK, you can't.

You can do one of the following

a) the 28 day rule

b) full planning permission

No other way.

If you do a) and there are movements on more than 28 days per year (and you can be sure the determined NIMBYs will be counting) then you have a problem.

If you do b) then you can continue so long as you remain within the terms of the planning permission. The process for getting that includes receiving objections etc. That is called democracy.

Incidentally, the presumption in Planning law is in favour of a permission. The objectors have to make their case. Not a lot of people know that!!!

[moggiee]

Incidentally, the presumption in Planning law is in favour of a permission. The objectors have to make their case. Not a lot of people know that!!!
Theoretically so - unless your local council (and therefore their planning officer) have an anti-airfield mindset. This has proven to be the case all too often - they'd usually rather close the airport down, and build 1,000 council tax-paying homes on it (or a car factory if you live in Derby).

[poss]

The trouble with "eyewitness" reports such as those by Ms Lacey (and our own local Nimbies) is that they are next to useless.


Oh so true. Take the recent crash at biggin... "eye witnesses" claimed the aircraft was travelling at 20mph, that they could see the pilot waving his arms for them to get out the way, that they could see passengers in the cabin windows looking panicked, that the wing hit a girl and knocked her down (which was actually just a blast of wind as it passed high above her). These clearly show that people just don't know what they are talking about and it's us, the flying community, that are paying for these "expertly accurate" eye witness statements.
I think someone actually made a thread about how rediculous it is getting.

[kevmusic]

they'd usually rather close the airport down, and build 1,000 council tax-paying homes on it (or a car factory if you live in Derby).

Or in Sunderland :{

[chevvron]

Or Swindon; South Marston which I mentioned earlier is now the Honda UK factory.

[goofyprune]

London City has adpoted a nutter nimby as well. She has a blog for her rants and calls herself fight the flights. I don't know why they don't arrange for a septic tank to be offloaded over her gardem.

[K.Lacey]

Not having access to the internet I could not post.

I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.

I would have thought that those of you on this forum might use your peer pressure to do something about the horrendous noise and overflying at low height from Redlands. Many of us who live here have been subjected to appalling behaviour since 1998. I am very much afraid that many aviation enthuasists may suffer the consequences of actions brought about by one small former farm airfield.

There has been skydiving here, over Swindon, since 10 am today and it continues still with no abatement...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..

As to the problems with Redlands in Wanborough - only microlights and one skydiving plane can operate at Redands. This plane has to be of similar or reduced noise output to an ANTONOV AN2. As far as I am aware Swindon Borough Council has not conducted any noise tests on the two light aircraft currently using Redlands. The council has not measured the noise levels of any of the aircraft flying from this airfield and tests on the Antonov prior too planning permission for skydiving consisted on a simulated take off! Skydiving planes did not take off or land at Redlands prior to granting permission - they flew from other airfields - Lower Upham or Draycott and dropped over Redlands...hardly indicate of actual use. Oh, and the temporary planning period was cut short so that some of us lost our right to object...dirty tricks or what? There was a problem with foot and mouth so that the airfield could not be used....

Why do we need regulation?
Point 1. If the Council will not enforce the only recourse is to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The decisions of the LGO are not legally enforceable. This is why there must be greater regulation. There needs to be a law to allow councils to be sued for failure to enforce.
Point 2. There needs to be legal provision to ensure that airfields are inspected once a year and that planning rules are complied with. This must be by an independent body not regulated by the CAA or BMAA. Local councils do not have the specialist expertise to do this and an independent inspectorate would be best.
Point 3. All planning decisions can only be undone by a discontinuance notice. I know of only one discontinuance on an airfield has occured and only after a lengthy battle. Councils are unwilling to do discontinuance as they fear compensation demands. The law needs to be changed so that this fear can be allayed.
Point 4. It is imperative that one can sue for damages and compensation for blight using the civil law for nuisance caused by aviation. Being barred from doing so by the 1988 aviation act is unjust. The law must be brought into line with environmental health law governing other noise nuisances. The regulations for regulated airfields such as Heathrow or military bases are fairer than those for private airfields.
Point 5. There needs to be provision for noise insulation to be provided free by those creating the noise, just as at the large commercial airfields like Heathrow.
Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate.

My encounters with injustice and abject selfishness from those flying at this small airfield led me to investigate aviation law. I and others living in Swindon have found it wanting. I have been contacted by people from all over the UK who have had problems with microlights, skydiving or gliding. Ours is not an isolated problem. My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation. This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good. Moreover, the Smiths, having gained aviation planning permission for themselves, have now sold their business aviation interests to other people. When the last planning application was submitted the applicants did not submit their application correctly in their own sole name but submitted it as a corporte body. The council either ignored this or colluded in it. Even with two very good legal firms representing the objectors it took a considerable amount of persuasion to get the council to alter the name in the application. As this had been a variation of condition the application should not have been accepted by the council in the first place. It is because of such deficiences in the planning process that more regualtion is necessary.

K.Lacey

[youngskywalker]

Sweetheart you need to take a chill pill and get a life! Do you actually know how low 100 feet would look like? I've been flying for 15 years and involved in aviation circles for 25 years (most of that time looking up at aircraft flying over) and I doubt if I could that accurately guess an aircrafts height above my house.

If you really want any chance of success then try and get evidence of this practice, photographic, video film etc

pprune is not the official medium for changing policy.

The CAA will prosecute any Pilot who they can prove has broken rule 5 of the ANO.

[jollyrog]

What a whinger.

I bought my house in South East London in 1992, long before I had an interest in aviation. One of the first things I noted about this part of town, compared to West London where I'd grown up, was the lack of aircraft noise.

Then the expansion of London City and the runway extension came along. I'm now right under the path for approaches to runway 10, which seems to be the preferred approach. They fly over South East London before making a turn somewhere around Battersea Bridge to Final. One every two minutes or so, it seems.

I'd swap this anyday for a few microlights and a parachute plane. These countryside NIMBYs get far too much air time. There are hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around the country who are blighted by REAL aircraft noise and many of us didn't have it when we chose to live where we do.

But, it's modern life and we just get on with it.

Ignore her, her ranting makes no difference to anything anyway. As she points out, the law isn't on her side.

[FREDAcheck]

I agree it's hard to judge the height of an aircraft by eye. However, if you live by an airfield and you know what an aircraft looks like at, say, 1000 feet, then you can tell if one is substantially lower. Also, you can get a rough figure by timing the aircraft through a particular angle. Or maybe K Lacey has a rangefinder.

However, I don't think it's for us to say that she should like aircraft and not whinge.

We have a right to fly planes and she has a right not to like it.

And we have a duty of common courtesy to minimise noise. I'm sure most pilots flying into Redlands respect that duty. If K Lacey thinks some pilots are not following procedures then, as pointed out, PPRUNE is not the best place to solve the problem but rather to take it up with Redlands in the first instance.

[Mariner9]

Hi Ms Lacey,

I am pleased you have posted on here - it gives us a chance to discuss each others point of view. Please ignore some of the more agressive responses!

Now, where exactly is your house in relation to the runways at Redlands?

Someone at 100' over your house should only have been taking off or landing, if they weren't then they were breaking the law. If you are on the approach or climb out path then I'm afraid they were complying with the law, and this is unlikely to be changed for safety reasons (the safety of both the aircraft and those on the ground). As a Pilot and of course a householder, I cannot see any sensible change of aviation practise or law, so its not clear to me what further legislation could achieve.

The airfield does have noise abatement routings, and though you may not believe this aviators do try their hardest to minimise any disturbances. An AN2 is a fairly noisy aircraft - I'd be very surprised if there's any aircraft noisier than that operating at Redlands

As for your point about "aircraft tax" - though it is not called a tax aircraft do have to have a certificate of airworthiness (or permit to fly) - both of these cost considerably more than car tax.

I'd be amazed if there are people flying without licences in Wiltshire or elsewhere. Despite what you think, flying is tightly regulated - we all have to get our licenses revalidated every 2 years. The flying community is fairly close knit (as you've probably gathered!) - we would not tolerate a fellow pilot breaking the rules.

Finally, I'd be happy to take you for a short flight to/from Redlands so you can experience first hand where your house lands in relation to the approach/climb out paths and perhaps gain some perception of the pilots perspective.

[Insight]

This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good.

Ah, all becomes clear! So this is a family feud is it? :)

Your diatribe is most amusing, as others have said - present some photographic evidence rather than ranting on about estimated heights over your building!

[robin]

The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed

I'm afraid that the information you have posted here would not pass any legal test. You cannot quote the aircraft type or model, the registration number or anything that could identify the aircraft concerned. The pilot, no doubt, will have his own views on his behaviour and the height he turned over your driveway. Without his (or her) side of the story you will have to excuse us from accepting your story as being a full and authoritive set of facts.

In fact, I would caution you against making further such comments. You have just implied that the pilot concerned was flying in a dangerous manner, but nothing you have written here would stand up in court. In fact, the pilot might even have the right to sue you.

[airborne_artist]

Ms Lacey - the problem you have is that you have made at least one complaint about a specific aircraft, when it was later shown beyond doubt that the aircraft concerned had not even left the ground on the day you were so sure it had "buzzed" your house. The details of this are earlier on this thread.

It's hard to keep taking seriously some one who cries wolf when there is no wolf present.

I very much doubt that any pilot, unless in the middle of an emergency, would be flying at 100' directly above your house. They might be at 100 feet above the ground, while in the process of landing or taking off, but their flight path will not be overhead your property.

[Evalu8ter]

Ms Lacey,
May I suggest you take up Mariner 9's very kind offer? We in the military helicopter community had a similar communication breakdown with the horse-riding community a few years ago. We were accused, it seemed, of wantonly flying around the countryside at 50 feet (Military helicopters can be authorised to do so, but not over your house, honest!) looking for horses to upset. Much of this sprang from the tragic case of Heather Bell in Lincolnshire. We engaged the Horsey set, invited them to fly with us and explained why we needed to train so low. They took it on board, we arranged a modified low flying system and a hotline, and a much healthier relationship between the two camps now exists.

As with so many things, a little education, both ways, can go a long way.

[moggiee]

I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
I've double checked G-CVBV and not only is there no such registration, there never has been.

So, reading your post we can say that either:

a) Your eyesight and/or memory are not good enough to collect evidence reliably (it would be a good laugh if you admitted this!).

b) The aeroplane was too far away for the registration to be read clearly (in which case it was VERY much more than 100' away)

or

c) it was wearing a false registration (and therefore the owner was a fully qualified idiot because he's using the aeroplane at an airport and is certain to be found out).

My money is on option b).

[Captain Smithy]

Ahem... is this a wind-up?

"...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..."

Pish. :rolleyes:

"Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate."

Pish. :rolleyes:

"My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation."

Also pish. :rolleyes:

May I suggest among my fellow PPRuNErs/pilots that we ignore this troublemaker in future.

"Noise causing headaches" - mince. Ever tried living next door to an international airport? No I suspect not.

"Air tax" - cack. Try being a pilot, then you will know about charges.

"Failure to regulate private regulation" - balls. Again, try being a pilot. Then you will know what regulation really is. Medicals, licensing, training, renewals, visits to Gatwick Ivory Towers, charges involved in doing so... and reading a PPL course book in Air Law will make your eyes pop out :eek: So don't EVER dare call us "unregulated"!

Now get back to reading that beloved Tory rag of a "newspaper" of yours, there's plenty else in there to moan about. I hear Daily Tory readers like moaning a lot about Tax. That will keep you occupied for a while.:*

Idiot.

[ZH875]

Her website says it all:

"A company dedicated to publishing fiction."

Enough said.

:mad:

[Captain Smithy]

Just reading through that rant again - so confused, hysterical and long-winded that I had to read it twice to make any sense of it - and I found this statement:

"Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore."

I happen to fly without a license. Why? Because I'm a student.

Next time you encounter a "low-flying aircraft" (sic) which is so noisy (sic) that it is "giving you a headache" (again, sic), take a photograph and post it on here. Then we will suss you out whether you do have a genuine issue, or are merely Trolling.

The ball is in your court.

[flybymike]

At least she hasn't succombed to the inexorable advance of the American way of spelling "Licence"...;)

[Contacttower]

Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.


Just curious, where did you hear that?

Assuming that it isn't simply referring to trainee pilots. The aviation community is quite a small world so a scandal like that would get around quite quickly and almost certainly find its way onto here. Also since I happen to fly in Wiltshire (not anywhere near Redlands) I would be interested to know which airfields specifically you are referring to.

[Bravo73]

Do that mob who fly out of Lyneham have 'licences'? :E

[poss]

On another note with the people flying without licenses, assuming they are not student pilots, where would they get the aircraft? No flying club would allow them to fly and I would bet that no private owner would allow a non PPL to fly their aircraft down to it most definitely not been covered in the insurance. Honestly, that, the aircraft registration you have given us which doesn't belong to an aircraft and the other dodgy things you have told us really does make one lean towards the fact that you are indeed just angry at aircraft flying above your house at all. The result been that you make up things to complain about that aren't true and maybe to get a little bit of attention.
It would be wise to not state your opinion, seemingly untrue events or things you have heard as fact without adequate proof, parties involved may wish to seek legal action against you for such accusations.

[Captain Smithy]

I suspect The Enraged One is merely stirring trouble by making false accusations.:rolleyes:

[Mariner9]

Apparently false accusations against an unknown aircraft even!

All this talk of legal action is misplaced though, and adds undue credence to her seemingly unfounded claims. If she had named an valid a/c reg things might have been different, but as she hasn't, who can sue and for what? :=

[moggiee]

We get this sort of tosh from our local nimbies all the time. Accusations of low flying, buzzing houses, dive-bombing etc.

The usual mantra is "I have photos of the aeroplane and its registration and have taken legal action - you just wait". So wait we do - and wait, and wait, and wait..........

No legal action is ever taken, despite all the bluster, because there is never a case to answer.

All the credibility of a Zimbabwean presidential election.

[Captain Smithy]

"All the credibility of a Zimbabwean presidential election."

Heh heh heh! That made me chuckle. Brought some humour to this thread.

[nissangaz]

Can I just say to the pilot that has been asked to orbit by the ATC, and then was forgotton about for 8 hours, you have my deepest sympathy. Especially if you are a student doing your first solo! My god how much would that have cost?

8 x £120 ish = £960 I wonder if he/she got charged a landing fee as well. (Gumpfff):rolleyes:

[airborne_artist]

Apart from the soon-to-be-defunct burners of heavy oil, is there a single-engined aircraft that has a duration approaching eight hours at 100' AGL? :E

[IO540]

Yes, a TB20 could do 10-12hrs, at some ridiculously low power setting and flying ~ 100kt. Mind you, it would be damned difficult to pee into the plastic bottle and then screw the cap onto it while flying at 100 ft :)

[poss]

Yes, a TB20 could do 10-12hrs, at some ridiculously low power setting and flying ~ 100kt. Mind you, it would be damned difficult to pee into the plastic bottle and then screw the cap onto it while flying at 100 ft

I will take your challenger sir! I just need a TB20 :ugh:.

[Insight]

I was just wondering, given all these reports of parachutists, low flying aircraft, endless circling, extreme noise, registrations which don't seem to exist etc...

I wonder if Ms Lacey isn't recalling events from some 60 odd years ago :)

Have you tried sending your complaints to the Luftwaffe? :)

[K.Lacey]

We are in the 21st Century and aviation needs to get with it...At least the Luftwaffe were honorable Gentlemen which is more than can be said for the appalling dregs of humanity who are flying from Redlands and some other north Wiltshire airfields.
Since I complained on this forum my property and I have been overflown, I assume deliberately by the following planes at low height - G-AXUB, G-VANA, G-MVVP, G-MVAF, G-BBBY. Indeed at 4.30 p.m. today G-VANA flew over me at about 100-120 feet whil'st I was lying in my garden. I had a good view of its underside and its doorless body...how do I know how high it was flying? Well I could read its reg. no unaided and it was just above Poplar trees whose height is about 70-80 feet.
So why do they fly over my property so low when they know it causes offence, is a nuisance and could be dangerous? We do shoot pigeon here..best not to fly under 200 feet!
Interestingly, people at the other end of the runway believe that pilots fly better when the camcorders are pointing at them. The footage will be going up on You-Tube soon along with the reg. no's and owners details..
the question is - why do these pilots fly so low? They must be very bad pilots - there is oodles of farmland around our houses, indeed to come near houses takes some effort! Also why does the owner of G-VANA, Peter Marsden, allow his plane to be flown so recklessly? - after the Standard Board investigation which condemned the behaviour of the airfield owner, the pilot flew this plane only 30 feet above the roof of my house on three separate occasions. All reported to the CAA - even if they can't do anything they need to be aware of rogue pilots. A pilot also seems to like flying along the busy A419 as someone else reported this plane to the CAA for flying low over a main road near the local hospital. to recap - not only was I overflown because I did my civic duty but someone left a bag of human excrement of my driveway, and threw broken glass and nails there too. A coincidence? I don't think so.
Is it acceptable to fly in circles over built up areas with thousands of residents for hours at a time? Over the last few weekends we have had 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 hours of skydiving flying a day with no rest.
We are also under the Heathrow and Lyneham flight paths so planes are common, but these do not cause a nuisance.
We have still not had an answer as to how the council has allowed the runways to be widened and lengthened without planning permission - nor have we had a reply from the council over the aircraft that are being used and whether they comply with planning permission.
As to pilots flying without licences - we'll I'm sure they could fly from Redlands and other strips in this area without any trouble. I have also recorded the reg. no of an aircraft which dosn't officially exist on another occasion..and no, I don't think I misread it...don't you just like a good mystery?
One of the problems is - no one enforces aviation planning permission. If skydiving planes at Lewknor can fly 42 days a year instead of the legal 28 and get away with it, what kind of a message does this send out? And yes, there are four local councils around the airfield who object to skydiving there...but are powerless to stop the nuisance - is there anywhere where skydiving is popular with local people?
All I can say is, those who have been forced to object to nuisances such as skydiving and gliding - are now starting to talk to each other and unite...

[K.Lacey]

Micriolight pilots can own their own aircraft...you can buy one on e-bay - well, THEY think that they are aircraft - the rest of us think of them as flying lawnmowers....

[K.Lacey]

What a cheek - maybe I should drop the bag of excrement that some aviation person left in my driveway on you....

I wouldn't say I was enraged - I'm Athene Pallas - and my wings carry my wisdom around the world...

[K.Lacey]

What bluster? We have videos - we have photos - even the local council and the local MP have them... It's not a good idea to bait a bear who is biding its time - you are likely to get eaten...I love a fight and I love the cut and thrust of litigation - just the thought of entering a court room and performing gives me a high...better than the orgasmic groans we get here from the skydivers as they fall to earth..and now you know why grown men who should know better jump out of planes at £250 quid plus a time for a two to three minute drop - not as cheap tho' as going to a red light diistrict....

[K.Lacey]

How about coming to this area and listening to the noise and watching the nuisance aircraft or ARE YOU one of the pilots who are wicked? How about doing something useful like trying to trace the aircraft that flew over me at 100 feet from Lotmead Farm- I note the owner Mr Norman Parry dosn't return my phone calls? Why? Is he guilty? He doen't answer the phone to other people either...

[K.Lacey]

How about being a nice person and finding out who flew over me with a dodgy registration number or do you believe that all car registration numbers are legal? I can make allegations based on what we have witnessed and I would state so in a court of law - it is for you to disprove them...furthermore I'd love to sue YOU for libel - I must say that those of you on this forum have a nice line in sexism, homophobia, prejudice, probably racism, disbelief....what a lovely lot of people I don't think!

[airborne_artist]

I note the owner Mr Norman Parry dosn't [sic] return my phone calls? Why? Is he guilty? He doen't [sic] answer the phone to other people either...I'd advise against making what could be construed as nuisance calls to people, in favour of a clearly worded complaint to the CAA. Nuisance calls come under three Acts of Parliament:
The Malicious Communications Act 1988, which lists offences relating to sending indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communications or articles with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to those receiving them.
The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, under which a person must not pursue a course of conduct
(a) which amounts to harassment of another person, and
(b) which he/she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another person.
The Telecommunications Act of 1984, which states that a person who:
(a) “sends, by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
or
(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a telecommunications system,”
is guilty of an offence.Best to stay the right side of the law if you are accusing others of not doing so. :ok:

[K.Lacey]

Airfield Regulation Part two.

Why do airfields need to be regulated?
When our local dairy farm decided to become an airfield neither the council nor the owners asked the electricity company whether it would be safe with high voltage electricity cables all over the land. I did point out to the council of the dangers of these cables but no one took any notice. Where was the legal requirement to declare a danger? Where was the guidance to the council so that they would know what questions to ask? where was the legislation to ensure that the council would do a good job in granting planning permission? Well, last year I had a very interesting conversation with an electrician working for the electricity board. He said that they had only just discovered that the cables were live and uncovered and if an aircraft had hit one the occupants would have been electrocuted. As these cables were by the barn where aircraft are stored he said that it had been dangerous. So there you have it - those pilots using this airfield had been put in danger and at risk for nearly 10 years. It's not something the owners would publiciize is it? The owner, I was told,had to pay to have the cables replaced. The owner at about this time also sold his business to another company. I wonder if they know that the land is scheduled for development and we have been told that building is due to start on the northern end at the end of this year? Who would invest in a business with a limited lifespan? Or perhaps the owners know something that the rest of us don't - that development won't go ahead!
Secondly there was no environmental impact assessment undertaken - even though a local pilot told us that it should have been - and also Manches the law firm said the same. Where was the legislation and guidance to ensure that this was done? The council said they didn't need to do it - if they had - maybe the overhead electricity cables issue would have been discovered...
So a poor airfield gives aviation a bad name...

[K.Lacey]

Don't know why he isn't answering the phone - only an answerphone there - maybe a letter might get a response?

[airborne_artist]

I can make allegations based on what we have witnessed and I would state so in a court of law - it is for you to disprove them

No, it's for the prosecution to prove their case against the accused in an English criminal court. The accused does not have to prove anything, as he/she is innocent until proven guilty.

Best to know how the law works :ok:

[flybymike]

I think we have enough ammunition in the last few posts to send round the men in white coats....

[youngskywalker]

I have these visions of the female equivelant of the jibbering wreck 'Inspector Dreyfuss' of Clueso fame!

You are as mad as a bag of weasels! :\

[airborne_artist]

Well, last year I had a very interesting conversation with an electrician working for the electricity board. He said that they had only just discovered that the cables were live and uncovered and if an aircraft had hit one the occupants would have been electrocuted. As these cables were by the barn where aircraft are stored he said that it had been dangerous. It's unlikely that a pilot would attempt to land immediately adjacent to a barn/hangar and/or HV cables, and I very much doubt any pilot would deliberately place themselves in such danger.

The owner at about this time also sold his business to another company. I wonder if they know that the land is scheduled for development and we have been told that building is due to start on the northern end at the end of this year? Who would invest in a business with a limited lifespan? Or perhaps the owners know something that the rest of us don't - that development won't go ahead!Caveat emptor - a buyer of a business and/or a freehold or leasehold will have had plenty of opportunity to conduct local planning searches and ask questions of the seller that would reveal such plans. Not quite sure what it has to do with allegations of low flying, though?

Why not post some pictures hear of the low flying so we can judge them for ourselves? :ok:

[don't_ask_me]

Jolly good.

Has anyone seen this yet?

Planning Report Thing (http://ww2.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000281/M00001707/AI00007286/$RedlandsFarmReportAppendixA.docA.ps.pdf)


Makes for some interesting reading. NO objections during this planning process, in fact, ten people in favour of it from the loacal area. (This is an application for the extended use of the An2.)

"The take off and landing route shown means that the aircraft would not
pass directly over any properties below a height of approximately 1000
feet."
...The rules are there, but the question is are they being followed by Redlands?

"-thanks Council Officers for the helpful and constructive meeting with Julia
Drown MP and local residents.
-disappointed that the organisers of the 'Stop The Skydive Redlands
Plane' petition and campaign could not attend the meeting as it was an
ideal opportunity to meet and address their concerns and move forward
together." (letter from Mr Smith of Redlands Airfield)
They did try to help you!

Funny how you can make so many posts without including an argument which can't be thrown out in a few minutes.

Give us some evidence, or better, give the CAA your evidence!

don't_ask

[Monocock]

K. Lacey

You are one very sad, bored, and clearly very frustrated individual. I hope for your sake that this issue stops eating you up soon as it is unfounded and doing you no good whatsoever.

Roll on the summer skies and get those engines warmed. This summer's gonna be a good one.

:}

[Captain Smithy]

Ms. Lacey

I suggest you are on VERY shaky ground if you are threatening libel against anyone here... considering the number of FALSE ACCUSATIONS and outrageous statements YOU have been making here.

I don't agree with what some people have been saying here, in fact some of it has been OTT and I also think that it does give aviation/PPRuNE a bad name, but if I'm brutally honest you invite it upon yourself.

If you have the photos, then post them here on this very thread for us all to see.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Smithy

[BRL]

K Lacey. Firstly I must add that I am sorry for the behaviour of the individual(s) who has "left a bag of human excrement of my driveway, and threw broken glass and nails there too." In my book and almost everybody else's here too, that is out of order.

The best thing you can do right now to gain any credibility back is to supply us with hard evidence to back up your claims.

Photos or video of the low flying would obviously help, as you say You Tube can be used so do provide us with a link so we can see for ourselves.

If no evidence is supplied in your next few posts then I think a ban is on the horizon or, at the very least, this thread will end up in the bin. Choice is yours.....

[hobbit1983]

Ms. Lacey,

...I love a fight and I love the cut and thrust of litigation - just the thought of entering a court room and performing gives me a high...better than the orgasmic groans we get here from the skydivers as they fall to earth..and now you know why grown men who should know better jump out of planes at £250 quid plus a time for a two to three minute drop - not as cheap tho' as going to a red light diistrict....

I will admit to not being a legal expert, but I would have thought the above highlighted could get you sued for libel.

At least the Luftwaffe were honorable Gentlemen which is more than can be said for the appalling dregs of humanity who are flying from Redlands and some other north Wiltshire airfields.

"Appalling dregs of humanity"? I'm not even going to diginify this with further response.

furthermore I'd love to sue YOU for libel - I must say that those of you on this forum have a nice line in sexism, homophobia, prejudice, probably racism, disbelief....what a lovely lot of people I don't think!

You may have noted that some posters on this forum have offered to (quite politely) help you; even to the point of offering a flight in their aircraft. Yet you seem to have dismissed these out of hand (in some cases in a very rude manner), and gone on to rant without trying to discuss issues rationally - which would most likely lead to resolution of your gripes.

It's all very well posting about aircraft registrations & heights etc; how about posting said photos/videos etc, since apparently you're more than happy to post them on YouTube - along with pilots personal details it would seem!

You do seem to be giving the impression you're either not really interested in resolving matters peaceably (either that or this is a wind up from another poster :ok: )

I love a fight and I love the cut and thrust of litigation - just the thought of entering a court room and performing gives me a high...

I wouldn't say I was enraged - I'm Athene Pallas - and my wings carry my wisdom around the world...

[Supersport]

K.Lacey,

Your ignorance both disgusts and astounds me. You make a comment like this:

I love a fight and I love the cut and thrust of litigation - just the thought of entering a court room and performing gives me a high...better than the orgasmic groans we get here from the skydivers as they fall to earth..and now you know why grown men who should know better jump out of planes at £250 quid plus a time for a two to three minute drop - not as cheap tho' as going to a red light diistrict....

Then you have the gaul to post this comment:

I must say that those of you on this forum have a nice line in sexism, homophobia, prejudice, probably racism, disbelief....what a lovely lot of people I don't think!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the first statement you made above, a black and white stereotypical view of Men in general? You then go on to accuse other posters of it, when you are infact, just as guilty as the others, narrow minded bigotry to say the least.

From reading your replies contained in this thread, I'd highly recommend looking at the way you approach your 'litigation', I would love to see the Judge's face in a court of law when:

1) You tell him it is up to the defendant(s) to prove his innocence and;

2) When you rant on with the type of ill thought out comments you have made here.

Secondly, I would think it wise for you to not to mention specifics with regards to the aircraft / owners that are apparently dangerously flying over your house for the following reasons:

1) Your eyes may decieve you, you have already mentioned an aircraft registration that you say suspiciously doesn't exist. I would say that rather than something untoward going on, the probability would much higher that you actually read the registration incorrectly. As you may be making mistakes like this, you could well be defaming a perfectly innocent person;

2) Throughout this thread your address / location is widely publicised. Although I completely condemn it, it comes as no surprise to me that people have taken the law into their own hands and are leaving such surprises for you on your doorstep, especially after reading certain comments you have made here. Hence, another reason for heeding 1) above. Before, you get on your high horse, that is not a threat, just sound advice for your own safety and well being.

Finally, I have a question for you and I would very much appreciate it if you could answer it for me:

In what field of business if any, have you been involved in which has enabled you to accurately estimate the height of an aircraft?

In my experience, I have found it very difficult to accurately estimate distance by eye.

Regards,

SS

[Captain Smithy]

As this thread rumbles on, it is increasingly obvious to me that Ms. Lacey is merely one of those Daily Mail-reading professional moaners who likes to stir up trouble merely for the sake of it. They appear in all walks of life now and again.

I agree with BRL; Ms. Lacey has one more post to prove her argument. May I suggest that in her next and final post, if she does not 1) come up with adequate photographic/video evidence or 2) provide a convincing enough argument, i.e. a SENSIBLE and MATURE one minus the hyped-up mumbo-jumbo that has so far been present in her argument, that the thread is closed pronto, Ms. Lacey is banned from PPRuNE and the issue is killed off.

[Sallyann1234]

A distasteful matter I know, but how did Ms Lacey identify the excrement in the bag as being of human origin?
I have seen bags of excrement dropped in bins by dog-walkers and would have great difficulty in telling the difference.

[eltonioni]

If this bag ever existed in real life.

[Flintstone]

Ms Lacey.

I have read this thread all the way through and am disappointed with several aspects including some postings from the more feeble minded members of this forum (most of which have been deleted by the moderators). Your own 'contributions' have hardly been blameless however coming across as unproven accusations that merely serve to undermine your own credibility. They bear marked similarities to the accusations made by anti-airfield protesters in Clacton 17 years ago almost all of which were proven to be groundless and destroyed their own case at the planning hearings.

If you have proof of any illegal goings on then please post them here and silence your naysayers. If, as I suspect, these accusations are merely the product of your overactive imagination then I would ask you to stop this childish nonsense and the moderators to close your account here. Reasoned debate is one thing, outrageous lies serve no purpose.

[Captain-Random]

4 years on... Did anything ever happen regarding Ms Lacey's constant complaining?

[Jetblu]

I understand the lady in question went on to marry Mr Whoflungdatdung and the smallholding is now a prosperous tomato farm. :}

All the airborne topless shots were returned.