Oban/Glenforsa News

[flybymike]

What is a "Category Two Islander?"

[gasax]

What is a "Category Two Islander?"

An aircraft up to, but not including, 12m in length.....

As opposed to a Category Three aircraft up to, but not including, 18m in length.....

[NorthSouth]

The resumption of the full length runway means that it is now possible to accommodate not only the Category Two Islander aircraft which flies to the islands, but also larger Category Three aircraft.

There have already been a number of larger aircraft visiting the airport and the demand from visiting aircraft to return to Oban is extremely encouraging.Interesting. What are these larger aircraft, given that both the current and next cycle AIP entries for Oban contain no reference to an increase in declared runway lengths, nor is there any NOTAM out announcing an increase in the runway length.

NS

[gasax]

These are 'political aircraft. Based upon the theory that if you build it the trade will come. In this case it is providing 8 full time jobs - so obviously the larger aircraft which have always been frustrated by the reduced runway length will flock to the lock block apron.

As always with ABC wishful thinking and a complete ignorance of the facts will out.

[mad_jock]

Airpolice the written form isn't my best I would fully agree. And yes I had remedial help up to 16 years old with it, and even failed O grade english first time. But you can be assured the science subjects and maths no additonal help was required.

In fact my partner in crime in said remedial classes, who also had his arm put in a sling to stop him using his left hand, is part of the design team at CERN that has just managed to hold antimatter for a 1000 seconds. I am no where near his level of inteligence but then again not many folk are. But you can't trust him with a screw driver and he can't reverse park a car if his life was riding on it. He doesn't like being called rainman either.

As for the council and manning levels, its fairly typical method of down sizing without getting to much adverse PR. Drop from 12-8 with 4 getting relocated to different jobs, then in a few months time things arn't working so chop another couple. Give it another couple of months then chop another 2 if folk haven't left already, then another couple of months and things still haven't improved chop another 2 and your then down to a more realistic 2-3 members of staff.

As a suggestion to the firemen why don't you use that highly expensive compressor for your BA sets to fill diving bottles?

And get someone skilled up enough to hydrotest the bottles. There are hundreds of the bloody things in the area (all the firestations need them done as well) and the last time I needed one done in that area it had to go down to Glasgow or Aberdeen. 30 quid a pop for a hydrotest and 5 quid a fill for a diver.

But then this obvious branching out using payed for reasources is so against the normal council employee mentality I am sure they will find a whole raft of rules which prevents them from aquiring I will admit a modest income stream.

As for the style of the airport and customer experence they really need to get a grip. There are quite a few highly experenced controllers in semi retirement kicking around the highlands, the one that springs to mind I was suprised to see in the Scilly Islands last time I visited. Get one of them in with a sharp pencil with the rule book and show the lads how to really run a FISO service. Do some exchanges with other FISO service airports which have way more experence than Oban. The level of traffic of big stuff is pie in the sky but with a change in attitude you should be able to increase the GA significantly.

[140KIAS]

I see there is a Face=book page entitled "Support Oban Airport" which seems to be celebrating the return of all the jet and turbine traffic since the fence came down.

However having flown overhead yesterday I see the displaced threshold markings are still there, suggesting the LDA/TORA/TODA or whatever are as before.

So whats changed ?

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

So whats changed ?


Someones learned to use the airport computer?

WW:E

[Helen49]

Could it just be that there are only a limited number of companies in the business of painting airfield markings; the weather has been unsettled in recent weeks [particularly in western Scotland]; there are other airfields in the queue for painting; hence the delay?? Oh and perhaps you cannot publish revised distances until the markings are in place?

[dont overfil]

No changes to the AIP entry since September last year so no hurry then!

I do believe it is an expensive operation to get the markings removed. It would probably have been cheaper to bulldoze the fence and face the consequences. It's kind of like when I was a kid I prayed to god for a bike with no success. So I stole one and prayed for forgiveness.

140KIAS try landing before the threshold and see if you still get MORed:=

If all the AC that touch down short at one of the fields you visited at the weekend were MORed there would be no room in the hangar for aircraft because of the paperwork.:ok:

Edited to say I stand corrected. Notam states there may be wip on runway markings in the evenings. Black tippex?
D.O.

[fisbangwollop]

Q) egpx/qfahw/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/07/05 12:39c) to: 11/07/09 12:00

e) wip renewing ad linemarking (possibly working until sunset).
Contact ad on 01631 710 910 for further updates during operational
hours.

L2958/11

[140KIAS]

Could it just be that there are only a limited number of companies in the business of painting airfield markings; the weather has been unsettled in recent weeks [particularly in western Scotland]; there are other airfields in the queue for painting; hence the delay?? Oh and perhaps you cannot publish revised distances until the markings are in place?

That may well be the case but until its changed the TODA/LDA remains reduced. It doesnt explain how all of a sudden there is an increase in small jets and turbines which previously were supposedly unable to land due to the reduced distances.

[140KIAS]

If all the AC that touch down short at one of the fields you visited at the weekend

I think you've mistaken me for my partner in crime. I hear its his turn to buy the beers which would be a first :8

[mad_jock]

Its prob more likely that the paint burning machine of the council is already booked out all summer on road works.

And two council deptments interacting with each other is always rife with problems. If it would have been a private booking they would have done it on over time so it would have been done and dusted with in a week.

Then nodoudt there are a heap of rules about having a lorry which for all intents and purposes is a large bomb full of gas etc airside. Unfortunately the blokes that drive it have been working for the council for the last 25 years and there are maybe issues getting them CRC checked for airport pass.

Then there will be SEPA involved and a risk assesment of contamination of ground water etc etc.

then if it damages the runway who will pay for it getting fixed cause they can't just get the council tar wagon round to fill in the damage. And as I know your reading this do check because the tarmac of the runway is different to roads.

So its proberly going to cost more than the total revenue off big fancy aircraft for the next 5-10 years getting rid of the old lines and getting the new ones.

[Helen49]

Mad Jock

Your nonsensical, mischievous and unnecessary speculation befits your nom de plume. For goodness sake, give the place a chance!!!

[mad_jock]

Realistically Helen it doesn't have a chance in hell in its current form.

You have the majority of the customer base are actively avoiding the place.

You have stupid rules which don't allow passing traffic in.

You have a mindset of MORing the customers for the slightest infringements of the bizzare rules that only Oban has. Not that I might add that MORing anyone actually does anything apart from creating paper work for the person filling it in.

The sad thing is that the aviators in scotland want to use the place. They won't in the current form.


Yes you have a whole load of supporters, but they make a living off the place and a whole load of detractors who oban needs to use the place and get the money out of our pockets.

So you see its stuffed.

[Captain Smithy]

The problem is that the airfield (not "airport", airfield, there is a difference) is run by the council. Councils generally are not good at all at running very many things. And they certainly wouldn't know how to operate an aerodrome properly.

Were it handed over to another operator with half a scooby doo about how to run an airfield business would probably pick up substantially.

Petty arguments, the millstones of politics & local government and zealousness with regards to enforcing operating procedures (MORs etc.) have damaged Oban's reputation, which also damages business.

There is also the sad fact of political egoism - shared among many airfield operators - that the operator (A&B Council) cannot accept that Oban is not an Intergalactic Spaceport, it never will be and it is "merely" a small General Aviation airfield (and a damn fine one at that) and that its clientelle will never move beyond private singles/twins and the occassional smallest of exec turboprops/jets (with the odd commercial inter-island light twin every now and then). If the operators understood and accepted that and focussed on attracting business from this group instead of trying to mould it into some sort of mini-Heathrow then things would look very bright indeed for Oban.

Smithy

[maxred]

cs- Agreed, but............

A 'business' requires sales. Sales requires a strategy. A strategy then requires marketing. A successful business requires PEOPLE. Oban unfortunately, does not have many people. Nor the surrounding area.

A private operator therefore would struggle to make a commercial success of the 'AIRFIELD'. The problem.

Can it be gifted to an operator?? Not sure.

Can it exist as an airfield? Not sure, unless someone writes off the debt. Can this happen............

Need to go and figure this out over a beer:zzz:

[Helen49]

Mad Jock

I'm not sure whether it is your use of English or whether you think I have a vested interest in Oban. If it is the latter, I can assure you that I haven't! I just find it sad that there is so much pathetic, mischievous sniping about the place. Like I said, give it a chance!!

[Captain Smithy]

Fair points maxred, but I still think perhaps the coonsil got ideas far and away above their station when they decided to take the place on and develop it.

Oban seemed to be doing not too badly for itself until the current lot came along with their visions. The fact is it was a flawed idea from the start.

Oban is too remote for any practical commercial aviation use - as you say, not enough people... also the airfield (sic) is a small GA aerodrome without the space/facilities for commercial operations. You could put what you like in. ILS, Radar, full ATSU, it simply would never work. With circa 4000 feet of tarmac, a small apron and no room for any expansion, not to mention the low local population density, realistically, would you ever be able to run commercial flights from that? :suspect: The plan had no logic and was completely unworkable from the start.

There again however, from a private & business flying perspective, things are a totally different ball game. The airfield is mere minutes away from Oban itself, a popular tourist destination, and a stepping stone to the Highlands & Islands - again popular with private aviators. The airfield itself is in a lovely location. Oban was always a good fuel stop before going further North or West. The A83 runs right past the entrance. For someone doing business on the West Coast and using a light single/twin it would be ideal.

Not much money to be made from private aviation? Hmm, moot point, there again if Oban was primarily marketed at the groups mentioned above, it could be a useful little enterprise. If it was run as a GA airfield, with minimal overheads and no political interference... :\

Smithy

[mad_jock]

Use of english.

And its not intended to be sniping.

Its meant to be out and out ripping the piss out of stupidity and incompetence.

Its hardly my fault there is such an abundance of material.

And give them a chance of what?. Pissing yet more tax payers money up the wall? If we don't highlight when things are stupid it will never change.

I bet most councillers have this thread book marked, if they believed everything they were told through official channels they might actually think things are great at Oban.

Smithy has it right. And the only way to make any money is not open to them which is the fuel.

[gasax]

Helen - we gave it a chance!

How many more million will the council waste before the plug is pulled?

With the 'reduced' staff of 8 its overheads are enourmous - about 8 times larger than the tradecan bear.

Last weekend I had a friend who wanted lunch on the West coast - the evening before I had stated 'No problem'. The choices? Oban, Glenforsa, Gigha and Plockton. I've listed them in the order of aggravation and hassle. Naturally we went to Plockton. No stupid rules, no 'ealth and safety tabards, an honesty box - what an obvious choice!

Give it a chance - only when they finally smell the coffee!

[maxred]

Question - does it still SHUT at 5????????

[Captain Smithy]

As far as I'm aware it still shuts. But there is an out-of-hours indemnity you can apply for. At extra cost obviously.

Mad Jock just hit the bullseye as always with his unique brand of wordsmithery. Summed up the whole saga in one swift post...

Smithy

[p1andy]

yeah shuts at 1715hrs. I found this out last week when trying for ppr and had to get the out of hours permit to land there.
Nice little airfield, great scenery with the weather we had for our visit.

[macsharon]

I am an aircraft owner based at Oban, and I am utterly dismayed at the council's decision to ban users from refuelling our aircraft with mogas. We agreed and adhered to refuelling guidelines set out a few years ago, when the airfield fuelling operator could no longer supply quality assured mogas.

This decision has come out of the blue, and with no consultation with the users. I'd love to know how the council intend ensuring that visiting aircraft are using only avgas? Will this be a requirement for PPR I wonder?

I am so fed up with all the arguments across the airfield, and this ludicrous ruling is the final straw. I am pretty sure I am going to sell my share of the aircraft - I do not have the energy for a fight and have lost any motivation for flying from Oban.
:mad:

Sharon MacKechnie

[flybymike]

What reason is given for the ban?

[macsharon]

They have taken a quote from AirBP, who do not recommend the use of mogas because its quality cannot be assured.

That's pretty much it.

[Jan Olieslagers]

But is that the reason, or is it only an excuse?

(but it might well be that to ask this question is to answer it)

[gasax]

Well isn't it nice to see the airfiled management - who tried to 'steal' the fuel sales from the existing contractor so fully supporting him by prohibiting refuelling with Mogas?

Where is Helen49 to justify the actions of these morons?

[macsharon]

I'm not having at go at the airfield staff who, without exception are excellent; nor am I having a go at the fuel operator who has always been very helpful to me.

I'm just venting my despair that bureaucracy has sucked the fun out of aviation for me.

[Maoraigh1]

You've had your aircraft converted to use ecofriendly lead-free mogas, and A&B are preventing you from doing so? Get the Environmental guys on your side.
I hope people don't think I use mogas just because it's cheaper.:E

[helicopter-redeye]

...bureaucracy has sucked the fun out of aviation for me...

I was up in Oban all of last week and I'd say they've managed to suck the life out of the airfield as well. The quietest I have ever seen it for a sustained period of time. Quite a commercial coup - busiest to empty in only a few years.

Two cheers for A&BC:ok::ouch:

[xrayalpha]

Sharon,

It would be a shame to let this put you off.

Come on back down to Strathaven in the school holidays - we've even got a caravan!

(to think, people in Glasgow used to keep aircraft at Oban because of the great place it is)

[mad_jock]

Can you not put together a risk assesment linked in with the fact that you have operated for x numbers of years without there being an issue.

The fact that its scotland and your operating next to the sea means that the temprature range puts you in a low risk for using mogas. Also put in as well that the amount of traffic which will now not be able to use Oban is quite significant.

And a quote from AirBP!!! is hardly an unbias quote

[patowalker]

Air BP - MoGas (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=4503604&contentId=7063438)

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL04.pdf

[Say again s l o w l y]

So, who's going to tell Rotax that MOGAS is guaranteed death in fuel form?

If this is the case, then someone in Oban needs a kick in the backside.

The aircraft captain is the arbiter of what goes in the tanks, not an untrained council official who obviously doesn't know their nates from their articulatio cubititi.

[NorthSouth]

Presumably the council can't be saying that flying aircraft fuelled by mogas is unsafe, because if they are, they would have to ban all movements of such aircraft from Oban, Mull, Coll and Colonsay, in fact logically they would want to ban all such aircraft from overflying the Republic of Argyll & Bute. Just banning refuelling them at one airfield doesn't stop them flying there, and therefore does zero to address the perceived risk.

It must surely be about the health and safety aspects of storage and ground handling of fuel by untrained people? Then again, that would mean banning petrol lawn mowers...

Sharon, I know you've said you don't have the heart for a fight and I totally sympathise, but I'm sure it would be worth getting the CAA and the BMAA involved. Also, does Highland Council ban mogas refuelling at Dornoch, Plockton and Broadford? What does HIAL do?

NS

[mad_jock]

Dornoch, Plockton and Broadford are OK although I haven't seen anyone fueling for ages but then again there is nobody around to stop you.


As for HAIL INV it used to be OK as long as you didn't do it over grass or tarmac but if they did it on the concrete it was OK. Now everything has to go through the RVP I don't have a clue.

I suspect that someone has been given the job of getting the HAZMAT data sheet folder going or up to date. And instead of just going to ask the refueler for there COSH they have been doing an internet search to find them. When they have done this they have pulled up this little gem from AirBP.

Realistically I haven't seen any instances of accidents due to mogas refueling in the UK. And there arn't aircraft dropping out the sky using it.

I can understand that there will be restrictions on where you are allowed to refuel this is due to SEPA more than anything else on grass and stopping the tarmac rotting if spills occur on that.

But then again the airport can't dictate what the aero club does on its own leased ground. Especially when they have so many years of precidence of safely using mogas.

[avturboy]

The CAA document linked from post #1019 appears to give clear guidance on the circumstances where use of Mogas is acceptable. Am I to understand that local airfield procedures are not allowing these options to be used?

[140KIAS]

Is it a case of the local fuel company refusing to supply Mogas or are you being prevented from bringing your own fuel in ?

If its the latter could it be something to do with the local fuel company having sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield ?

[Maoraigh1]

"As for HAIL INV it used to be OK as long as you didn't do it over grass or tarmac but if they did it on the concrete it was OK. Now everything has to go through the RVP I don't have a clue."
We park in the short stay car park, with cards, and have had to buy trolleys to carry our mogas through the Single Entry Point. Security are very pleasant. I take three 20l cans through at a time.
I've just heard Tayside Police have banned all sales of petrol and deisel into cans - presumably due to the riots in an adjoining part of the UK.

[mad_jock]

Nice to hear a sensible solution is in place.

And I can understand Tayside banning sales, I really don't think that its going to affect Highland region though.

No doudt in Grampian police have the WRVS ready with their charity collection boxes at the ready to clear the streets. Nothing like the rattle of a collection box to stab fear into an Aberdionians heart.

[avturboy]

The link in post #1019 to BP leads to a page where the company policy towards mogas is explained; if your search the websites of all the major oil companies you find they all hold a similar view which does not support the use of mogas for aircraft; though they acknowledge that it is acceptable by other organisations. Concern about the quality assurance aspects of mogas is a major influence on the oil company position.

What is described in the recent posts here is that at one location the airfield operating company (A&BC) refuses to allow refuelling with mogas; while at different location another airfield operating company (HIAL) does allow it; that seems a bit inconsistent and from what I can see the fuel supplier at both locations is BP.

It seems quite strange that is it the larger of the two airports that does permit aircraft owners/operators to bring in their own mogas, one would have expected it to be the other way around.

[dont overfil]

A&BC are now so afraid of doing anything wrong they can't do anything right.

I believe they are about to hand over the operation of Glenforsa, their only profitable airfield. Ironically it was the best run of the lot.

It's a pity they have not yet managed to do that with Oban.
D.O.

[avturboy]

But who are A&BC afraid of?

If they were to be afraid of anyone I would expect that to be the CAA who grant the licence to operate; operating in compliance of the rules, 'keeping their noses clean' to retain their licence is logical.

However the CAA accept the supply and use of mogas in aircraft (within certain criteria) so why would they operate in way that is not a legal requirement and would seem to be against the spirit of recreational flying?

[flybymike]

Who are they handing Glenforsa over to?

[dont overfil]

Don't know yet. There's supposed to be an announcement shortly.
D.O.

[Dan the weegie]

Quite possibly because HIAL know that airworthiness isn't the responsibility of the airfield but lies solely at the feet of the owner/Pilot (and the CAMO if a contract is in place).
Also, should HIAL adopt this policy it would create a headache for them far in excess of what it's actually worth. It's not inconsistent at all, ABC are being idiots for no reason other than being scared of something they don't understand, this is what they've been doing for years.

[avturboy]

Sorry Dan the weegie but I was using inconsistent in terms of the different approaches of the two airfields in question. I understand the point you are making is that A&BC are being quite consistent in what appears to be a negative approach to this matter. The information and comment you have made is most helpful in explaining why the inconsistency exists.

It is such a shame when egos and ignorance (of the parties concerned) have such a negative influence on recreational flying activity.

[gasax]

Well Avturboy if you really want to see ignorance and arrogancve in action you have better than a thousand posts in this thread to work your way through.

Argyll coon'cil as living proof that if you want a job done badly - give it to the coon'cil.

[avturboy]

Thanks gasax, I've sampled posts at various stages through the topic, it is sad.

It is a shame that at GA field in such a beautiful location is embroiled in such negative controversy; especially when you consider that GA needs all the support it can get in the present climate.

[avturboy]

SoCal App raises a good point. If the designated fuel supplier is supplied by an oil company that does not support the use of a mogas and that supplier has sole rights to supply fuel, then it starts to make sense.

However it begs the question what is the extent of 'sole rights'? On the one hand it could extend to the exclusion of another supplier to compete with, but could/should this then extend to owner/operators who wishes to provide fuel only for their own use?

The latter position really doesn't sit comfortably in an a environment where one would expect support of recreational flying to be of the utmost importance.

It's not as though they are competing for the sale is it? If an aircraft is designed to run on mogas is it acceptable to use avgas as a substitute? my understanding it that it is not, could any mogas users please clarify this point please?

So the airfield is loosing nothing, but simply making life more difficult for its customers ... that really doesn't add up in the current economic climate where everyone 'should' be doing everything to chase every last piece of business ....

[Jan Olieslagers]

If an aircraft is designed to run on mogas is it acceptable to use avgas as a substitute? Aircraft are not designed for one fuel or another, engines are. One common engine designed for mogas is the 4 cylinder 4 cylinder Rotax 912 / 912S / 914, these can run on avgas as well as on mogas. For prolonged use of one or the other, different oils seem to be recommended. To do with the build-up of lead deposit, I was told.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

If its the latter could it be something to do with the local fuel company having sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield ?

It is the case that the resident fuel company has sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield, and therefore would be in a very vunerable position if they supplied uncompliant fuel to aircraft, considering the past attempts to remove them from Connel.


I believe they are about to hand over the operation of Glenforsa, their only profitable airfield. Ironically it was the best run of the lot.



Allegedly, the current mogas ban came about after the colorful council representative for a local grass airfield, facilitated large scale mogas refueling for a group of visiting aircraft (reason unknown) bringing about the attention and the wrath of Trading Standards, Elf and Safety, The Cooncil etc.:D

WW

[muffin]

The Rotax 912 etc can run on either mogas or avgas. If you run it on avgas however, you have to change the oil every 25 hours due to the lead deposits. Hence most Rotax owners run on Mogas whenever possible. It is also of course much cheaper.

Having followed the Oban saga for years and knowing the various protagonists, I suspect there is as usual more to this than meets the eye.

[manix-cs]

The Rotax 912 etc can run on either mogas or avgas. If you run it on avgas however, you have to change the oil every 25 hours due to the lead deposits.


Long term use of avgas also leads to deposits of lead round the valves and stems, according to articles and photos I've seen. Avgas use of more than 30% doubles the engine service costs, and also decreases the longevity of the engine........as well as being considerably more expensive in the first place!

[avturboy]

Captain WW, I understand your reply but it does not quite address the question I asked.

I understand that a designated fuel supplier would not be associated with supplying non-compliant fuel, which is how they would view mogas.

My question was the extent to which the term 'sole fuel supplier' is applied. Is it appropriate to consider an owner/operator sourcing fuel (mogas) only for their own use as a 'supplier', surely that is unreasonable in the extreme?

Recent replies indicate that it would be wrong to consider mogas/avgas to be completely interchangeable, if the designated supplier is not able to supply the required grade (because they choose not to handle mogas) then they are not loosing a sale by restricting customers who would choose to source their own mogas.

[Maoraigh1]

Allegedly, the current mogas ban came about after the colorful council representative for a local grass airfield, facilitated large scale mogas refueling for a group of visiting aircraft (reason unknown) bringing about the attention and the wrath of Trading Standards, Elf and Safety, The Cooncil etc."
When the Mull Fly-in used to attract large numbers of overnighting aircraft, we used vast quantities of petrol. I remember driving a friend's deisel astra estate to the Salen filling station, which was opened specially to fill the cans. There were several in the front passenger seatwell and on the front passengeer seat, as well as the rest of the estate. Who complained on this occasion?

[madflyer26]

140,

You have got it correct!

This was driven solely by TLC and Paul has convinced the council that Mogas is not fit for use in aircraft and Avgas is the only certified fuel that should be used.

I run a microlight school in Oban and I can guarantee you that not a drop of Avgas will go in my tank. If the council or TLC try to enforce it I will simply wheel my aircraft through the RVP gate and refuel there. If that gets me grief I will land on the beach or my friends field and refuel there.

Without consultation with the majority of the airfield users this letter indirectly from TLC through the council is not worth the paper that it is written on. All that will happen now is pilots will either fuel in the hangar out of sight or fuel elsewhere.

Paul used to stock Mogas then stopped and unfortunately for him that is not our problem.

Our aircraft are non certified and Rotax and Skydrive recommend the use of Mogas for our engines.

MF26

[patowalker]

It is the case that the resident fuel company has sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield, and therefore would be in a very vunerable position if they supplied uncompliant fuel to aircraft, considering the past attempts to remove them from Connel.

How can it be uncompliant fuel, when the use of mogas in an aircraft must be sanctioned by the CAA, either directly or through the BMAA or LAA?

Are they suggesting that aircraft are illegally using mogas?

[xrayalpha]

MadJock:

Microlighters - or anyone who has a Rotax - are well versed in petrol transport rules.

Here is the British Microlight Aircraft Association link to HSE approved rule statement:

British Microlight Aircraft Association,Information library,Miscellaneous,Petroleum FAQs (http://www.bmaa.org/catalogue_item.php?catID=3888&prodID=18974)

May be of use against the numpties!

[mad_jock]

Sorry I deleted the last post after it turned out to be a ploy of TLC.

I know there was a 45-50ltr thing in there somewhere.

I must admit when I shifted fuel it was in a 40t tanker.

What a stupid daft piece of local politics.

[madflyer26]

All,

This is the simple truth!

The middle end of GA is on it's backside and this has been very evident at Oban. There is also an influx of the middle end guys and gals moving to the lighter end which is generally powered by a Rotax variant of engine.

Paul is feeling the pinch at Oban. Before he found microlighters and such like an awkward inconvenience as they generally uplifted very little fuel of him making it less than worth while. Now he is using this sole supplier status to harness a market he wasn't interested in before and forcing them to use Avgas.

All that he will achieve by this is less people coming to Oban.

CWW, Your sentence should read that the elf and safety were informed of this fuel scandal on Mull due to the fact TLC informed them as he was most upset his lips were not wet from the fuel returns from the Yaks.

If he doesn't sell Mogas on the field and is not prepared too ,I see an opening for someone else to do it.

Regards
MF

[Ye Olde Pilot]

It appears Argyle and Bute have succeeded in removing a local radio presenter who was critical of their activities.

George Berry, the presenter of community radio station, Oban FM’s popular Sunday Morning with George Berry show, has given way to severe pressure to stand down and will no longer present the show.

There are many oddities about this situation. The first is that the punishment does not fit the ‘crime’.

The second is the role of Argyll and Bute Council in the evolving situation of Mr Berry’s departure.
Argyll News: Council pressured Oban FM to lose popular – but critical – presenter | ForArgyll Mobile Version (http://forargyll.com/2011/08/proven-council-pressured-oban-fm-to-lose-popular-but-critical-presenter/)

[Gelande Strasse]

If he doesn't sell Mogas on the field and is not prepared too ,I see an opening for someone else to do it.


Nip down to Lewis's I'm sure he'll welcome the custom!

GS

[flybymike]

Perhaps Mad Jock as a private enterprise could bring down a 40 ton tanker and open up a fuel stall on the field?
(You could make the most of two careers;) )

[sk8erboi]

Everyone on this forum should drop a note to the council quoting the CAA safety sense leaflet outlining the use of Mogas. And ask why the council are dictating policy on what people use in their aircraft based on self interested lobbying. And using an Air BP leaflet to back up the argument really defies belief.

As has been stated above many engines benefit from Mogas compared with Avgas. One could argue this move actually jeopardises safety. Indeed one could draw parallels with cars. Are the council next going to dictate that diesel is less flamable than petrol so we should all put diesel in our cars. Because BP said so because they make more money on it!!!!!

I hope this makes everyone wake up and realise that, despite being very good for the airfield IN THE PAST, Paul seems to be hell bent on destroying it now. I for one shall not uplift Avgas from him again and haven't since his last little tantrum.

[good morning]

CONFIRMATION OF APPROVED AVIATION FUEL SUPPLY AT OBAN AIRPORT
I am writing to inform you that in recent weeks the Council has undertaken research into the scope for the provision of a quality assured supply of Mogas at Oban Airport. The Council's fuel supplier, Total Logistic Concepts (TLC) has confirmed to the Council previously that they cannot secure from avaition fuel suppliers in the UK a quality assured source of Mogas.

In written correspondence received on 12 July 2011, Mr. Andrew Glendinning of AirBP's Fuel Quality Team confirmed that :-

"AirBP does not recommend or supply mogas for aviation use due mainly to the lack of "aviation quality" quality control during manufacture and distribution and the sheer variability in fuel formulation depending on the source refinery"

This opinion is shared by other industry experts who have been consulted by the Council.

The Council has a duty of care towards aircraft operators based at or visiting Oban Airport and must ensure that fuel supplied to aircraft at the airport is from a quality assured source. The Council fulfils this duty of care through it's exclusive fuel provider in Total Logistic Concepts (TLC), who supplies quality assured Avgas at the airport.

It is understood that some aircraft operators based at or visiting Oban Airport are fuelling their aircraft using non aviation specific fuel which is procured from sources outwith the airport. This practice must cease forthwith.

The Council has approached TLC to discuss the logistics of supplying fuel to all light aircraft based at Oban Airport and have had positive discussions regarding the potential provision of a reduced fuel tarrif for Avgas for local fliers.

The Council's primary responsibility at Oban Airport is it's duty of care for air safety.
Airport and aircraft safety is however a responibility which all fliers based at or visiting Oban Airport share. The Council, through it's exclusive fuel supplier, ensures that aircraft have access to a quality assured aviation specific fuel source at the airport. All fliers based at or visiting Oban Airport must therefore use the Avgas fuel supply provided by TLC if they wish to fuel their aircraft at the airport.

If you have any questions regarding this communication, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours faithfully

AJL Mactaggart
Executive Director
Development and Infrastructure Services.

There you have it! Reading that doesn't seem like TLC to me!
Apparently the CAA saw people fuelling from plastic cans at Oban and raised the matter with the Council.
With pilots bringing a large quantity (alleged 2000 litres) onto Glenforsa with full approval of the council's man I'd imagine it caused panic all round at council HQ. Probably brought it right into focus. Covering themselves from any liability regarding the use of Mogas would seem to be the aim.

Given that statement from AirBP, makes you wonder why you'd take the risk to save some cash. Or do you buy aeroplane parts at B&Q too ??

[madflyer26]

Also makes you wonder why all those Mogas powered aircraft are not falling out the sky. Also why has the insurance companies not mitigated this risk and had all microlights run on Avgas. Pure subversion of a weak council with TLC calling the shots!

With a saving of nearly a pound a litre it would be strange to run your aircraft on a less efficient fuel and with the increased maintenance costs make no sense at all. Who is set to profit from all this the council or TLC?

As for aircraft parts that comment is childish and shows arrogance and contempt for the lighter end of GA.

You keep yourself happy now Good Morning and I will count the pennies I save from not using your Avgas.

Regards
MF26

[ak7274]

Not a question........a statement...............Avgas is KNOWN to damage Rotax engines. Even small Continental/Lycoming engines are known to run better with less deposits than Avgas. Will you be responsible for refusing to allow a Rotax engined aircraft to fuel with mogas/..or refuse him the fuel he/she needs to get to the nearest mogas airfiled?

You're a bunch of Eedjits and here is a tip for you.........Try using more then 1/2 a percent of your brain cells and stop listening to only one point of view.
Consultation..............consultation.....consultation...th en act on behalf of the people not person

[xrayalpha]

Good morning Good Morning, and welcome to Pprune.

Welcome to the world of Rotax too, please come in to Strathaven and visit us.

Unleaded fuel - in paticular in Rotax engines, but also in others such as some light aircraft - is permitted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority under certain conditions.

These include testing for ethanol and not flying at high altitudes, for instance. The operator also has to enter in the logbook the source of the fuel, so that if anything goes wrong the fuel source can be traced. (To my knowledge, this has never been necessary)

Pilots are also responsible for a lot of other things which help create aviation safety, so the CAA's decision to give them responsibility over fuel approval is nothing new.

The same applies to engines in Permit to Fly aircraft. My Rotax 912 - which is the UL version of the certified 912! - says it is not designed for aviation use!! As for the two-strokes!!! Again, back to pilot responsibility.

It is, actually, a criminal offense to fly unsafely (see the ANO).

ABC's arguement that they would be acessories to a crime if they were to allow the supply of Mogas is a little extreme.

First, it is not a crime! The CAA permit it.

Second, it is not part of ABC's "duty of care". Or does ABC want to test visiting aircraft for Mogas, then see GPS readouts showing what height they flew at en route to Connel, check pilot's medicals, validity of licences and ratings (that would be a laugh in NPPL/micro land since the CAA don't even seem to know!) etc etc.

Don't need to check mine.

ABC are either a**holes for implementing this off their own bat, or ABC are a**holes for drawing up a fuel supply contract with a 3rd party that allows the 3rd party to force them to do this.

And I can't be a**sed with a**holes! So you won't see me at Connel.

[sk8erboi]

ABC have no place dictating what fuel an aircraft can use. If they don't want to officially supply it fine, but what next. Sitting at a 'petrol station making you put diesel in your car. 'But it's a petrol' you say. Yes but BP make more on diesel so they've told us to tell you to use it.'

Avgas is the wrong fuel for certain engines. Period. To be dictated to by TLC using some rubbish Air BP produce is a disgrace.

Will they be grounding anything which flies in on Mogas? Where does the airports newly found duty of care end?

Everyone concerned should write to ABC and the airport stating the facts, and demonstrating that Avgas is indeed more dangerous in certain engines.

[patowalker]

Sywell, the venue for Aero Expo and the LAA rally, is just one of the airfields that sell mogas:

Sywell Aerodrome - Charges (http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/charges.php)

AeroExpo UK 2012 - General Aviation Event (http://www.expo.aero/uk/), the CAA was an exhibitor AeroExpo UK - Exhibitor List (http://www.expo.aero/uk/exhibitor-list/)

rally 2011 home page (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/rally.html)

[good morning]

Ah MF you won't affect my profit and loss account because when I looked five minutes ago my business was not involved in the supply of fuel anywhere far less Oban Airport.
Seems funny though that you are happy to accuse someone else of looking after their pennies as if it were a crime and yet quite happy to admit to the self same trait. A pound a litre saving you suggest?
The fact of the matter is that fuel from a garage forecourt has no quality assurance that it is what it says on the pumps. You take your chance and unless you have a lab test it before pouring it into your tanks you have no way of knowing. Akin to buying bolts for an aeroplane at B&Q.
I know of one garage owner who paid for his house by diluting four star with two star for years! Not sure what his son does now but kerosene would seem a likely substitute.
As I say you have no way of knowing. That's what I suspect the pound covers.
Anyway it appears Total may come to the rescue with an approved source of unleaded which will have full quality assurance for aviation. Turns out it's expected to be a few pence cheaper than 100LL. Probably represents the cost of not adding the TEL. Because the cost of distributing a quality assured fuel is pretty much the same regardless of the cost of the raw material.
And if it becomes widely available just watch CAA approvals or permits to use anything else evaporate.
And at the end of the day the airport is under the ownership and control of A&BC.
Their baw, their game !!

[mad_jock]

This opinion is shared by other industry experts who have been consulted by the Council.

Aye but we know the quality of industry experts that ABC hires which is why they are up the creak with the airfield.

And at the end of the day the airport is under the ownership and control of A&BC. Its not though which they lied about onthere license application.

And as for its thier toy set. It must be great owning such a lovely runway with hardly anyone using it. And then making rules up which mean there are even less folk using it. Whats the objective? a couple of TP's a month in the summer and the islander.


Has anyone local thought about running for election to the council that has a clue to try and get the nonsense by all parties sorted out?

Banning mogas isn't going to increase sales of Avgas either it will just mean less aircraft use the field and the aircraft that were palnning to visit will go to other fields where they can nip down to the garage.

[xrayalpha]

Good Morning,

You seem to be concerned about bolts from B&Q.

Actually, there are a good few hundred aircraft on the UK register for which that is perfectly legal.

And, as mentioned, the CAA seem happy with the use of Mogas in aircraft too - under certain conditions.

Shame AB Cooncil know more about aircraft, aircraft fuel and B&Q than the national regulator, the CAA!

ps In the aid of expanding knowledge, I refer to sub-115kg SSDR aircraft - such as the Alatus motor-glider cthat one of our members bought for £14,000 second hand - as ones you can use B&Q as a parts source for. (You can also use the mountain bike shop as a source of Magura Julie brake pads for our £60,000 C42 Ikarus used for ab initio flight training - and they are not a certified supplier either! Perhaps they have taken Magura Marta ones and put them in the wrong bag, or got "look-a-like ones", like your dodgy pal with his 2* and 4* - but they are still a legal source)

People who can afford that on a purely fun basis are the people you desire as customers, I would have thought.

I should be happy, because it is who I want as customers and people around Glasgow, as I have posted before, used to base at Connel. Perhaps they may now come to Strathaven. But I am unhappy, because such a glorious resource is being wasted and people with the courage to set up small businesses and take risk are now being faced with un-necessary costs that may make their business plan unviable.

Madness.

[patowalker]

Sywell sell mogas Sywell Aerodrome - Charges (http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/charges.php) and they hosted Aero Expo, where the CAA was an exhibitor.

Would the CAA allow and participate in an event at an airfield that was deemed to ignore it's "duty of care for air safety"?

What a lot of bull.

[Flap40]

Could this missive from the council have something to do with the fact that from next month unleaded Avgas will be available in the UK and will of course be produced to a controlled standard so there will be no bar to TLC being able to supply it.
The only issue is that initially, I believe, Total will be the only manufacturer.

Rotax engines can treat it the same as mogas. Certain high compression aero engines will not be able to use it.

[sk8erboi]

The fact of the matter is that fuel from a garage forecourt has no quality assurance

Utter tosh. Fuel in this country is of an exceptional high standard. And with modern car electronics there would be no hiding place for trickery these days.

This is a result of lobbying by a self interested party. Pure and simple.

It is a RISK TO SAFETY for those who operate engines designed to run on Mogas, and who have done so safely for years.

It IS NOT an airport operators duty to dictate what people put in their tanks. Period.

These are facts.

[S205-18F]

Good Morning it is obvious you know very little or nothing about Rotax 2 strokes and leaded petrol! It is almost a certainty you will have an engine failure if you use leaded petrol in a 2 stroke due to lead fouling on the spark plugs! Avgas contains several times the amount of lead that even the old 5star had! So based on this fact it maybe fair to suggest that to force 2 stroke Rotax owners to use Avgas would infact be creating a dangerous situation!! Dare I say cause accidents or even fatalities! GO figure!!

[avturboy]

'good morning' has stated ...

"The fact of the matter is that fuel from a garage forecourt has no quality assurance that it is what it says on the pumps."

I'm very sorry to say this statement is not accurate.

Unleaded petrol at the forecourt IS a quality assured fuel meeting the requirements of BS 7070, that is a government administered standard and every last litre of fuel will meet this standard, whether it comes from a Tesco, Morrison's, Shell, BP, ESSO, Sainsburys ... or who ever ...

At all these locations there is clear signage that the fuel supplied meets BS 7070, it is therefore complete nonsense to say that this fuel is NOT quality assured.

[sk8erboi]

A very good post Kevin, well done. And an admirable stance to take.

Sadly it appears the airport operator has overstepped the mark on this issue. It is not for them to dictate what people put in their fuel tanks. It simply does not fall in their remit. If it's accurate that this is the result of lobbying by TLC then it is very poor, especially by someone who purports to be an aviation person.

Make no mistake ABC this is a safety issue. Some engines are not designed to run on Avgas.

Perhaps the MOR culture so prevalent at Oban in the past could be put to some use now. 'Safety at risk to keep the fuel supplier's cash rolling in' might be a suitable heading.

Hopefully common sense will prevail.

I have previously had sympathy for the airport. Not a lot but some. The whole runway debacle, whilst initially their fault, could have been resolved quickly were it not for the aero club and TLC. However they have no defence on this issue.

[Flap40]

I think some have missed the point of my posting.

The only part of Avgas 100LL that is a problem for Rotax engines etc is the lead. The new Avags that Total is bringing out in the UK is UNLEADED. It will be call Avgas 91UL. Think of it as 'aviation approved mogas'.

Has anyone asked Paul if he will be stocking 91UL?

[mad_jock]

You have fallen into the trap that the airport has with MORs.

They are reports thats it. There are a list of things reportable and if it falls outside that list it will be filed and nothing done about it.

Now a chirp about safe fuel and the imposition of rules that detrack from the safe operation of certain types of aircraft would be valid and would also get it through to the correct experts. Who could then correct the councils information and also cover there backsides with duty of care because they will have inforced the rule to then be told by a national body that they were incorrect.

Now that aside I can completely understand why there were concerns about 2000ltrs of fuel being transported onto council property. There is the potential for quite a nasty incident either from an enviromental accident or fire. Nothing that couldn't be sorted though with a bit of common sense and talking to the fire service etc.

It only happens very rarely in those quanitys and if anyone has any sense it would make a perfect exercise for the council services. Apart from anything that amount of people on a flyin is going to input a significant amount of cash into the local economy. And it would give the fire services a chance to get up close and personal with aircraft and discuss things with the pilots.

But then again this involves common sense!!!

[Captain Smithy]

Does anyone else get the prophetic vision that Oban Airport is as doomed as a virgin on a date with Rod Stewart? :uhoh:

Smithy

[NorthSouth]

But in this case is Rod not being paid handsome sums of someone else's money to preserve the young lady's chastity - even though Rod believes the money will actually loosen her morals?

Perhaps one day she will realise she doesn't need her pimp and in any case Rod's a dirty old man and she can do a lot better with multiple partners of her own choice.

NS

[flybymike]

There seems to be a whole new side to Rod and his MCR01 I knew nothing about.....

[Dan the weegie]

I was talking to a friend the other day who is a competition lawyer. If it's really important to anyone they can and should do the following.

Send an email with a freedom of information request asking for:

1: any and all pertinent documentation on how the decision was made
2: Names, contact details and dates of those industry experts were contacted
3: Minutes of any meetings where discussion on this topic took place and the names of any attendees
4: A copy of the contract between the existing fuelling company and the Airfield operator
5: Confirmation that the operator understands that it is not able to dictate where fuel is purchased as it contravenes EU competition law.
6: details and minutes of any meetings that have taken place where discussions about increasing traffic to Connel airfield and the other ABC airfields.

They need to answer within 20 days, normally they will try to use a blanket exemption but if they do they need to cite every piece of information, why it has not been included and why it is in the public interest to leave it out.

Once it's been issued it's in the public domain!

I don't plan on going to Connel any time soon, its a dull wee place and I use MOGAS :)

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Am I right in thinking that the underdog having won the war is now the dictator:uhoh:

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Am I right in thinking that the underdog having won the war is now the dictatorhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif


No, you are wrong.

A council employed airport manager stupidly brought 2000 lts of mogas on to a council run airfield.

This resulted in council interest in the whole mogas self fueling issue.

The fuel supplier at Connel is unable to get insured to supply mogas.

The council is unable to get insured to supply mogas.

The council reacted in a council manner.

No conspiracy.

End of.

Hope this helps.

WW

[flybymike]

Why is there a difficulty with insurance? Is this difficulty unique to Oban and not other airfields?

[madflyer26]

CWW,

That is a load of rubbish and you know it!

You facilitated the fuel for your mates to come over with their Yaks Cutting Paul Keegan out the loop altogether. David Howitt is getting made a scape goat so you can claim the moral high ground and look good doing so. And if this is not the case why did you not call the council or Paul and report it. It took an Argyll Aero Club member to tell Paul Keegan about it and when he confronted you- you said ''I thought you new about it''. So you sanctioned this, you could have put a stop to it but you didn't because it suited your needs. You can spin as much bull on here as you want but the simple truth is you deliberately cut Keegan out of this knowing fine well you would save your mates a fortune.

This latest action by Keegan is indefensible and you should do your best to stay out of it. It has no impact on you and I have supported you all the while but what I am hearing back suggests you think you're invincible and untouchable.

Using the fuel debacle on Mull to justify the blanket ban of Mogas is absolutely shocking. Please don't underestimate the weight of opposition that is looming to solve this matter.

Argyll Aero Club has set the precedence and we the other users will use this blue print to beat TLC and the council at their own game.

Regards

Kevin MacCuish

PS: Remember all dictators have their glory and power but most fall from grace just as quick!

[good morning]

As I understand it MF is proposing and encouraging people to fly in and be refuelled on premises leased from the A&BC therefore bypassing any ban as it wouldn't be the "airport"
You might want to think about that long and hard. What makes you think you'll get permission to re-enter the airport ? PP can work both ways!
And of course ignorning a refusal would almost certainly breach the ANO.
You can always trailer your (freshly refuelled) aircraft away though !

On the insurance front I doubt any airfield has insurance in place that covers the sale or fuelling of motor unleaded for aircraft purposes. Be interesting to see the policy though!
GM

[ak7274]

For crying out loud...................SORT YOUSELVES OUT. "He said....she said". "But he made me do it". "I want to cry". " I was bullied as a child"
Have you lot any idea how stupid you are looking?
If you can't put right what's wrong, you are in the wrong job. Quit. Desist from employment . Leave work. Go away.

You're a bunch of loons and your welcome to the white Elephant a few miles north of Oban. I won't be going again.:ugh::mad:

[mad_jock]

I am sure they could have done the same when the fence got put up.

But I suspect under scots law you would be opening up a barrel of rotten fish if they did choose to go down that route. A thus pissing even more tax payers money up the wall.

ABC can make regulations up to what you can and can't do on the ground that they control, they can't make rules for land which they don't.

The commercial supply of mogas would be a completely different kettle of fish to private individuals going out to collect fuel from a garage to refuel a private aircraft.

Is nobody going to be happy until the whole place has been shut down?

[dont overfil]

Guys and girls for goodness sake behave yourselves, and I mean the council as well.
We always used to say to the visitors never mind the politics, the staff are great and the destination is wonderful.
Now you've really bu@@red it.
D.O.

[manix-cs]

Who is this errrr person, 'good morning'?

Thousands of aircraft on the UK register fly on MOGAS with CAA / BMAA /LAA approval............

The engines that these aircraft use are damaged by AVGAS.

What more needs to be said than that?

If ABC have, for whatever reason, decided to ban refueling with MOGAS at their facilities, then it's just another nail in Oban's coffin.

Personally I will still call at Oban when forced to do so by weather, requirement for fuel (even though my engine wear and servicing costs will increase) or just because I want to.

Everybody has the same choices to make.

Reading 'good morning's' posts, however, trying to justify the actions of a body (which has no knowledge whatsoever of aviation) making rulings that may/will endanger aircraft makes me wonder exactly what experience of aviation he/she has?

Possibly a candidate for the next consultant Oban International Airport hires?

[dont overfil]

Good morning.
If you really are on the side of Oban Airport, you sound like a turkey voting for Xmas.
D.O.

[good morning]

I'm not defending A&BC in any way or form. Just pointing out the potential pitfalls of MF's advice.
I suspect having discussed the whole issue with their insurers they have been told no cover exists for that particular practise. And now that the said insurers are fully aware why would any council employee risk being held liable?
I well remember an airshow organiser telling me the worst thing he ever did was inviting his insurers along to the display for some corporate hospitality. Premiums doubled overnight !!

Doesn't stop anyone using the airport. You can simply land with enough fuel in your tanks to leave. Purchase fuel on site in a way approved by A&BC or don't come. The choice is yours. The toy set is theirs!

Councils don't care if the facilities they are responsible for make money or not. They just hit the taxpayer for as much as is required to support what they do.

I would be more worried that the motorfuel unleaded liability issue, having raised it's head at Oban, spreads elsewhere.

[Maoraigh1]

"On the insurance front I doubt any airfield has insurance in place that covers the sale or fuelling of motor unleaded for aircraft purposes. Be interesting to see the policy though!"
Why would an airfield have any responsibility for what is done by pilots/owners/maintainance? I operate out of a HIAL airport, and HIAL are not responsible for our aircraft meeting CAA requirements.
I'll continue to visit Oban, and put avgas in the tank there. Occasional avgas is recomended. I'll use auto petrol at my HIAL base.
This Oban problem affects the Oban based aircraft. Nothing seems to have changed for visitors.
I'm sorry for David Howett if he is being replaced. During the times when the Mull Fly-in was getting about 100 aircraft, large volumes of petrol were brought in, as well as an official avgas towed tanker from the then local supplier.

[bingofuel]

Bit of a thread drift but found these recent avgas prices

09-Aug-11 £2.41 Edinburgh (+)
01-Aug-11 £2.34 Exeter (+) [6]
05-Jul-11 £2.27 Durham Tees Valley (-) [16]
23-Jul-11 £2.22 Plymouth (-)
03-Jun-11 £2.24 Oban

I know there is a few months variation but it would sugest that Oban on the west coast is cheaper than Edinburgh airport,? Can that be correct?

[fisbangwollop]

Coronation Street or Emmerdale could not touch this Oban/Mull forum with a barge pole.......you really could not write a better soap story than has appeared in these columns for the last few years!!!....FFS guys grow up... from what I can see every party in this soap has its good and bad side....stop throwing the toys out of the cot and let Oban thrive for the place that it really is. OK rant over!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Johnm]

The problem that screwed up Oban as you will see if you read back a couple of centuries was the Council attempting to create a commercial airport supported by some unhelpful and inappropriate (apparently) professional advice.

That has been compounded by weak leadership resulting in petulant defensive behaviour.

The Council need to take sensible advice from people with experience on how to limit the damage caused and stabilise the situation. They could do worse than consult the management at Gloucestershire Airport where a thriving GA community coexists with a modest amount of scheduled traffic very happily and without rules that aren't directly related to safety and efficient operation.

There's not a snowball's chance in Hades of getting Oban airport on a sound financial footing without subsidy, but that subsidy could be minimised by maximising revenue and that requires an attractive and reasonably priced package for light GA users. There's no way that anything other small scale commercial traffic will work and that requires little or no infrastructure over and above light GA.

They then need to put someone fairly strong in charge to keep the children on the straight and narrow. I could be available :E

[Wide-Body]

fisbangwollop wrote:


FFS guys grow up :D



That summarises the entire thread very nicely

[Mad_Mark]

Why the F:mad:k can't you all just get on and work TOGETHER to make Oban the fantastic place that it should be, and once was!! :ugh:

Are the people at the airfield (I hate to call it an airport!) deliberately trying to get the place closed and do themselves out of a job/base?

MadMark!!! :mad:

[madflyer26]

Mad Mark,

If life was as simple as just having a group hug and getting on with it Oban would be great.

The problem, Keegan ran the airport very well gave council the blue print for running it.

Council took over have made every **** up possible but still they are the local authority and Keegan unexpectedly never got hired apparently due to a misdemeanour with the CAA.

He is fed up and is on a mission to bring down the curtain on the place.

It will never work at Oban as long at the two parties are still there and quite frankly the place is doomed for sure. I have stayed here all my life and it has never been so bad.

It needs HIAL or some other non involved party to take it over. But as long as Keegan is there then there is no chance of that happening.

All you posters upset by this thread can at least log off and not read it. Try running a small business from the place and living there. IT SUCKS

[airpolice]

It will never work at Oban as long at the two parties are still there and quite frankly the place is doomed for sure.

Would it not be fair to say that if only one party was to leave, things would be better?


Depending on which one leaves, it might actually get better to the point of being as good as it was before.

[The Original GF]

I feel the need to clarify a couple of points.

I was approched in March and asked if I could arrange some fuel at Glenforsa Airfield.

I declined for the following reasons.

1. I am in the food and beer business,Paul Keegan is in the fuel business.

2. Introducing large amounts of fuel onto any council run airfield, and in particular Glenforsa Airfield was only ever going to result in a major cluster***k.

Making wild and actionable accusations on a public forum will do nothing to resolve what is unquestionably a serious problem for all aviation related businesses.

OGF
aka Brendan Walsh
Glenforsa Hotel

[PH-UKU]

1. I am in the food and beer business

Hope you'er stocked up for the next few days :E

[140KIAS]

has everyone kissed and made up :ok:

[NorthSouth]

has everyone kissed and made upI think that may be a 'no':hmm:

NS

[The Original GF]

Ah yes, SoCalApp.

Let's bring back Peter Jackson, that will fix everything:ugh:


OGF
aka
Brendan Walsh

[dan design]

SoCalAp as its rumoured that you are the main protaogonist in the collapse of Oban Aiport I would keep my opinions to myself if I were you.

Three Scottish Law Lords ruled in the High Court in Edinburgh that TLC had the SOLE right to supply fuel at Oban Airport.

The Oban Airport Manager (debabtable title) had no authority to allow self fuelling with mogas or any other fuel - its called comtempt of court up here not sure what its called in California.....?

The mogas supply and insurance issue is just another strand of the terrible legacy left behind by Wonderboy PJ whose aerodrome manual continues to stifle activities at Oban Airport.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

not been on here for 3 years but come back on just to stir the pot with utter trash.
SoCal App




Unbelievable.. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
SoCal App


Are you for real?

WW

[Dan the weegie]

You cannot dictate where fuel is bought, you can dictate who fuel is bought from at a particular location. The former is competition law and neither A&BC, nor the fuelling guy are allowed to dictate what fuel goes in to an aircraft, ONLY that fuel sold at the airport can come from one company.

The rule has been put in because the council are scared of litigation and the fuel guy is just posturing because he can. The Law Lords only ruled on who can supply fuel at the airport not that fuel purchased elsewhere can be put in aircraft

Airworthiness is the responsibility of the owner or operator of the aircraft and no-one else.

What a bunch of fools, I got a nice PM from a guy asking me to come to Oban, I may still but honestly until it becomes a nice wee aerodrome again - why bother, there's lots more places to go :).

[madflyer26]

Dan,

The most balanced and objective post on this topic for quite some time.

It is in black and White and ratified by the CAA what you can and can't do with Mogas. The council have messed this one up by listening to TLC. TLC should do more research into the matter as the legislation is easily found on the Internet.

The council put a system in place for the use of Mogas and it works fine and still does, so now they have to explain to the CAA why the change of heart and then and only then can if be reflected in the aerodrome users manual.

In terms of non conformity the council have already stated that there is no penalty as of yet for non conformity so why even bring this moronic rule in to play. It is simply not workable and no users of Mogas at Oban is going to stop using it. If the insurers or the CAA condemn the use of Mogas then that is a different issue. If the council really think they have a duty of care the the refuelling of Mogas at every council run airport must stop.

After checking the lease of my club it is clear that there is no sort of prohibition for fuelling aircraft so I urge any aircraft visiting Oban to come to the gliding club and we will provide transport for you to get Mogas as the current vendor can't supply it.

Dan Design is cosily nested in the TLC camp and is hardly objective in her views. TLC have done well exploiting the council and we the disgruntled users thank them for giving us the tools to beat them at their own game.

We have also at my organisation purchased a 1500 litre bowser and are working on bridging the Market at Oban.

In the mean time do come to Oban if the Mogas powered aircraft require fuel we will sort it.

Regards

Kevin Maccuish

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh FFS. I give up.

I will make one comment.

The Oban Airport Manager (debabtable title) had no authority to allow self fuelling with mogas or any other fuel
Is the biggest load of utter garbage I've ever read on here and believe me, in 11 years on this site, I've read an awful lot.

What I as PIC put in the tanks of my aircraft, is my business alone. What the law lords said was that TLC had the sole right to supply fuel as a business at Oban, not that they were the only people allowed to put fuel into the tanks. That is quite a different thing.

This is the sort of thing that is (has already?) killing GA in the UK, it'll finally finish off Oban too if it carries on.

Sorry, but my days of giving a hoot about Oban are coming to an end. This latest stuff going on is just pathetic. What a shame.

[fisbangwollop]

Q) egpx/qmrll/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 08:03c) to: Perm

e) rwy 01/19 dimensions of rwy changed.
Rwy 01 1263 x 30, rwy 19 1263 x 30
rwy 01 threshold co-ordinates changed.
Threshold co-ordinates rwy 01 562735.99n 0052402.41w
ad 2-egeo-1-3 section ad 2-12-runway physical characteristics column 3 dimensions of rwy (m), and threshold co-ordinates column 5 refers l3891/11

q) egpx/qfaah/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 08:40c) to: Perm

e) amend ad operational hours.
Summer. Mon and wed 0715-1515, tue and thu 0700-1615, fri to sun
0900-1615
winter. Mon and wed 0815-1600, tue and thu 0815-1615, fri and sun
1015-1615, sat 0800-1400
amend ats communication facilities hours.
Summer. Mon and wed 0715-1515, tue and thu 0700-1615, fri to sun
0900-1615
winter. Mon and wed 0815-1600, tue and thu 0815-1615, fri and sun
1015-1615, sat 0800-1400
uk aip egeo ad 2-egeo-1-1 section ad 2.3-operational hours line 1
and ad 2-egeo-1-4, ad 2-18-ats communicaion facilities column 4
refers l3894/11

q) egpx/qfaxx/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 09:16c) to: Perm

e) amend local traffic regulations
aircraft that do not require the use of a licenced aerodrome and
wish to operate outside the notified hours of operation, must comply with the argyll and bute out of hours indemnity scheme. Ppr applies to all out of hours flights and must be obtained within operational hours, from the aerodrome operator (argyll and bute council c/0 oban airport) prior to flight. Details of the scheme and an application form can be obtained from http://wwww.flyobanairport.co.uk or by
contacting aerodrome administrator on 01631 710910
uk aip ad 2-egeo-1-5 section ad 2.20-local traffic regulations, line
1 item f refers l3896/11

[Maoraigh1]

The winter saturday1400 closing will cut use. Otherwise looks O.K. 0900 to 1500 would seem to be better for winter saturdays.

[madflyer26]

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION


Lord Coulsfield
Lord Johnston
Lord McCluskey

XA74/01



OPINION OF THE COURT


delivered by LORD JOHNSTON


in


APPEAL


From the Sheriffdom of North Strathclyde at Oban


in the cause


TOTAL LOGISTICS CONCEPTS LIMITED



Pursuers and Appellants;



against


ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL



Defenders and Respondents:



_______






Act: Campbell, Q.C., Forsyth; Russel & Aitken, W.S.


Alt: Ellis; Balfour & Manson, S.S.C.

17 September 2002
[1] This appeal is concerned with a lease granted by the defenders' predecessors to the pursuers and appellants relating to the occupancy and use of an area of land near Oban known as Connel Airfield. In the action raised in the Sheriff Court a number of issues were focused but the matter comes before us purely in relation to the proper construction to be put on clause FOURTH of the lease.
[2] That clause is in the following terms:
"The said area of land shall be used by the Tenant for the purpose of the development thereon of a fuel store for the sale of aviation fuel for the users of the Airfield and for such other purposes reasonably ancillary thereto and for no other purpose whatsoever without the consent in writing of the Landlord (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld). The Tenant shall have the exclusive right to be the sole supplier of aviation fuel at Connel Airfield for a period of Twelve years from the said date of entry hereinafter."
[3] The sheriff in an interlocutor dated 20 July 1999 inter alia found in favour of the pursuers in respect of the construction of this clause, determining that it effectively created a monopoly in favour of the pursuers with regard to the supply of aviation fuel to aircraft using the airfield. The matter was appealed to the sheriff principal who, in an interlocutor dated 31 January 2001, over a year after the hearing before him, sustained the appeal determining in favour of the defenders that the terms of the lease did not preclude them from permitting or allowing such users of the airfield, if they wished to do so, to bring their own fuel to service their own aircraft. In the pleadings, there is reference to pre-contract communication between the parties, and the possibility that a proof might be necessary was discussed in the debates before the sheriff and the sheriff principal. Before us, however, neither party suggested that a proof might be required. This focuses the dispute before us, as a pure question of construction of the contract terms.
[4] Senior counsel for the appellants maintained that, on a proper construction of the clause, an exclusive right to supply fuel to any user of the airfield was created in favour of the pursuers in terms of the clause in the lease which meant that the defenders were obliged to prevent any person, and we understood that there were at least two such agencies, the Ministry of Defence and a quarrying company, from servicing their aircraft on the field with their own fuel, not supplied by the pursuers.
[5] The defenders' position was that the terms of the lease were such that while there was a grant in favour of the pursuers to supply fuel this was only when such was demanded and did not prevent users of the airfield from bringing their own fuel to it. Thus, while the pursuers, it was submitted, had a right to supply it was not exclusive in the sense that the conduct apparently at the time being carried out by both the relevant users of the airfield was permissible, namely bringing their own fuel to service their own aircraft.
[6] Little assistance was gained from authority, although we were referred to two cases with regard to the supply of, respectively, water and electricity, namely West Surrey Water Company v. Chertsey 1894 3 Ch. 513 and Attorney General v. Southport Corporation 1924 A.C. 909. It is worth observing that in this latter case, in the speech of Lord Atkinson at page 923, there is support for the view that the word "supply" is broad enough in its terms to cover movement of materials between agencies controlled by the same person, thus casting doubt on the view of the sheriff principal that it is essential for the notion of supply that there be a transfer from one person to another of the relevant commodity.
[7] The essential point on which the sheriff principal's decision turned is that, in his view, the word "supply" is not an appropriate word to describe the provision of some goods or services by one branch or department of an organisation to another branch of the same organisation. The sheriff principal also observed that the expression "self-supply", which had been used in the debate before him, seemed inherently contradictory. In our view, the sheriff principal applied rather too absolute an interpretation to the word "supply" in these respects. While it is very often the case that "supply" involves provision or transfer of something to another, it can also be used more widely. There does not appear to us to be anything necessarily contradictory involved in saying that a person "supplied himself" with something: and as we have already noted, there is authoritative support for a broader interpretation of the word "supply". It follows, in our opinion, that the question of the proper meaning of this contract has to be looked at as one of the proper construction of the clause as a whole.
[8] At the end of the day, we consider that the proper construction to be put on this clause is very much a matter of impression, albeit against the background of trying to ascertain what was the original intention of the parties. In this respect the composition of the clause is important. It is to be noted that in the first part a duty is imposed upon the tenant to carry out capital works creating the fuel storage area. The second half thereafter conveys a right and that right must be looked at, in our opinion, against the background of the initial obligation to which we have referred. The exclusive right to supply fuel is obviously conferred on the tenant in consideration of his undertaking the capital expenditure necessary to create a fuel store. The value of that right would be much diminished if a user of the airfield could obtain supplies from a source outside, possibly just outside, its limits and bring them on to the airfield for use by his aircraft. If the question is viewed in this way, having regard to the word "exclusive", we consider that the better view is that what has been created is a monopoly in favour of the tenants to be the sole supplier in the sense of provider, of fuel to any aircraft requiring fuel in the airfield, thus obliging the defenders to refuse to allow any particular aircraft owner or user to bring his own fuel. It is also significant to note that while the term of the lease is 25 years, the term of this particular right is restricted to 12 years which, again, to our mind, points to the fact that a monopoly is being created to justify the capital expenditure contemplated in the first half of the clause but only for a limited period, nevertheless insofar to provide an incentive for the tenant to carry out the relevant works.
[8] In these circumstances we are of the view the over the relevant period, i.e. 12 years, the defenders, as owners of the airfield, must take relevant steps to prohibit any aircraft user bringing his own fuel to the airfield. Thus we consider that the sheriff, rather than the sheriff principal, reached the correct decision.
[9] It was suggested to us by senior counsel for the pursuers that if we were in his favour we should grant declarator as stated in the first crave of writ. However, we are not inclined to do this since it does not, in itself, indicate our view as to the construction of the clause. We therefore propose to put the case out By Order in order that parties may address us as to the appropriate form of declarator to be issued against the background of this opinion.

[billiboing]

Would I be right in giving a summary as follows;

a) There once was a bloke who ran the airfield- he now supplies the fuel.
b) The council thought- OOOOH!- we can have a mini heathrow to play with.
c) The council took over and cocked it up as the boys that had toys there only had microlights, gliders and little planes and not Boeing 747s!
d) The council peeved off the fuel guy and he took them to court and won.
e) The council wont admit it and so are using the excuse about MOGAS possibly not being MOGAS and so are banning it to save face and wont actually admit this is nothing to do with the safety of using MOGAS but is all about the fight between the fuel supplier and the council.
f) And in the meantime the boys with their toys all loose????????

GROW UP KIDS!- The lot of you. Before Uncle Steakandchips comes up there and bangs all your heads together!!!!!!!

Remember - you have a beautiful airfield in probably the most stunning location anywhere in the UK!. :ugh:

[madflyer26]

Steak And Chips,

It is not about growing up we are all adults involved in this saga. We feel utterly pissed off with the decisions the council are making.

Paul Keegan ran the airport and he ran it well however the council have always owned it. They own it so this myth of it changing hands is just that.

I can assure you that beating Argyll & Bute council is no feat you just have to have the money to do it. Since the transition from Strathclyde council to individual Borough councils in Scotland, Argyll & Bute has the most appalling record for efficiency and budgetary overspend in the entire country. The heart of the council is rotten to the core with corruption with many councilors taking brown envelopes for favourable decisions to be made. There has been several investigations by the Scottish Executive but nothing concrete proven to actually bring a case to the courts.

Oban is doomed for sure and the volatile combination of the council and TLC co-located has sealed its fate for sure.

Regards

Kevin MacCuish

[Maoraigh1]

"8] In these circumstances we are of the view the over the relevant period, i.e. 12 years, the defenders, as owners of the airfield, must take relevant steps to prohibit any aircraft user bringing his own fuel to the airfield. Thus we consider that the sheriff, rather than the sheriff principal, reached the correct decision"

That is interesting. I take my mogas into Inverness. I refuel with avgas from TLC when in Oban. I would have thought someone offering (free??) transport to the filling station was breaking the agreement, but am surprised the judgement applies to someone taking his own fuel. This interpretation might apply to other airport fuel agreements in Scotland. A strict interpretation might be read to prohibit anyone landing at Oban with any fuel remaining in their tank.

[grow45]

So the original interlocutor [judgement] was from 20 July 1999 [paragraph 3] and the lease had an exclusivity deal for a period of twelve years from the date of entry. Assuming the lease had been running for say a year before the original court case gives a date of entry under the lease of say July 1998. That means the exclusivity period should have run out in about July 2010 - or was it extended?.

[airpolice]

Kevin Wrote:
The heart of the council is rotten to the corp with corruption with many councilors taking brown envelopes for favourable decisions to be made. There has been several investigations by the Scottish Executive but nothing concrete proven to actually bring a case to the courts.



So, you KNOW about all this brown envelope economy but still, what was once the finest legal system in the world, can't get anyone in the frame for it. Seems odd.

If you are so well versed in the exchange of browns, why not just broker a deal and "buy" the airport.


I'd be inclined to think that "several investigations having produced nothing that can be proven", might suggest a huge lump of innocence.

On the other hand, if you are telling us that the local area is awash with allegations, that's a different matter.

[patowalker]

The contract is about selling aviation fuel. Since when is Mogas aviation fuel?

[Wide-Body]

Its probably the bit when you put it in an aeroplane. But I am not a bright man:(

[Johnm]

Since when is Mogas aviation fuel

Since it was specified as a fuel for use in aircraft! Mogas and ordinary motor car fuel are not the same thing. I would therefore take the view that if you wish to put ordinary motor car fuel into your aeroplane at Oban there's nothing to stop you, because that isn't MOGAS.

[madflyer26]

Air Police,

It is a common joke in Oban about certain councillors taking cash for favours.

Just because our inept judicial system couldn't find anything fishy doesn't mean it is not going on. Our legal system over the last decade or so has been the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Lockerbie Bomber case in point.

Also I have no desire to run or buy Oban Airport as I couldn't think of a bigger Albatross round your neck. If you have any magical solutions to this saga feel free to expound with them.

Regards

MF

[patowalker]

Mogas and ordinary motor car fuel are not the same thing. I would therefore take the view that if you wish to put ordinary motor car fuel into your aeroplane at Oban there's nothing to stop you, because that isn't MOGAS.

That's strange. I fill my motorcar and aircraft from the same pump and was under the impression that RON 95 petrol to EN 228 was MOGAS.

[airpolice]

It is a common joke in Oban about certain councillors taking cash for favours.


The heart of the council is rotten to the core with corruption with many councilors taking brown envelopes for favourable decisions to be made.

So, is your earlier comment simply a case of repeating this "joke" or are you saying that it is true?


Just because our inept judicial system couldn't find anything fishy doesn't mean it is not going on.

And just because I've not met any wee green men from Mars is not exactly proof that they do not exist, however....... what are the chances?

[ak7274]

And just because I've not met any wee green men from Mars is not exactly proof that they do not exist, however....... what are the chances?

Better than Oban being run half decently.:sad:

[140KIAS]

Tender for Operation of Glenforsa Airfield just published on Public Contracts Scotland website. Closing date for submissions 25th Jan at 12.00 noon.

[maxred]

This should now get interesting. Did the employees on 90 days ever go????

TUPE, would make a mockery of any attempt to run the place commercially:confused:

Unless of course the VERY large public subsidy given to the flights provider, would, just maybe, tip the balance, in the pot of course is 50k for a hanger - also from public funds if my memory serves me correctly.


So............;)

[140KIAS]

Maxred - the tender is only for Glenforsa so only David would be affected, not sure if he was included in the 90 day notice - however you potentially have a point re TUPE. It's a while since I was involved with TUPE however in the past when we took over a maintenance contract TUPE was relevant for any of the previously companies employees whose primarily responsibility was related to the delivery of the contract.

[maxred]

Forgive me, too much Festive cake and wine:\.

I mis read thinking it would be for both, Oban and Glenforsa.

No, the real one to watch for is the Oban tender, if and when it happens.

Cheers

[NorthSouth]

Looking at the numbers in the tender documents, 2011 was a bad year with movements down about 25% on 2010, but I suspect much of that was weather-related. Other than that it's been 500+ movements a year fairly consistently.

One big question will be what any new operator will see fit to do to the landing fees in order to maximise income without deterring too many visitors.

Another will be whether the new operator will see the enormous benefit of working with Glenforsa Hotel to make the most of having accommodation and good food a few steps from your aeroplane.

Presumably they'll also try to persuade Hebridean to add Mull to their destinations.

Could be interesting.

NS

[NorthSouth]

A & B Council has just issued a tender invitation for a marketing strategy for Oban Airport. The contract value is up to £17,000 and the work has to be completed by the end of September. It looks to me like the council is focused on methods of attracting more commercial aviation activity rather than GA, but it will be interesting to see what the successful bidder comes up with. Perhaps a recommendation to sub-contract operation of the airport to a local business, switch the air services to a charter basis, de-license the airport and have it open 24/7 to anyone wanting to use it? ;)

The info docs with the tender invitation show that Hebridean Air Services were carrying an average of less than 2 pax per scheduled sector in 2011. Surely it can't go on, especially when you consider what's happened to the price of avgas in the last eighteen months?

NS

[140KIAS]

What ever happened to the Glenforsa tender? Submissions were due in 3 months ago.

[airpolice]

I'm expecting a collection of pprune readers to submit an application in respect of this tender.


With so many people on here knowing exactly how to make a go of the airport, it looks like money for old rope.

[NorthSouth]

No info that I can find on the Glenforsa tender. It was due to be awarded at the end of Feb.

Coming back to Oban, the council tender docs make a big play of "Fly Scenic Scotland", which seems to be a sightseeing operation run by Border Air Training out of Cumbernauld. BAT has an AOC with a Cessna 172. Anyone know anything about its operations at Oban?

NS

[dont overfil]

A couple of weeks ago Argyll and Bute Council were inviting ideas from the GA community on how to increase traffic at Oban.

Silly me offered my suggestions for free. Must not have been good enough.

D.O.

[mad_jock]

It will be a bitter sweety with the tenders because they won't be able to stomach what needs to be done.

So they will just keep on trying to get someone in that will keep everyone employed and make no changes to the status quo.

It the usual council dreamland.

There is of course people that politically they will never let run it just in case they make a good job of it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is of course people that politically they will never let run it just in case they make a good job of it.

It's amazing how jammy dodgers make things run better isn't it.

G

[mad_jock]

Well thats some of it and also the fact that clock watching and anal retentive rule making and alderance and other such filthy council worker trates won't be a factor.

Councils don't know how to run airfields. Most pilots don't know how to run airfields.

[Maoraigh1]

There was a problem with the old number last weekend. We had to PPR on the radio. This number change is just before the Connel Fly-in, Saturday 2 June.

Q)EGPX/QFAXX/IV/BO/A/000/999/5628N00524W005

B) FROM:12/05/31 07:02C) TO: PERM

E) AD GEPGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA, CHANGETEL AND FAX NUMBERS.

TEL 01631 572910 (PPR/GENERAL ENQUIRIES)

FAX 01631 710 884 (ADMINISTRATION) 01631 710713(ATS)

AD 2-EGEO-1-1, EGEO AD 2.2 REFERS.

[NorthSouth]

The Council made the following announcement yesterday on the tender for operation of Glenforsa:

At this time the Council has been unable to conclude this exercise and make an award. As soon as we are in a position to conclude we will be in touch

Ring any bells?

NS

[mad_jock]

They will never get someone to take it on if they have to TUPE in excisting council staff including pensions.

Bet they had a few tenders all of them having 2-3 perm staff and a part time admin with the rest getting made redundant.

Anyone know how much the airfield cost the council last year?

Ops that was for Oban.

GlenForsa again will be a too bitter pill to swallow.

[avturboy]

Having been employee transferred under TUPE I would offer the opinion that it is hardly worth the paper it is written on. It most certainly doesn't protect pension arrangements as I know to my own personal cost. It protects wages and holiday for a limited period after which a review could easily take place and reduce numbers at little cost on statutory redundancy, been there and seen it happen.

Problem might be the mindset of former local authority employees, sorry don't mean to offend anyone, but small GA ops need a huge amount of flexibility to run successfully, you really need the right people. I'm watching with interest.

[mad_jock]

Its also who will pay for the redundancy's

[42psi]

I seem to recall that TUPE provides no protection at all if it can be shown that the changes are required to allow the business to survive.

If the alternative is the business cannot survive then terms and conditions can be changed at will.

However, in this instance that would suggest that the local authority would have to (at some point) declare that if unable to arrange a tender, under terms that are acceptable, it will have to close the operation. ?

[mad_jock]

They might then have to pay back grants they have been given.

[maxred]

TUPE or not, the whole thing is a financial basket case.

This is actually a very big problem, that may never go away. My understanding is that due to the funding requirements, they are in a catch 22 situation. Close it, and they will have to repay, keep it open, they do not make the passenger numbers, may have to repay, certainly part of the grant.

Keep it open and continue to lose 500k plus, per annum. Add in the huge subsidy for the island feeder, 1.2 million, and you can see where the public money is washing down the drain. That is tax payers money.

Great facility though:\

[mad_jock]

How much grants did they get?

[maxred]

Don't quote me but I think is was in the region of 5m.

The whole project over ran on budget, and I think to the tune of 9.5m.

Quite shocking really

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Perhaps it's time for a Judicial review which is the procedure whereby the exercise of a delegated discretionary
decision making power is examined by a court so as to ensure that the power has been

properly exercised for it's lawful purpose
1. In general terms the court will intervene
where the person or body which has been given the power fails to act when it is required
to or when it makes a decision it ought not to have made when acting properly within the
terms of the mandate given to them.
WW

[maxred]

Yes that would be a good idea. It is like the Eurozone crisis:sad:, where continually hiding the problem, hoping that one day it may go away, never works. Eventually the day of reckoning will come.

So, get it out in the open, and then deal with the situation. There will be an answer, there always is, just got to find it

[NorthSouth]

But once again let's not confuse the two current tenders:

1) for a contractor to take over the operation of Glenforsa
2) for a project to market Oban Airport (not run it)

It surprises me that they couldn't make a decision on the Glenforsa tender. Maybe the council has been duped with the steadily creeping neo-liberal propaganda that the private sector is always better at running things than the public sector, then found to their surprise, when they got the bids in, that actually the private sector isn't remotely interested in running Glenforsa other than at rates way higher than currently achieved or anticipated by the council.

Meanwhile the annual Mull fly-in - the biggest revenue earner for the airstrip - was cancelled this year because of the tendering exercise, so they've not only spent loads of extra money on a contractorisation exercise but also denied themselves a huge chunk of the very income they're trying to increase.:ugh:

NS

[mad_jock]

2) for a project to market Oban Airport (not run it)

For the love of god spending more money.

Right if your reading this go to Inverness College and ask them about using Oban as a project for the arts/marketing courses. Then the best one every year gets used. Also it would mean you could use the terminal for art crap as well as a gallery.

It would be a whole load better than getting some lowland outfit to do it for you and all it would cost would be the material costs.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

The whole tender exercise would seem to be just that, an exercise that provided another years employment for several council personel that never had any intention of actually awarding the tender, because inevitably it would only underline what a pathetically inept clusterf**k they are making of running these publicly owned facilities.
It is inevitable that either goverment intervention or a judicial review will eventually result in another round of senior council sackings, but not before further damage has been inflicted on the local economy.
WW

[mad_jock]

How is one of these review things kicked off then?

[maxred]

Well I wrote to Salmond a coupe of years ago, and as expected got nowhere. As typical of politicians they kick it around like the hot potato it is, until it lands on the desk of a master of spin, who basically replies to you that it is all someone else's fault and problem, but they are clinically insane so can't actually do mutch about your initial query.

It is a new lot that are now in at ABC, and as public servents will be keen to cover their arses, so that their pensions are ultimately safe.

Someone with the judicial knowledge may be able to help here

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

How is one of these review things kicked off then?


http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/uploads/Judicialreview.pdf


WW

[maxred]

Thanks WW - MJ some bedtime reading for you:ok:

[mad_jock]

I think I will save that for the next time I have to start earlies again.

But just reading the opening section. It only there if the process has been incorrect and the council has acted outside thier mandate.

I don't think it covers make a crap investment choice.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

It only there if the process has been incorrect and the council has acted outside thier mandate.




Does their mandate include taking over a viable public facility that operates at zero cost to the ratepayer and rolling it over into a £1m per annum loss?

WW

[maxred]

They were caught up in the glorious pre 2007 era where everyone could get everything for nothing. Vast swathes of Easterhouse flying daily/weekly to Benidorm, all on the never never. Everyone was a businessman, flipping houses like pancakes, except the money did not really exist.... Did it.

I saw the numbers, 5000 passenger movements a month. locals asking when the Ryansir flights were starting, when the Glasgow shuttles were scheduled.

Crap decision?? Sad really, not one of them knew what they were doing.

However, fabulous facility, in a truly beautiful part of the world, so. Just need to find the answer'.

[Maoraigh1]

Todat was the Connel fly-in. How did it go? Our group aircraft was unavailable today.

[dont overfil]

I was working so didn't get there but I was told by someone who did that there were about 70 visiting aircraft.

With that kind of traffic maybe they should keep the £5 landing fee! I would go more often even without the free burger.

D.O.

[Oldpilot55]

Two of us were planning to visit from darkest Lincolnshire (part of Englandshire) but the weather over the borders refused to play ball. 70 visitors sounds like a good attendance.
Do they still do a Strathallen, don't fly thru the meatbomber range, mid-week fly-in? I went to the first one, that was the best ever!

[blueandwhite]

I don't know if Scottish law is the same as England and Wales but down south its like this

1) after the council makes a decision you have 3 months MAX to as for JR
2) Someone pays £50K of legal fees
3) IF the judge says you can have a JR then
3) Someone pays £200K for a judge to review the PROCESS of making a decision.
4) IF judges thinks the PROCESS of making the decision was wrong he tell the council to go back and make the decision again, and gives most of the fees back. IF the judge thinks the council followed the correct procedure he awards costs against the someone who has already paid £250K and they pay ANOTHER £250K
5) The council can then make EXACTLY THE SAME DESISION AGAIN if they so choose.


SO
a) its not within 3 months of a reviewable decision , so its not going to happen.
b) At no time can the contracts in place be reversed by this process, so there is not much point in this case
c) Who is upset enough to risk £500K just to prove the council made a poor choice?

[mad_jock]

Thanks for that. I did think that would be the case.

We will just have to see what happens in the future.

The 5000 pax a month though!!!

[grow45]

Its not my specialist field but FWIW my understanding (having been involved on the periphery of a couple) is that in Scotland there is no three month limit - a judicial review simply has to be applied for within a reasonable time and without undue delay.

g45

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Who is upset enough to risk £500K just to prove the council made a poor choice?


You may be suprised!

WW

[dont overfil]

Oldpilot55 wrote.
"Do they still do a Strathallen, don't fly thru the meatbomber range, mid-week fly-in? I went to the first one, that was the best ever!"

Hi oldpilot. Yes the Strathallan thing is still going. I think Kieron tries to keep it a secret now its getting so big.

D.O.

[dont overfil]

Sorry for the hijack.

Just been told Strathallan cancelled this year.

D.O.

[Maoraigh1]

This month:
Solas, 14-18 June (Beach on North Uist).
Fife, 16 June.
LAA East of Scotland Strut Kingsmuir, 23-24 June.
And next month, LAA Highland & Islands Strut, Dornoch 28-29 July.

[xrayalpha]

Of couse there is the Strathaven Airfield Summer Solstice Fly-In on June 16th, with HangarFest in the evening - about 6 live bands, some in the hangar, some in an "accoustic" tent.

Music and BBQ in the afternoon, tickets for the evening are a tenner, all proceeds to the Adams Community Trust.

Camping.

[Oldpilot55]

..and in the middle of the recession they want to develop flights from Skye now...
BBC News - Potential use of Skye's Ashaig airstrip re-examined (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-18794536)

[NorthSouth]

Would that be this (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/489575-ashaig-airfield-broadford-skye-windmill-threat-deadline-5-july.html) wind farm proposal? Shown to be no threat whatsoever. If Skye is to have air services then it has to be something sensible that can be achieved on the existing runway, so that limits it to Hebridean doing Glasgow-Oban-Skye or similar. And of course it'll be VFR only which inevitably puts it in heavy subsidy territory. Alternatively you could invest in a runway extension and instrument procedures - which inevitably puts it in heavy subsidy territory.:uhoh:
NS

[Captain Smithy]

...So in other words, either way it's going to cost a lot.

I sincerely hope someone with a bit of common sense is tasked with looking at it, and a thorough, honest, well-informed business case is drawn up. Too often lots of money is flung haphazardly at pointless projects seemingly without any serious studies as to judge their viability or usefulness. Sound familiar?

Would Skye be a vital airlink? Considering the Skye Bridge has been there since Smithy was a nipper, Inverness is only about 2.5 hours away on the A887 and a ferry from Uig to the Outer Hebrides is much cheaper than an air link and sails in most weathers, I seriously question the usefulness and indeed the overall point in a commercial air link. Fair do's if there's the demand for it then all the best with it, but I can't see that being the case. Most folk will take the car and go with CalMac over to Lochmaddy or Tarbert.

Keep it for what it is, a private airstrip.

Smithy

[maxred]

Well we need to keep the island communities happy and content. There are loads to be made on the subsidised air routes:ooh:

The fact that the islanders (Skye), have a bridge, a ferry, a bus, a mainland bus, a mainland train service, appears at times not to be enough. We might require an airlink. Step up interested parties, to the golden trough:ok:

Only for those and such as those though.

If it is indeed an airlink theory, cheaper with a helicopter, or bikes, keep them fit, peddling across the bridge.

[NorthSouth]

The Oban Airport marketing contract has been awarded to an Edinburgh-based company called Business & Tourism Solutions Ltd. As far as I can make out they have no aviation experience or background.
NS

[mad_jock]

Do you really think any one with even a little bit of aviation savy would touch it with the ****test stick on the west coast?

Selling nukes to arabs it is not.

[Rod1]

Just got back from three days on Mull taking in Oban and Collensay
The weather was good and everyone was very helpful and friendly. I recommend people go and have fun!

Rod1

[gasax]

I'm a little loath to post anything about Oban but...

Latest development is handy for fly in visitors - they have 4 bicycles available for loan on a 'first come, first served' basis can be arranged at the same time as PPR I believe.

So something positive in amongst all the usual in-fighting and council business.

[flybymike]

Are the bikes available for loan from the airport or from TLC?

[avturboy]

has the supply of mogas been resolved?

[gasax]

The bikes are from the airport - hence the request when asking for ppr.

Mogas - I didn't dare ask, this is Oban........

[xrayalpha]

You want Mogas....

On yer bike! ..........

and if you don't have one, we can rent you one (as long as you PPR)

[glencoeian]

Doing my PPL training so I'm a newbie here and my opinion probably isn't that important however I had 4 flights last weekend at Oban. It sure beats a 4 hour round trip to Perth before I even fly, the scenery is astonishing and the airport staff very friendly. Seems tragic that events are conspiring to ruin a great airport in a gorgeous location and of course if it goes down the pan it will take me even longer to get my license now !

I flew with Border Air Training and wont open another can of worms discussing the pros and cons of flight schools suffice to say I will be sticking with Border!

Ian

[suraci]

The Oban Airport marketing contract has been awarded to an Edinburgh-based company called Business & Tourism Solutions Ltd. As far as I can make out they have no aviation experience or background.
NS

As far as I can make out they have had 0 turnover for year ending 31/3/11 and for year ending 31/3/10. If they didn't market themselves.....

[Maoraigh1]

Has this marketing contract got anything to do with running the airport? If the company is just trying to attract tourists, they don't need aviation experience.

[flybymike]

Doing my PPL training so I'm a newbie here and my opinion probably isn't that important however I had 4 flights last weekend at Oban.
Is there now a full time flying training organisation at Oban?

[mad_jock]

If the company is just trying to attract tourists, they don't need aviation experience.

If they are trying to attract none aviation tourists they already have the scottish tourist board and also the ABC local tourist board doing it as well.

Now if they are trying to get avaition tourists in they will need to know a thing or two about aviation needs and also what the market wants to be able to promote the airfields as a desitnation.

Realistically for Oban it will be wasted money because for that sort of field you best marketing is by word of mouth. The scottish day trippers all know about the bun fights there and either are in the group that go there or are in the group that don't.

Further south PPrune is going to influence more people than any marketing. Again the bun fight is well know and the dirty washing is all there for folk to see.

Apart from that trip reports in the rags might influence people.

But the money spent on the marketing won't be recovered in increased movements.

The only way they will increase movements is.

1. Accept none PPR traffic by RT call.

2. Get rid of the out of hours rubbish paper work exercise.

3. MOGAS on the airfield

4. Get back the old atmosphere of the place.

If they don't change the above items they are just pissing even more money into the wind.

[gasax]

I think you're completely right MJ - but the council don't want to hear that having 4 people working on a Saturday, compulsory yellow vests, permission to start, ppr and all of the other nonsense at Oban puts people off - how could it - the council imposed it!

No they'll get a report which says that strategically placed adverts in non-flying publications, a 'cross media campaign', bigger signs and having to book parking places on the airfield and paying for parking outside it are the way forward.....

I have just made this up - but watch........

[glencoeian]

Is there now a full time flying training organisation at Oban?

No I was flying with Border Air training based in Carlisle and Cumbernauld - they send an aircraft up to Oban to do scenic flights but you can also book it for training while it's there which makes a massive difference to the alternative for me which is driving to Perth or Cumbernauld.

[NorthSouth]

Maoraigh1: Has this marketing contract got anything to do with running the airport? If the company is just trying to attract tourists, they don't need aviation experience

Objectives of the contract, from the tender documents:
attract additional activity/business to the airport
attract additional passengers/ general aviations pilots
consolidate existing PSO service
pursue new air services and attract airlines operating new routes
Raise the profile of the airport
inform the community, other stakeholders, funding agenciesI'd say aviation knowledge was pretty useful in achieving most of those.
NS

[flybymike]

I think Jock's advice given above would be ten times more successful at a tiny fraction of the cost.

[Slopey]

Jock - why not give them a buzz and see if they want to use you as a consultant for a few extra clams? ;)

[maxred]

I was involved in the tender process last year. We did not get it. Part of the councils tender objective, to be done by the party that won the flight contracts, was to put in place a decent, 21st century marketing campaign. Our proposal incorporated this. They did not want to know when the tenders were evalutuated. We had incorporated a full web based on line ticket system, plus an optimisation of the web stages to promote more business. We also incorporated a liveried shuttle bus to Oban to attract the southerners. Again they threw it out.

They are idiots, all of them, and not at all interested in the promotion of the place. Do not be fooled, it is a wipe eyes project.

And not for the feint hearted our tender proposal was half of the team that one it. There were only three tenders.

The place could work very well, if only people with intelligence, commitment, and a savvy of common sense got involved, not by running it like a mini heathrow though.

Anyway, I am one of the camp that still go, despite the bollox, only to support PK.

[Oldpilot55]

I agree it is worthwhile going to support PK. I'd rather pay for something than have a free nothing.

[sk8erboi]

To support PK. Don't make me laugh. He has been a big cause of a lot of issues with the airport since it was upgraded. Only interested in 'his cut'.

Good to see Border doing sight seeing flights from Oban. Good on them. Nice to see they have done it properly too. Oban seems to have been a place for dodgy charters in the past. I wish Border the very best.

[mad_jock]

I don't think they will be doing sight seeing flights as this requires an AoC.

And I would suspect they would have sod all chance of getting any routes approved in that area in a single even if they did have a A to A AOC.

They may run a satallite training base when there is enough demand for trial flights and locals wanting lessons though. Although this is fairly easy to do as a RTF. It might get quite hard when everyone has to become a RTO. So enjoy it while it lasts.

Unfortunately for some if the PK supporters did stop going there would be a fraction of the extremely low number of movements that they have already.

Its quite an amusing stand off to be honest.

On the one hand you have quite a large customer base which wants to use the airport.

Then you have most of those customers refusing to go there because they don't like the rules.

It very similar to the village pub with a hated landlord. Nobody will drink there and the landlord wants to convert it into a house. But the locals won't let the planning permission go through because they want the pub just not the current landlord. Landlord can't sell because they won't get their investment back. So it's a huge Catch 22.

O aye and some auld biddy has a contract to supply all the pies to that pub. She has her faithfull customers who come for a very occassional pie but not as often as they would like. In fact if the landlord buggered off and never showed face again but just stood back and watched they would proberly go back to the old days of two pints and a pie every saturday lunch time instead of once a month if that.

[10W]

As a GA user, what have the Council ever done for us ? Spent a whole load of money on things which most of us don't want or need, and played a big part in scaring away paying customers. Not necessarily the people who work at the airport itself, but the lords and masters in their comfortable junket laden offices.

PK may be like Marmite, you love him or hate him, but he certainly knew how to run a good GA airfield and put in place an atmosphere where people felt welcome and wanted to go, without all the bureaucratic jobsworth and health and safety nonsense which is a curse on today's UK society.

It is perfectly feasible to run small scale commercial operations alongside a healthy and active GA operation. I am sure the pilots flying the Islanders don't need to be treated like they were flying in and out of Heathrow with 'separation' from the GA aircraft also using the airfield, which is what is going on at the moment - even although the ground radio operators have no jurisdiction for anything in the air.

I still visit Oban, because I love the scenery, the airspace, and the facilities I can find there. I pop in to see PK for the Jammy Dodgers and fuel. I happily pay my landing fee with no malice to the airport staff. But I always come away thinking about the overkill, the waste of public money, and the politicos who obviously live in cloud cuckoo land.

[silverknapper]

They provide separation? You're joking?! That is ridiculous. Surely the authorities would have something to say about that, amateur separation from untrained operators being more dangerous than none at all.

Border Air Trainngdo have an AOC MJ. Just checked.

[Say again s l o w l y]

MJ, as mentioned, Border do have an AOC. I know the guys there well and they're a good bunch.

[10W]

Not separation as I would apply it in ATC, but the last couple of times I have been I have been advised by the radio operator along the lines that I may have to 'hold off clear of the airfield as the Islander is expected in the next 15 minutes'. Why ? As pilots, I am sure both myself and the Islander pilot can sort ourselves out in a VFR environment. In both cases, the Islander pilot reported on frequency still being 5-10 miles away whereas I was within a mile or two of the airfield. Begrudgingly (from the tone) I was 'allowed' to sneak in, although that would have been my responsibility and decision to make anyway ;) I was well on my way to the Jammy Dodger stocks before he even appeared on final.

It's Oban, not Heathrow !!

[India Four Two]

I love it when the Oban thread comes alive again. Great entertainment.

Begrudgingly (from the tone) I was 'allowed' to sneak in, although that would have been my responsibility and decision to make anyway http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

10w,
Given your background, did you have a word with "Oban ATC" after you landed?

[Say again s l o w l y]

10W, this sort of faux ATC is prevalent in many A/G stations around the country. It is invariably caused by the person manning the radio having the silly idea that they have the remotest clue about what goes on in an aircraft!

The majority of these A/G operators have hardly ever been up in aircraft, let alone actually have licences.

The best thing to do is to simply ignore anything that they say and I've always gone up to the "tower" and had a quiet word afterwards and explained that I'll make the decisions about seperation when in that sort of environment thank you very much.

You should have shown them your super-duper controller badge and told them to STFU next time!

[mad_jock]

Is it not Trumpton that does the air/ground in Oban?

[gasax]

Yes it is.

To be fair they are simply reading from the text largely given to them by the 'gentleman' that got the place licenced. To that, they then add their own 'looking after one of ours'.

Generally it is not a problem, and explaining the rules to them is probably just going to confuse them. Compared with the other nonsense arrangements at Oban, it amuses me rather than causes problems.

[NorthSouth]

Why is it that it seems to be impossible to get a happy medium from A/G Operators? The vast majority tell you sweet FA - no traffic info, no wind checks etc. Then there's the faux ATC brigade.
NS

[mad_jock]

I don't know about that.

There are some good ones out there. They tend to be all pilot license holders. I must admit though, so they just tell you what they would want to know.

And I suppose it doesn't fly that often gasaxso and will give you a 20 mins of amusment at least every time it comes in.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Air traffic control last weekend at Glenforsa overheard advising pilots that due to 'severe turbulence' they should fly through at 200ft, this of course is where the rotor is at it worst with a Southerly, ATC also warning of 'hundreds' of geese on the runway.

WW

[mad_jock]

Stop calling them ATC it gives them ideas of grandure. Trumpton on the radio would be better.

And giving advise like that needs to be reported do it via chirp then it might have a chance of actually hitting someones desk that can do something about it. And it getting published.

[mad_jock]

MORS are a waste of time there is something like 4 months worth waiting to get processed. To be honest its not even in the critria of a MOR unless I missed A/G operator was being a complete pillock last time I read the CAP on MOR's so they will be more than likely file along with all the other Oban MOR's about folk landing perfectly safely.

[dont overfil]

I may be missing something here but I can understand the need for ATC. I can also see that AG is adequete in many places. However what is the point of an Aerodrome FISO?

D.O.

[mad_jock]

Its for when you need to control them on the ground and issue clearances I think.

An Air ground can only give you information as they know it a FISO may be linked into area or another ATC service and be able to relay instructions from an ATCO.

An A/G operator certainly couldn't tell you to squawk xxxx but a FISO can tell you on the ground and request you do in the air.

I am sure 10w, Fisbangwallop or one of the other ATC types will be along to say I am talking ****e in a while :D

[dont overfil]

Sorry MJ but you are incorrect.

I work AG and give Squawks and clearances on behalf of Scottish Control.

You are right about FISO giving taxiing clearances but how useful is that?

D.O.

Edited to say a FISO can give taxiing permission, not clearance.

[mad_jock]

Very, ground is the most difficult and dangerous bit of the flight for me. And thats 6 sectors a day.

Once you get above 500ft and the gear is up thats when we start to relax.

[dont overfil]

I see your point but I was thinking Oban.:zzz:

D.O.

[Maoraigh1]

On my occasional visits to Oban, I've never had any complaints with the radio. Or with anything else, for that matter, at Oban and Glenforsa. (Except the weather at times.)

[mad_jock]

UN troops v west coast women.

Thats a though one would the UN be allowed Nukes?

I have seen 3 of them see off a company of Royal Marines. But they were ginger.

[FREDAcheck]

I dreamt last night that Dr Who whisked me a century or two into the future, and sure enough the "Oban/Glenforsa News" thread was still running.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Trivialising the desperate situation at Oban & Glenforsa is all very well if you can ignore the effect of this debacle on the real business's and real local pilots that are affected on a daily basis.
Maybe if we confined ourselves to 'where to buy the best aviator sunglasses' or is it acceptable to put epaulettes on my flight suit before I solo' type posts, some pruners would find it all less trying.

WW:E

[glencoeian]

"They may run a satallite training base when there is enough demand for trial flights and locals wanting lessons though. Although this is fairly easy to do as a RTF. It might get quite hard when everyone has to become a RTO. So enjoy it while it lasts."


Mad Jock as a newbie I don't understand the terms in this post, could you explain them to me please as this impacts me given I can get four hours training whenever Border have an aircraft at Oban. Thanks.

[mad_jock]

Don't worry the CFI at Border knows what he is doing.

I am sure it will be 100% legal and you have nothing to worry about.

There are changes for the flight training industry in the not so distant future which changes the way that they can operate. We arn't 100% certain when they will come in, but they will eventually, current date is some time in September.

I expect Borders training manual will be a work of art and they might very well get approval for operating out of Oban, phone them and ask for the CFI and ask.

[silverknapper]

To address air polices list

1. Same as most airports. No big deal. If you don't like it don't go.
2. Maybe inconvenient but I guess it's their trainset. Indeed if you think about it the AFS are them primed for any incidents which may occur on start.
3. Most places are PPR now. What's the big deal? Do you not know where your going before you leave? Anytime I've called 30 mins before eta they still take me.
4. Fair point. But all the PK lovers should note this was down to his lobbying the airport.

I've plenty complaints about the whole overhaul of the place, waste of cash etc. but it's here now so we have to live with it. The staff there all seem decent, and are just doing their jobs. At the end of the day it's still in the same place.

And it has never been allowed to have a fair chance at attracting business due to the crap about fences. Who was that down to?

Seems to me more than one party has to share responsibility for any issues. Yet all anyone cares about is bloody jammy dodgers.

There are plenty on here who enjoy stirring up the masses for their own gain. As an example WW has issues with certain airfield managers, as any locals know too well. It is quite amusing reading between the lines of 90% of the crap on here knowing what goes on behind the scenes.

I'd vote for closing this waste of bandwidth. Perhaps have a feedback thread where people who have actually gone there recently and not 2/4/6 years ago can perhaps help the Oban staff either up their game or at least be aware of any genuine issues.

Rant over!

[PD210]

To confirm, Border Air Training do have approval from the CAA to conduct flight training at Oban airport

[DeltaV]

From Border Air's website it reads "...will have an aircraft based at Oban (North Connel) Airport from 3rd-5th of August. We will be providing flight training, trial flying lessons and aircraft hire throughout the weekend."

OK, they're trying to generate business but until they base there it's not really going to be anything other than a novelty. And pupils there won't be getting taught 5 mile long final approaches.

[mad_jock]

Maintence would be a bloody nightmare there.

Is GD still the CFI?

[NorthSouth]

Border Air Training do have approval from the CAA to conduct flight training at Oban airportWhy would they need it? Until the dreaded FTO requirement comes in, if it's a licensed aerodrome by definition you can run an RTF there. No approval required.

Maintence would be a bloody nightmare thereNo worse than at other fields I can think of that have no maintenance on site.

And how do Hebridean manage?

NS

[xrayalpha]

Training:

You haven't needed a licensed field for a couple of years now.

Maintenance:

the Cumbernauld schools used to get all their aircraft serviced at other airfields (ie Perth and in NI, if I recall correct).

Of course, one could try training with a microlight: ah, that has already been done.

Still, couldn't be a nicer view from "the office" to be training from Oban.

[dont overfil]

How did the micros get around the "no fuelling from containers" rule.

D.O.

[Cows getting bigger]

They cheat, as at the vast majority of other GA airfields who happen to turn a blind eye.

[maxred]

And how do Hebridean manage?

.....................:mad::mad::mad::mad::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:: uhoh::ugh:

[Dan the weegie]

You don't need a licensed airfield but you do need approval from the CAA and you do also need authorisation from the owner of the airport.

[NorthSouth]

You don't need a licensed airfield but you do need approval from the CAAHappy to agree if you can point to any document that says that.
An RTF does not require any approval from the CAA to carry out training anywhere. And if an RTF wants to train at an unlicensed airfield, all that's required is that the commander of the aircraft satisfies himself that it has adequate facilities. No CAA approval, not even a requirement to send the CAA a copy of any assessment made.
NS

[NorthSouth]

Quote:



And how do Hebridean manage?

.....................: uhoh:
So that's an engineer roaded/flown up from EGPG every time there's a non-flyable defect then?
NS

[Dan the weegie]

NorthSouth, it's in Standards Document 11. Which looks like it's just for Ground Examinations but it is in fact also for a registered training facility. There's no inspection per se and as such no specific approval but you cannot conduct PPL training without it and you wont appear in Standards Document 30.

[Dan the weegie]

You also now need to pay a relatively chunk of money to the CAA to maintain your registration now and once every year.

[NorthSouth]

There's no inspection per se and as such no specific approvalExactly. It's a registration, not an approval. Approval is not needed. Maybe just semantics, but in this case, all Border needed to do was add Oban to their registration details.
NS

[mad_jock]

They can say no and if its a perm one they will start asking about briefing rooms and all that good stuff.

And up North the flight ops inspectors in the main are seen around the GA scene quite a bit and within a month one of them will be through the base to have a look and if they don't like what they see you will be stopped.

Highland flying school started something similar in Stornaway and by all accounts it was very successful within a month they needed to get the old tower building setup as a briefing room etc.

[maxred]

NS - My cryptic response above, was that we would require to start another thread, re maintenance at Oban. The proposals that formed part of the initial Air Service tender, were for, wait for it, a very large construction.

With it came, a very large dollop of even more public money.

Watch out for the surveyors.............:\

[4redsyourdead]

Madjock

Think GD is now CFI at Border Carlisle if I remember correctly. IH is CFI at CBN now.

[PD210]

GD is CFI & FOM at both Border Air locations (Carlisle and Cumbernauld).

[dont overfil]

Here we go again. Putting the cart before the horse?BBC News - Skye airstrip study set to get Highland Council funds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19600965)

D.O.

[helicopter-redeye]

Is that an upside down plane on the runway on the glenforsa webcam? Unclear from the current view?

[dont overfil]

C172 2 pax, one to hospital. Second hand info.

D.O.