GA at Farnborough

[JP1]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the flying club at Farnborough is charged for touch and go's or go arounds.

Thanks

[S-Works]

What flying club? To my knowledge their is no light GA their!! Tell us more!

[JP1]

That would be the very secretative "Royal Aircraft Establishment Flying Club"

Yes I was suprized it existed, literally living directly under the approach to 24, but apparently it's still going very strong after TAG aviation took over the airfield.

I was just curious about the charging structure as I have a contact who is eligible to join and interested. He'll get the info directly but I thought I'd beat him to it.

But looks like they have done a very good job of following those noise abatement procedures as not only is its existence unknown to those that oppose anything aviation related, they have also kept below the Pprune radar

[Mike Echo]

The club has been around for for some time. I did try to join when I worked there but it seemed to be rather exclusive to DERA and maintained a very low profile. I think they had a couple of PA28's and possibly a Chipmunk, although that could have been private. One of the Corporate pilots had an aircraft based there at one time. I've not seen them around the airfield for some time and assumed that TAG had forced them off the airfield. Nice to know they might still be there.
M.E.

[chevvron]

In continuous existence since 1923. Normally only open to employees of Qinetiq and DSTL, but outsiders with a 'connection' to Farnborough may be admitted in limited numbers.

[Oldpilot55]

I find it less than amusing that a large number of RAF flying clubs exclude membership to the people who pay for their subsidised flying. Free hangarage at Scampton amongst others if you have an RAF link..and I believe that can be as tenuous as being a former member of the UAS.

[betterfromabove]

Amazing that noise abatement from single-engined GA should be an issue when there's a ton (should that be several hundred tons...) of bizjet metal using the place all day long....

And there's a constant flurry of such SEP's piling thro' the overhead at 2000-ish as a rat-run between the the Blackbushe ATZ & the LTMA.

Question: why has no-one suggested a base-join from the north or south direct to the numbers for SEP...with a similar direct-from-numbers xwind dep routing?

Those on the app path would be non-inconvenienced, would see & hear practically nothing, & there are plenty of engine-out options on those axes for the SEP (arguably a reason for no SEP's, especially off 06).

Before the surrounding airspace was blocked off in 2001, this was exactly what was done on 03/21 at Le Bourget & probably still done elsewhere (anyone have any examples??)

A tragedy considering it has probably the classiest aviation bar/restaurant/hotel of any airfield in the country - surely TAG could see a nice business opportunity for fly-in PPL trade from that?!??! :ugh: Not as if they're short of tarmac....

Any F'boro ATC have any take on this....??

[S-Works]

It is nothing to do with noise abatement. It is to do with the limited number of movements that Farnborough is allowed. If you want to fly a light aircraft in, you can do so for the princely sum of £325. I have done (with someone else paying the bill!).

Let face it, they would rather have a high value business jet taking up the slot than a 172!

[betterfromabove]

OK - stand corrected.

Might there be some value in someone (AOPA? ATC?) negotiating a seperate series of slots for light GA? TAG own the hotel & pretty much everything else right? Sounds more like a procedural issue than a physical problem. Like I say, they've got the tarmac (it's not Soton, say).

Anyway...

[S-Works]

It has already been tried. You would be surprised at how busy the place is. As I understand it they actually max out the number of movements they are allowed so getting any access for the light end of GA is a non starter, especially when Blackbushe is just down the road.

The slots are available to all on an even basis. They are sold at the market value which sadly is above the pockets of those flying light aircraft generally.

[Mike Echo]

Bose-X has it correct. I attended many meetings with TAG in the very early days (even before the new hangars) they never made any secret that they did not want GA (ie light aircraft) landing. They are really only interested in the heavy iron GV's BBJ's etc. The prices are such to even discourage small jets such as the Lear/Citation. They make their money from landing/handling/hangarage.

[betterfromabove]

Hmmh, that's a real shame. Is a long way by taxi from BB to the Aviator.

Nice to know someone got off their tosh & tried at least...

Got speaking to the hotel management one evening, who seemed very friendly & seemed rather interested in the idea. Said they'd get back to me. Never heard from them. Is owned by TAG (I believe), so we know where that suggestion went...:hmm:

The Polish brekkie at BB is great, but it's not quite the same. :{

[chevvron]

Don't forget there is a ridiculously low limit of total movements (28,000 pa) imposed by a condition in the planning permission and the planning permission also includes a ban on flying training apart from the Aero Club.

[IO540]

I wonder what the local politics were, to allow just 28k movements at an airport which was the base of some of UK's foremost aeronautical engineering achievements, and which must have had vastly more movements in its glory days.

Was some kind of deal done, to allow e.g. planning permission for extensive property development (not necessarily at the airport) in return for the movements reduction?

In local planning, such deals are common. You get together the objecting councillors and do a deal with them under which some scheme they really hate is dropped, and in return they agree to another one elsewhere.

[PilotPieces]

There is normally an article in the local paper every week regarding the number of movements, all down to local politics and the thousands of jobs and the boost to the local economy vs Aunty Betsy and her cat who doesnt like planes.

Speaking to people from Tag it would appear that they are constantly trying to expand and there was a hint of some scheduled operations being eyeballed if they had their way with things.

One big fight but I cant see anything substantial happening.

[chevvron]

As far as I recall, the 28k was derived from a government sponsored survey which said the airfield needed to do a MINIMUM of 28k/year to become viable and the local council took this as also the maximum. Having said that, the council are supportive of the airfield and are reasonably flexible in some matters eg Airshow etc.