Grant Shapps MP and committee defend GA

[ETOPS]

This is a cracking letter from Grant Shapps and the APPG in response to the pathetic Sajid Javid MP ......

All-party Group on General Aviation calls on Local Government Department to take urgent action | All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation (http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/all-party-group-on-general-aviation-calls-on-local-government-department-to-take-urgent-action/)

Worth a read through.

[Katamarino]

The UK government has seriously stated that they plan to make the UK the best country in the world for GA? Excuse me while I stop laughing... they've got a lot of work to do...

[Capt Kremmen]

This subject is a classic case of 'peeing into the wind'. The demands of GA will always be subordinate to the demand for housing made necessary by a continually expanding population.


The image in the public mind of rich boys defending their 'hobby' will be difficult to defend and will indeed be overcome by allegations of housing shortages, overcrowding and overpricing.


I wrote to Shapps and the LAA at around the time of the Red Tape Challenge offering the opinion that there would be little dissent if, in exchange for airfield development planning consent, the proposed developers were legally obliged to provide - at their cost - alternative facilities of equal value and extent, to those being lost to GA and accessible within a ten mile radius of the original.


Alternatively, the same legal provision could apply but, space permitting, the replacement GA facility could be within the boundary of the proposed development. From what I've heard and read, the Americans and the French permit side by side development so what is the problem over here. All can benefit !

[ChickenHouse]

The UK government has seriously stated that they plan to make the UK the best country in the world for GA? Excuse me while I stop laughing... they've got a lot of work to do...

Ah, you never flew under German LBA registry? UK is multiple lightyears ahead the troglodytes.

[CloudHound]

Byron Davies appointed GA Airfield Champion.

[Sam Rutherford]

The UK is leagues ahead of many, many countries - but still has some way before becoming the best in the world...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wrote to Shapps and the LAA at around the time of the Red Tape Challenge offering the opinion that there would be little dissent if, in exchange for airfield development planning consent, the proposed developers were legally obliged to provide - at their cost - alternative facilities of equal value and extent, to those being lost to GA and accessible within a ten mile radius of the original.

Equal extent anyhow - equal value would presumably mean just as plum a spot for building houses on.

In reality, most airfields will be happier away from major connurbations, for reasons of noise and safety. That could actually work quite well. Maybe 6 miles rather than 10.

G

[xrayalpha]

Do the committee really have a clue as to what is going on?

Using the number of licensed airfields as a metric is not much use when - perhaps as a result of the Red Tape challenge, or perhaps more due to EASA - there is now no need for airfields to be licensed for ab initio flight training.

Interested, too, in the value of aviation to the UK economy.

My enquiry to the MSP (Scottish Parliament) and the MP (UK Parly) for here revealed that neither Holyrood nor the House of Commons library has a list of aviation companies in Scotland!

So what are the figures based on?

[Katamarino]

The UK is leagues ahead of many, many countries - but still has some way before becoming the best in the world...

Sam has it; the issue isn't how far ahead of the worst we are, but how far behind the best. The typical attitude of the CAA doesn't give much confidence for any real improvement.

[Capt Kremmen]

There is another significant strand to the assault by developers on current airfields. There is too little demand chasing too much supply.


Even in the salad days of high summer, apart from a handful, most airfields are well underused. Realistically, the only way that one can justify the considerable expense incurred in running and maintaining an airfield, is by either letting or selling chunks preferably on leasehold to generate income. A few dozen daily landing fees won't cut the mustard; neither will parking fees.


My personal preference would always lean towards mixed development. As we've witnessed and continue to witness, this in itself is not without problems, NIMBYism lurks everywhere. At the very least, mixed development secures any historical heritage eg. the airfield remains in being tho' much altered and the demand for housing is met in some measure.

[Deltasierra010]

Equal extent anyhow - equal value would presumably mean just as plum a spot for building houses on.

In reality, most airfields will be happier away from major connurbations, for reasons of noise and safety. That could actually work quite well. Maybe 6 miles rather than 10.


G
There are a great many airfields being termed as "brownfield sites" with potential for development, some of which have already been partially developed and of course owners want to continue to cover the whole site. Local authorities do value existing GA airfields as an asset to business as well as recreation and development rights have been denied in several cases, much to the annoyance of the owners.
However moving a licensed airfield is a different matter, the local nimbys will fight it tooth and nail, a farm strip is straightforward if you are sensible but not a hard surface that can take a biz jet with all the facilities needed. In populated areas GA airfields are now getting thin on the ground we really don't want to loose more.

[Groundloop]

My personal preference would always lean towards mixed development. As we've witnessed and continue to witness, this in itself is not without problems, NIMBYism lurks everywhere. At the very least, mixed development secures any historical heritage eg. the airfield remains in being tho' much altered and the demand for housing is met in some measure.

Any "mixed development" should only include business/industrial use. If you start building houses it wont be long before the complaints come flooding in to close down the airfield part - even though they bought the house knowing it was right next to an airfield!

[Capt Kremmen]

Groundloop


I've no doubt that your view is correct. There is, as we know, considerable history attached to this point. Almost every airfield can tell many stories !


However, the crux of the matter is the provision of housing on brownfield sites and the problems for GA linked to that.


I would quite like to see a nationwide survey, data obtained and a plan prepared. A plan that both links and compares GA numbers in terms of aircraft, personnel and staffing to geographical locations of existing airfields and population centers.


From that, we should get a clearer picture of supply and demand that might be used to help to make the case for either an unconditional or conditional support or denial of planning consent.


The popularity of airfields such as White Waltham, Denham, Popham and Blackbushe speaks for itself. I can hardly believe that they would come under a planning threat which would be successful. They appear to be well used and supply a constant demand.


Fairoaks tho' is another matter. It has always seemed to be underused. A survey would tell us one way or another. If it does close, who would take up the slack? It could be either Blackbushe or Farnboro' which would perhaps entail a not insignificant increase in costs to the owners of the displaced aircraft.

[A and C]

I would argue that Fairoaks is not under used in financal terms, there is at least one quite major maintenance company that does a considerable amount of work, one movement of a top end turboprop for maintenance generates far more economic benifit for the local community in terms of employment than a hundred movements by a microlight at Popham.

One could also say argue that the Fairoaks reprisents the best noise to financal benifit trade off for the local community.

[Capt Kremmen]

For a number of years I lived next door to Fairoaks and flew from there. Entirely subjectively, the airfield seemed to be underused. Therefore, I don't quite know how the 'local community benefited'.


It is not a large airfield so, rather than lose it entirely, it might benefit from mixed development.

[CloudHound]

The exact number of 'private strips' across the whole of the UK has never been counted and the number published.

Others conservatively estimate it's in excess of 800.

The strip I keep my Stinson on appears in no guides, receives few visitors and is not generally discussed. There are 3 more in the county too. Between us nearly 20 regularly flown a/c are housed there.

I believe the flight from licensed aerodromes results from the commercial policies adopted by said airfields, whether in terms of fees and charges or lack of provision of facilities. Apart from Kemble recently, I haven't used a licensed runway this year.

My GA exists in parallel with the likes of Fairoaks and whilst I will support its continued existence, I can't imagine a reason for visiting next year.

[Dr Jekyll]

There is another significant strand to the assault by developers on current airfields. There is too little demand chasing too much supply.


Even in the salad days of high summer, apart from a handful, most airfields are well underused. Realistically, the only way that one can justify the considerable expense incurred in running and maintaining an airfield, is by either letting or selling chunks preferably on leasehold to generate income. A few dozen daily landing fees won't cut the mustard; neither will parking fees.


My personal preference would always lean towards mixed development. As we've witnessed and continue to witness, this in itself is not without problems, NIMBYism lurks everywhere. At the very least, mixed development secures any historical heritage eg. the airfield remains in being tho' much altered and the demand for housing is met in some measure.
If local authorities gave planning permission for agricultural land as willingly as for airfields would developers still be so keen on buying the airfields. They aren't buying for the land but for the planning permission, and it's the planners decision to give permission only for airfield land that causes the problem.

[Bob Upanddown]

The exact number of 'private strips' across the whole of the UK has never been counted and the number published.

Others conservatively estimate it's in excess of 800.

The strip I keep my Stinson on appears in no guides, receives few visitors and is not generally discussed. There are 3 more in the county too. Between us nearly 20 regularly flown a/c are housed there.

I believe the flight from licensed aerodromes results from the commercial policies adopted by said airfields, whether in terms of fees and charges or lack of provision of facilities. Apart from Kemble recently, I haven't used a licensed runway this year.

My GA exists in parallel with the likes of Fairoaks and whilst I will support its continued existence, I can't imagine a reason for visiting next year.

And, I believe, you are the CAA's model for the future of Light GA in the UK. A bunch of old Geezers in old aeroplanes flying from grass farm strips.

Unfortunately, this model will see the demise of Light GA. For light GA to continue, we need flying schools and maintenance organisations. I know a few maintenance places that exist off the map but they are, often as not, man and boy (and dog) operations. The type of maintenance organisation at Fairoaks can't exist in a farm strip.

No, we have to have airfields.

[Capt Kremmen]

Of course, none of us are arguing with that statement. The two questions that need an answer are;


Given the paucity of numbers involved in GA, is it possible to make airfields pay as they are without developing them as something else?


How, in view of the relentless demand for housing do you maintain a 'brownfield site' designated airfield as an airfield per se?


Your Geezers/old a/c/farm strip scenario is, for the moment, far from accurate.

[CloudHound]

Oi, less of the Geezer thank you. The rest is accurate though. :)

[Bob Upanddown]

Of course, none of us are arguing with that statement. The two questions that need an answer are;

Given the paucity of numbers involved in GA, is it possible to make airfields pay as they are without developing them as something else?

How, in view of the relentless demand for housing do you maintain a 'brownfield site' designated airfield as an airfield per se?

Your Geezers/old a/c/farm strip scenario is, for the moment, far from accurate.

Apparently there are over 20,000 GA aircraft registered in the UK with 28,000 PPLs (plus pilots holding CPLs) flying them. Yes, small numbers but when you look at the numbers attending the big airshows, the "interest" in aviation is huge so I bet there are large numbers who want to fly but don't know how to go about it.

When I was very young I cycled to the two local airfields and hung around. One of those is now a regional airport with associated security and one airfield has long gone so the opportunity for anyone to discover aviation the way I did has gone too. Is that why GA has so few flying participants?

The brownfield designation has to go.

[Deltasierra010]

Can GA ever be economically viable, YES but only if owns and controls the assets and we are talking about licensed airfields not farm strips. The current difficulty has happened because a great many well heeled pilot owners have not had the foresight to invest in the airfield they use, they have been quite happy to take advantage of the landowners generosity and have cheap flying.

Owner operated airfields are always going to be vulnerable, however enthusiastic and committed they are, they get older and their family will always want to maximize the value, that will also include local authority owners because policies will change over time.

It only needs a group of keen pilots who have enough foresight to get together and buy an airfield, they all could probably buy their own farm strip, so why not invest in a proper airfield. Long term airfields and land in general have proved very good investments, the annual income is small but capital value has increased massively - and will continue to do so because they are not making my more. There is never a right time to invest you have you take a risk just like every business, now is the time to stop whinging and get together.

[Jonzarno]

Long term airfields and land in general have proved very good investments, the annual income is small but capital value has increased massively

Aye, but there’s the rub: how do you eventually cash in that investment? Not by selling it as an airfield for sure; and even if you do, you will find it hard to find a buyer that will accept a covenant that it can’t be used for another purpose.

[The Ancient Geek]

The clue is to increase the income.
Most airfields include unused land, never sell, rather use it to generate a long term income.
Solar panels, rented buildings, cabbages, oil seed rape, whatever you can invest in to create an income to support the field.

[Deltasierra010]

Aye, but there’s the rub: how do you eventually cash in that investment? Not by selling it as an airfield for sure; and even if you do, you will find it hard to find a buyer that will accept a covenant that it can’t be used for another purpose.
There are several flying clubs that I know that do own their airfields and probably more that I have not had contact with. Golf clubs quite often are owned by the members and no doubt other sports are similar, the situation is quite similar, like aviation, members have cash to spare.

Not only do many pilots have cash to spare they have business experience they know how to make it work, where to get finance and support. So get 50 pilots together to buy a share for say £10 or 20k that is a decent starting money pot, when a member leaves his share is sold another pilot will want to join but no guarantee. Success depends on being a well run airfield and that will not be a cheap shoestring outfit.

We all see development land priced at £1M an acre but by the time all the costs and planning conditions are met sellers get a small part of that, the developers get the real cash windfall, so get together a put a sensible offer if you want to keep your airfield.

[Capt Kremmen]

Cash is king ! If the 'numbers' are right and they almost always will be, your pet airfield/brownfield site so designated, will fall like a ripe plum in response to a joint assault by importuning developers acting in cahoots with the County Authority.


Any bets on what Old Sarum will look like in five to ten years from now ? GA needs a vocal action group to press for legislation placing a legal responsibility on the developers to provide alternative airfield facilities. Would that result in a more costly residential unit ? No where near as much as continued immigration would impose.

[Bob Upanddown]

I am all for buying a share in an airfield but who is going to sell a suitable airfield? Regional and City Airports are going around buying up or buying into airports but I suspect they are approached by the people trying to sell or are "in the know" so to speak. A quick Google of airports or airfields for sale brings up Perranporth and a few houses for sale with runways.

Many threads on Pprune on the subject of buying an airfield.

Vocal action groups simply lack the finance to buy and run an airfield. (If you want an example, look at the current parties involved in trying to restart Panshanger)

[Capt Kremmen]

Indeed, but that is not what I wrote ! VAGs (vocal action groups) would present a strong UNITED lobby to encourage the passage of legislation placing a legal duty on the part of airfield developers to provide facilities alternative to and equal to, that which is about to be lost thru' development.


My comment wasn't about VAGs buying airfields.

[taildragger123]

Not all recreational pilots have huge pots of cash to spare Deltasierra. I fly from a farm strip where all of the aircraft are LAA permit to fly types ranging in value from 6K to 40K with most of the fleet being valued at 12-15K. Many of us make considerable sacrifices to fund our flying. Capt Kremmen is right and cash is king irrespective of the type of base that you fly from. In our instance the land is worth far more than the group of pilots could ever afford to buy. Fortunately the present owner is very air minded but eventually will want to retire and in due course one way or another the land will change hands. The return for any investment would be quite poor, unless a change of use was involved, which being fairly rural is thankfully unlikely. Though I do wonder if a farm strip of over 40 years could be considered as "brownfield" if it becomes disused. A bigger threat IMO is a stables, the riding community are another group of people perceived as having large disposable incomes and I fear there will be a greater return for any future land owner and much less regulation in an Equine environment.

[ETOPS]

Here's the Ministers reply (clearly drafted by Sir Humphrey :ugh: )

http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sajid-Javid-letter-December-2017.png

[colled]

Out of interest as a UK resident, how does the US support it's huge network of GA airfields? From my experience these seem to be well funded, impressive and well supported, despite being relatively little used. i.e. I can think of many airfields with huge tarmac runways, impressive hangarage and facilities that may only get a couple of movements a day. It seems a shame that we don't have the same level of committment in the UK.

Also as an aside, with the rising interest and development in future personal transport being autonomous flying vehicles such as the multirotor taxi deisgns around at the moment, shouldn't the Government start thinking about protecting tha airfields and infrastructure that will be needed to support these. Once lost, the Government will never get the land back for airfield development.

[TelsBoy]

I think many US fields are subsidised. Also the Yanks are much more appreciative of GA whereas here its seen as a rich man's hobby and a nuisance.


Many drones won't require "airfields" as such, however the key point is that, as with everything, the Govt is completely and utterly clueless and can't even see to the end of its nose, and so will continue to kneejerk policy-wise with ill-thought-out schemes and reactionary behaviour that they hope will see it to the end of its 5 years in office. See the current fiasco over Diesel cars for example.

[cats_five]

<snip>
The image in the public mind of rich boys defending their 'hobby' will be difficult to defend and will indeed be overcome by allegations of housing shortages, overcrowding and overpricing.

<snip>

Compared to people on minimum wage, zero hours contracts and the like anyone who can afford some sort of flying is a 'rich boy'.

[Capt Kremmen]

Depends largely on one's priorities.

[CloudHound]

Fly
Sex
Food
Sleep
Fly.....

[Marchettiman]

Fly
Sex
Food
Sleep
Fly.....

So you know what it means when your Mrs. tells you to give up flying?

[Katamarino]

In the US airfields are seen as part of the transportation network and funded accordingly. The taxes on fuel help to fund this, instead of being pumped into the overall "buying votes" bucket like in the UK. The US doesn't have the UK's obsession with punishing people who want to do something a bit different either, so they don't tax the living daylights out of everything aviation to the same extent - this keeps overall activity higher, which supports airfields.

[ETOPS]

Latest news from the APPG - an inquiry into how the CAA creates and regulates airspace and how oversight can be achieved by Parliament.

Airspace Inquiry - Terms of Reference and Call for Evidence » All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation (http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/airspace-inquiry-terms-of-reference-and-call-for-evidence/)