Mak
15th Jul 2003, 19:02
The post on the new threat to North Weald made me think on how to best support a local airfield.
Ultimately we want airfields to stay open because we need the airfields so that we can exercise our hobby. But in the face of economic interest and population pressure in the SE, that carries little weight with most (non-pilot) people and I find it difficult to see how a council officer or MP is able to justify his or her defence of a local airfield before his constituency. (The situation is of course different for a remote location where land is not a rare commodity and transport links are not so numerous.)
So we need arguments that have relevance to the population at large and that don't make our defence look weak. I've listed those that I can think of.
* Heritage: some airfields have a long tradition of flight, played an important role in the past or have listed buildings. How does NW fit into this?
* Protection of the countryside: the airfield and surrounding area are left relatively untouched when compared with a residencial or industrial or office area. The SE is already excessively exploited and airfields do guarantee the maintenance of some valuable breathing space.
* Last but not least, freedom: flying is a difficult, inspiring activity and pilots should have the freedom to exercise their choosen hobby. Flying does require greater infrastructure than most activities but in the UK these are not provided free of charge and most airfields are viable self-supporting economic entities. Systematically closing airfields in fact prevents people from exercising the freedom to fly, an activity on which they have expended much time, efford and money.
I'm sure there are better arguments and better ways to put these forward. All ideas welcome.
Mak
Ultimately we want airfields to stay open because we need the airfields so that we can exercise our hobby. But in the face of economic interest and population pressure in the SE, that carries little weight with most (non-pilot) people and I find it difficult to see how a council officer or MP is able to justify his or her defence of a local airfield before his constituency. (The situation is of course different for a remote location where land is not a rare commodity and transport links are not so numerous.)
So we need arguments that have relevance to the population at large and that don't make our defence look weak. I've listed those that I can think of.
* Heritage: some airfields have a long tradition of flight, played an important role in the past or have listed buildings. How does NW fit into this?
* Protection of the countryside: the airfield and surrounding area are left relatively untouched when compared with a residencial or industrial or office area. The SE is already excessively exploited and airfields do guarantee the maintenance of some valuable breathing space.
* Last but not least, freedom: flying is a difficult, inspiring activity and pilots should have the freedom to exercise their choosen hobby. Flying does require greater infrastructure than most activities but in the UK these are not provided free of charge and most airfields are viable self-supporting economic entities. Systematically closing airfields in fact prevents people from exercising the freedom to fly, an activity on which they have expended much time, efford and money.
I'm sure there are better arguments and better ways to put these forward. All ideas welcome.
Mak