Don't fly over my house...
Why can't they come over my house instead
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't they come over my house instead
Enjoy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the NIMBY problem is not a recent evolution, during the summer of 1940 there were a significant number of noise complaints from some near to Biggin Hill!
That said I thought the Blues and Royals were Hooray Henrys and we were just Boys in Blue!
That said I thought the Blues and Royals were Hooray Henrys and we were just Boys in Blue!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wittering compensation was £950K AND they didn't have to refund any of it when Harrier flying ceased - SFAIK
One Crown Office Row - Article
One Crown Office Row - Article
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wally threatening to fly a balloon close to RAF Valley should be made aware of the Article in the "Air Navigation Order"
Endangering safety of an Aircraft
A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person therein.
Flying a ballon with the intention of endangering an aircraft can be an offence.
As to the claimants near Wittering I think the case should have been vigorously defended
Shortly after the 1914-1918 war and following some claims for damages for noise nuisance a House of Commons Committee was set up chaired by an MP who later became a Very Important Person. The result was a Civil Aviation Act with a Section headed "Trespass by aircraft and aircraft nuisance,noise etc.".
In the current Civil Aviation Act this is Section 76 and reads:
76__(1) No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to, wind . weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight so long as as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order......have been duly complied with.... .
Section 76__(2) of the Act allows for compensation for material loss without proof of negligence where a loss is caused by the flight of an aircraft.
Do military aircraft have the same protection as civil aircraft from the complainers?
Endangering safety of an Aircraft
A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person therein.
Flying a ballon with the intention of endangering an aircraft can be an offence.
As to the claimants near Wittering I think the case should have been vigorously defended
Shortly after the 1914-1918 war and following some claims for damages for noise nuisance a House of Commons Committee was set up chaired by an MP who later became a Very Important Person. The result was a Civil Aviation Act with a Section headed "Trespass by aircraft and aircraft nuisance,noise etc.".
In the current Civil Aviation Act this is Section 76 and reads:
76__(1) No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to, wind . weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight so long as as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order......have been duly complied with.... .
Section 76__(2) of the Act allows for compensation for material loss without proof of negligence where a loss is caused by the flight of an aircraft.
Do military aircraft have the same protection as civil aircraft from the complainers?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
Curiouser and curiouser:
THIS SEPTIC ISLE - Rebecca Television
Seems like he has done much worse for Anglesey than any number of jets.
By the way, can any of you pilot persons define 'laissez-faire' flying?
THIS SEPTIC ISLE - Rebecca Television
Seems like he has done much worse for Anglesey than any number of jets.
By the way, can any of you pilot persons define 'laissez-faire' flying?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Wittering compensation was £950K AND they didn't have to refund any of it when Harrier flying ceased - SFAIK
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My oldest friend had a yogurt knitting trot as a boss, who hated the military(especially the US) and aircraft so much, she move to.....Fairford.
Every year she goes on holiday when the airshow is on, as she hates the military being in HER backyard. In 93 when she got back she found a Mig 29 had flat spun into her garden destroying her crap peace ornaments in the process.
Ohhhhh how we laughed
Every year she goes on holiday when the airshow is on, as she hates the military being in HER backyard. In 93 when she got back she found a Mig 29 had flat spun into her garden destroying her crap peace ornaments in the process.
Ohhhhh how we laughed
Martin...
I should imagine Jones can define laissez-faire quite well.... It seems to be the attitude he has to any form of law or regulation that does not suit his purpose.
Stop flying over his kindergarden and get his house in as the waypoint instead!
OH
I should imagine Jones can define laissez-faire quite well.... It seems to be the attitude he has to any form of law or regulation that does not suit his purpose.
Stop flying over his kindergarden and get his house in as the waypoint instead!
OH
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the noise that worries me, it's the cavalier attitude. One has only to read the official accident reports to learn just what attitude some allegedly professional service pilots have toward safety procedures. If they overfly, be scared, very, very scared.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst this is purely speculation on my part, his nursery business may not exist in the first place if he didn't have a camp's worth of scaley brats to attend it..?
As for the raising of a weather balloon - does he really think that risking the lives of aircrew just because he doesn't like the noise of jets flying over is justified?
As for the raising of a weather balloon - does he really think that risking the lives of aircrew just because he doesn't like the noise of jets flying over is justified?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Witney
Age: 43
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I don't agree with the general opinion here...
As a QSP who does low fly on a fairly regular basis in something that is loud enough and does generate noise complaints I feel very lonely having a lot of sympathy for people who find them selves near a busy airfield and are taken by surprise by the noise..
Now, I'm just addressing a couple of what seem to be recurring arguments in this area and expecting a hail of incoming!
1. If they don't like the noise they shouldn't have moved near an airfield.
This seems like a really illogical argument. Not with standing the fact that most people only get to go house hunting on a weekend when there probably isn't much flying going and therefore probably aren't prepared for the mid week noise. Does any one really think and argument that anyone who lives near an airfield should just deal with the disturbance? I don't see where the argument can possibly go? Should they all just move out? There aren't enough houses to go around on this island, so you can't really expect people not to live in the ones that are there. What if thats the only place they can afford that suits there jobs ect. ect. ect.
2. I didn't hear people complaining about the noise in 1940.
No, on the whole they probably didn't. Because there was a war on. In Europe. It's not 1940, that was a long time ago. The Army did a pretty good job routing the Nazis from France and Italy but I would still be pissed off if a bunch of squaddies made a load of noise leaving the pub down my street every Friday Night. We did not fight that battle, our forefathers did, it was a different time. This is a nonsense argument that has bugger all to do with today.
3. This just related to the Wittering thing.. I think the guy in question moved into the house in 1963, pre Harrier, and he inherited it when his Dad died. Where do you go with that? Sorry mate, your dad should've predicted us putting a load of fighters in here and using your house as short finals. His Dad bought a house next to a quiet airfield which then became very busy, with a very loud aeroplane. The house is 2 nm on the centerline. It must have been hell living there. I seems fair enough to me, and it was for loss of earnings not being able to use the house for films shoots ect, not just a load of cash for waking the dogs up. The Judge at the time also found in favor of the RAF by agreeing the flying was essential, and gave a gypsys warning about the noise from F-35.
So, all I'm saying is that what we do is not universally loved by all, and we are not all heroic enough to have enough of a moral perch to tell people just to deal with it because were defending the country. The noise we make ruins some peoples lives, it's a small island and we have to share it with the people who are legally obliged to pay for us. They have a right to expect us to make an effort to co-inhabit. On the whole I think we do, I know at a secret location west of Oxfod they are bending over backwards to accommodate to locals. I know it would be great to live in a world where everyone saluted and shed a tear as we flew over the top, but they don't. We piss some people off and it's not our island, and quite importantly they pay for what we do on their behalf.
I am now under my desk wearing my tin hat with a hip flask to see me through until the worst of the shelling is over.
Now, I'm just addressing a couple of what seem to be recurring arguments in this area and expecting a hail of incoming!
1. If they don't like the noise they shouldn't have moved near an airfield.
This seems like a really illogical argument. Not with standing the fact that most people only get to go house hunting on a weekend when there probably isn't much flying going and therefore probably aren't prepared for the mid week noise. Does any one really think and argument that anyone who lives near an airfield should just deal with the disturbance? I don't see where the argument can possibly go? Should they all just move out? There aren't enough houses to go around on this island, so you can't really expect people not to live in the ones that are there. What if thats the only place they can afford that suits there jobs ect. ect. ect.
2. I didn't hear people complaining about the noise in 1940.
No, on the whole they probably didn't. Because there was a war on. In Europe. It's not 1940, that was a long time ago. The Army did a pretty good job routing the Nazis from France and Italy but I would still be pissed off if a bunch of squaddies made a load of noise leaving the pub down my street every Friday Night. We did not fight that battle, our forefathers did, it was a different time. This is a nonsense argument that has bugger all to do with today.
3. This just related to the Wittering thing.. I think the guy in question moved into the house in 1963, pre Harrier, and he inherited it when his Dad died. Where do you go with that? Sorry mate, your dad should've predicted us putting a load of fighters in here and using your house as short finals. His Dad bought a house next to a quiet airfield which then became very busy, with a very loud aeroplane. The house is 2 nm on the centerline. It must have been hell living there. I seems fair enough to me, and it was for loss of earnings not being able to use the house for films shoots ect, not just a load of cash for waking the dogs up. The Judge at the time also found in favor of the RAF by agreeing the flying was essential, and gave a gypsys warning about the noise from F-35.
So, all I'm saying is that what we do is not universally loved by all, and we are not all heroic enough to have enough of a moral perch to tell people just to deal with it because were defending the country. The noise we make ruins some peoples lives, it's a small island and we have to share it with the people who are legally obliged to pay for us. They have a right to expect us to make an effort to co-inhabit. On the whole I think we do, I know at a secret location west of Oxfod they are bending over backwards to accommodate to locals. I know it would be great to live in a world where everyone saluted and shed a tear as we flew over the top, but they don't. We piss some people off and it's not our island, and quite importantly they pay for what we do on their behalf.
I am now under my desk wearing my tin hat with a hip flask to see me through until the worst of the shelling is over.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nice, FR
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why 499 feet?
This looks like a carefully chosen number, do you own the airspace above your house up to 500 feet? Anyone know what he is basing this on?
Ok, found it.." (ANO CAP 393 Section 2 Rules of the Air) states that you must not fly within 500 feet......"
Not relevant for takeoff or landing though so it would seem he has not done his homework.
Ok, found it.." (ANO CAP 393 Section 2 Rules of the Air) states that you must not fly within 500 feet......"
Not relevant for takeoff or landing though so it would seem he has not done his homework.
Last edited by paull; 15th Sep 2012 at 06:26. Reason: Enlightened by Google.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turningfinals,
The presence of a 500' balloon is not dangerous if it is known about. It's inconvenient. The MATZ should ideally be clear of significant obstacles in the approach and departure planes (just like the civvys)
Lasers, balloons......the price of democracy is high sometimes. The law needs to take its course, and that will take its time!
Very frustrating.
The presence of a 500' balloon is not dangerous if it is known about. It's inconvenient. The MATZ should ideally be clear of significant obstacles in the approach and departure planes (just like the civvys)
Lasers, balloons......the price of democracy is high sometimes. The law needs to take its course, and that will take its time!
Very frustrating.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the noise that worries me, it's the cavalier attitude. One has only to read the official accident reports to learn just what attitude some allegedly professional service pilots have toward safety procedures. If they overfly, be scared, very, very scared.
Would you clarify which official reports you are referring to?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
over his business and properties he rents out at Cefni, near Llangefni, north
Wales, which include a children’s nursery.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Wensly read the link posted above as to this chaps Council dealings, post 27..... All seems dodgy.
.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Sep 2012 at 08:33.