Lee On Solent - The End?

[Dave Gittins]

That is what concerns me. I like Caroline and her organisation and I'd like to do business with them for a long time to come.

AFAIK the nearest place is Goodwood, but the noble lord already has a thriving enterprise.

Other than unlicensed grass strips (such as lower Upham) I don't know of many places before I end up back at Fairoaks.

This is terribly sad for (or more like a delberate and cynical move against) GA on the south coast. With the comments above about Bournmouth, the loss of Southampton and other troubles besetting Shoreham. Lee is really a pretty good "last" place, between two major centres of population that could really thrive in the right hands ... but more importantly it has to have the will of officialdom to make it work.

I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????

DGG

[execExpress]

"If there was a way I could help the fight I would be happy to pitch in but the existing Lee Users seem to have already covered every possible base."

Dave - there are practical, discrete "task-lets", that folks like yourself can help with if they would like to pitch in and help.

If you wish, email me for a picklist of doable tasks, and choose one you are happy to take on for us (we cant get to them all as fast as we would like, so are are prioritising hard).

These are dark days right now, but strange as it may seem, as a result Lee is probably closer now than it has ever been to becoming be a normal shared GA airfield, with Police (priority) and MCA (priority) flying operations.

Lee Flying Assocation (http://www.eghf.co.uk) have a lot a significant actions and planning in hand (not all evident on the website!). Nonentheless LFA would really appreciate additional help with from the aviation community.

LFA 'open' meeting being held at Crofton Community Centre, Stubbington 1900, Sunday 28th October.

[execExpress]

Lee-On-Solent - The Beginning!

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for Dave?
(From another forum with authors permission)
-----------------------------------------------------

Stephen asked how the wider GA community can help to secure for want of a better term right now, "Lee For All".

1) FIRST AND FOREMOST - be aware that Well intentioned 'help' that is uninformed is very likely to be damaging rather than helpful - the situation is VERY complex. So, first help to ask for is please do not inadvetantly harm is being attempted with efforts from the sidelines. (I hope you know what I mean, because I have fallen into this trap myself when I thought I was being helpful early on).

Instead work with the Lee Flying Assocation (LFA), see http://www.eghf.co.uk

2) Specifically, LFA need additional information on how much it costs other Counties Air Support Units to be based at the various arifields around the UK. We need to build up a more detailed view of what is costs other UK police forces to do bae their ASUs at Shoreham, Rochester, and the like.

We are swamped with core focus activities right now - Is there a volunteer to collate this information from the GA community and its network in the industry on LFA's behalf please - by collecting in PM's from people who have some insight of those costs - we do not want this data gathering to be done in a public thread on a forum..

3) In a similar vein - so, who wants to use Lee? We are 'told' that there is suffient GA capacity in the area such that accessibility to use Lee in not required. Which means that the latent demand for GA use of Lee is not visible to the (Non-Aviation) decision makers. We need to surface that, in spades.

Is there a volunteer, please, who will offer to collate, again PMs, from the GA community expressing their wish to use the facilites, and thus build up evidence of unsatisfied demand which will further strengthen LFA's business case?

LFA will be a public meeting at Crofton Community Centre in Stubbington, Hants on 1900 Sunday 28th October.

Just an observation: the day GA was told it was to be finally be fully closed out Lee... ...was also the day XH558 flew again.... the art of the possible can be demonstrated again... ...who's in? Help like the above would be very valuable.
_________________

[execExpress]

"I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????"

Does PPRUNE have contacts with the "Flying Lawyers" or other PPL's with legal skills?

Such would be revered by GA forever if they helped Lee Flying Association bring Lee airfield to a long-overdue normality.

[Spamcan defender]

Originally Posted by execExpress

In a similar vein - so, who wants to use Lee? We are 'told' that there is suffient GA capacity in the area such that accessibility to use Lee in not required. Which means that the latent demand for GA use of Lee is not visible to the (Non-Aviation) decision makers. We need to surface that, in spades

How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??

Spamcan

[neil666]

Comment

Dave G says that.... "Then of course the Naval Gliding Club, who I imagine are currently laughing smugly as they get 10.00 a.m. - 5 pm. on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday as sole users, will suddenly get something to cough about."

As someone close to the Gliding community onsite, and to a number of our GA friends there, this assumption is WHOLLY inaccurate. Gliding and GA have co-existed safely, and in co-operation at Lee for some 50 years. You will find no-one in the Gliding community there who is not happy for that to continue as it was before the restrictions were imposed some months ago. Let's not play into the hands of the airfield management who appear to want to drive a wedge, by the very nature/format of their ongoing decisions.

[UAV689]

not knowing the full in's and outs of the case if the reason they are closing is because of the police wanting to operate on their own for safety reasons that is mad!

I glide and we work side by side with the police chopper, Sea king SAR, and apache/lynxs/gazzelles! (not to mention in bound hercs/antonovs etc) we have a clear understanding of each others needs and operate perfectly safely together. In fact a few years ago we held a competition and there was upwards of 25+ gliders flying in it and we still managed to operate together

[Saab Dastard]

I believe that a police helicopter (Surrey?) is based at Fairoaks. Seems to co-exist with other fixed wing & rotary traffic OK.

SD

[neil666]

Comment 2

UAV.... Until now, established local GA, Gliding, a Police fixed-wing Islander, the MCA Coastguard helicopters have all co-existed safely for many years.

There have been no significant incidents caused by the mix; and no rational safety-issues nor risks quantified. In fact the only significant accident on site was sadly the Police's own Optica some years ago.

The lack of any valid background for ongoing airfield policies, can therefore only be taken to be a want for "blue light" exclusivity, and where other users are presumably seen as amateur and "not worthy", or are too much trouble/displeasing to the eye.

I'm sure there are numerous other reasons, and I won't go into those here, but one now possibly starts to interweave with SEEDA (SE England Development Agency) desires to maximise the commercial return of the land around the central airfield. Housing makes a much nicer profit than flying, and meets government targets too. Us locals are being told by press releases, surveys etc that they want to build a plan to meet local public wishes. The public have voted clearly, and told them NO to houses, NO to more traffic on the peninsular, yes to green space; some light industry, GA, marine etc etc. How inconvenient....! So if the airfield operator then has a separate issue with GA (or Gliding) on "safety grounds" (shock/horror!) that is nothing to do with SEEDA.... but they've got room for more houses, and the hangars will clear - and they can make public statements that explain it wasn't down to them. Afterall H&S is sacrosanct - we all know that from being told so every day by some new trivial news item. That's handy - wow!

Anyone who understand aviation would see that the GA and Gliding operations are very safe alongside the Blue Light facilities; and in fact complement each other, and create a safer environment with better airfield and circuit awareness. There are many many airfields, and strips even where they are far far busier, but given that's not the point, it's not something that those making decisions would seem to be interested in.

[Climb Thrust]

Neil666 is wholly correct. Not only is this crass decision a disaster for the business and GA users at the airfield, it is also a disaster for the local community as a whole.

I have lived in this area for over 40years. During that time I have seen how the Navy and business have withdrawn leaving brownfield sites for developers to make money building more houses. The Gosport peninsula now has the cheapest housing in the south due to the oversupply of houses, gridlocked roads, and some of the highest unemployment. It also has one of the highest "out commutes" of any town in the country.

When SEEDA said they would develop the airfield site with a particular emphasis on marine and aviation, the local community at last felt that some attention was to be paid to providing an asset that we could be proud of. Of course it would take time to build up, but with public help from SEEDA this could have been achieved.

Instead the so called "economic development agency" has done nothing but put obstacles in the way of those wanting to develop the airfield for aviation business. Other posters are right that the Health and Safety issue is just a smoke screen. Go to the EGHF website and read the report SEEDA commissioned. You will see it was written by the management of Shoreham Airport! Yes that’s right - that lot who were investigated for fraud last year and would stand to benefit as one of the nearest competitors with a hard runway suitable for GA!

This is not just an issue for those in aviation. This is an issue which will affect the whole of the area. SEEDA should be thoroughly ashamed that they have stood by and watched this happen.

[PPRuNe Radar]

This is what one of the writers of the report by Erinaceous said in his role within the Airport Operators Association:

Noting that the role of the association is to present a case for the entire industry to government, local and national, he said: "The key message that GA has to put to the government is that it is a vital economic generator and regenerator."

The argument is a clear and compelling one. The UK's GA airports provide a vital service especially to commercial, business and executive traffic which, Haffenden notes, is usually engaged in creating income rather than exporting revenue. He uses Shoreham to illustrate his point: "We have an annual turnover of about Ł2.5m but if you remember that we have 45 businesses on the airport, from one-man-bands to companies employing 50 or more people and we assume that each of these companies has a turnover of Ł1-2m then it is clear the that the figure for the airport as a whole is Ł45-90m, a significant figure in anybody's terms." Expanding his point, Haffenden says that it is a ratio that can be extrapolated across the country's GA airports and shows that the sector is a "vital cog in the machine".

"It is essential that government receives the message that UK Aviation is not just about extra runways at Heathrow or Stansted, but every part of the puzzle."

Well done John Haffenden, you speak with forked tongue methinks Hold your head in shame and don't you DARE associate yourself with GA when you are quite happy to stab it in the back.

[TheOddOne]

Missing the point!!

Well done John Haffenden, you speak with forked tongue methinks Hold your head in shame and don't you DARE associate yourself with GA when you are quite happy to stab it in the back.

Dear Mr Moderator,

Sorry mate, but I must be having a senior moment! Where and when is John Haffenden stabbing GA in the back? As far as I'm aware, he's been a lifelong supporter of anything to do with GA!

Please explain for those of us not yet up to speed...

Thanks,
TheOddOne

[Mike Cross]

Read this.

[PPRuNe Radar]

TheOddOne

I have worked with John professionally in the past and my experience then was as you think he is, hence my anger at him co-writing a report which says that GA is unsafe to co-exist with 'blue light' operations, that the perception that GA is a 'rich man's sport' has not been disproven by GA at LOS, that GA adds nothing to the social and economic well being of the area, that it is in fact a disbenefit and costs the public money, etc, etc.

All this from a company (for which John has helped write the report) which states that it has no conflict of interest in seeing a nearby GA field being closed to the kind of traffic it also attracts as the operator of Shoreham.The report is full of statistics which have been spun to make the case, yet are at odds with precisely the things quoted by John with his AOA hat on.

I still think he should be ashamed of putting his name on the report.

[Fuji Abound]

Well the Heather Group should know how to run a business well if their track record is anything to go by.

And with regard to the report, I wonder how much the taxpayer paid for it?

[Contacttower]

From the report linked by Mike Cross:

"Clearly existing arrangements for the operation of the airfield are unsatisfactory to allow
shared usage involving gliders, general aviation, and “blue light” services. These
arrangements have led to a number of incidents which have endangered health & safety

and led to restrictions on operations, particularly relating to general aviation."

What are these "incidents" that the report mentions?

[Mike Cross]

What are these "incidents" that the report mentions?

I was at the Public Meeting this evening. It's a question that has been asked of Hampshire Police, who have not provided a reply.

I understand the local MP has asked DfT, who have overall responsibility for MCA, the owners of the airfield, for a copy of the report. There is a suspicion that it does not exist.

While Hants Police, SEEDA, and MCA were invited to send representatives to the meeting only SEEDA replied, sending their regrets.

Despite the absence of these people I detected an unmistakable piscene aroma. Why does the MCA sit on an asset valued at 20 million smackeroos and then do this? Do you need exclusive use of an asset valued at 20 million to operate two helicopters and an Islander? Is it good stewardship of public funds?

MCA are building new office and hangar space on the E/W runway at the southern part of the a/d. It's not hard to envisage a scenario where Hants Police switch to helo operation and presto! all the land to the north of that runway becomes surplus to requirements. The local residents want GA to continue, the local council do, and no-one wants to lose the buffer of open space between Lee and Stubbington.

As any fule no mixed f/w, rotary and glider operations take place at airfields all over the country with no H&S issues.

More info here.

[execExpress]

Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE

Spamcan asked:

"How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??"

Spamcan, Would you (or someone else please) start a new PPRUNE thread titled something like "Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE" .

Indicate in your post the kind of flying you want to do, and hopefully word will get out such that many other UK flyers will append to the thread also. We can get the thread into the view of relevant bodies very easily from there... ... or transfer the expressed views into a more effective vehicle when that becomes apparent (a WIP but not top priority - we are going to pursue a High Court Injunction urgently).

Posters to the thread would not have to be local to Lee, if they would fly in to visit the local area, refuel, whatever, the point is to express the demand that is out there for public access to the Department for Transports MCA Daedalus airfield. You paid for it, the government policy is to encourage use of such facilities, so Say You Want To Access it.

FYI Erinaceous Report says
"

5.3.10 It should also be borne in mind that there are significant numbers of general aviation facilities within one-hour travel of Daedalus (see diagram 4) and there is no discernable increasing demand for general aviation of the type seen at Daedalus. Whilst we cannot comment in detail on the facilities provided by these airfields, it would appear that there is enough capacity within the region to satisfy demand."

GA Have Your Say!
The full report is at www.eghf.co.uk

[execExpress]

UAV689 - Thanks for the example, we are collecting them, and that is a great one - could you clarify the level of air traffic service provided during this level of activity please - Air/ground? Air Traffic Contol?

BTW At LEE The only party who refuses to sign the Letter of Agreement regarding airspace procedures at Lee and DARA Fleetlands is Hamsphire Constabulary.

Of the four signatories - DARA Fleetlands, Bristows (Chief Pilot), the Royal Navy (for Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club) and Hampshire Constabulary it is only Hampshire Constabulary who will not sign it.

The LOA is now nearly a year old. Several of the issues Hamsphire Constabulary are apparently currently claiming as their Health and Safety concerns relate DIRECTLY to the fact the LOA has not been signed by them! For what reason is not clear - it is not an extraordinary LOA.

[execExpress]

Neil666 - allthe points you make are very valid I think, however I should just point out that the Police Optica and crew of two which was tragically lost was on its first operational mission and was operating out of Bournmouth - not Lee-On-Solent.

Lee-On-Solent has an EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD. In living memory, which is at least 28 and 38 years of operating on the airfiled, LEE's most experienced flyers do not recall any incidents leading to injury, hospitaliation or even a trip to A&E. The PNGC itslef has operated for 57 years, have around 4 million launches - and a great safety record.

Despite Hampshire Constabularies' assertions of Health and Safety Concerns and "Incidents" there are no Mandatory Occurance Reports that substanciate such claims. The filing of an MOR is a legal requirement following an incident so where are they?

No Risk Assessments have been forthcoming to substantiate the H&S assertions either. The ELFA, and the Executive Leader for Fareham Borough Council has requested , from the Chief Constable, copies of the H&S materials supporting the police decisions. Such have yet to be received and locally there is strong suspicion that such do not exist.

It is not at all clear that DfT-MCA, SEEDA, or Erinaceous did anything at all other than simply accept at face value Hampshire Constabularies statements regarding H&S concerns... ...and have been happy to repeat them:

From the Erinaceous report:
"5.2.3 There are considerable health & safety issues relating to air traffic control, the operation of the airfield and access to it by the general aviation community in particular which, in our opinion, must be addressed as an immediate priority."

"5.3.1 A strong case has been put forward that the operational and health & safety issues documented at Daedalus can be overcome by removing all gliding activity.

Who put that case forward? On what grounds? And how do LFA an others get past this loop of chasing down an spurious Health and Safey claim which the non-aviaiton organisations have (thus far) swallowed hook line and sinker?