Anti Airfield letter in todays Daily Mail
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, aircraft cannot "train" at unlicensed airfields. These aircraft are probably flying purely for pleasure.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ms. Lacey,
Rather than spending thousands on lawyers and postal services, why not spend hundreds on a CCTV system to record your evidence.
If what you say is true then it should not take long for you to have the required evidence.
The Civil Aviation Authority take all complaints of dangerous and illegal flying seriously. Provided the evidence is available to bak up such reports.
Unfortunately for your case even a brief visit to the Redlands website and a check of their published procedures clearly shows the lengths they go to to minimise disturbance for residents in the vicinity.
One can see that great effort has been made to keep the circuit pattern very tight to the airfield and avoid local "habitation". What you must understand is that by insisting that aircraft remain so close to the airfield, they are in turn forced to use a circuit height of 500ft which is perfectly in keeping with normal aviation practice for such tight circuits.
Finally, I must wonder at this lenghty complain against redlands while nothing is said about lotmead farm. Can we assume then that you have no objection to aviation operations at lotmead farm?
Regards,
DFC
Rather than spending thousands on lawyers and postal services, why not spend hundreds on a CCTV system to record your evidence.
If what you say is true then it should not take long for you to have the required evidence.
The Civil Aviation Authority take all complaints of dangerous and illegal flying seriously. Provided the evidence is available to bak up such reports.
Unfortunately for your case even a brief visit to the Redlands website and a check of their published procedures clearly shows the lengths they go to to minimise disturbance for residents in the vicinity.
One can see that great effort has been made to keep the circuit pattern very tight to the airfield and avoid local "habitation". What you must understand is that by insisting that aircraft remain so close to the airfield, they are in turn forced to use a circuit height of 500ft which is perfectly in keeping with normal aviation practice for such tight circuits.
Finally, I must wonder at this lenghty complain against redlands while nothing is said about lotmead farm. Can we assume then that you have no objection to aviation operations at lotmead farm?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I see Contacttower, I was just assuming for Group A only. I stand corrected.
300 Yards is a little close indeed, if that is the case. However I still can't see microlights thundering overhead skimming rooftops, rattling the pans on the kitchen shelf and making one completely unable to concentrate on doing anything.
Also, if it's microlights we're talking about, I have found microlights to be very quiet indeed. Even 300 Yards away. Yes I've been to East Fortune rather more than a few times during my lifetime from a very young age.
Like I say I don't want to start slagging people off, I do have some understanding for some cases of aircraft noise, but when people come out with grossly exaggerated statements of Quantums thundering over the roofs causing much distress then I start to lose sympathy and patience. Bringing the Compensation Culture into the equation also fairly cheeses me off.
300 Yards is a little close indeed, if that is the case. However I still can't see microlights thundering overhead skimming rooftops, rattling the pans on the kitchen shelf and making one completely unable to concentrate on doing anything.
Also, if it's microlights we're talking about, I have found microlights to be very quiet indeed. Even 300 Yards away. Yes I've been to East Fortune rather more than a few times during my lifetime from a very young age.
Like I say I don't want to start slagging people off, I do have some understanding for some cases of aircraft noise, but when people come out with grossly exaggerated statements of Quantums thundering over the roofs causing much distress then I start to lose sympathy and patience. Bringing the Compensation Culture into the equation also fairly cheeses me off.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience airfields take a lot of measures to try and keep noise levels to a minimum. Nottingham airport (EGBN not NX) have 2 circuits where we ask pilots to cut their downwind and not overfly the neighbouring estate of West Bridgeford. We have noise tolerance levels for aircraft; take the boeing stearman for instance, it's very noisy due to the propellers length and the tips going supersonic and so we will allow one stearman in a day to take off and land. Every other aircraft that visits our airfield is a small single or twin prop.
Leicester, Gamston and other random airfields i've visited have included on their websites, and I believe pooleys as well, instructions for joining and landing on certain runways to avoid noise and low flying above houses.
Airfields have better things to be doing than answering complaints from local people and work towards getting noise levels as low as possible, do you think they enjoy been hassled?
It is not uncommon to receive complaints from the people that live in Tollerton (nearby village) because of the aircraft flying over head. Most of the people that do the complaining live on the otherside of the village and hear the aircraft for perhaps 10 seconds whilst it passes over head, certainly not below 500feet. This shows that a fair few people complain just because aviation is there and it's easy to attack. It is mostly why pilots start getting defensive and abusive everytime someone posts a complaint to the newspapers because from what we know of general complainers - they moved to their residency after the airfield was built (certainly the case with Nottingham as it's been there for around 100years) - they live far enough away that the aircraft only bothers for a few second and are generally quiter than traffic outside! - or the fact that these people just complain about everything they can.
Quite often I hear of another airfield under threat of closure due to councils, locals wanting rid of the airfields etc, it is rather saddening. Nottingham's future currently isn't secure, i'm not sure where Leicester stands but I don't think that airfield is in a good position. The fact is most of these complaints are usually worded in such a way as to suggest we purposely make a nuisance of ourselves, as if we want to spoil your peace and quiet. If aviation is out of the limelight then airfields can be saved and those that use aviation for recreational purposes can enjoy their hobbie hassle free so it makes sense that we are actually trying to keep out of the way.
I've seen pollution mentioned here, which is another big thing that anti-aviation activists protest about. If they'd actually done their homework aviation is quite a small contributer to greenhouses compared to most things in this world, yet airliners and aircraft manufacturers are always looking at new ways of reducing pollution load... easyJet for instance are trying to develope what they call the ecoJet which is rumoured (keyword) to produce around 35mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile; much better than a car. Their current fleet produces around 96mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile at the minute which is still better than your average car. I've seen on a few websites that aviation contributes to about 5% of the global CO2 emissions... this is lower than IT, which i've also seen on a few sites to be around 6-7%.. should people stop using computers?
From reading this I hope anyone that has had REAL bad experiences with aviation, aircraft flying low, noise levels etc that has made complaints and received insults from pilots can understand why we are very defensive and quick to throw something back. Others might just find this a bore and might pounce on something i've said but nevermind
.
Leicester, Gamston and other random airfields i've visited have included on their websites, and I believe pooleys as well, instructions for joining and landing on certain runways to avoid noise and low flying above houses.
Airfields have better things to be doing than answering complaints from local people and work towards getting noise levels as low as possible, do you think they enjoy been hassled?
It is not uncommon to receive complaints from the people that live in Tollerton (nearby village) because of the aircraft flying over head. Most of the people that do the complaining live on the otherside of the village and hear the aircraft for perhaps 10 seconds whilst it passes over head, certainly not below 500feet. This shows that a fair few people complain just because aviation is there and it's easy to attack. It is mostly why pilots start getting defensive and abusive everytime someone posts a complaint to the newspapers because from what we know of general complainers - they moved to their residency after the airfield was built (certainly the case with Nottingham as it's been there for around 100years) - they live far enough away that the aircraft only bothers for a few second and are generally quiter than traffic outside! - or the fact that these people just complain about everything they can.
Quite often I hear of another airfield under threat of closure due to councils, locals wanting rid of the airfields etc, it is rather saddening. Nottingham's future currently isn't secure, i'm not sure where Leicester stands but I don't think that airfield is in a good position. The fact is most of these complaints are usually worded in such a way as to suggest we purposely make a nuisance of ourselves, as if we want to spoil your peace and quiet. If aviation is out of the limelight then airfields can be saved and those that use aviation for recreational purposes can enjoy their hobbie hassle free so it makes sense that we are actually trying to keep out of the way.
I've seen pollution mentioned here, which is another big thing that anti-aviation activists protest about. If they'd actually done their homework aviation is quite a small contributer to greenhouses compared to most things in this world, yet airliners and aircraft manufacturers are always looking at new ways of reducing pollution load... easyJet for instance are trying to develope what they call the ecoJet which is rumoured (keyword) to produce around 35mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile; much better than a car. Their current fleet produces around 96mg's of CO2 per passenger per mile at the minute which is still better than your average car. I've seen on a few websites that aviation contributes to about 5% of the global CO2 emissions... this is lower than IT, which i've also seen on a few sites to be around 6-7%.. should people stop using computers?
From reading this I hope anyone that has had REAL bad experiences with aviation, aircraft flying low, noise levels etc that has made complaints and received insults from pilots can understand why we are very defensive and quick to throw something back. Others might just find this a bore and might pounce on something i've said but nevermind
.
Last edited by poss; 8th Apr 2008 at 18:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Smithy. Ms K Lacey is totaly out of order.
She shamlessly uses the Biggin Hill Crash to further her biased views.
Quite plainly is she feels so strongly she should move and stop peddeling untruths. 50' above her house indeed, I would hate to see her park a car if that's her degree of distance awarness.
If the Google Earth views are of her house she has absolutley nothing to moan about.
She shamlessly uses the Biggin Hill Crash to further her biased views.
Quite plainly is she feels so strongly she should move and stop peddeling untruths. 50' above her house indeed, I would hate to see her park a car if that's her degree of distance awarness.
If the Google Earth views are of her house she has absolutley nothing to moan about.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
I would liked to think that Ms Lacey was a person with genuine issues with Redlands Airfield and perhaps with good will on both sides an agreement could be reached. The sad fact is 99% of the issues that Ms Lacey has flagged up to the local council have been pure fiction.
A quick search on the internet will tell you that on one occasion some time back Ms Lacey accused a pilot of flying over her house at 30 feet this was investigated by the local council who found that the aircraft in question had not left the ground that day due to bad weather.
There is very little you can do to reason with people who live in a world of thear own making, it is quite clear in this case that Ms Lacey sees nothing wrong with using the deaths of a number of people in this tragic accident to futher her own ends despite the fact that the accident has not the slightest connection with her issues about Redlands.
As pilots we often think that we are on the wrong end of the thinking in the local council chamber but in this case the council has weighed the evidence and local opinion and come to the view that Ms Lacey's alligations hold little water.
This is a small victory for local democracy but as you might expect Ms Lacey is also now accusing the council of malpractice!
A quick search on the internet will tell you that on one occasion some time back Ms Lacey accused a pilot of flying over her house at 30 feet this was investigated by the local council who found that the aircraft in question had not left the ground that day due to bad weather.
There is very little you can do to reason with people who live in a world of thear own making, it is quite clear in this case that Ms Lacey sees nothing wrong with using the deaths of a number of people in this tragic accident to futher her own ends despite the fact that the accident has not the slightest connection with her issues about Redlands.
As pilots we often think that we are on the wrong end of the thinking in the local council chamber but in this case the council has weighed the evidence and local opinion and come to the view that Ms Lacey's alligations hold little water.
This is a small victory for local democracy but as you might expect Ms Lacey is also now accusing the council of malpractice!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Poss" makes a point about the threat of airfield closure as a result of ever increasing complaints.
It is worth mentioning that ever increasing airfield closures simply force more and more aircraft into an ever decreasing number of airfields, thus aggravating and not decreasing the perceived misery of those on the ground.
It is worth mentioning that ever increasing airfield closures simply force more and more aircraft into an ever decreasing number of airfields, thus aggravating and not decreasing the perceived misery of those on the ground.
She can hardly say aviation is new in the area; there was a wartime airfield at Wanborough, and South Marston just to the north was Vickers - Supermarines factory airfield. Don't have 'Action Stations' No 6 or 9 to hand; they must be in one of those. Wroughton isn't too far away either, and on the photo, you can clearly see another private airstrip to the north west. Further north is Sandhill Farm gliding site; maybe they do aerotows from there?
Last edited by chevvron; 10th Apr 2008 at 11:32.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 44
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydivers
On Saturday a skydiver narrowly missed landing on the roof of my house and only just managed to land on a field at the bottom of my garden. Traumatic and distressing? I'll let you decide.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More so for the skydiver I would have imagined. Sounds a bit like you're grasping for a bit of compensation there.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 44
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contacttower, you are of course totally correct. It's likely that the jumper had identified the field as his landing point and just hadn't begun to flare at the point Ms Lacey believed he was going to hit her house.
The point I was trying to make was that the person most likely to be injured in that sort of accident is the jumper, not anyone on the ground. To try to claim that you are "traumatised and distressed" is a bit much really and sounds horribly like someone positioning for a compensation claim of "mental anguish" or some other such nonsense. If one thing gets my goat it's the rapidly burgeoning compensation culture that we seem to be intent on importing from the US.
I'll be quiet now, don't want to appear to grumpy in my first couple of posts!
The point I was trying to make was that the person most likely to be injured in that sort of accident is the jumper, not anyone on the ground. To try to claim that you are "traumatised and distressed" is a bit much really and sounds horribly like someone positioning for a compensation claim of "mental anguish" or some other such nonsense. If one thing gets my goat it's the rapidly burgeoning compensation culture that we seem to be intent on importing from the US.
I'll be quiet now, don't want to appear to grumpy in my first couple of posts!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with "eyewitness" reports such as those by Ms Lacey (and our own local Nimbies) is that they are next to useless.
As the AAIB know well, an eyewitness will tell you that any aircraft an they could see was "right overhead" and that altitudes are almost always dramatically underestimated.
Hence any aeroplane viewed just above the horizon is always "over my house at 50" or "about to crash" because it is just a few degrees above trees in the foreground.
The normal pattern of power applications and reductions become "cutting and racing the engine" and a PFL or stall practice becomes "dive bombing the rabbit hutch at the end of my garden".
Funny how they are NEVER close enough to read a registration, though - despite the fact that a car registration plate (which is much smaller) can be read from 75ft away with normal eyesight.
As the AAIB know well, an eyewitness will tell you that any aircraft an they could see was "right overhead" and that altitudes are almost always dramatically underestimated.
Hence any aeroplane viewed just above the horizon is always "over my house at 50" or "about to crash" because it is just a few degrees above trees in the foreground.
The normal pattern of power applications and reductions become "cutting and racing the engine" and a PFL or stall practice becomes "dive bombing the rabbit hutch at the end of my garden".
Funny how they are NEVER close enough to read a registration, though - despite the fact that a car registration plate (which is much smaller) can be read from 75ft away with normal eyesight.
Mess Your Passage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Temporarily Unaware......
Age: 25
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had heard of an interesting one a while ago where a resident had shone a laser rangefinding diy tool at an a/c to try to determine the altitude.
After a consultation with people trusted it was quickly realised that the law was broken by the complainant trying to catch the alleged agressor.
The compenstation, did we trip you up? culture is enveloping many people who are not good enough for pop idol but may qualify for a win on a scratchcard. Leave the house more, obviously! if you are relentlessly bombarded by a/c.....(how do they afford it?)
p.s Ms Lacy yr missing a trick.... Sell yr pad to an aviation nut.... there are plenty that would snap it up!!!!
Plus side to everything..
lotsa luv
xxx
f
After a consultation with people trusted it was quickly realised that the law was broken by the complainant trying to catch the alleged agressor.
The compenstation, did we trip you up? culture is enveloping many people who are not good enough for pop idol but may qualify for a win on a scratchcard. Leave the house more, obviously! if you are relentlessly bombarded by a/c.....(how do they afford it?)
p.s Ms Lacy yr missing a trick.... Sell yr pad to an aviation nut.... there are plenty that would snap it up!!!!
Plus side to everything..
lotsa luv
xxx
f
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done freefall in a previous life (and decided that maybe I should get a pilots licence at it seems less like controlled suicide ), I have to say that I find Miss Laceys comments very unbeliveable!
I stuck with the more benign canopys and not the performance type and even these have a pretty rapid rate of descent. For one to pass over her house at 50ft and make into an adjoining field she must have a very short back garden!!!!
As has been said many times before judging the height of an aircraft by someone on the ground using the naked eye is notoriously unreliable. I suspect that they were much higher and maybe her anger with the previous encounters led her to think it was lower.
I do have every sympathy if the airfield owner opened up post Ms Lacey moving in and did so without going through the proper channels, I have no idea if this is the case as dont know the area. However, if the airfield was there first then its tough luck! Dont buy a house near an airport/motorway/pub/etc and then complain about the noise, you knew it was there when you bought it - buy a house on the top of Dartmoor instead
J.
), I have to say that I find Miss Laceys comments very unbeliveable!I stuck with the more benign canopys and not the performance type and even these have a pretty rapid rate of descent. For one to pass over her house at 50ft and make into an adjoining field she must have a very short back garden!!!!
As has been said many times before judging the height of an aircraft by someone on the ground using the naked eye is notoriously unreliable. I suspect that they were much higher and maybe her anger with the previous encounters led her to think it was lower.
I do have every sympathy if the airfield owner opened up post Ms Lacey moving in and did so without going through the proper channels, I have no idea if this is the case as dont know the area. However, if the airfield was there first then its tough luck! Dont buy a house near an airport/motorway/pub/etc and then complain about the noise, you knew it was there when you bought it - buy a house on the top of Dartmoor instead
J.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do have every sympathy if the airfield owner opened up post Ms Lacey moving in and did so without going through the proper channels
You can do one of the following
a) the 28 day rule
b) full planning permission
No other way.
If you do a) and there are movements on more than 28 days per year (and you can be sure the determined NIMBYs will be counting) then you have a problem.
If you do b) then you can continue so long as you remain within the terms of the planning permission. The process for getting that includes receiving objections etc. That is called democracy.
Incidentally, the presumption in Planning law is in favour of a permission. The objectors have to make their case. Not a lot of people know that!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretically so - unless your local council (and therefore their planning officer) have an anti-airfield mindset. This has proven to be the case all too often - they'd usually rather close the airport down, and build 1,000 council tax-paying homes on it (or a car factory if you live in Derby).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with "eyewitness" reports such as those by Ms Lacey (and our own local Nimbies) is that they are next to useless.
I think someone actually made a thread about how rediculous it is getting.
