Anti Airfield letter in todays Daily Mail
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Age: 92
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London City has adpoted a nutter nimby as well. She has a blog for her rants and calls herself fight the flights. I don't know why they don't arrange for a septic tank to be offloaded over her gardem.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Swindon
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfield regulation continued
Not having access to the internet I could not post.
I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
I would have thought that those of you on this forum might use your peer pressure to do something about the horrendous noise and overflying at low height from Redlands. Many of us who live here have been subjected to appalling behaviour since 1998. I am very much afraid that many aviation enthuasists may suffer the consequences of actions brought about by one small former farm airfield.
There has been skydiving here, over Swindon, since 10 am today and it continues still with no abatement...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..
As to the problems with Redlands in Wanborough - only microlights and one skydiving plane can operate at Redands. This plane has to be of similar or reduced noise output to an ANTONOV AN2. As far as I am aware Swindon Borough Council has not conducted any noise tests on the two light aircraft currently using Redlands. The council has not measured the noise levels of any of the aircraft flying from this airfield and tests on the Antonov prior too planning permission for skydiving consisted on a simulated take off! Skydiving planes did not take off or land at Redlands prior to granting permission - they flew from other airfields - Lower Upham or Draycott and dropped over Redlands...hardly indicate of actual use. Oh, and the temporary planning period was cut short so that some of us lost our right to object...dirty tricks or what? There was a problem with foot and mouth so that the airfield could not be used....
Why do we need regulation?
Point 1. If the Council will not enforce the only recourse is to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The decisions of the LGO are not legally enforceable. This is why there must be greater regulation. There needs to be a law to allow councils to be sued for failure to enforce.
Point 2. There needs to be legal provision to ensure that airfields are inspected once a year and that planning rules are complied with. This must be by an independent body not regulated by the CAA or BMAA. Local councils do not have the specialist expertise to do this and an independent inspectorate would be best.
Point 3. All planning decisions can only be undone by a discontinuance notice. I know of only one discontinuance on an airfield has occured and only after a lengthy battle. Councils are unwilling to do discontinuance as they fear compensation demands. The law needs to be changed so that this fear can be allayed.
Point 4. It is imperative that one can sue for damages and compensation for blight using the civil law for nuisance caused by aviation. Being barred from doing so by the 1988 aviation act is unjust. The law must be brought into line with environmental health law governing other noise nuisances. The regulations for regulated airfields such as Heathrow or military bases are fairer than those for private airfields.
Point 5. There needs to be provision for noise insulation to be provided free by those creating the noise, just as at the large commercial airfields like Heathrow.
Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate.
My encounters with injustice and abject selfishness from those flying at this small airfield led me to investigate aviation law. I and others living in Swindon have found it wanting. I have been contacted by people from all over the UK who have had problems with microlights, skydiving or gliding. Ours is not an isolated problem. My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation. This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good. Moreover, the Smiths, having gained aviation planning permission for themselves, have now sold their business aviation interests to other people. When the last planning application was submitted the applicants did not submit their application correctly in their own sole name but submitted it as a corporte body. The council either ignored this or colluded in it. Even with two very good legal firms representing the objectors it took a considerable amount of persuasion to get the council to alter the name in the application. As this had been a variation of condition the application should not have been accepted by the council in the first place. It is because of such deficiences in the planning process that more regualtion is necessary.
K.Lacey
I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
I would have thought that those of you on this forum might use your peer pressure to do something about the horrendous noise and overflying at low height from Redlands. Many of us who live here have been subjected to appalling behaviour since 1998. I am very much afraid that many aviation enthuasists may suffer the consequences of actions brought about by one small former farm airfield.
There has been skydiving here, over Swindon, since 10 am today and it continues still with no abatement...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..
As to the problems with Redlands in Wanborough - only microlights and one skydiving plane can operate at Redands. This plane has to be of similar or reduced noise output to an ANTONOV AN2. As far as I am aware Swindon Borough Council has not conducted any noise tests on the two light aircraft currently using Redlands. The council has not measured the noise levels of any of the aircraft flying from this airfield and tests on the Antonov prior too planning permission for skydiving consisted on a simulated take off! Skydiving planes did not take off or land at Redlands prior to granting permission - they flew from other airfields - Lower Upham or Draycott and dropped over Redlands...hardly indicate of actual use. Oh, and the temporary planning period was cut short so that some of us lost our right to object...dirty tricks or what? There was a problem with foot and mouth so that the airfield could not be used....
Why do we need regulation?
Point 1. If the Council will not enforce the only recourse is to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The decisions of the LGO are not legally enforceable. This is why there must be greater regulation. There needs to be a law to allow councils to be sued for failure to enforce.
Point 2. There needs to be legal provision to ensure that airfields are inspected once a year and that planning rules are complied with. This must be by an independent body not regulated by the CAA or BMAA. Local councils do not have the specialist expertise to do this and an independent inspectorate would be best.
Point 3. All planning decisions can only be undone by a discontinuance notice. I know of only one discontinuance on an airfield has occured and only after a lengthy battle. Councils are unwilling to do discontinuance as they fear compensation demands. The law needs to be changed so that this fear can be allayed.
Point 4. It is imperative that one can sue for damages and compensation for blight using the civil law for nuisance caused by aviation. Being barred from doing so by the 1988 aviation act is unjust. The law must be brought into line with environmental health law governing other noise nuisances. The regulations for regulated airfields such as Heathrow or military bases are fairer than those for private airfields.
Point 5. There needs to be provision for noise insulation to be provided free by those creating the noise, just as at the large commercial airfields like Heathrow.
Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate.
My encounters with injustice and abject selfishness from those flying at this small airfield led me to investigate aviation law. I and others living in Swindon have found it wanting. I have been contacted by people from all over the UK who have had problems with microlights, skydiving or gliding. Ours is not an isolated problem. My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation. This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good. Moreover, the Smiths, having gained aviation planning permission for themselves, have now sold their business aviation interests to other people. When the last planning application was submitted the applicants did not submit their application correctly in their own sole name but submitted it as a corporte body. The council either ignored this or colluded in it. Even with two very good legal firms representing the objectors it took a considerable amount of persuasion to get the council to alter the name in the application. As this had been a variation of condition the application should not have been accepted by the council in the first place. It is because of such deficiences in the planning process that more regualtion is necessary.
K.Lacey
Sweetheart you need to take a chill pill and get a life! Do you actually know how low 100 feet would look like? I've been flying for 15 years and involved in aviation circles for 25 years (most of that time looking up at aircraft flying over) and I doubt if I could that accurately guess an aircrafts height above my house.
If you really want any chance of success then try and get evidence of this practice, photographic, video film etc
pprune is not the official medium for changing policy.
The CAA will prosecute any Pilot who they can prove has broken rule 5 of the ANO.
If you really want any chance of success then try and get evidence of this practice, photographic, video film etc
pprune is not the official medium for changing policy.
The CAA will prosecute any Pilot who they can prove has broken rule 5 of the ANO.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a whinger.
I bought my house in South East London in 1992, long before I had an interest in aviation. One of the first things I noted about this part of town, compared to West London where I'd grown up, was the lack of aircraft noise.
Then the expansion of London City and the runway extension came along. I'm now right under the path for approaches to runway 10, which seems to be the preferred approach. They fly over South East London before making a turn somewhere around Battersea Bridge to Final. One every two minutes or so, it seems.
I'd swap this anyday for a few microlights and a parachute plane. These countryside NIMBYs get far too much air time. There are hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around the country who are blighted by REAL aircraft noise and many of us didn't have it when we chose to live where we do.
But, it's modern life and we just get on with it.
Ignore her, her ranting makes no difference to anything anyway. As she points out, the law isn't on her side.
I bought my house in South East London in 1992, long before I had an interest in aviation. One of the first things I noted about this part of town, compared to West London where I'd grown up, was the lack of aircraft noise.
Then the expansion of London City and the runway extension came along. I'm now right under the path for approaches to runway 10, which seems to be the preferred approach. They fly over South East London before making a turn somewhere around Battersea Bridge to Final. One every two minutes or so, it seems.
I'd swap this anyday for a few microlights and a parachute plane. These countryside NIMBYs get far too much air time. There are hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around the country who are blighted by REAL aircraft noise and many of us didn't have it when we chose to live where we do.
But, it's modern life and we just get on with it.
Ignore her, her ranting makes no difference to anything anyway. As she points out, the law isn't on her side.
I agree it's hard to judge the height of an aircraft by eye. However, if you live by an airfield and you know what an aircraft looks like at, say, 1000 feet, then you can tell if one is substantially lower. Also, you can get a rough figure by timing the aircraft through a particular angle. Or maybe K Lacey has a rangefinder.
However, I don't think it's for us to say that she should like aircraft and not whinge.
We have a right to fly planes and she has a right not to like it.
And we have a duty of common courtesy to minimise noise. I'm sure most pilots flying into Redlands respect that duty. If K Lacey thinks some pilots are not following procedures then, as pointed out, PPRUNE is not the best place to solve the problem but rather to take it up with Redlands in the first instance.
However, I don't think it's for us to say that she should like aircraft and not whinge.
We have a right to fly planes and she has a right not to like it.
And we have a duty of common courtesy to minimise noise. I'm sure most pilots flying into Redlands respect that duty. If K Lacey thinks some pilots are not following procedures then, as pointed out, PPRUNE is not the best place to solve the problem but rather to take it up with Redlands in the first instance.
Hi Ms Lacey,
I am pleased you have posted on here - it gives us a chance to discuss each others point of view. Please ignore some of the more agressive responses!
Now, where exactly is your house in relation to the runways at Redlands?
Someone at 100' over your house should only have been taking off or landing, if they weren't then they were breaking the law. If you are on the approach or climb out path then I'm afraid they were complying with the law, and this is unlikely to be changed for safety reasons (the safety of both the aircraft and those on the ground). As a Pilot and of course a householder, I cannot see any sensible change of aviation practise or law, so its not clear to me what further legislation could achieve.
The airfield does have noise abatement routings, and though you may not believe this aviators do try their hardest to minimise any disturbances. An AN2 is a fairly noisy aircraft - I'd be very surprised if there's any aircraft noisier than that operating at Redlands
As for your point about "aircraft tax" - though it is not called a tax aircraft do have to have a certificate of airworthiness (or permit to fly) - both of these cost considerably more than car tax.
I'd be amazed if there are people flying without licences in Wiltshire or elsewhere. Despite what you think, flying is tightly regulated - we all have to get our licenses revalidated every 2 years. The flying community is fairly close knit (as you've probably gathered!) - we would not tolerate a fellow pilot breaking the rules.
Finally, I'd be happy to take you for a short flight to/from Redlands so you can experience first hand where your house lands in relation to the approach/climb out paths and perhaps gain some perception of the pilots perspective.
I am pleased you have posted on here - it gives us a chance to discuss each others point of view. Please ignore some of the more agressive responses!
Now, where exactly is your house in relation to the runways at Redlands?
Someone at 100' over your house should only have been taking off or landing, if they weren't then they were breaking the law. If you are on the approach or climb out path then I'm afraid they were complying with the law, and this is unlikely to be changed for safety reasons (the safety of both the aircraft and those on the ground). As a Pilot and of course a householder, I cannot see any sensible change of aviation practise or law, so its not clear to me what further legislation could achieve.
The airfield does have noise abatement routings, and though you may not believe this aviators do try their hardest to minimise any disturbances. An AN2 is a fairly noisy aircraft - I'd be very surprised if there's any aircraft noisier than that operating at Redlands
As for your point about "aircraft tax" - though it is not called a tax aircraft do have to have a certificate of airworthiness (or permit to fly) - both of these cost considerably more than car tax.
I'd be amazed if there are people flying without licences in Wiltshire or elsewhere. Despite what you think, flying is tightly regulated - we all have to get our licenses revalidated every 2 years. The flying community is fairly close knit (as you've probably gathered!) - we would not tolerate a fellow pilot breaking the rules.
Finally, I'd be happy to take you for a short flight to/from Redlands so you can experience first hand where your house lands in relation to the approach/climb out paths and perhaps gain some perception of the pilots perspective.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has come about because two people, William Joseph Smith and Sarah Smith (to whom I am related) decided to give up dairy farming and open an airfield instead. As a farmer myself, I know times are hard, but causing noise and mayhem, denigrating people in public and resorting to often dubious if not downright underhand behaviour, is not doing the private aviation industry any good.
Your diatribe is most amusing, as others have said - present some photographic evidence rather than ranting on about estimated heights over your building!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed
In fact, I would caution you against making further such comments. You have just implied that the pilot concerned was flying in a dangerous manner, but nothing you have written here would stand up in court. In fact, the pilot might even have the right to sue you.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Ms Lacey - the problem you have is that you have made at least one complaint about a specific aircraft, when it was later shown beyond doubt that the aircraft concerned had not even left the ground on the day you were so sure it had "buzzed" your house. The details of this are earlier on this thread.
It's hard to keep taking seriously some one who cries wolf when there is no wolf present.
I very much doubt that any pilot, unless in the middle of an emergency, would be flying at 100' directly above your house. They might be at 100 feet above the ground, while in the process of landing or taking off, but their flight path will not be overhead your property.
It's hard to keep taking seriously some one who cries wolf when there is no wolf present.
I very much doubt that any pilot, unless in the middle of an emergency, would be flying at 100' directly above your house. They might be at 100 feet above the ground, while in the process of landing or taking off, but their flight path will not be overhead your property.
Ms Lacey,
May I suggest you take up Mariner 9's very kind offer? We in the military helicopter community had a similar communication breakdown with the horse-riding community a few years ago. We were accused, it seemed, of wantonly flying around the countryside at 50 feet (Military helicopters can be authorised to do so, but not over your house, honest!) looking for horses to upset. Much of this sprang from the tragic case of Heather Bell in Lincolnshire. We engaged the Horsey set, invited them to fly with us and explained why we needed to train so low. They took it on board, we arranged a modified low flying system and a hotline, and a much healthier relationship between the two camps now exists.
As with so many things, a little education, both ways, can go a long way.
May I suggest you take up Mariner 9's very kind offer? We in the military helicopter community had a similar communication breakdown with the horse-riding community a few years ago. We were accused, it seemed, of wantonly flying around the countryside at 50 feet (Military helicopters can be authorised to do so, but not over your house, honest!) looking for horses to upset. Much of this sprang from the tragic case of Heather Bell in Lincolnshire. We engaged the Horsey set, invited them to fly with us and explained why we needed to train so low. They took it on board, we arranged a modified low flying system and a hotline, and a much healthier relationship between the two camps now exists.
As with so many things, a little education, both ways, can go a long way.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still being buzzed at 100 feet over the roof of my house - twice in a week- so the problem from Redlands Airfield continues. The last incident was at 3.10 p.m. today when a white light aircraft with a blue stripe and what looked like G-CVBV turned in a fast bank over me on my driveway...probably a Cessna....So I am afraid airing problems about selfish and dangerous pilots here has not had much effect. Well, CVBV isn't listed but I've encountered this problem before. Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
So, reading your post we can say that either:
a) Your eyesight and/or memory are not good enough to collect evidence reliably (it would be a good laugh if you admitted this!).
b) The aeroplane was too far away for the registration to be read clearly (in which case it was VERY much more than 100' away)
or
c) it was wearing a false registration (and therefore the owner was a fully qualified idiot because he's using the aeroplane at an airport and is certain to be found out).
My money is on option b).
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahem... is this a wind-up?
"...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..."
Pish.
"Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate."
Pish.
"My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation."
Also pish.
May I suggest among my fellow PPRuNErs/pilots that we ignore this troublemaker in future.
"Noise causing headaches" - mince. Ever tried living next door to an international airport? No I suspect not.
"Air tax" - cack. Try being a pilot, then you will know about charges.
"Failure to regulate private regulation" - balls. Again, try being a pilot. Then you will know what regulation really is. Medicals, licensing, training, renewals, visits to Gatwick Ivory Towers, charges involved in doing so... and reading a PPL course book in Air Law will make your eyes pop out
So don't EVER dare call us "unregulated"!
Now get back to reading that beloved Tory rag of a "newspaper" of yours, there's plenty else in there to moan about. I hear Daily Tory readers like moaning a lot about Tax. That will keep you occupied for a while.
Idiot.
"...we have had a plane circling overhead now for 8 hours. The take off noise is just dreadful and the circling drone can be heard inside our houses and causes us headaches..."
Pish.
"Point 6. Aircraft should pay an air tax each year in the way vehicles do - this would defray expenses incurred by emergency call out in times of accidents and would also help to fund the independent inspectorate."
Pish.
"My solicitor believes that the best way to get redress is to sue the UK Government in the European court for failure to regulate private aviation."
Also pish.
May I suggest among my fellow PPRuNErs/pilots that we ignore this troublemaker in future.
"Noise causing headaches" - mince. Ever tried living next door to an international airport? No I suspect not.
"Air tax" - cack. Try being a pilot, then you will know about charges.
"Failure to regulate private regulation" - balls. Again, try being a pilot. Then you will know what regulation really is. Medicals, licensing, training, renewals, visits to Gatwick Ivory Towers, charges involved in doing so... and reading a PPL course book in Air Law will make your eyes pop out
So don't EVER dare call us "unregulated"!Now get back to reading that beloved Tory rag of a "newspaper" of yours, there's plenty else in there to moan about. I hear Daily Tory readers like moaning a lot about Tax. That will keep you occupied for a while.
Idiot.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reading through that rant again - so confused, hysterical and long-winded that I had to read it twice to make any sense of it - and I found this statement:
"Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore."
I happen to fly without a license. Why? Because I'm a student.
Next time you encounter a "low-flying aircraft" (sic) which is so noisy (sic) that it is "giving you a headache" (again, sic), take a photograph and post it on here. Then we will suss you out whether you do have a genuine issue, or are merely Trolling.
The ball is in your court.
"Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore."
I happen to fly without a license. Why? Because I'm a student.
Next time you encounter a "low-flying aircraft" (sic) which is so noisy (sic) that it is "giving you a headache" (again, sic), take a photograph and post it on here. Then we will suss you out whether you do have a genuine issue, or are merely Trolling.
The ball is in your court.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by K.Lacey
Have also heard of people flying without a pilot's licence from airfields in Wiltshire so nothing would surprise anymore.
Assuming that it isn't simply referring to trainee pilots. The aviation community is quite a small world so a scandal like that would get around quite quickly and almost certainly find its way onto here. Also since I happen to fly in Wiltshire (not anywhere near Redlands) I would be interested to know which airfields specifically you are referring to.
Last edited by Contacttower; 28th Apr 2008 at 17:31.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another note with the people flying without licenses, assuming they are not student pilots, where would they get the aircraft? No flying club would allow them to fly and I would bet that no private owner would allow a non PPL to fly their aircraft down to it most definitely not been covered in the insurance. Honestly, that, the aircraft registration you have given us which doesn't belong to an aircraft and the other dodgy things you have told us really does make one lean towards the fact that you are indeed just angry at aircraft flying above your house at all. The result been that you make up things to complain about that aren't true and maybe to get a little bit of attention.
It would be wise to not state your opinion, seemingly untrue events or things you have heard as fact without adequate proof, parties involved may wish to seek legal action against you for such accusations.
It would be wise to not state your opinion, seemingly untrue events or things you have heard as fact without adequate proof, parties involved may wish to seek legal action against you for such accusations.