Oban/Glenforsa News

[bingofuel]

Bit of a thread drift but found these recent avgas prices

09-Aug-11 £2.41 Edinburgh (+)
01-Aug-11 £2.34 Exeter (+) [6]
05-Jul-11 £2.27 Durham Tees Valley (-) [16]
23-Jul-11 £2.22 Plymouth (-)
03-Jun-11 £2.24 Oban

I know there is a few months variation but it would sugest that Oban on the west coast is cheaper than Edinburgh airport,? Can that be correct?

[fisbangwollop]

Coronation Street or Emmerdale could not touch this Oban/Mull forum with a barge pole.......you really could not write a better soap story than has appeared in these columns for the last few years!!!....FFS guys grow up... from what I can see every party in this soap has its good and bad side....stop throwing the toys out of the cot and let Oban thrive for the place that it really is. OK rant over!!!

[Johnm]

The problem that screwed up Oban as you will see if you read back a couple of centuries was the Council attempting to create a commercial airport supported by some unhelpful and inappropriate (apparently) professional advice.

That has been compounded by weak leadership resulting in petulant defensive behaviour.

The Council need to take sensible advice from people with experience on how to limit the damage caused and stabilise the situation. They could do worse than consult the management at Gloucestershire Airport where a thriving GA community coexists with a modest amount of scheduled traffic very happily and without rules that aren't directly related to safety and efficient operation.

There's not a snowball's chance in Hades of getting Oban airport on a sound financial footing without subsidy, but that subsidy could be minimised by maximising revenue and that requires an attractive and reasonably priced package for light GA users. There's no way that anything other small scale commercial traffic will work and that requires little or no infrastructure over and above light GA.

They then need to put someone fairly strong in charge to keep the children on the straight and narrow. I could be available

[Wide-Body]

fisbangwollop wrote:


FFS guys grow up



That summarises the entire thread very nicely

[Mad_Mark]

Why the Fk can't you all just get on and work TOGETHER to make Oban the fantastic place that it should be, and once was!!

Are the people at the airfield (I hate to call it an airport!) deliberately trying to get the place closed and do themselves out of a job/base?

MadMark!!!

[madflyer26]

Mad Mark,

If life was as simple as just having a group hug and getting on with it Oban would be great.

The problem, Keegan ran the airport very well gave council the blue print for running it.

Council took over have made every **** up possible but still they are the local authority and Keegan unexpectedly never got hired apparently due to a misdemeanour with the CAA.

He is fed up and is on a mission to bring down the curtain on the place.

It will never work at Oban as long at the two parties are still there and quite frankly the place is doomed for sure. I have stayed here all my life and it has never been so bad.

It needs HIAL or some other non involved party to take it over. But as long as Keegan is there then there is no chance of that happening.

All you posters upset by this thread can at least log off and not read it. Try running a small business from the place and living there. IT SUCKS

[airpolice]

It will never work at Oban as long at the two parties are still there and quite frankly the place is doomed for sure.

Would it not be fair to say that if only one party was to leave, things would be better?


Depending on which one leaves, it might actually get better to the point of being as good as it was before.

[The Original GF]

Oban/Glenforsa

I feel the need to clarify a couple of points.

I was approched in March and asked if I could arrange some fuel at Glenforsa Airfield.

I declined for the following reasons.

1. I am in the food and beer business,Paul Keegan is in the fuel business.

2. Introducing large amounts of fuel onto any council run airfield, and in particular Glenforsa Airfield was only ever going to result in a major cluster***k.

Making wild and actionable accusations on a public forum will do nothing to resolve what is unquestionably a serious problem for all aviation related businesses.

OGF
aka Brendan Walsh
Glenforsa Hotel

[PH-UKU]

1. I am in the food and beer business

Hope you'er stocked up for the next few days

[140KIAS]

has everyone kissed and made up

[NorthSouth]

has everyone kissed and made up

I think that may be a 'no'

NS

[The Original GF]

Oban Follies

Ah yes, SoCalApp.

Let's bring back Peter Jackson, that will fix everything


OGF
aka
Brendan Walsh

[dan design]

SoCalAp as its rumoured that you are the main protaogonist in the collapse of Oban Aiport I would keep my opinions to myself if I were you.

Three Scottish Law Lords ruled in the High Court in Edinburgh that TLC had the SOLE right to supply fuel at Oban Airport.

The Oban Airport Manager (debabtable title) had no authority to allow self fuelling with mogas or any other fuel - its called comtempt of court up here not sure what its called in California.....?

The mogas supply and insurance issue is just another strand of the terrible legacy left behind by Wonderboy PJ whose aerodrome manual continues to stifle activities at Oban Airport.

[Capt Whisky Whisky]

Oban Follies

not been on here for 3 years but come back on just to stir the pot with utter trash.
SoCal App

Unbelievable.. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
SoCal App

Are you for real?

WW

[Dan the weegie]

You cannot dictate where fuel is bought, you can dictate who fuel is bought from at a particular location. The former is competition law and neither A&BC, nor the fuelling guy are allowed to dictate what fuel goes in to an aircraft, ONLY that fuel sold at the airport can come from one company.

The rule has been put in because the council are scared of litigation and the fuel guy is just posturing because he can. The Law Lords only ruled on who can supply fuel at the airport not that fuel purchased elsewhere can be put in aircraft

Airworthiness is the responsibility of the owner or operator of the aircraft and no-one else.

What a bunch of fools, I got a nice PM from a guy asking me to come to Oban, I may still but honestly until it becomes a nice wee aerodrome again - why bother, there's lots more places to go .

[madflyer26]

Dan,

The most balanced and objective post on this topic for quite some time.

It is in black and White and ratified by the CAA what you can and can't do with Mogas. The council have messed this one up by listening to TLC. TLC should do more research into the matter as the legislation is easily found on the Internet.

The council put a system in place for the use of Mogas and it works fine and still does, so now they have to explain to the CAA why the change of heart and then and only then can if be reflected in the aerodrome users manual.

In terms of non conformity the council have already stated that there is no penalty as of yet for non conformity so why even bring this moronic rule in to play. It is simply not workable and no users of Mogas at Oban is going to stop using it. If the insurers or the CAA condemn the use of Mogas then that is a different issue. If the council really think they have a duty of care the the refuelling of Mogas at every council run airport must stop.

After checking the lease of my club it is clear that there is no sort of prohibition for fuelling aircraft so I urge any aircraft visiting Oban to come to the gliding club and we will provide transport for you to get Mogas as the current vendor can't supply it.

Dan Design is cosily nested in the TLC camp and is hardly objective in her views. TLC have done well exploiting the council and we the disgruntled users thank them for giving us the tools to beat them at their own game.

We have also at my organisation purchased a 1500 litre bowser and are working on bridging the Market at Oban.

In the mean time do come to Oban if the Mogas powered aircraft require fuel we will sort it.

Regards

Kevin Maccuish

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh FFS. I give up.

I will make one comment.

The Oban Airport Manager (debabtable title) had no authority to allow self fuelling with mogas or any other fuel

Is the biggest load of utter garbage I've ever read on here and believe me, in 11 years on this site, I've read an awful lot.

What I as PIC put in the tanks of my aircraft, is my business alone. What the law lords said was that TLC had the sole right to supply fuel as a business at Oban, not that they were the only people allowed to put fuel into the tanks. That is quite a different thing.

This is the sort of thing that is (has already?) killing GA in the UK, it'll finally finish off Oban too if it carries on.

Sorry, but my days of giving a hoot about Oban are coming to an end. This latest stuff going on is just pathetic. What a shame.

[fisbangwollop]

Q) egpx/qmrll/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 08:03c) to: Perm

e) rwy 01/19 dimensions of rwy changed.
Rwy 01 1263 x 30, rwy 19 1263 x 30
rwy 01 threshold co-ordinates changed.
Threshold co-ordinates rwy 01 562735.99n 0052402.41w
ad 2-egeo-1-3 section ad 2-12-runway physical characteristics column 3 dimensions of rwy (m), and threshold co-ordinates column 5 refers l3891/11

q) egpx/qfaah/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 08:40c) to: Perm

e) amend ad operational hours.
Summer. Mon and wed 0715-1515, tue and thu 0700-1615, fri to sun
0900-1615
winter. Mon and wed 0815-1600, tue and thu 0815-1615, fri and sun
1015-1615, sat 0800-1400
amend ats communication facilities hours.
Summer. Mon and wed 0715-1515, tue and thu 0700-1615, fri to sun
0900-1615
winter. Mon and wed 0815-1600, tue and thu 0815-1615, fri and sun
1015-1615, sat 0800-1400
uk aip egeo ad 2-egeo-1-1 section ad 2.3-operational hours line 1
and ad 2-egeo-1-4, ad 2-18-ats communicaion facilities column 4
refers l3894/11

q) egpx/qfaxx/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5628n00524w005
b) from: 11/08/31 09:16c) to: Perm

e) amend local traffic regulations
aircraft that do not require the use of a licenced aerodrome and
wish to operate outside the notified hours of operation, must comply with the argyll and bute out of hours indemnity scheme. Ppr applies to all out of hours flights and must be obtained within operational hours, from the aerodrome operator (argyll and bute council c/0 oban airport) prior to flight. Details of the scheme and an application form can be obtained from http://wwww.flyobanairport.co.uk or by
contacting aerodrome administrator on 01631 710910
uk aip ad 2-egeo-1-5 section ad 2.20-local traffic regulations, line
1 item f refers l3896/11

[Maoraigh1]

The winter saturday1400 closing will cut use. Otherwise looks O.K. 0900 to 1500 would seem to be better for winter saturdays.

[madflyer26]

The legal decision 2002

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

Lord Coulsfield
Lord Johnston
Lord McCluskey

XA74/01

OPINION OF THE COURT


delivered by LORD JOHNSTON


in


APPEAL


From the Sheriffdom of North Strathclyde at Oban


in the cause


TOTAL LOGISTICS CONCEPTS LIMITED

Pursuers and Appellants;

against


ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL

Defenders and Respondents:

_______

Act: Campbell, Q.C., Forsyth; Russel & Aitken, W.S.


Alt: Ellis; Balfour & Manson, S.S.C.

17 September 2002
[1] This appeal is concerned with a lease granted by the defenders' predecessors to the pursuers and appellants relating to the occupancy and use of an area of land near Oban known as Connel Airfield. In the action raised in the Sheriff Court a number of issues were focused but the matter comes before us purely in relation to the proper construction to be put on clause FOURTH of the lease.
[2] That clause is in the following terms:
"The said area of land shall be used by the Tenant for the purpose of the development thereon of a fuel store for the sale of aviation fuel for the users of the Airfield and for such other purposes reasonably ancillary thereto and for no other purpose whatsoever without the consent in writing of the Landlord (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld). The Tenant shall have the exclusive right to be the sole supplier of aviation fuel at Connel Airfield for a period of Twelve years from the said date of entry hereinafter."
[3] The sheriff in an interlocutor dated 20 July 1999 inter alia found in favour of the pursuers in respect of the construction of this clause, determining that it effectively created a monopoly in favour of the pursuers with regard to the supply of aviation fuel to aircraft using the airfield. The matter was appealed to the sheriff principal who, in an interlocutor dated 31 January 2001, over a year after the hearing before him, sustained the appeal determining in favour of the defenders that the terms of the lease did not preclude them from permitting or allowing such users of the airfield, if they wished to do so, to bring their own fuel to service their own aircraft. In the pleadings, there is reference to pre-contract communication between the parties, and the possibility that a proof might be necessary was discussed in the debates before the sheriff and the sheriff principal. Before us, however, neither party suggested that a proof might be required. This focuses the dispute before us, as a pure question of construction of the contract terms.
[4] Senior counsel for the appellants maintained that, on a proper construction of the clause, an exclusive right to supply fuel to any user of the airfield was created in favour of the pursuers in terms of the clause in the lease which meant that the defenders were obliged to prevent any person, and we understood that there were at least two such agencies, the Ministry of Defence and a quarrying company, from servicing their aircraft on the field with their own fuel, not supplied by the pursuers.
[5] The defenders' position was that the terms of the lease were such that while there was a grant in favour of the pursuers to supply fuel this was only when such was demanded and did not prevent users of the airfield from bringing their own fuel to it. Thus, while the pursuers, it was submitted, had a right to supply it was not exclusive in the sense that the conduct apparently at the time being carried out by both the relevant users of the airfield was permissible, namely bringing their own fuel to service their own aircraft.
[6] Little assistance was gained from authority, although we were referred to two cases with regard to the supply of, respectively, water and electricity, namely West Surrey Water Company v. Chertsey 1894 3 Ch. 513 and Attorney General v. Southport Corporation 1924 A.C. 909. It is worth observing that in this latter case, in the speech of Lord Atkinson at page 923, there is support for the view that the word "supply" is broad enough in its terms to cover movement of materials between agencies controlled by the same person, thus casting doubt on the view of the sheriff principal that it is essential for the notion of supply that there be a transfer from one person to another of the relevant commodity.
[7] The essential point on which the sheriff principal's decision turned is that, in his view, the word "supply" is not an appropriate word to describe the provision of some goods or services by one branch or department of an organisation to another branch of the same organisation. The sheriff principal also observed that the expression "self-supply", which had been used in the debate before him, seemed inherently contradictory. In our view, the sheriff principal applied rather too absolute an interpretation to the word "supply" in these respects. While it is very often the case that "supply" involves provision or transfer of something to another, it can also be used more widely. There does not appear to us to be anything necessarily contradictory involved in saying that a person "supplied himself" with something: and as we have already noted, there is authoritative support for a broader interpretation of the word "supply". It follows, in our opinion, that the question of the proper meaning of this contract has to be looked at as one of the proper construction of the clause as a whole.
[8] At the end of the day, we consider that the proper construction to be put on this clause is very much a matter of impression, albeit against the background of trying to ascertain what was the original intention of the parties. In this respect the composition of the clause is important. It is to be noted that in the first part a duty is imposed upon the tenant to carry out capital works creating the fuel storage area. The second half thereafter conveys a right and that right must be looked at, in our opinion, against the background of the initial obligation to which we have referred. The exclusive right to supply fuel is obviously conferred on the tenant in consideration of his undertaking the capital expenditure necessary to create a fuel store. The value of that right would be much diminished if a user of the airfield could obtain supplies from a source outside, possibly just outside, its limits and bring them on to the airfield for use by his aircraft. If the question is viewed in this way, having regard to the word "exclusive", we consider that the better view is that what has been created is a monopoly in favour of the tenants to be the sole supplier in the sense of provider, of fuel to any aircraft requiring fuel in the airfield, thus obliging the defenders to refuse to allow any particular aircraft owner or user to bring his own fuel. It is also significant to note that while the term of the lease is 25 years, the term of this particular right is restricted to 12 years which, again, to our mind, points to the fact that a monopoly is being created to justify the capital expenditure contemplated in the first half of the clause but only for a limited period, nevertheless insofar to provide an incentive for the tenant to carry out the relevant works.
[8] In these circumstances we are of the view the over the relevant period, i.e. 12 years, the defenders, as owners of the airfield, must take relevant steps to prohibit any aircraft user bringing his own fuel to the airfield. Thus we consider that the sheriff, rather than the sheriff principal, reached the correct decision.
[9] It was suggested to us by senior counsel for the pursuers that if we were in his favour we should grant declarator as stated in the first crave of writ. However, we are not inclined to do this since it does not, in itself, indicate our view as to the construction of the clause. We therefore propose to put the case out By Order in order that parties may address us as to the appropriate form of declarator to be issued against the background of this opinion.