Oban/Glenforsa News
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northland
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oban Council Press Release
COUNCIL FORCED TO ACT OVER AIRPORT
Argyll and Bute Council is seeking legal advice in relation to one of its tenants at Oban Airport.
The move comes after Argyll Aero Club, which leases a site at the airport for a hangar, erected a fence which cuts into the safety area around a runway which is referred to as the ‘runway strip’.
The result is that the normal useable runway has been reduced in length by roughly a third and larger fixed wing aircraft, including the fixed wing Air Ambulance, can no longer land at Oban Airport.
Despite three letters outlining how the fence impinges on the airport’s operations and requesting that it be taken down, Argyll Aero Club has so far refused to remove it.
Other methods of delineating the leased ground area which comply with the requirements in this safety areawould not cause any problem.
The Council is currently seeking legal advice on what options are now open to it.
Council Leader Councillor Dick Walsh called the situation “totally unacceptable”.
“We are not disputing that our tenant, Argyll Aero Club, has a legal right to delineate the area it has leased, but the way in which it has chosen to mark it has extremely serious consequences for the operation of the airport,” he said.
“We have spelled out these consequences very clearly to the Club on several occasions, but it continues to refuse to remove the fence. We are therefore left with little option.
“I find it remarkable that anyone could knowingly act in a way which results in such an essential public service as the Air Ambulance aeroplane being no longer able to use the local airport.”
In the past week, the airport has had to turn down two requests for the King Air Air Ambulance to land. However, Councillor Walsh stressed that the issue was not just about the Air Ambulance.
“This situation has much wider consequences for the airport and the local economy,” he added.
“We already have, for instance, two Learjets provisionally booked to use the airport next month, carrying visitors who want to spend their holiday in Argyll and Bute. As the situation stands at the moment we will have to turn these aircraft – and these people – away.
“This is a totally unacceptable situation, and one which we obviously need to act on as soon as possible. It is very disappointing to have to resort to the legal route, but it seems that is now the only option.”
The ‘runway strip’ is an 80 metre wide strip of land, stretching 40 metres each side of the runway’s centre line.
This ‘strip’ is placed around a runway to ensure that if an aircraft leaves the paved area it will suffer no further significant damage. Therefore, it protects an aircraft and its passengers from coming to any harm.
In order to operate the airport safely, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules stipulate that this strip has to be maintained in a condition suitable to allow an aircraft, if necessary, to leave the paved area onto the grass in the event of an emergency. Outside of these protected areas, there are slopes that no obstacle is allowed to penetrate in order to ensure the safety of an aircraft and its occupants in the event of a missed approach.
The CAA requirements are quite clear and all licensed airports must adhere to these regulations. Oban Airport is no exception.
As the fence erected by Argyll Aero Club encroaches into that strip of land, the runway length has had to be shortened. Larger aircraft which require the runway’s full length, such as the King Air Air Ambulance, can no longer use the airport.
The Council has informed the CAA of the situation.
NOTE TO EDITORS
Oban Airport is registered as having two runways – Runway 01 (taking off due North) and Runway 19 (taking off due South).
The take-off run available on Runway 01 before the erection of the fence was 1064 metres, and the available landing distance 1110 metres. Those figures are now 702 metres and 782 metres respectively.
The take-off run available on Runway 19 before the erection of the fence was 1141 metres, and the available landing distance 993 metres. Those figures are now 842 metres and 642 metres respectively.
The King Air Air Ambulance requires a strip of at least 850 metres to land.
ENDS
Argyll and Bute Council is seeking legal advice in relation to one of its tenants at Oban Airport.
The move comes after Argyll Aero Club, which leases a site at the airport for a hangar, erected a fence which cuts into the safety area around a runway which is referred to as the ‘runway strip’.
The result is that the normal useable runway has been reduced in length by roughly a third and larger fixed wing aircraft, including the fixed wing Air Ambulance, can no longer land at Oban Airport.
Despite three letters outlining how the fence impinges on the airport’s operations and requesting that it be taken down, Argyll Aero Club has so far refused to remove it.
Other methods of delineating the leased ground area which comply with the requirements in this safety areawould not cause any problem.
The Council is currently seeking legal advice on what options are now open to it.
Council Leader Councillor Dick Walsh called the situation “totally unacceptable”.
“We are not disputing that our tenant, Argyll Aero Club, has a legal right to delineate the area it has leased, but the way in which it has chosen to mark it has extremely serious consequences for the operation of the airport,” he said.
“We have spelled out these consequences very clearly to the Club on several occasions, but it continues to refuse to remove the fence. We are therefore left with little option.
“I find it remarkable that anyone could knowingly act in a way which results in such an essential public service as the Air Ambulance aeroplane being no longer able to use the local airport.”
In the past week, the airport has had to turn down two requests for the King Air Air Ambulance to land. However, Councillor Walsh stressed that the issue was not just about the Air Ambulance.
“This situation has much wider consequences for the airport and the local economy,” he added.
“We already have, for instance, two Learjets provisionally booked to use the airport next month, carrying visitors who want to spend their holiday in Argyll and Bute. As the situation stands at the moment we will have to turn these aircraft – and these people – away.
“This is a totally unacceptable situation, and one which we obviously need to act on as soon as possible. It is very disappointing to have to resort to the legal route, but it seems that is now the only option.”
The ‘runway strip’ is an 80 metre wide strip of land, stretching 40 metres each side of the runway’s centre line.
This ‘strip’ is placed around a runway to ensure that if an aircraft leaves the paved area it will suffer no further significant damage. Therefore, it protects an aircraft and its passengers from coming to any harm.
In order to operate the airport safely, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules stipulate that this strip has to be maintained in a condition suitable to allow an aircraft, if necessary, to leave the paved area onto the grass in the event of an emergency. Outside of these protected areas, there are slopes that no obstacle is allowed to penetrate in order to ensure the safety of an aircraft and its occupants in the event of a missed approach.
The CAA requirements are quite clear and all licensed airports must adhere to these regulations. Oban Airport is no exception.
As the fence erected by Argyll Aero Club encroaches into that strip of land, the runway length has had to be shortened. Larger aircraft which require the runway’s full length, such as the King Air Air Ambulance, can no longer use the airport.
The Council has informed the CAA of the situation.
NOTE TO EDITORS
Oban Airport is registered as having two runways – Runway 01 (taking off due North) and Runway 19 (taking off due South).
The take-off run available on Runway 01 before the erection of the fence was 1064 metres, and the available landing distance 1110 metres. Those figures are now 702 metres and 782 metres respectively.
The take-off run available on Runway 19 before the erection of the fence was 1141 metres, and the available landing distance 993 metres. Those figures are now 842 metres and 642 metres respectively.
The King Air Air Ambulance requires a strip of at least 850 metres to land.
ENDS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Glenforsa Mull
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oban Argyll Aero Club Press Statement 30 June 2009
The Argyll Aero Club (AAC) is astonished by the recent outburst from Councilor Walsh of Argyll & Bute Council regarding the legitimate fencing for operational reasons of a part the club’s leased area at Oban Airport. He has been ill informed and ill advised to make such patently false and inaccurate statements.
To attempt to deliberately mislead the public about ambulance flights is reprehensible. An enquiry by the club to the providers of the air ambulance services to the Oban area has confirmed that there is no reduction in air ambulance service provision due to any action by the club. Councilor Walsh is further asked to name any operator whose use of the airport has been put in jeopardy.
That the leader of the council should now suggest they will take legal action against the club for normal use of their leased area is nonsense. He should by now know that ABC is not above or beyond the rule of the law.
The AAC has leased an area at the airport since 1995 and have been model tenants spending our own money to enhance facilities for both local and visiting pilots. Our activities have brought nothing but widespread acknowledged credit to the club and the airport.
When the council decided to license the airport they required a part of the club’s leased area in order to comply with Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Instead of trying to resolve that situation by discussion, senior officials within the council provided misleading information to the CAA in order to obtain a license for the airport. It is a criminal offence to provide false details on an airport license application form.
It is this deception that has now come back to haunt the council and it is understood that the CAA is now looking into the license application process.
Over the last 2 years the council have continually harassed and bullied the club in order to move us off the airport and gain control of our ground. This bullying included the illegal destruction in the middle of the night of some 20 trees planted by the club 12 years previously to screen and protect our purpose built aircraft hangar. Officials also ordered the fencing-off of our boundaries in order to restrict the clubs use of our leased area and have used our area as a dumping ground in order to restrict our activities. All of this was undertaken despite the council being informed by the club and their lawyers that they had no right to interfere with, or enter, the leased area.
The club had no other alternative but to resort to the courts to allow us to continue our legitimate occupation and use of our land. The court has entirely supported the club’s position and the council has now to pay the club compensation and our legal costs. In addition the Council have been forced to give the court a solemn undertaking not to enter into the area. Despite this, the council’s latest tactic to coerce the club into quitting, is to attempt to raise our rent by 6 fold and backdate it for 2 years.
The Argyll Aero Club calls upon Councilor Walsh to fully investigate and make public his findings on this disgraceful affair and rid the council of the culture of bullying and deception.
The Argyll Aero Club
30 June 2009
To attempt to deliberately mislead the public about ambulance flights is reprehensible. An enquiry by the club to the providers of the air ambulance services to the Oban area has confirmed that there is no reduction in air ambulance service provision due to any action by the club. Councilor Walsh is further asked to name any operator whose use of the airport has been put in jeopardy.
That the leader of the council should now suggest they will take legal action against the club for normal use of their leased area is nonsense. He should by now know that ABC is not above or beyond the rule of the law.
The AAC has leased an area at the airport since 1995 and have been model tenants spending our own money to enhance facilities for both local and visiting pilots. Our activities have brought nothing but widespread acknowledged credit to the club and the airport.
When the council decided to license the airport they required a part of the club’s leased area in order to comply with Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Instead of trying to resolve that situation by discussion, senior officials within the council provided misleading information to the CAA in order to obtain a license for the airport. It is a criminal offence to provide false details on an airport license application form.
It is this deception that has now come back to haunt the council and it is understood that the CAA is now looking into the license application process.
Over the last 2 years the council have continually harassed and bullied the club in order to move us off the airport and gain control of our ground. This bullying included the illegal destruction in the middle of the night of some 20 trees planted by the club 12 years previously to screen and protect our purpose built aircraft hangar. Officials also ordered the fencing-off of our boundaries in order to restrict the clubs use of our leased area and have used our area as a dumping ground in order to restrict our activities. All of this was undertaken despite the council being informed by the club and their lawyers that they had no right to interfere with, or enter, the leased area.
The club had no other alternative but to resort to the courts to allow us to continue our legitimate occupation and use of our land. The court has entirely supported the club’s position and the council has now to pay the club compensation and our legal costs. In addition the Council have been forced to give the court a solemn undertaking not to enter into the area. Despite this, the council’s latest tactic to coerce the club into quitting, is to attempt to raise our rent by 6 fold and backdate it for 2 years.
The Argyll Aero Club calls upon Councilor Walsh to fully investigate and make public his findings on this disgraceful affair and rid the council of the culture of bullying and deception.
The Argyll Aero Club
30 June 2009
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longniddry, East lothian
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mindboggling
Why is it that someone who has been quoted in the Press & Journal as saying “we will do all we can to assist the Council” has gone and erected a fence fully knowing the damage that would follow.
The reduction in the runway lengths is now clearly excluding the aircraft type that could use this previously.
Why dont you ever do what you say.
For what valid reason should a flying club be allowed to cause obstruction to other aviators and visitors at Connel Airfield.
The whole situation is unbelievable.
The reduction in the runway lengths is now clearly excluding the aircraft type that could use this previously.
Why dont you ever do what you say.
For what valid reason should a flying club be allowed to cause obstruction to other aviators and visitors at Connel Airfield.
The whole situation is unbelievable.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From day one this saga has been unbelievable.
The flying club are well within their rights and it appears to me that grovelling and some cash will have to be exchanged with the local council having yet more egg on their face.
The fact that the council employed and paid expensive consulants makes me wonder where the blame lies.
The flying club are well within their rights and it appears to me that grovelling and some cash will have to be exchanged with the local council having yet more egg on their face.
The fact that the council employed and paid expensive consulants makes me wonder where the blame lies.
Last edited by Phil Space; 2nd Jul 2009 at 13:19.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF and it's a BIG IF.....the Club's press-release is correct, It would appear that the council knowingly and fraudulently falsified their application to "upgrade" the status of this airfield........therefore ,it seems logical that it has never legallyallowed operation of aircraft requiring the "runoff area" leased to the Club , assuming the club has not given a legally binding easement or waiver of their rights to fence this part of their leased property.
on the face of it, someone dropped a huge brick and is now attempting to use the powers of officialdom to rectify the situation.
Good luck to the small guys, I hope they ARE in the right and I hope they win their battle.
(no dog in the fight, never even seen Oban airfield. )
on the face of it, someone dropped a huge brick and is now attempting to use the powers of officialdom to rectify the situation.
Good luck to the small guys, I hope they ARE in the right and I hope they win their battle.
(no dog in the fight, never even seen Oban airfield. )
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll be quite interested to see the council's reply to the CAA regarding the area leased to the club which the airport claim is part of the proteced runway area.
We are all part of this saga because it has cost in excess of £9 million of our taxes. The emergency services were able to use it prior to the big spend and the only regular flights are losing money and subsidised.
As others have said there is little more to appreciate here than what existed before the ink hit the cheque book
We are all part of this saga because it has cost in excess of £9 million of our taxes. The emergency services were able to use it prior to the big spend and the only regular flights are losing money and subsidised.
As others have said there is little more to appreciate here than what existed before the ink hit the cheque book
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fixed wing you're right - but only to a point.
If the council had not tried it's usual 'bully boy' tactics against AAC then it is highly unlikely the area would have been fenced.
But ABC have a terrible history of bad behaviour during this development. In this instance where it would appear they are clearly in the wrong, pushing AAC has resulted in an obvious retaliation.
At this stage it is highly unlikely the council's behaviour will change. They have already lost a number of legal actions related to the airfield.
So I await the next episode of nonsense with some glee - it's just a same that a council behaves in such an appalling manner and in doing so threatens peoples' living
If the council had not tried it's usual 'bully boy' tactics against AAC then it is highly unlikely the area would have been fenced.
But ABC have a terrible history of bad behaviour during this development. In this instance where it would appear they are clearly in the wrong, pushing AAC has resulted in an obvious retaliation.
At this stage it is highly unlikely the council's behaviour will change. They have already lost a number of legal actions related to the airfield.
So I await the next episode of nonsense with some glee - it's just a same that a council behaves in such an appalling manner and in doing so threatens peoples' living
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have gone from an award wining GA airfield with two runways, to a very expensive terminal building and one runway. We are worse off than before, but we will have to live with it. It is still worth our support, or it will be a housing development PDQ.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
If the GAMA KingAirs and the Learjets referred to are not on public transport flights (the patients don't pay a fare - yet!) they are under no obligation to be bound by the declared runway lengths for licensing purposes. And it is in any case no part of the council's job to tell any operator whether the runway is long enough for them. If GAMA requested use of the airport they will be well aware of the NOTAM announcing the reduced runway lengths and will no doubt have taken them into account if they need to.
Amazing how quickly this thread has defaulted to The Latest A&BC Buffoonery.
But for the avoidance of doubt, Oban's still one of the best flying experiences in the UK!
NS
Amazing how quickly this thread has defaulted to The Latest A&BC Buffoonery.
But for the avoidance of doubt, Oban's still one of the best flying experiences in the UK!
NS
Many months ago I vowed never to comment again on this site, however the Oban thread attracted my attention recently and I shall break my vow in order to add my experiences.
On my recent visit I was most impresssed with the service provided during the week. The weather was excellent and the Airport was pretty busy (several hundred movements over the week or so). The staff were first class and I never experienced a jobsworth all week. Nothing was too much trouble. The facilities are excellent and the FIS was good if not always word perfect. I understand that the FISOs are relatively new to the job and are endeavouring to provide a good professional service. They are all licensed by the CAA and in these early days are being monitored fairly closely. They will learn from experience as should we all.
I am told that PPR is due to the limited experience of the FISOs and the limited amount of parking space for aircraft. It also operates under an 'ordinary' licence' the meaning of which is no doubt understood by all the experts on here! Perhaps if all the visiting pilots comply with the prior booking requirement, this will enable the FISOs to cope with the traffic more efficiently.
In my considerable experience, most airfields have their whingers, and those who behave like children. Unfortunately they are mainly amongst the GA fraternity and unfairly give GA a bad name. Usually the whingers are bitter and twisted about something but again, fortunately, the whingers are in the minority. I expect that Oban is no different.
The whingers will be regarded for what they are and the vast majority of us will enjoy Oban, its spectacular scenery (on a fine day!), and the pleasant helpful service provided at this splendid Airport/Airfield/Aerodrome........does it really matter?
Helen49
On my recent visit I was most impresssed with the service provided during the week. The weather was excellent and the Airport was pretty busy (several hundred movements over the week or so). The staff were first class and I never experienced a jobsworth all week. Nothing was too much trouble. The facilities are excellent and the FIS was good if not always word perfect. I understand that the FISOs are relatively new to the job and are endeavouring to provide a good professional service. They are all licensed by the CAA and in these early days are being monitored fairly closely. They will learn from experience as should we all.
I am told that PPR is due to the limited experience of the FISOs and the limited amount of parking space for aircraft. It also operates under an 'ordinary' licence' the meaning of which is no doubt understood by all the experts on here! Perhaps if all the visiting pilots comply with the prior booking requirement, this will enable the FISOs to cope with the traffic more efficiently.
In my considerable experience, most airfields have their whingers, and those who behave like children. Unfortunately they are mainly amongst the GA fraternity and unfairly give GA a bad name. Usually the whingers are bitter and twisted about something but again, fortunately, the whingers are in the minority. I expect that Oban is no different.
The whingers will be regarded for what they are and the vast majority of us will enjoy Oban, its spectacular scenery (on a fine day!), and the pleasant helpful service provided at this splendid Airport/Airfield/Aerodrome........does it really matter?
Helen49
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am told that PPR is due to the limited experience of the FISOs and the limited amount of parking space for aircraft. It also operates under an 'ordinary' licence' the meaning of which is no doubt understood by all the experts on here! Perhaps if all the visiting pilots comply with the prior booking requirement, this will enable the FISOs to cope with the traffic more efficiently.
We aren't talking about Heathrow here! Or even Perth or Cumbernauld to be honest...........
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whingers will be regarded for what they are and the vast majority of us will enjoy Oban, its spectacular scenery (on a fine day!), and the pleasant helpful service provided at this splendid Airport/Airfield/Aerodrome........does it really matter?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jockistan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am told that PPR is due to the limited experience of the FISOs and the limited amount of parking space for aircraft.
It's also a real shame that there is no out of hours operation. Stopping all movements at 6pm prevents any evening visits / arrivals.
Just have to wonder how much lost opportunity this has meant for the local economy.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lora view
Age: 43
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think she is aving a laugh 
H49 could be confusing the fire engine going up and down the runway with actual aircraft movments !!!!!
Back to reality it would be good to see all these movment's
GET YOURSELFS TO OBAN FOLKS Oh and Glenforsa
CF. Grounded at the moment and surrounded by SEA
H49 could be confusing the fire engine going up and down the runway with actual aircraft movments !!!!!
Back to reality it would be good to see all these movment's
GET YOURSELFS TO OBAN FOLKS
Oh and Glenforsa CF. Grounded at the moment and surrounded by SEA
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longniddry, East lothian
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Support Aviation
I thought this thread was about flying and supporting it.
There is no valid reason why viewers on this site should endorse the actions of any individual or group interfering with “aviation” at this location.
So far, the majority of posts have been side tracked and appear to be supporting disruption here, a bit like mob rule shouting loud and long.
The Council own and operator the airfield and maybe they have made a boob with a boundary lease so let them fix it with the party involved and get it done with.
They must do whatever is required to return the runway to its full intended use.
140KIAS There is lost opportunity as you have said and I believe the Council are looking into this. There is also unnecessary lost opportunity due to the actions of one individual by not sticking to his word to support the Council. What does irritate me is hearing that an individual feel’s vindicated to causing disruption at an airfield.
Jets bring wealthy people so here is the other loss to the local economy.
Why not support aviation and the progress of Oban Airport and leave local politics to the locals.
Would the individual who authorised the erection of the fence please remove it and allow all visitors the right to visit in the aircraft of their choice.
There is no valid reason why viewers on this site should endorse the actions of any individual or group interfering with “aviation” at this location.
So far, the majority of posts have been side tracked and appear to be supporting disruption here, a bit like mob rule shouting loud and long.
The Council own and operator the airfield and maybe they have made a boob with a boundary lease so let them fix it with the party involved and get it done with.
They must do whatever is required to return the runway to its full intended use.
140KIAS There is lost opportunity as you have said and I believe the Council are looking into this. There is also unnecessary lost opportunity due to the actions of one individual by not sticking to his word to support the Council. What does irritate me is hearing that an individual feel’s vindicated to causing disruption at an airfield.
Jets bring wealthy people so here is the other loss to the local economy.
Why not support aviation and the progress of Oban Airport and leave local politics to the locals.
Would the individual who authorised the erection of the fence please remove it and allow all visitors the right to visit in the aircraft of their choice.
Last edited by Fixed wing 51; 4th Jul 2009 at 18:35.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately, we are still allowed to disagree with the actions of the people who like to think of themselves as our lords and masters.
If the airport management couldn't sort out an issue like this, then what are they paid for. You might have a stroppy tenant, but so what. A compromise could easily be reached.
I haven't been up to Oban for a while, which is a shame as it is one of the finest places to fly into in the country, but when you are responsible for a licenced facility and to the authority, then you need to make sure that issues like this are dealt with BEFORE they affect your operation.
NorthSouth has already explained how private biz jets aren't actually affected by this and frankly I guess there will have to be a whole load of biz jets and rich people coming in to redress the £10million + hole in the books after this.
If the airport management couldn't sort out an issue like this, then what are they paid for. You might have a stroppy tenant, but so what. A compromise could easily be reached.
I haven't been up to Oban for a while, which is a shame as it is one of the finest places to fly into in the country, but when you are responsible for a licenced facility and to the authority, then you need to make sure that issues like this are dealt with BEFORE they affect your operation.
NorthSouth has already explained how private biz jets aren't actually affected by this and frankly I guess there will have to be a whole load of biz jets and rich people coming in to redress the £10million + hole in the books after this.