EGHD diversion
Sutton Harbour would be bust if the balance sheet didn't show the ex-airport value as development land.
OTOH the continued silence on the side of the Jodel owner(s) is beginning to be very suspect, I can't help smelling there's more to this than meets the www - in fact there might well be some kind of guilty conscience there, too.
Which would only make one more reason for all parties to show good sense and less adamancy. Less said better done.
Clamped
Perranporth Pirates snatch squad needed !!!
I landed there on a non radio diversion (weather and exhaust) (or rather lack of) back in the 70's.
The man in ATC was an idiot then and the Comper left a nice patch of oil on the 'new' hangar floor because they could not find a drip tray.
I think this needs some common sense input from a sensible person in authority to explain to Sutton Harbour what damage they are doing to their company PR dept, and it may well return to bite them for their next planning application !!!!
I landed there on a non radio diversion (weather and exhaust) (or rather lack of) back in the 70's.
The man in ATC was an idiot then and the Comper left a nice patch of oil on the 'new' hangar floor because they could not find a drip tray.
I think this needs some common sense input from a sensible person in authority to explain to Sutton Harbour what damage they are doing to their company PR dept, and it may well return to bite them for their next planning application !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-posted from other places: A sincere thank you to everyone for all the support and creative use of social meedja. We understand that there's not going to be anything to report here until after the weekend - what you do in the meantime, is, of course, entirely up to you... 
Until the wheels of the Jodel leave the ground, unencumbered by restrictions, whether physical, financial or legal, let's keep up public awareness.
Until the wheels of the Jodel leave the ground, unencumbered by restrictions, whether physical, financial or legal, let's keep up public awareness.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan Olieslagers
the continued silence on the side of the Jodel owner(s) is beginning to be very suspect,
the continued silence on the side of the Jodel owner(s) is beginning to be very suspect,
Robin
They are as bad as one another sadly.horrid asset strippers.do hope BOTH get what they deserve and both fail to build houses!! Karma will come back and bite both of them hard in the bum!!
They are as bad as one another sadly.horrid asset strippers.do hope BOTH get what they deserve and both fail to build houses!! Karma will come back and bite both of them hard in the bum!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the AOPA website, Plymouth airport is still a member of the Strasser scheme. Does anybody know the actual wording of the undertaking they will have signed up to and have presumably forgotten to rescind?
http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option= ... Itemid=816
Presumably means that the safety minded folks in charge of the airport forgot to rescind their undertaking to act as a safe-haven for aircraft undertaking unplanned diversions, despite the fact that they seem to be of the view that their airfield is going to be unserviceable in the long-term.
If you have agreed to accept unplanned diversions and never revoked the undertaking, how can you then claim that someone making an unplanned emergency diversion to your airfield is a trespasser?
If Plymouth feels that its facilities are unsafe, they should clearly have written to AOPA in order to notify them that they wish to be removed from the Strasser scheme. Did they ever do this? If not, why are they not honouring their commitment to offer a haven for aircraft in distress.
http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option= ... Itemid=816
Presumably means that the safety minded folks in charge of the airport forgot to rescind their undertaking to act as a safe-haven for aircraft undertaking unplanned diversions, despite the fact that they seem to be of the view that their airfield is going to be unserviceable in the long-term.
If you have agreed to accept unplanned diversions and never revoked the undertaking, how can you then claim that someone making an unplanned emergency diversion to your airfield is a trespasser?
If Plymouth feels that its facilities are unsafe, they should clearly have written to AOPA in order to notify them that they wish to be removed from the Strasser scheme. Did they ever do this? If not, why are they not honouring their commitment to offer a haven for aircraft in distress.
Last edited by abgd; 22nd Aug 2015 at 00:03.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now reported that despite claims to the opposite, the owner has been denied access to erect weather protection. It appears that the messages came from SHH's security firm. By doing so they have now firmly crossed the line of denying the owner access to his own property and thus have legally taken on responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. I wonder if they are aware of the legalities of this situation.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot forced to sign gagging order and pay costs after emergency Plymouth landing | Plymouth Herald
While we await developments this week, weatherwise, particularly, this piece shows more clearly what's been going on.
While we await developments this week, weatherwise, particularly, this piece shows more clearly what's been going on.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to hear that sanity (or, at least, face saving) prevailed in the end.
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if all airfields, active or not, are, by definition, 'brownfield sites', or do they have to be disused?
If they have to be disused, is there a minimum time between their last use, and becoming 'brownfield sites'?
MJ
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know if all airfields, active or not, are, by definition, 'brownfield sites', or do they have to be disused?
If they have to be disused, is there a minimum time between their last use, and becoming 'brownfield sites'?
MJ
