EGHD diversion
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 35
From: Home
Jodel some days ago emergency diversion into Plymouth due bad weather. Although closed, pilot deemed nearest safe landing place.
Landowners have impounded aircraft, surrounded with concrete blocks and preventing owner taking off to remove his aircraft. Runway is perfectly useable when blocks removed.
Landowners Security initially tried to pressure an immediate departure with local 200ft cloudlbase. Pilot sensibly refused.
(Details on Flyer Forum)
Landowners have impounded aircraft, surrounded with concrete blocks and preventing owner taking off to remove his aircraft. Runway is perfectly useable when blocks removed.
Landowners Security initially tried to pressure an immediate departure with local 200ft cloudlbase. Pilot sensibly refused.
(Details on Flyer Forum)
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
From: Unna, Germany
I'm wondering whether this is legal. In Germany, anyone who has landed - irrespective of due to a technical defect or a safety landing - on private property, cannot be stopped from taking off, if the aircraft is suitable for flying and the area allows for a safe departure. Any owner trying to stop the aircraft from departing is making himself liable for prosecution, even if he believes he is entitled for compensation - he cannot deny the aircraft permission to depart, if the other criteria are fulfilled.....
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 4
From: Yorkshire
I can't see how it's legal to impound the aircraft.
As I understand it, they can only start a civil action for trespass, and attempt to show that the pilot did some damage for which they should be compensated.
In the meantime, however, they could, if they were sufficiently bloody minded, (and it appears that they are) refuse to allow the owner the use of the runway for takeoff, leaving him/her with no option but to remove the aircraft by some other means.
MJ
As I understand it, they can only start a civil action for trespass, and attempt to show that the pilot did some damage for which they should be compensated.
In the meantime, however, they could, if they were sufficiently bloody minded, (and it appears that they are) refuse to allow the owner the use of the runway for takeoff, leaving him/her with no option but to remove the aircraft by some other means.
MJ
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,663
Likes: 0
From: Gone
I have just read that thread and I am astounded that the pilot has taken all the nonsense laying down. It appears that the pilot doesn't want to cause too much fuss over it for some unknown reason.
It would appear that he is not short of aviators support. If it was me I think that I would be planning a 15 - 20 aircraft fly-in to Plymouth for Wednesday to help commence a successful recovery.
It would appear that he is not short of aviators support. If it was me I think that I would be planning a 15 - 20 aircraft fly-in to Plymouth for Wednesday to help commence a successful recovery.
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 2
From: Worcestershire, UK
The aircraft is still "impounded" I see.
It would appear from the lack of comms in this matter that the Pilot is still complying with the terms of the imposed "gagging order", though quite why when the airfield owners are apparently maintaining their refusal to allow the aircraft to be flown out remains unclear.
I would have got the press involved at an early stage if I'd been the pilot. Public Outrage appears to be the only way to get things done these days.
It would appear from the lack of comms in this matter that the Pilot is still complying with the terms of the imposed "gagging order", though quite why when the airfield owners are apparently maintaining their refusal to allow the aircraft to be flown out remains unclear.
I would have got the press involved at an early stage if I'd been the pilot. Public Outrage appears to be the only way to get things done these days.
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 2
From: Worcestershire, UK
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 10
From: Ansião (PT)
The landowner's requirement for "no publicity" can hardly be read other than an indication of bad conscience.
And if they indeed require dismantling and all that follows, what will be their share in the (totally unnecessary) cost?
And if they indeed require dismantling and all that follows, what will be their share in the (totally unnecessary) cost?
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 4
From: Yorkshire
I think He/She should:
Write to the owners of the former airport, informing them that, since they refused to allow him to remove the aircraft from their property by the most expeditious/economical means available,(by air) they became responsible for the safe keeping of the aircraft, and for any damage/deterioration occurring during it's unlawful detention.
Call the Police, and report the aircraft stolen.
Make every effort to publicise the situation.
MJ
Ps. All of the above assumes that there isn't more to the situation than meets the eye, which there probably is.
Write to the owners of the former airport, informing them that, since they refused to allow him to remove the aircraft from their property by the most expeditious/economical means available,(by air) they became responsible for the safe keeping of the aircraft, and for any damage/deterioration occurring during it's unlawful detention.
Call the Police, and report the aircraft stolen.
Make every effort to publicise the situation.
MJ
Ps. All of the above assumes that there isn't more to the situation than meets the eye, which there probably is.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
From: Hellfire Corner
Knowing the pilot involved, I'm able to confirm the facts are correct. I suggest, with no sarcasm or criticism of any posters here intended, that those interested read the 9pp of the thread before posting further as it there is a great deal more information there. And more due.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,663
Likes: 0
From: Gone
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Make your feelings about Sutton Harbour known
So, we all agree this is idiotic corporate behaviour of the highest order, but not unexpected in the kind of company which hates aviation and buys up airports to develop them into houses.
Please feel free to send your expressions of disgust to Sutton Harbour Holdings at their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/suttonharbour/timeline
Oh dear, I also seem to have accidentally posted the email address of the CEO's PA, Karen Higman below and, oh my, oh my, oh my, I seem to have posted the email addresses of the CEO, Jason Schofield; CFO, Natasha Gadsdon; Marketing Manager Charlotte Malcolm; Digital and Social Media Manager, Bracken Jelier; Regional Media Relations Manager, Jason Clark; Investor Relations Manager, Philip Ranger.
I am sure they would all appreciate an email on this unfortunate situation:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Please feel free to send your expressions of disgust to Sutton Harbour Holdings at their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/suttonharbour/timeline
Oh dear, I also seem to have accidentally posted the email address of the CEO's PA, Karen Higman below and, oh my, oh my, oh my, I seem to have posted the email addresses of the CEO, Jason Schofield; CFO, Natasha Gadsdon; Marketing Manager Charlotte Malcolm; Digital and Social Media Manager, Bracken Jelier; Regional Media Relations Manager, Jason Clark; Investor Relations Manager, Philip Ranger.
I am sure they would all appreciate an email on this unfortunate situation:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Last edited by QDMQDMQDM; 21st August 2015 at 00:50.
Joined: Jan 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 58
From: UK
You are going to waste a lot of time writing letters. By now it's clear that the only way to get that back is to pay a bunch of geezers to escort the pilot down and take it back
Joined: Dec 2012
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,161
Likes: 841
From: Co. Down
According to Sutton's Facebook the Red Arrows cancelled their display the other day. Glad they did so, thereby avoiding the good folk of Plymouth from nasty aircraft noise and peril. Odd thing is that Sutton Harbour has been trailing the Arrows' appearance all month ...
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
From: Lincolnshire
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
Charley B
Where do you think Anne Gloag got the idea from
Sutton Harbour would be bust if the balance sheet didn't show the ex-airport value as development land.
They were trying to close both Plymouth and Exeter for development back in 2008 with a view to 'possibly' building a new airport somewhere else.
SHH are notorious in Plymouth as asset strippers and Plymouth Council are noted for some very sharp and underhand sales of their assets. A marriage made in Heaven!
Where do you think Anne Gloag got the idea from
Sutton Harbour would be bust if the balance sheet didn't show the ex-airport value as development land.
They were trying to close both Plymouth and Exeter for development back in 2008 with a view to 'possibly' building a new airport somewhere else.
SHH are notorious in Plymouth as asset strippers and Plymouth Council are noted for some very sharp and underhand sales of their assets. A marriage made in Heaven!
