EGHD diversion
 

Interesting story, on the Flyer UK forum, about the aftermath of a recent wx diversion into Plymouth.

:mad:

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)

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.....

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:ok:

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.

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.

'Gagging order' ???? :eek:


MJ:ok:

Slight exaggeration possibly, but reportedly:

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?

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:ok:

Ps. All of the above assumes that there isn't more to the situation than meets the eye, which there probably is.

My first action would be to find a GOOD lawyer and find my legal situation.

Where's F.L. when you need him?;)

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.

More here. Anger at 'impounded' Plymouth emergency landing plane - BBC News

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]

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

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 ...:hmm:

Free the Jodel

Hitler and the Jodel - Caption Generator

Sounds like another Manston problem here..buy airport up,pretend it is no longer viable and smother it with houses..dreadful state of affairs.

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!

No surprise there, and who could blame them?

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 !!!!

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.

On the contrary, I believe the owner has indirectly and successfully started a **** storm, but is still complying with the initial request of SHH for no publicity. SHH brought this upon themselves, arrogant individuals that they are now being shown to be.

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!!

QDMQDMQDM Bracken Jeller no longer works for Coup Media, so you might want to amend your message giving his e-mail.

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.

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.

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.

.....and she's out. :D:ok:



Crowds gather to watch Jodel take off from the former Plymouth airport | Plymouth Herald

Good to hear that sanity (or, at least, face saving) prevailed in the end.:D

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:ok:

Heathrow is a 'Brownfield' site.