Lee On Solent - The End?
 

Much nonsense has been written about the status of Lee on Solent and the reasons why things are as they are. I don't propose to add to the rumours and rubbish but it is now clear that crisis point has been reached.

If they get their way, Hampshire police (and their truly odious henchman) will finally get their way and have their own private airfield. All the tennants have been given notice to quit.

See http://www.eghf.co.uk./ for the nearest to the truth you can find.

The best we can hope for is that the looming crisis will finally galvanise the politicians into some action....

Don't hold your breath.

And who funds the Hampshire police?

That's a rhetorical question, BTW. Like so many things in this country, the tax (or council tax) payer pays, but gets little or no benefit from what they pay for.

SD

I feel like a right mug for letting our "elected" MPs do this kind of stuff to us.
So much goes on nowadays that the electorate clearly don't want.

Distant shores beckon me thinks.

But (as discussed on Flyer) Lee On Solent would never allow GA visitors anyway, so from our point of view what difference does it make?

Nipper2,

it is only 1 odious henchman who is causing all the problems and has been doing so ever since the airfield was handed over from the Navy in 1996.

Lee does / did allow visitors providing you jumped through numerous hoops re insurance and had a good reason for visiting other than just wanting Lee in the logbook.

Paul

I know. It's a great shame that one man has been allowed to destroy something so valuable - and for what I do not know.

We can only hope that the current crisis forces more rational minds to prevail. Sadly, I fear that things have gone too far ....

surely there must be some logic in the fact that Lee is a publically owned asset and there are no security issue that involve limited GA use. Hence a defacto right to use it ? or did I wake up with rose tinted glasses on today

I'm not sure
 

I called them and asked for PPR and was told flatly they didn't accept GA traffic.

Have had aircraft visit our group in the past and quite how the aircraft maintenance facility and flying school will manage I have no idea. They cannot be expected just to pack up and move out in a few weeks. The majority of locals wish the airfield to remain and be used, the alternatives of gravel extraction or housebuilding are not welcome. Maybe suggest that the police relocate elsewhere and/or swop to a helicopter hence eliminating the need for a runway and removing the major obstruction to Lee being retained as an active airfield.

Slightly off topic, but I hear the old Hamble airfield is to become a gravel pit, then once exhausted a housing estate.
With Southampton not really accessible to GA, and Solent heading the same way, to visit the area we will need to land on the IOW and get a ferry back!

Can't the police fly the plane from SOU? They can position the helicopter somewhere else - Dorset police fly the helicopter from their divisional HQ at Winfrith...I'm sure they have caught a few people riding their bikes on the pavement with it too.

I don't see why they can't share the airfield with GA - We used to have the Air Ambulance based at our field and it was no problem at all. Mind you, try getting permission to land a helicopter at the MCA base at Portland....no chance.

I'd love to see it an active GA airfield - it beats Southampton. I occasionally have to go to Walsash and it'd be ideal.

in laws live by hamble. the site was sold for housing a long time ago, but they were only allowed to build so many due to the current roads. there are plans for a relief road (i cant say anymore as the plans may not be public knowledge) and when this happens in 5-10 years the whole site will be built on.
So unless everyone clubs together for when BAA have to sell off soton to keep the c/c happy. it looks like hurn, popham or goodwood (places like l-upham and f-mount have next to no space or runway length).

:{

Mildly OT, but does anyone know why Hampshire operate the FW Islander, as opposed to almost all other Police ASUs operating RW?

Poor southerner

Wouldn't bank on being able to use Hurn (Bournemouth) too much longer, the way things are going there with the increase in commerical traffic, I reckon GA is on it's way out there too in the medium term. I've noticed how much harder it is and how long it takes to get clearance to take-off/land recently. Scuttlebutt is that GA's days are numbered.

Maybe, but GA is probably more entrenched at Bournemouth than it was at Southampton...I think when it comes to it they will have trouble shifting it.

airborne artist,

the reasons given are a) hants is a big county b) endurance (loads of people kept awake at night longer by it now) c) carry more equipment d) allegedly cheaper than RW (not convinced on that one)

As for operating at SOU - no space available + noise complaints would increase considerably.

Flybmi - yes the restrictions imposed by Police are somewhat draconian. Not sure if the latest are there but currently if you wish to fly at weekends you must be away by 10am and not allowed to return before 5pm. The gates / fence are a hazard as well - several aircraft have hit these. Woe betide anybody who infringes these rules unless a guest of the Police (see website)
There are pleanty of airfields which mix GA/gliding etc safely but convincing people of that is proving impossible.

Contact Tower

I sincerely hope you're right (it's convenient for me!!) although I really don't share your confidence. I seem to recall the same was said about Southampton a few years back.

Bournemouth *should* be ok, but I have a suspicion that the prices will keep going up and will eventually drive GA out (or make it very expensive to operate there) - Especially with their large terminal expansion. However there are a lot of aviation associated businesses on the industrial estates at the airfield (unlike Southampton) so I suspect GA will stay for the foreseeable future.

This really does make me violent. :mad:

I find the occasional hire of one of Caryll's Warriors a refreshing change from my usual haunt at Fairoaks and last did so three weeks ago.

There is absolutely no operational or safety reason at all why the aviation interests on the site canot peacefully co-exist, as they do in so many other places with fixed, rotary and gliders.

My suspicion is that the first step is to declare this a field for the Coastguard helicopter and the Police Islander alone and then when a decent length of time has passed, the police will decide to go rotary and share the pad with the coastguard (who are currently having a new hanger built), there will be a big expanse of field left doing nothing and of course building houses will inconvenience nobody at that stage .. will it ?

Then of course the Naval Gliding Club, who I imagine are currently laughing smugly as they get 10.00 a.m. - 5 pm. on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday as sole users, will suddenly get something to cough about.

The possibilities to turn this into a thriving GA airfield are there in spades but nobody seems able to convince anybody that it should be done.

As usual ££££ or the lack of having to spend them not only talks but shouts.

If there was a way I could help the fight I would be happy to pitch in but the existing Lee Users seem to have already covered every possible base.

:{

That's about the size of it, with any luck, they'll then be in a position to sell it back to the taxpayer who paid for it in the first place, outstanding plan. Rip-off UK strikes again.

Incidently, anyone know where the likes of Carill are likely to go? We do have a fair few airfields in this area but personally, I can't think of anywhere remotely local (bar the Isle of Wight) where there is space and/or not already an established flight school/maint. facility (therefore wouldn't welcome a competitor).

That is what concerns me. I like Caroline and her organisation and I'd like to do business with them for a long time to come.

AFAIK the nearest place is Goodwood, but the noble lord already has a thriving enterprise.

Other than unlicensed grass strips (such as lower Upham) I don't know of many places before I end up back at Fairoaks.

This is terribly sad for (or more like a delberate and cynical move against) GA on the south coast. With the comments above about Bournmouth, the loss of Southampton and other troubles besetting Shoreham. Lee is really a pretty good "last" place, between two major centres of population that could really thrive in the right hands ... but more importantly it has to have the will of officialdom to make it work.

I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????

DGG :ugh: :mad:

"If there was a way I could help the fight I would be happy to pitch in but the existing Lee Users seem to have already covered every possible base."

Dave - there are practical, discrete "task-lets", that folks like yourself can help with if they would like to pitch in and help.

If you wish, email me for a picklist of doable tasks, and choose one you are happy to take on for us (we cant get to them all as fast as we would like, so are are prioritising hard).

These are dark days right now, but strange as it may seem, as a result Lee is probably closer now than it has ever been to becoming be a normal shared GA airfield, with Police (priority) and MCA (priority) flying operations.

Lee Flying Assocation (http://www.eghf.co.uk) have a lot a significant actions and planning in hand (not all evident on the website!). Nonentheless LFA would really appreciate additional help with from the aviation community.

LFA 'open' meeting being held at Crofton Community Centre, Stubbington 1900, Sunday 28th October.

Lee-On-Solent - The Beginning!
 

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for Dave?
(From another forum with authors permission)
-----------------------------------------------------

Stephen asked how the wider GA community can help to secure for want of a better term right now, "Lee For All".

1) FIRST AND FOREMOST - be aware that Well intentioned 'help' that is uninformed is very likely to be damaging rather than helpful - the situation is VERY complex. So, first help to ask for is please do not inadvetantly harm is being attempted with efforts from the sidelines. (I hope you know what I mean, because I have fallen into this trap myself when I thought I was being helpful early on).

Instead work with the Lee Flying Assocation (LFA), see http://www.eghf.co.uk

2) Specifically, LFA need additional information on how much it costs other Counties Air Support Units to be based at the various arifields around the UK. We need to build up a more detailed view of what is costs other UK police forces to do bae their ASUs at Shoreham, Rochester, and the like.

We are swamped with core focus activities right now - Is there a volunteer to collate this information from the GA community and its network in the industry on LFA's behalf please - by collecting in PM's from people who have some insight of those costs - we do not want this data gathering to be done in a public thread on a forum..

3) In a similar vein - so, who wants to use Lee? We are 'told' that there is suffient GA capacity in the area such that accessibility to use Lee in not required. Which means that the latent demand for GA use of Lee is not visible to the (Non-Aviation) decision makers. We need to surface that, in spades.

Is there a volunteer, please, who will offer to collate, again PMs, from the GA community expressing their wish to use the facilites, and thus build up evidence of unsatisfied demand which will further strengthen LFA's business case?

LFA will be a public meeting at Crofton Community Centre in Stubbington, Hants on 1900 Sunday 28th October.

Just an observation: the day GA was told it was to be finally be fully closed out Lee... ...was also the day XH558 flew again.... the art of the possible can be demonstrated again... ...who's in? Help like the above would be very valuable.
_________________

"I ask again, what else can be done to try and get a decent outcome for GA ????"

Does PPRUNE have contacts with the "Flying Lawyers" or other PPL's with legal skills?

Such would be revered by GA forever if they helped Lee Flying Association bring Lee airfield to a long-overdue normality.

How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??

Spamcan

Comment
 

Dave G says that.... "Then of course the Naval Gliding Club, who I imagine are currently laughing smugly as they get 10.00 a.m. - 5 pm. on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday as sole users, will suddenly get something to cough about."

As someone close to the Gliding community onsite, and to a number of our GA friends there, this assumption is WHOLLY inaccurate. Gliding and GA have co-existed safely, and in co-operation at Lee for some 50 years. You will find no-one in the Gliding community there who is not happy for that to continue as it was before the restrictions were imposed some months ago. Let's not play into the hands of the airfield management who appear to want to drive a wedge, by the very nature/format of their ongoing decisions.

not knowing the full in's and outs of the case if the reason they are closing is because of the police wanting to operate on their own for safety reasons that is mad!

I glide and we work side by side with the police chopper, Sea king SAR, and apache/lynxs/gazzelles! (not to mention in bound hercs/antonovs etc) we have a clear understanding of each others needs and operate perfectly safely together. In fact a few years ago we held a competition and there was upwards of 25+ gliders flying in it and we still managed to operate together

I believe that a police helicopter (Surrey?) is based at Fairoaks. Seems to co-exist with other fixed wing & rotary traffic OK.

SD

Comment 2
 

UAV.... Until now, established local GA, Gliding, a Police fixed-wing Islander, the MCA Coastguard helicopters have all co-existed safely for many years.

There have been no significant incidents caused by the mix; and no rational safety-issues nor risks quantified. In fact the only significant accident on site was sadly the Police's own Optica some years ago.

The lack of any valid background for ongoing airfield policies, can therefore only be taken to be a want for "blue light" exclusivity, and where other users are presumably seen as amateur and "not worthy", or are too much trouble/displeasing to the eye.

I'm sure there are numerous other reasons, and I won't go into those here, but one now possibly starts to interweave with SEEDA (SE England Development Agency) desires to maximise the commercial return of the land around the central airfield. Housing makes a much nicer profit than flying, and meets government targets too. Us locals are being told by press releases, surveys etc that they want to build a plan to meet local public wishes. The public have voted clearly, and told them NO to houses, NO to more traffic on the peninsular, yes to green space; some light industry, GA, marine etc etc. How inconvenient....! So if the airfield operator then has a separate issue with GA (or Gliding) on "safety grounds" (shock/horror!) that is nothing to do with SEEDA.... but they've got room for more houses, and the hangars will clear - and they can make public statements that explain it wasn't down to them. Afterall H&S is sacrosanct - we all know that from being told so every day by some new trivial news item. That's handy - wow!

Anyone who understand aviation would see that the GA and Gliding operations are very safe alongside the Blue Light facilities; and in fact complement each other, and create a safer environment with better airfield and circuit awareness. There are many many airfields, and strips even where they are far far busier, but given that's not the point, it's not something that those making decisions would seem to be interested in.

Neil666 is wholly correct. Not only is this crass decision a disaster for the business and GA users at the airfield, it is also a disaster for the local community as a whole.

I have lived in this area for over 40years. During that time I have seen how the Navy and business have withdrawn leaving brownfield sites for developers to make money building more houses. The Gosport peninsula now has the cheapest housing in the south due to the oversupply of houses, gridlocked roads, and some of the highest unemployment. It also has one of the highest "out commutes" of any town in the country.

When SEEDA said they would develop the airfield site with a particular emphasis on marine and aviation, the local community at last felt that some attention was to be paid to providing an asset that we could be proud of. Of course it would take time to build up, but with public help from SEEDA this could have been achieved.

Instead the so called "economic development agency" has done nothing but put obstacles in the way of those wanting to develop the airfield for aviation business. Other posters are right that the Health and Safety issue is just a smoke screen. Go to the EGHF website and read the report SEEDA commissioned. You will see it was written by the management of Shoreham Airport! Yes that’s right - that lot who were investigated for fraud last year and would stand to benefit as one of the nearest competitors with a hard runway suitable for GA!

This is not just an issue for those in aviation. This is an issue which will affect the whole of the area. SEEDA should be thoroughly ashamed that they have stood by and watched this happen.

This is what one of the writers of the report by Erinaceous said in his role within the Airport Operators Association:

Well done John Haffenden, you speak with forked tongue methinks :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: Hold your head in shame and don't you DARE associate yourself with GA when you are quite happy to stab it in the back.

Missing the point!!
 

Dear Mr Moderator,

Sorry mate, but I must be having a senior moment! Where and when is John Haffenden stabbing GA in the back? As far as I'm aware, he's been a lifelong supporter of anything to do with GA!

Please explain for those of us not yet up to speed...

Thanks,
TheOddOne

Read this.

TheOddOne

I have worked with John professionally in the past and my experience then was as you think he is, hence my anger at him co-writing a report which says that GA is unsafe to co-exist with 'blue light' operations, that the perception that GA is a 'rich man's sport' has not been disproven by GA at LOS, that GA adds nothing to the social and economic well being of the area, that it is in fact a disbenefit and costs the public money, etc, etc.

All this from a company (for which John has helped write the report) which states that it has no conflict of interest in seeing a nearby GA field being closed to the kind of traffic it also attracts as the operator of Shoreham.The report is full of statistics which have been spun to make the case, yet are at odds with precisely the things quoted by John with his AOA hat on.

I still think he should be ashamed of putting his name on the report.

Well the Heather Group should know how to run a business well if their track record is anything to go by.

And with regard to the report, I wonder how much the taxpayer paid for it?

and led to restrictions on operations, particularly relating to general aviation."

What are these "incidents" that the report mentions?

I was at the Public Meeting this evening. It's a question that has been asked of Hampshire Police, who have not provided a reply.

I understand the local MP has asked DfT, who have overall responsibility for MCA, the owners of the airfield, for a copy of the report. There is a suspicion that it does not exist.

While Hants Police, SEEDA, and MCA were invited to send representatives to the meeting only SEEDA replied, sending their regrets.

Despite the absence of these people I detected an unmistakable piscene aroma. Why does the MCA sit on an asset valued at 20 million smackeroos and then do this? Do you need exclusive use of an asset valued at 20 million to operate two helicopters and an Islander? Is it good stewardship of public funds?

MCA are building new office and hanger space on the E/W runway at the southern part of the a/d. It's not hard to envisage a scenario where Hants Police switch to helo operation and presto! all the land to the north of that runway becomes surplus to requirements. The local residents want GA to continue, the local council do, and no-one wants to lose the buffer of open space between Lee and Stubbington.

As any fule no mixed f/w, rotary and glider operations take place at airfields all over the country with no H&S issues.

More info here.

Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE
 

Spamcan asked:

"How would I make it known to the relevant people that I am a user of LOS and wish it to remain open for GA??"

Spamcan, Would you (or someone else please) start a new PPRUNE thread titled something like "Sign up here to fly from/into/at LEE" .

Indicate in your post the kind of flying you want to do, and hopefully word will get out such that many other UK flyers will append to the thread also. We can get the thread into the view of relevant bodies very easily from there... ... or transfer the expressed views into a more effective vehicle when that becomes apparent (a WIP but not top priority - we are going to pursue a High Court Injunction urgently).

Posters to the thread would not have to be local to Lee, if they would fly in to visit the local area, refuel, whatever, the point is to express the demand that is out there for public access to the Department for Transports MCA Daedalus airfield. You paid for it, the government policy is to encourage use of such facilities, so Say You Want To Access it.

FYI Erinaceous Report says
"

5.3.10 It should also be borne in mind that there are significant numbers of general aviation facilities within one-hour travel of Daedalus (see diagram 4) and there is no discernable increasing demand for general aviation of the type seen at Daedalus. Whilst we cannot comment in detail on the facilities provided by these airfields, it would appear that there is enough capacity within the region to satisfy demand."

GA Have Your Say! :ugh:
The full report is at www.eghf.co.uk

UAV689 - Thanks for the example, we are collecting them, and that is a great one - could you clarify the level of air traffic service provided during this level of activity please - Air/ground? Air Traffic Contol?

BTW At LEE The only party who refuses to sign the Letter of Agreement regarding airspace procedures at Lee and DARA Fleetlands is Hamsphire Constabulary.

Of the four signatories - DARA Fleetlands, Bristows (Chief Pilot), the Royal Navy (for Portsmouth Naval Gliding Club) and Hampshire Constabulary it is only Hampshire Constabulary who will not sign it.

The LOA is now nearly a year old. Several of the issues Hamsphire Constabulary are apparently currently claiming as their Health and Safety concerns relate DIRECTLY to the fact the LOA has not been signed by them! For what reason is not clear - it is not an extraordinary LOA.

Neil666 - allthe points you make are very valid I think, however I should just point out that the Police Optica and crew of two which was tragically lost was on its first operational mission and was operating out of Bournmouth - not Lee-On-Solent.

Lee-On-Solent has an EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD. In living memory, which is at least 28 and 38 years of operating on the airfiled, LEE's most experienced flyers do not recall any incidents leading to injury, hospitaliation or even a trip to A&E. The PNGC itslef has operated for 57 years, have around 4 million launches - and a great safety record.

Despite Hampshire Constabularies' assertions of Health and Safety Concerns and "Incidents" there are no Mandatory Occurance Reports that substanciate such claims. The filing of an MOR is a legal requirement following an incident so where are they?

No Risk Assessments have been forthcoming to substantiate the H&S assertions either. The ELFA, and the Executive Leader for Fareham Borough Council has requested , from the Chief Constable, copies of the H&S materials supporting the police decisions. Such have yet to be received and locally there is strong suspicion that such do not exist.

It is not at all clear that DfT-MCA, SEEDA, or Erinaceous did anything at all other than simply accept at face value Hampshire Constabularies statements regarding H&S concerns... ...and have been happy to repeat them:

From the Erinaceous report:
"5.2.3 There are considerable health & safety issues relating to air traffic control, the operation of the airfield and access to it by the general aviation community in particular which, in our opinion, must be addressed as an immediate priority."

"5.3.1 A strong case has been put forward that the operational and health & safety issues documented at Daedalus can be overcome by removing all gliding activity.

Who put that case forward? On what grounds? And how do LFA an others get past this loop of chasing down an spurious Health and Safey claim which the non-aviaiton organisations have (thus far) swallowed hook line and sinker?