28 Day rule for UK airstrips under threat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I posted this once before on the Barton airport thread..... but it's worth reading again.... yes, I know we are all converts anyway, but it's a great piece. Thanks to my good friend from the US, Michael Johnson, who wrote this
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you know where babies come from… but where do pilots come from?
Aviation seems to have a love-hate relationship with society. People love to travel with ease and speed, but they abhor the side effects like noise and fear of susceptibility to terrorism.
Nowhere does the conundrum come more to roost than at the local hometown airport. It is here that any nuisance to residents combines with alternative economic interests to force the extinction of the aerodrome. And then a certain stereotypical perception of pilots comes into play and introduces an element of personal envy.
Local pilots are often seen as rich people with extravagant toys. Of course military jet pilots in defense of the country and airline transport pilots landing at “big” airports are held in great esteem. But where do they come from?
Well, they come from “little” airports. At one point in life those pilots, perhaps as a child, became caught up in the spirit of flight, the wonderment of the sky and the challenge of mastering the control of an airplane. This was probably inspired by observation or experience in a small plane in the local environment. Jet pilots don’t start out in jets; most begin in a two-place trainer costing about the same as a decent family automobile. These are not extravagant toys and while some business planes can be very expensive, most are not in the league of the neighbor’s BMW or Mercedes Benz in terms of cost after depreciation.
So the local airport is not just for those who hang around and fly for fun. Of course it enables flight training for future airline pilots the military. But it also supports those who fly for business, even if it is a grass strip.
Businesses and the related jobs are at the economic core of an airport. It is a launching point for pilots who do traffic reports, ferry cargo or documents, inspect pipelines and utility grids, dispense fungicides on cropland and transport passengers.
And never forget the value of ‘little” airplanes operating out of “little” airports in urgent and emergency situations. When a child is lost or a boat at peril, caring pilots come out of the woodwork to donate time and resources to the search. Local pilots are indispensable in spotting fires and directing firefighting efforts… and they play an effective role in law enforcement as well.
They transport medical supplies, blood, human organs and injured people from disaster areas. Volunteer pilots routinely fly sick patients from remote areas to urban hospitals for treatment. In times of war, or now of terrorism, they provide an extra set of eyes on security patrol to relieve the military for more urgent maneuvers. Are there no persons left who remember civilian coastal submarine patrol… or have they just forgotten?
And let’s be honest, while approximately 65 % of general aviation flights are for business and public service, some are just for fun.
There is no denying the beauty of the sky from aloft as the sun rises; or the thrill of one’s first sightseeing ride; or the accomplishment of sliding a glider onto the grass on a summer day after circling with the hawks. Pilots will always be taken with the spiritual experience of flying and the magic of the sky. It is not wrong to enjoy these activities that bring quality to our lives.
As a society we must respect and protect the interests of others, no matter how different or remote from our own experiences and aspirations. The ability to travel without restriction is a fundamental of our free society and should be fervently defended by all for all.
When autos are banned from the freeways in deference to buses, when bicycles are restricted as a public nuisance, when pleasure boats are deemed not justifiable for privilege, and airports are driven to extinction, our society is devalued.
There are always alternative locations for shopping malls and condominiums. When a local airport dies from dissident neighbors, shortsighted governmental regulation, or economic pressure on land value, they do not reappear. A precious community and societal asset is gone forever.
Michael R. Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you know where babies come from… but where do pilots come from?
Aviation seems to have a love-hate relationship with society. People love to travel with ease and speed, but they abhor the side effects like noise and fear of susceptibility to terrorism.
Nowhere does the conundrum come more to roost than at the local hometown airport. It is here that any nuisance to residents combines with alternative economic interests to force the extinction of the aerodrome. And then a certain stereotypical perception of pilots comes into play and introduces an element of personal envy.
Local pilots are often seen as rich people with extravagant toys. Of course military jet pilots in defense of the country and airline transport pilots landing at “big” airports are held in great esteem. But where do they come from?
Well, they come from “little” airports. At one point in life those pilots, perhaps as a child, became caught up in the spirit of flight, the wonderment of the sky and the challenge of mastering the control of an airplane. This was probably inspired by observation or experience in a small plane in the local environment. Jet pilots don’t start out in jets; most begin in a two-place trainer costing about the same as a decent family automobile. These are not extravagant toys and while some business planes can be very expensive, most are not in the league of the neighbor’s BMW or Mercedes Benz in terms of cost after depreciation.
So the local airport is not just for those who hang around and fly for fun. Of course it enables flight training for future airline pilots the military. But it also supports those who fly for business, even if it is a grass strip.
Businesses and the related jobs are at the economic core of an airport. It is a launching point for pilots who do traffic reports, ferry cargo or documents, inspect pipelines and utility grids, dispense fungicides on cropland and transport passengers.
And never forget the value of ‘little” airplanes operating out of “little” airports in urgent and emergency situations. When a child is lost or a boat at peril, caring pilots come out of the woodwork to donate time and resources to the search. Local pilots are indispensable in spotting fires and directing firefighting efforts… and they play an effective role in law enforcement as well.
They transport medical supplies, blood, human organs and injured people from disaster areas. Volunteer pilots routinely fly sick patients from remote areas to urban hospitals for treatment. In times of war, or now of terrorism, they provide an extra set of eyes on security patrol to relieve the military for more urgent maneuvers. Are there no persons left who remember civilian coastal submarine patrol… or have they just forgotten?
And let’s be honest, while approximately 65 % of general aviation flights are for business and public service, some are just for fun.
There is no denying the beauty of the sky from aloft as the sun rises; or the thrill of one’s first sightseeing ride; or the accomplishment of sliding a glider onto the grass on a summer day after circling with the hawks. Pilots will always be taken with the spiritual experience of flying and the magic of the sky. It is not wrong to enjoy these activities that bring quality to our lives.
As a society we must respect and protect the interests of others, no matter how different or remote from our own experiences and aspirations. The ability to travel without restriction is a fundamental of our free society and should be fervently defended by all for all.
When autos are banned from the freeways in deference to buses, when bicycles are restricted as a public nuisance, when pleasure boats are deemed not justifiable for privilege, and airports are driven to extinction, our society is devalued.
There are always alternative locations for shopping malls and condominiums. When a local airport dies from dissident neighbors, shortsighted governmental regulation, or economic pressure on land value, they do not reappear. A precious community and societal asset is gone forever.
Michael R. Johnson
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine's long gone into the mail.
SteveR is absolutely right - the more letters, especially subtly different ones, received, the more our arguments have to be listened to.
You may be sure the antis/trolls/AEF and the like will be doing their darndest to ensure nobody gets to fly. And there are a heck of a lot less of them than there are of us pilots.
Trouble is, while we're up flying and having fun, they are down in their dumps writing letters to try to get us stopped.
SteveR is absolutely right - the more letters, especially subtly different ones, received, the more our arguments have to be listened to.
You may be sure the antis/trolls/AEF and the like will be doing their darndest to ensure nobody gets to fly. And there are a heck of a lot less of them than there are of us pilots.
Trouble is, while we're up flying and having fun, they are down in their dumps writing letters to try to get us stopped.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is better to amend the suggested letter a bit, and put
it in your own words. Umpteen identical letters are likely
to be treated as just one.
You can email your letter, as shown by the government's helpful note:
"We look forward to receiving your comments on the proposals
in this consultation paper. Please send your response to
Iain Clark at the address below no later than 24 April 2002:
Development Control Policy Division
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Zone 4/J3
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
Tel: 020 7944 3947
Fax: 020 7944 5004
E-Mail: [email protected]
If you want to read the paper of which this proposal is part, see:
http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/ucotup/01.htm
it in your own words. Umpteen identical letters are likely
to be treated as just one.
You can email your letter, as shown by the government's helpful note:
"We look forward to receiving your comments on the proposals
in this consultation paper. Please send your response to
Iain Clark at the address below no later than 24 April 2002:
Development Control Policy Division
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Zone 4/J3
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
Tel: 020 7944 3947
Fax: 020 7944 5004
E-Mail: [email protected]
If you want to read the paper of which this proposal is part, see:
http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/ucotup/01.htm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..of course with actions and moves being made against pukka airfields in the UK all the time (e.g. Barton), we may be forced to resort to operating from strips as the ONLY way to fly in the future....
keep em coming !
keep em coming !
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Surrey/Sussex
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just had a look at the consultation document and I think it is worth understanding the issue here.
This "28 day rule" applies to a wide range of activities, including car-boot sales etc. The problem is that operators are doing things like using adjoining fields so that they can run a car boot sale every weekend of the year, thus by-passing legislation, as each is only used for 28 days. I understand the problem - we have one like this locally. The issue for us aviators is that the rule could be changed to address this sort of abuse, without even considering aviation.
I also reckon that slight changes to the letter help with credibility, rather than everyone sending the same one, though any response to the consultation is better than none.
My response is below. Feel free to plagiarise.
---------------
Dear Mr Clark,
I am writing in response to the Central Government’s document Consultation On Possible Changes To The Use Classes - Order And Temporary Uses Provisions Review. In particular, I have concerns about the future policy on temporary land use ("the 28 day planning rule").
As I understand it, the 28 day planning rule applies to occasional use of private airstrips for general aviation. Whilst the review correctly considers abuses of the current rule, such as repeated use of adjoining land for regular car-boot sale markets to avoid the 28 day restriction, any proposed change must take into account the multiple activities currently covered by the rule and not apply a blanket change that does not differentiate between activities. In particular, changes must not restrict aviation inadvertently in order to curtail other inappropriate activities.
Therefore, unless the government can provide assurance that general aviation would not be affected by a change, I would have to reply to questions 17 and 18 as follows:
Question 17: "Which option for temporary use provision do you most favour. Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in the paper?"
Option 1 – No change.
Question 18: "Why do you prefer your chosen option?"
As a recreational pilot, I support the continuance of the numerous small airstrips that exist in the UK. Indeed, with development and legislation placing more and more restriction on General Aviation, the continuance of private airstrips is essential to maintain GA in the UK. In a wider context, the case for general aviation needs to be more clearly understood by the community in the UK, as a generator of jobs, a provider of a wide range of services to the community, a recreational activity, a training ground for commercial pilots and a catalyst for innovative UK industry. I urge you to consider carefully the impact of any changes on this valuable industry and activity.
This "28 day rule" applies to a wide range of activities, including car-boot sales etc. The problem is that operators are doing things like using adjoining fields so that they can run a car boot sale every weekend of the year, thus by-passing legislation, as each is only used for 28 days. I understand the problem - we have one like this locally. The issue for us aviators is that the rule could be changed to address this sort of abuse, without even considering aviation.
I also reckon that slight changes to the letter help with credibility, rather than everyone sending the same one, though any response to the consultation is better than none.
My response is below. Feel free to plagiarise.
---------------
Dear Mr Clark,
I am writing in response to the Central Government’s document Consultation On Possible Changes To The Use Classes - Order And Temporary Uses Provisions Review. In particular, I have concerns about the future policy on temporary land use ("the 28 day planning rule").
As I understand it, the 28 day planning rule applies to occasional use of private airstrips for general aviation. Whilst the review correctly considers abuses of the current rule, such as repeated use of adjoining land for regular car-boot sale markets to avoid the 28 day restriction, any proposed change must take into account the multiple activities currently covered by the rule and not apply a blanket change that does not differentiate between activities. In particular, changes must not restrict aviation inadvertently in order to curtail other inappropriate activities.
Therefore, unless the government can provide assurance that general aviation would not be affected by a change, I would have to reply to questions 17 and 18 as follows:
Question 17: "Which option for temporary use provision do you most favour. Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in the paper?"
Option 1 – No change.
Question 18: "Why do you prefer your chosen option?"
As a recreational pilot, I support the continuance of the numerous small airstrips that exist in the UK. Indeed, with development and legislation placing more and more restriction on General Aviation, the continuance of private airstrips is essential to maintain GA in the UK. In a wider context, the case for general aviation needs to be more clearly understood by the community in the UK, as a generator of jobs, a provider of a wide range of services to the community, a recreational activity, a training ground for commercial pilots and a catalyst for innovative UK industry. I urge you to consider carefully the impact of any changes on this valuable industry and activity.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breaking new ground on pprune
This has got to be a first for pprune - a thread on which everybody agrees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My letter is in the post tonight. We all know GA needs all the support it can get in the UK at present. Back to the top it goes.
My letter is in the post tonight. We all know GA needs all the support it can get in the UK at present. Back to the top it goes.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revised email address for 28 day rule
The DTLR posted the wrong email address for responses - the right one is:
Email to: [email protected]
--------------------------
Re abuse by car boot sales etc. on adjacent bits of land, there is already
protection available in law for that. The 28 day rule can be applied to a
"planning unit" which is the land (not necessarily contiguous) under
ownership or control of any one person or company. If the same car boot
person uses lots of bits of land, even rented from different farmers, they
become under his control so are one planning unit.
In extreme cases, there are powers to impose an Article 4 Direction
prohibiting such a use - though compensation for loss of profit may be
payable (my gliding club owns land which has such a direction on part of it
re "markets" which I think stemmed, before our time, from just such an
intention).
Airfields using the 28 day rule do not, in general, move about - the only exception being perhaps a few helicopter pads, and some hang-glider/paraglider spots on hills.
I realise that the DTLR have put the rationale for their proposals, as being the car boot sals on adjacent bits of land etc., but
they appear to be in ignorance of how the law can be and sometimes has been applied.
I plan to make that point to them in my response, and to point out two entirely different interpretations of the 28 day rule by 2 different planning inspectors.
The fundamental problem is that "Parliament" passed (and the civil servants had drafted) legislation without sufficiently well defining it or how it should be enforced. Subsequent case law has clarified, or redefined, it to some extent. I don't suppose civil servants, or politicians, read up all the cases.
Email to: [email protected]
--------------------------
Re abuse by car boot sales etc. on adjacent bits of land, there is already
protection available in law for that. The 28 day rule can be applied to a
"planning unit" which is the land (not necessarily contiguous) under
ownership or control of any one person or company. If the same car boot
person uses lots of bits of land, even rented from different farmers, they
become under his control so are one planning unit.
In extreme cases, there are powers to impose an Article 4 Direction
prohibiting such a use - though compensation for loss of profit may be
payable (my gliding club owns land which has such a direction on part of it
re "markets" which I think stemmed, before our time, from just such an
intention).
Airfields using the 28 day rule do not, in general, move about - the only exception being perhaps a few helicopter pads, and some hang-glider/paraglider spots on hills.
I realise that the DTLR have put the rationale for their proposals, as being the car boot sals on adjacent bits of land etc., but
they appear to be in ignorance of how the law can be and sometimes has been applied.
I plan to make that point to them in my response, and to point out two entirely different interpretations of the 28 day rule by 2 different planning inspectors.
The fundamental problem is that "Parliament" passed (and the civil servants had drafted) legislation without sufficiently well defining it or how it should be enforced. Subsequent case law has clarified, or redefined, it to some extent. I don't suppose civil servants, or politicians, read up all the cases.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for clarifying that Chris. Doesnt stop the need for letters though, as you point out, the chaps & chapesses in Govt will happily pass anything without the proper research as has been demonstrated many times before.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the top.
I've recently learned that some campaigning groups stoop to the underhand tactic of sending several, slightly different. letters from different noms de plume - thereby massively increasing the weight of their arguments because the recipients don't bother to check the actual existance of their correspondents.
This is an awful thing to do.
I'm certain that people who want to outlaw GA in this country will have spotted the changes to the 28 day rule as another good way to do us down, and I'm quietly confident that some of them will be sending multiple letters.
I'm wracking my brains to think how we might counteract this.....
Steve R (sometimes Steve S, Steve T, and Steve U)
I've recently learned that some campaigning groups stoop to the underhand tactic of sending several, slightly different. letters from different noms de plume - thereby massively increasing the weight of their arguments because the recipients don't bother to check the actual existance of their correspondents.
This is an awful thing to do.
I'm certain that people who want to outlaw GA in this country will have spotted the changes to the 28 day rule as another good way to do us down, and I'm quietly confident that some of them will be sending multiple letters.
I'm wracking my brains to think how we might counteract this.....
Steve R (sometimes Steve S, Steve T, and Steve U)
