Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Down Fall CHC North Denes

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Down Fall CHC North Denes

Old 2nd Jan 2009, 13:37
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 1,018
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

"With regards the concrete runway option, this would be poo-pooed by the local council as the runway is at points below sea level and this would pose a flood risk, there is talk of pad extensions also but again the council may poo-poo, if this is the case I believe chc would look at other options.
this along with the government now allowing brownfield sites to be used for housing, this would be a very profitable sale if it were to go ahead."

Now there is a thought flooding if concrete runway !! but not if housing Keep that thought in mind.
A quote worthy of HMG.
500e is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 13:40
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Back in the UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to agree with SlyGuy and RW&B. ND operates their 16000 pa movements well despite the aged facilities and sometimes confounding CHC management. This little, undervalued, under resourced airfield could be a gold mine if the top brass in Aberdeen could see beyond the end of ABZ's threshold.

Positives - no opening hours restrictions, no fitting ion with fixed wing, no waiting for fuel, a lot less security hassles for crew and pax, hard working air and groundcrew, shorter flights and free parking!

Negatives - well it looks old and uncared for. It doesn't have an ILS but that is not necessary (see previous posts), it doesn't have a hard runway for the thankfully rare occaisons that it would be needed. Can't think of much else.
The Flashing Blade is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 13:50
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
flooding

500E

a worthy point but houses can be raised the 1-2 mtrs above the sea level, at relatively little cost (stick a garage underneath it.)

wheras nearly the whole 37 acres would need raising for the runway option.

the question though has never been raised with the council, so we may never know
slyguy is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 13:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The issue of a concrete runway is more to do with rain water run off IIRC.

The caravans must just float away:

PLANNING APPLICATIONS CLEARED BETWEEN 01-JUL-08 AND 31-JUL-08 FOLLOWING
DETERMINATION BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


REFERENCE
06/07/0948/F
PARISH West Caister 3
PROPOSAL Re-development of site to form Motor Home, Caravan Sales and
Accessories with customer parking and offices
SITE Former CHC Scotia Heliport Base Yarmouth Road
West Caister Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
APPLICANT Beck's Motorhomes
DECISION


APPROVE------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shell Management is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 14:06
  #25 (permalink)  

Combine Operations
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are many who think that Bond made a huge mistake when they pulled out from Strubby and moved to Humberside.
They didn't have all that many choices. The land was owned by the client, Conoco, and they moved out. Not a lot of point in staying on land you don't own for a client who isn't there.
Farmer 1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 14:07
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
excellent well researched,

although!!

This permission was granted, using the buildings and concrete area, from the old bond termonal and pad, so no redevelopement required as per new build but just replacing old for new.

this incorporated the existing atc tower in the building, and rebuilding where the old hangar used to be with a semi permanent building.

And therefore gained permission fairly simply, although two councils had to give approval as the boundary between great yarmouth and caister parish, is three quarters the way along the carpark.

Rain water run off is achieved by a bank of around 2 degrees on the runway, and outfall would go to surrounding dykes system and not therefore an issue over the relatively small area the runway would cover, the already sodden land drains there now (below sea level remember)
slyguy is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2009, 17:48
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 1,018
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You chap are missing the point, runway or houses have footprint, No of houses + roads = fairly large footprint
10 helipads relativity small footprint and flood plain still there
500e is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2009, 17:17
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: london
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil Strubby

Bond just reaquired stubby FYI
pitpilot is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2009, 15:46
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know some of Bond's pilots may be vertically challenged but I didn't know that my old mate Stubby had rejoined. Must be for the N3 contract

AP
AllyPally is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2009, 17:17
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
North Denes.

SlyGuy touches on the issue of a 'ex member of staff'.

Wished i had the courage to expand THAT.
doshgone is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2009, 10:22
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,459
Received 34 Likes on 20 Posts
Bond haven't reaquired Strubby FYI!!!!!!


Mike Taylor (5' 0") used to fly 365N's out of Strubby, could be him that Bond have reaquired!!!
ericferret is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 14:29
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
R, W & B sums N Denes up nicely but the long term future of the place is far from secure.
Last year I understand, CHC were going to build a hard runway to replace the current grass facility, but have now decided not to as it's not an economically viable project.
The construction of the new heliport/terminal at Norwich starts in March/April, it will be big enough to accomodate all of the Bristow AND CHC current and future contracts.
The Perenco contract lost by CHC, oddly enough, went to..... Norwich, it's been operated by a Belgian company with 2 AS365s seperately from the Bristow Operation with every indication that it's there for at least 5 years.

I doubt that mant of they rig workers "enjoy" having to go to North Denes rather than Norwich, in fact I'd wager that it's only those who live in the Yarmouth/Lowestoft area who see it as an advantage, the majority of the rest fly into Norwich anyway, so who wants to do that and then have a 30 mile journey to Yarmouth.

As far as weather and landing aids are concerned, there's simply no contest, Norwich has far better facilities and a far better weather record than Denes, a factor which all offshore customers look very closely at, although I do accept that painting the top of the lamposts on the road adjacent to Denes Rwy 26 approach dayglow orange is a unique idea and should be in the top ten for approach light replacements.
Denes does have it's own ATC service, but this is an extremely expensive luxury.
If CHC were at Norwich, the cost of the ATC/Navigational service charges would be significantly less than employing individual ATCOs at Denes.

The one thing Denes has going for it is that CHC own everything, including the smell of the dog crap which wafts over from time to time. They spend as little cash as possible on the place and keep it to the standards which will muster a pass by the CAA.
Good enough for CHC and this all leads to reduced costs in the short term, but when there are established and much better facilities elsewhere, which are also being improved, such as Norwich and Humberside, it seems ineviatable that CHC will be told by their customers that they have to operate from elsewhere or lose out to other companies.
goatface is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.