|
June
2001
Edited
by Jack Wells
Editorial
Do we have an inferiority complex about General Aviation (GA) and its
value to the community?
We seem to be unloved by all but the flying fraternity and, despite its
talk of a co-ordinated transport policy, the Government seems to deign
to grasp the fact that a network of aerodromes across the country that
can be used by GA is an essential part of the National Transport Infrastructure
and should be promoted directly rather than through guidance to Local
Authorities.. The Government is adamant in insisting that all decisions
on the opening, closure and development of GA facilities should be left
to the parochial whim of the local authority in which the site is located.
What can be the future for Rochester and similarly vulnerable sites in
such a planning environment? The GAAC welcomes the greatly improved revised
Planning Policy Guidance note on Transport (PPG13). But, while this contains
all the right messages, this guidance is still left to Local Authorities
to implement.
But how have the Party leaders and other leading Party members managed
to cover the country so effectively in terms of the use of their time?
Generally because they have a ready call on aircraft that can access any
of the smaller aerodromes and helipads in the country rather than just
the twenty odd airports used by the scheduled and charter airlines.
I hesitate to venture an opinion as to whether facilitating the easy transport
of senior Party members is or is not of benefit to the Community, though
it can be argued that this is GA's contribution to the democratic process.
I would however assert that such a network is essential to the efficient
conduct of business around the country.
Nevertheless the GAAC has endeavoured to bring home to the politicians
currently using GA facilities that they are using GA services to make
the best use of their time and that such facilities are vital not only
to enable politicians to conduct their business efficiently but that it
is vital for an efficient business community to have such facilities permanently
available. We have attempted to convey this message by ensuring that an
information sheet is available to every user of the service.
Why GA?
A further attempt to explain the purpose and value of GA activity is being
launched with the publication of a new pamphlet under the above title.
It describes the wide range of GA activity and the essential services
provided to the whole of the populace. It also demonstrates that GA can
function in harmony with the environmental aspirations that are the right
of everyone to expect, part of the problem to be overcome being the objections
that some have to the mere sight of a whispering light aircraft or a glider.
As it appears that to some the sight and sound of a commercial jet is
far less offensive than that of a lighter aircraft we do have a considerable
challenge to meet.
Why GA? will be distributed widely and you should be able to obtain a
copy from your Association. Failing this it will be available to view
and download from the GAAC Web Site (www.gaac.co.uk) and from the GAAC
office.
Thanks are due to aeroinsure.com and to Kember Loudon Williams who have
made special donations towards the cost of this project.
GA Associations to Co-operate over Wider Field
The GAAC aims to speak for the whole of the GA community
over a defined area, specifically planning, and education in the widest
sense. There are however many other issues that have a general relevance
and that would benefit from a more co-ordinated approach - for example
representations on fuel taxation, or medical requirements to the CAA,
to Government and to international and supranational organisations. We
do not consider it appropriate to broaden the remit of the GAAC. However
a nucleus of GA associations is now considering whether the 'Conference
of GA Associations' should be resuscitated to extend the co-operation
across the GA spectrum. The proposed Conference would meet about twice
a year to review common issues and agree on a combined approach on any
topic thought likely to benefit from joint action. It would not establish
a new organisation; there would be no finance required as each association
would bear its own costs and no new office would be required.
Planning
The DETR review of PPG 17 (Recreation and Sport) got off to a very shaky
start. Our prime concern is that air sport and recreation fail to feature
at all. This omission is being pursued vigorously.
Noise The DETR news release on a study into aircraft noise appears
to be directed mainly at night movements into and out of the major airports.
Safety A welcome addition is proposed to Article 110 of the Air
Navigation Order 2000 to formalise the lighting requirements for en-route
obstacles 150 metres or more above ground level.
GAAC Seminar
The Future for UK Aerodromes
Some 70 people attended the seminar on 'The Future for UK Aerodromes'
which was held at the Royal Aeronautical Society on 4 May. It was organised
by one of our then Board Members, Peter Kember.
Presentations
were made by:
Peter Kember 'The Future looks bleak - unless ….'
Peter Kember presented a somewhat bleak view of the future. While the
number of GA aircraft had doubled in the past 15 years the number of aerodromes
had remained largely static. Yet the expansion of commercial air transport
was displacing GA from larger airports. There was no planned provision
for new GA aerodromes.
Matters of aerodrome planning were delegated by central government to
local authorities who are often ignorant of aviation issues or, as owners,
often regard their aerodrome as prime redevelopment land. Local planning
is done within the framework of Planning Policy Guidance notes These guidelines,
and guidelines are all they really are, are used in the formulation of
local government development plans. The importance of such plans to aerodromes
can be seen in the fact that the GAAC has made representations in respect
of over 300 development plans in the UK.
An analysis of past decisions relating to aerodrome appeals shows that:
- It is not possible to predict with a high degree of accuracy the outcome
of any particular appeal.
- The planning policy background is confused and in some respects contradictory.
- Aircraft noise is the principle determining factor in planning decisions.
- Advice on noise given in PPG24 is inadequate and capable of being interpreted
in different ways.
- A straightforward and simple to use noise criterion is essential if
airfield proposals are to be properly assessed.
- Some people will object even if aircraft are made totally silenced.
- It will take many years to achieve a reduction in noise from the existing
UK light aircraft fleet
- The emergence of new quieter aircraft is unlikely to improve the environmental
climate of UK aerodromes in the short term.
Noise is the most pressing of the environmental challenges facing GA today
and it is only a matter of time before the stringent restrictions currently
in force in Germany and Switzerland become policy in the UK.
The theme that emerges is the importance of the local community to the
future viability of an aerodrome. Local residents are increasingly intolerant
of GA activities and find within the local authorities the means to stop
them. In such an environment it was imperative that effective relations
with the local community are maintained. Unfortunately, having advised
on over 60 different aerodromes in the UK and some elsewhere in Europe
Peter Kember has a stark conclusion to draw. "I have seen so very few
attempts to establish any sort of dialogue with those at the local level
who have the power to influence the future of an aerodrome that in consequence
I am very despondent about the future for most aerodromes."
From experience, aerodrome public relations that are based on a confrontational
approach can not expect to fare well in public inquiries. Public participation
in decision making is now enshrined in UK planning legislation, and "without
a concerted effort at all levels the future for UK aerodromes looks bleak."
Tony Cooper
and John Jefferies: 'Our Neighbours are NOT the Enemy'
When the aerodrome at White Waltham was sold to private ownership in 1982
complaints started to build. The owners response was largely one of head
in the sand, feeling that there was no need to respond to the mounting
opposition. In 1992 however, the aerodrome changed hands, and the new
owners recognised that something had to be done about the increasing pressure.
They adopted a pro-active stance based on negotiation.
In 1997 the airfield was subject to 2 enforcement notices. White Waltham
once again resorted to negotiation. In return for a voluntary 18 month
agreement on flying controls, under which no night flying or helicopter
training would be allowed, the council agreed to withdraw the enforcement
notices. A local working group was then set up comprising the aerodrome,
local residents and the council. The purpose of the working group was
to put together a more permanent agreement that all could be happy with.
For its part the aerodrome has embarked on a series of actions which are
designed to promote good (and considerate) airmanship, maintain communications
with the council and local residents, implement a noise complaint system,
establish an aerobatic square, and publish the Pilots Order Book and circuit
procedures.
The owners have also bitten the bullet and embarked on the certification
and fitting of silencers to aircraft. This was seen as a costly exercise
but the owners felt that the cost of not fitting silencers was even greater.
In fact White Waltham is now the UK agent for Liese-Muffler Systems which
allow GA aircraft to meet the very stringent German noise limits. CAA
type certification has been gained for the PA28 series and the PA38, and
will soon be gained for the Cessna 152 and 172. Other types can be certified
on request. The day is not too far away when unsilenced aircraft at White
Waltham will be penalised.
The secret of the aerodrome's success in the face of a well educated well
off opposition with time to mount an effective opposition has been its
determination to act reasonably in all matters.
The
airfield at Little Gransden began its aerodrome life in 1966 and
by 1992 a total of 7 hangars (accommodating approximately 70 aircraft)
and 3 runways (one of which was later to be licensed) had been built.
A small aircraft related business was established and business generally
was going well. However, in 1992 the first planning difficulties were
encountered. South Cambridgeshire District Council issued a Planning Contravention
Notice. The first impact was a loss of customers due to the uncertainties
surrounding the planning issue.
The aerodrome owner's response was an application for a lawful development
certificate based on at least 10 years continuous use. Initial consultations
with the council went well, but the organisation of opposition under the
title of Cambridgeshire Airfields Action Group (CAAG) led to the first
enforcement notice against the airfield being issued in 1995. The stage
was set for a public inquiry which lasted 17 days, with all the associated
costs for lawyers and planning consultants. . On more than one occasion
flaws and inconsistencies in the opposition case were exposed as a result.
Support for both sides was expressed in writing in roughly equal numbers.
Support from the local community was based on the genuine place of the
airfield operators within that community; (some supporters have gone on
to take up flying lessons).
The decision of the planning inspector, based in part on the premise that
a 6 fold increase in movements did not constitute a material planning
consideration, was announced in favour of the airfield in April 1999.
The airfield owners are currently pursuing the council for the considerable
costs of the inquiry.
Philip Isbell: ' The Pressing Need for Comprehensive Aerodrome Safeguarding'
Safeguarding might more easily be thought of as protecting the airspace
around an aerodrome from obstruction. CAP168 (Licensing of Aerodromes)
and CAP428 (Safety Standards at Unlicensed Aerodromes) both require "obstacle
limitation surfaces" to be protected. The calculation of obstacle limitation
surfaces depends on runway length and nature of aircraft operations. However,
the principle is the same - at any particular point in the aerodrome vicinity
the obstacle limitation surface represents the height above ground level
above which any structure will infringe the aerodrome airspace.
Of course it is the local authority who will ultimately decide on planning
permission for any structure that will potentially infringe the aerodrome
airspace. Safeguarding therefore is basically an act of co-ordination
between aerodrome and local planning authority. It is indeed the aerodrome's
responsibility to look after its own safeguarding and even the 40 or so
aerodromes officially safeguarded by the CAA are being introduced to the
concept of "self-safeguarding" which all other aerodromes, in theory at
least, should already be aware of.
Aerodromes
should stake their claim to obstacle free airspace by lodging a safeguarding
map with their local planning authority. Every effort needs to be made
to have this map recognised and acknowledged in the local authority Structure
Plan, Local Plan and Waste or Minerals Plan. In this way the planning
system will in theory be able to recognise when a proposed development
is likely to infringe aerodrome airspace and address the situation before
it becomes a problem. Safeguarding maps do not necessarily have to be
restricted to obstacle limitation surfaces and bird strike hazards as
laid down in CAP168. Other constraints, such as congested areas and engine
failure after take off, can be recorded on the safeguarding map.
The proposal to introduce "self-safeguarding" for the 40 or so aerodromes
currently officially safeguarded by the CAA is set out in a new DETR consultation
paper. Unfortunately, these new proposals do not carry forward the provisions
for unofficial safeguarding available in the present regulations and under
which all other aerodromes could be safeguarded. The fear is that this
development could lead local authorities to assume that the CAA no longer
approves of unofficial safeguarding for the vast majority of aerodromes,
and deny the only mechanism these aerodromes have of protecting local
airspace from obstructions. The GAAC is making strenuous objections to
this omission.
Keith Wilson: 'The Quiet Aeroplane is coming'
The final presentation of the day introduced the future of light aviation
as born out of its current difficulties. In April 1995 a noise evaluation
of the Rotax 912-powered 3 bladed propeller Europa Classic tested compliance
with three different noise certification requirements. In summary the
examiner wrote "The results not only met the above noise certification
requirements but exceeded them by a considerable margin. The aircraft
is clearly a modern day aircraft, which is guaranteed to satisfy environmentalists
throughout the world. The more stringent requirements of some countries,
e.g. Germany and Switzerland are also satisfied by the Europa 912 aircraft".
Unfortunately the quiet aeroplane may be coming, but for all practical
purposes it is not yet here. The cost of replacing the entire GA fleet
with modern quiet aircraft is an expensive and slow process. The average
age of the training fleet in the UK is around 30 years. It is claimed
that if we continue to renew these aircraft at the present rate it will
probably take around 60 years to work all the old gas-guzzling noisy aircraft
out of the system.
In the meantime it is still down to the GA community to do all it can
to alleviate the situation. More Considerate Flying, as in the GAAC leaflet
of the same name, will help mitigate some of the intrusion. Noise monitoring,
with fines is a possibility. The cost of not fitting silencers is increasing.
Good public relations efforts are becoming a necessity - next time you
are at your local aerodrome put yourself in the shoes of a member of the
public. What sort of welcome does it give you? More often than not it
will be a case of "Keep Out!".
GAAC
Annual General Meeting 2001
The seminar was preceded by the formal business of the AGM, presided over
by Lord Rotherwick. The Chairman, David Ogilvy, presented his annual report.
The salient features are given here:
- This has been a year of great achievement particularly in the planning
field, the task of monitoring Structure, Local and Transport Plans having
been accelerated considerably since last year.
- The success of the GAAC's efforts and the increasing awareness of both
airfield operators and planners of our accumulated knowledge and expertise
has brought its own problems in that it is difficult with the limited
resources available to cope with the increased demands.
- Planning: A measure of the increase in this aspect of GAAC work
is that, during 2000, representations were made on behalf of the GAAC
with respect to some 124 plans, including 26 Structure/Regional plans,
31 Local plans, 38 UDPs, 4 PPGs/RPGs and 25 other types of plan. This
compares with a similar total for the four years from 1995 to 1998.
- A major achievement was the addition of a very positive GA section in
PPG13, the planning policy guidance paper on Transport. This now not only
encourages GA, but also protects existing and future flying sites. The
negative aspects of GA, largely relating to noise, have now been toned
down considerably.
- In 1995 only some 40% of Structure Plans contained a reference to GA,
though many of these were negatively worded. The number of Plans then
including positive GA policies was below 20%. A measure of GAAC success
in this field is that now some 63% of Structure Plans have a positive
reference to GA, an excellent result over what is, in planning terms,
a relatively short time scale.
- Publications: Emphasis has continued to be focused on the GAAC
web site as the major vehicle for disseminating new information. The quarterly
Newsletter continued and circulation has increased to over 650 with the
introduction of direct mailing by E-mail. 450 copies are still sent by
post - a labour intensive and relatively expensive means of distribution.
Our web site now contains all recent newsletters and press releases and
copies of all our principal publications.
- Parliamentary: Over the past twelve months the GAAC has responded
to two major government consultation papers. The first related to 'The
Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft', the second being directed to 'The
Future of Aviation', a very grandiose sounding title, but rather narrower
in content than its title might imply. A summary of the response to the
former and the full version of the latter can be found on the GAAC Web
Site.
- Finance: The work and achievements of the GAAC depend wholly
on the voluntary funding and support available. By careful control of
the expenditure the accounts show a small surplus this year.
- Noise Study: Completing the review of Planning Policy Guidance
note 24 (Noise) using the results of our noise consultant's study is an
important task for 2001.
Finance
This is the time of year when your contributions are expected. Since the
last Newsletter donations have been received from Action for Airfields,
BMAA, Bowair Services, Cabair, Devon & Somerset GC, Fleetlands FA, Fox-Pitt
Kelton, GAMTA, HCGB, Henstridge Airfield, Jodel Club, Old Sarum Flying
Club, PFA, PFA Bristol Strut, Portsmouth NGC, Scottish AC, Tanacrest,
Staverton FS, Teesside AC, Thistle Aviation and the Vintage Aircraft Club.
The many personal donations are also gratefully acknowledged.
Lobby Your MP
Don't forget that you can lobby your MP about aviation matters direct
from our web site which has a link to the House of Commons listings.
GAAC
4 June 2001
|