Local Council Threat To Kemble Airfield

what references can be provided to back up the view that GA plays an essential role in the provision of commercial pilots? I really would like to see the evidence, because I have looked for it over the years, not just views.
exmpa

Circa 105 pilots out of 130 in the airline I worked for (large regional jet operator), GA was involved in their training – 86 or so were ex-flying instructors. Around 40 or so were still actively involved in the GA scene, either flying instruction on days off, owned/shared a GA aircraft or in the extreme case – compete in aerobatics.

In the 14 years I was in the aviation business I only ever came across six pilots who were taught by HMG. 3 x Rotary (RN), 2 x Rotary (Army), 2 x RAF (1 x FJ, 1 x V-Bomber). Ironically said ex-Victor pilot was heavily involved in the GA scene, before he started flying for us.

Granted nowadays, integrated courses are the primary tool for professional training, but for a number of professional pilots their first taste of flying comes from a trial lesson at their local airfield.

Then there is the fact that here are too many graduates from integrated courses chasing the small number of commercial jobs on offer, so some will inevitably end up as flying instructors at a small GA operator.

Looking at the previous posts from ‘exmpa’, ‘phixer’ etc, I am tempted to ask who is winding up who!

We are informed that we live in a democracy that confers us with right of free speech and dare I say it a right to complain! The right even extends to ex members of the armed forces, as long it does not conflict with the terms of the ‘Official Secrets Act’.

In Kemble’s case I do wonder if the complainants have considered possible outcomes that they might like a lot less than the airfield. But then they would have the right to complain about those as well!

Two final thoughts:

1> The owner of Kemble has, to put it in simplistic terms, a right to operate his business; in doing this he is instrumental in providing jobs for some of the local community.
2> The current situation may end up with a loss of jobs and a loss of amenity. The loss of amenity would be regretted, I suggest that the loss of employment if it happened should be deplored.

Cheers

WF

I await the excited responses.

Fox

And when you contacted the operator of the Harvard with your issues what was their response?

Moggy

Maybe a bit off key and to stoke the fires somewhat….but I think its sort of relevant!

I was in the mob for 10 years at very noisy Phantom, Tornado, Gazelle/Wessex and VIP Transport bases on the Operations side of life. Had to deal with many a noise complaint and could bore you with a few stories!!

Lived and worked at Heathrow for a major airline for a number of years. I know what noise Concorde made, can still hear it even now in my memory.

I am now part of a company that provides parts to keep large noisy aircraft and helicopters flying all around the world on the management side of things. We use Kemble a little bit and Ive been there a few times this year on day visits for work related matters. Its a lovely airfield and the staff there cannot be more helpful despite there workload.

I live in a small village in a council house approx 50 yds from a very busy bypass. I live under a route used by Chinnooks (hmm Special Forces insertion??) coming over late evening, have GA aircraft from the airport just down the road and a quiet Police helicopter that scares the crap out of me when it skims over at 150ft and lower without announcing itself. I Also have two major airways going over many miles above that my kids love to point out when they are contrailing.

My complaint? Well its none of the above as it all has good operational reasons.

What im whingeing about is one aircraft. Its a very noisy second world war era training aircraft. He choses to do aerobatics for 20 minutes or so in the local area to where I live. Is he training? Is he testing? No he provides pleasure flights.

A valid reason? Im not so sure. I suppose it does promote Warbird awareness, but I would imagine that the customers are people such as ourselves (i hope I can use that description here). People who are already aware. Maybe im wrong on that and happy to be corrected.

I dont complain about the noise (except here) as

I am in the industry.
I enjoy aviation and all it entails.(except a Harvard doing aeros in my local area)
My family indulge my passion (though my youngest prefers trains for some unknown reason).

Should I allow this one problem to ruin the only days rest I get from a extremley busy workload? On a Saturday/Sunday afternoon when I and my family are trying to relax it is quite difficult to do so when you getting the noise of prop blades going supersonic whilst the aircraft is going up and down and round and about. Go and do it over the sea is what I say…plenty of it to the south! If the weathers no good, please wait until its better.

NIMBY- you bet, Hypocrite – Oh yeah, and proud of it. I can own up to it.

I await the excited responses.

Fox

I am appalled that one of the complainants is an ex-RAF pilot.

Actually, I believe one of the leading complainants is a former British Midland captain – used to drive DC-9s amongst other things. It is indeed ironic that one who was presumably happy by way of his employment to inflict aeroplanes and aeroplane noise on the lives of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow (and other airports) is not now happy to have a much lesser number of aeroplane movements inflicted upon himself in his retirement.

Andy

OK, let’s have another try to make you see some sense.

Hum! I don’t think it is some of us who cannot see sense.

The generally held view by the “Bad taste in the mouth” brigade is that GA is a vital part of aviation activity in the United Kingdom and must be automatically supported by anyone who has ever been part of the aviation industry.

Did you actually read the post which kicked off this thread? Let me point you to a quote or two from the ‘objectors’:

‘One couple, who live in the flightpath, said: “We have Hunter jets flying less than 250ft above our house.”

Which continued:

“You can’t have a conversation as you can’t hear anything and the house absolutely rattles – the Hunter is an obsolete jet and has no hush kits.”

It is clear from this what the real target is, not a few light aircraft pootling around doing touch-and-goes. Miltary jets with hush kits – ROTFL

Further you resort to using much bold text:

The Air League recognizes the concerns of the wider population.

The professionals don’t pursue their job as a hobby and no one thinks any the worse of them because of it.
They argue their cause on its own merits.

We expect our plans to be accepted because we can demonstrate support and we have consulted fully. We didn’t ask the objectors if they have ever played football and then decided to disbar them on that account. We have acknowledged that everyone is entitled to a viewpoint.

Where have I said differently?

I do not expect anyone to automatically acquiesce in their views because of any involvement or otherwise in any activity. You have to earn support, it doesn’t come free.

which seems to indicate that you are prone to shouting to get your points across.

It doesn’t work, you have to engage with those outside to gain their acceptance. exmpa

And you must realise that in many situations it matters not how much one engages with those opposed there will always be a noisy minority who manage to employ the media to skew arguments and obscure the true ballance of opinion.

My arrogant, self centered, selfish views on this subject are:

A) How on earth can somebody be stupid enough to buy a house next to an airfield and then moan at a later date about the noise coming from the airfield
( airfields = aircraft, aircraft = noise, hardly rocket science is it?)

B) The local council should be supporting the airfield as (1)The airfield was there long before any current moaning neighbours and (2) surely the airfield gives employment to people ( employment means more income for the council and is financial beneficial to the people employed).

I run a small family business on an INDUSTRIAL estate, manufacturing stone and granite. We have operated on this site for 27yrs and our type of business has been present there for 40 yrs.
In the last 5 years we have had countless visits from the local council regarding complaints ranging from ” too much noise” to ” to much dust blowing from the yard” to ” the factory looks out of place for the area, therefore there must be a fault with the planning permission”.

All this trouble stems from 2 complainants, both of who retired to the area from miles and miles away.

The council, who to be fair to them, have always been helpful to us, always maintain that we are sited on an industrial estate, and therefore we are only carrying out our normal day to day business. They have also also had a site discussion with the complainants and told them that they knew there was an industrial site across the road, so why did they buy the houses if the industrial site would be an issue?

This whole episode, wether it be Kemble Airfield, or my local industrial site, just highlights the lack of common sense diplayed in this country by people on a whole.

If people are not playing the PC card, then they are displaying a huge lack of common sense and thats usualy accompanied by the’ compensation culture’ claim at a later date.

PC my reply may not be, but quite simply, ” if the noise from the airfield is too much, shut up, put up or move you dip-sh#ts”.

Well I have just been reading this thread and thought I would share my views on the subject.

First of all I would like to say that I am a supporter of Kemble and the great developments and activities there.

Now don’t shoot me but I can see exactly what exmpa is saying reference the way that complaints and objections should be handled, I think they call it professionally. I have no doubt that the lawyers and operators of the airfield are handling the objections in a better way than some of the comments made on this thread. I also understand the knee jerk reactions posted by some people here, I myself have been guilty of them in the past. This of course all stems from what I can see as the main problem which is a lack of tolerance.

There are many things I’m sure that each of us would choose to change should we ever be in a position to. The simple fact is that most of us wouldn’t because we respect the rights of the individual to indulge in there preferences as long as these things are hurting nobody or being anti-social to the point of ‘real’ discomfort. I for one would ban petrol lawnmowers (especially on a Sunday morning!) or people being drunk in the street at night (unless it was me!), but I show tolerance and don’t comment on either. The lack of tolerance shown by these Nimby’s must not be matched by a similar lack of tolerance on our behalf. Hopefully Kemble can prove that it not only has the support of the public but that it is the more tolerant and professional in any argument that is presented.

Now to add my 5 pence to a couple of points raised.

‘The argument is over the licensed use of the airfield’

This may of course be the reason given for the complaint but in reality it has nothing what so ever to do with the problem. The problem is that for some reason the operators on the airfield have upset the Nimby’s and this is the only loophole they can find to try and get the airfield closed. I very much doubt any of them thought ‘oh, there’s an airfield over there, lets see what it’s licensed for before we buy our house’. I doubt the opposition have really thought there argument through though as if the local operators were to close and force the airfield owners to concentrate on maintenance I’m sure they would find a significant increase in noise levels as engine testing on aircraft is very noisy and would effect a far greater area. I wonder if anybody has thought to take along the comparable sound footprint of a Hunter taking of and perhaps a practice display compared to a 747 going through the full envelope of engine testing? I know having lived near a maintenance operation which I would prefer.

‘Kemble does not provide a public service’

Yes this is true using the accepted definitions of the term. However what Kemble does provide is a public venue for various events. It also has gone out of its way (in my opinion) to make the general public welcome and informed. The events held there every year bring joy and pleasure to many tens of thousands of people. Lets also not forget the inspiration that organisations like Delta Jets and Extreme Team can bring to people, I’m sure that the thought of owning a Hunter or flying for Extreme has been a driving force behind at least some people’s desire to build a business or help expand a company all of which helps put money into the economy and thus allows the Countries current good economic climate to continue and people to be able to buy the houses they want to protect.

At the end of the day nearly everyone in this country is involved in a minority interest and most create noise pollution or other activities that some people will not like. We must all be tolerant and not succumb to selfish endeavours.

I would be interested to know

1) How many people in the area are opposed to Kemble’s present day activities.

2) How many are happy with afore mentioned activities

and

3) How many dont care either way.

The trouble is the loudest people are always the complainers and the indifferant say nothing. I would also suggest that the press like to stir and over exagerate the level of support for causes like this.

I think if a proper survey was done of the locals the results may make an interesting read.

Good to hear the Air League is fighting terrorism.

Why are they interested in woodworking tools too?

Sorry. Just my breathtaking arrogance showing through again.

OK, let’s have another try to make you see some sense. The generally held view by the “Bad taste in the mouth” brigade is that GA is a vital part of aviation activity in the United Kingdom and must be automatically supported by anyone who has ever been part of the aviation industry. So consider the following, and in doing so seek to understand the lessons to be learned.

In 1900 the Society of Workingmen’s Rifle Clubs (SWRC) was formed with the primary objective of:

“To fit Her Majesty’s subjects for the defence of Her Realm by the advancement of skill in rifle shooting by provision of skilled instruction and opportunity to practice and for the furtherance of such objects”

The SWRC later became the National Smallbore Rifle Association (NSRA) that is today the governing body for all small-bore rifle and target pistol shooting in the United Kingdom. The NSRA retains as its objectives one very similar to that quoted above. It is reasonable to ask if in 2007 that objective is still relevant. The answer of course is no, the relevance is peripheral at best. The NSRA is wholly a sporting body. The NSRA retains it original objective out of a sense of history and pride in its origins, it does not suffer from the delusion that it confers upon it an importance in the field of national security. They do not try to claim a link when one does not truly exist.

Let us look at a case a little closer to home, The Air League. Formed in the 1920s to encourage “Air-mindedness in the youth of Britain” it to retains its original aims and is still active in that field. However, look at its current list of causes and ask yourself if its current list of causes were the ones foreseen by its founders:

Environmental Pollution

Fighting Terrorism

People and Planes

The Air League has changed with changing times, it accepts that to promote its cause it must recognize the concerns of others and address them. The Air League recognizes the concerns of the wider population.

Now let us consider the case of Working Trials. A great many more people participate in this activity, conducted under the auspices of the Kennel Club, many more than you probably realize. There is also a considerable industry attached to it as the majority of working dogs in Police Forces, The Prison Service and private companies come from breeders associated with competitive trials. It is however a fact that a very small number of professional handlers; Police, Prison, Armed Forces; compete in trials. There is quite simply a clear divide between the hobby and the professional although both work to similar standards. The professionals don’t pursue their job as a hobby and no one thinks any the worse of them because of it. When running a trial the organizers must seek access to hundreds, even thousands, of acres of farmland for the tracking and search tests. They do this by gaining the co-operation of landowners by presenting the case for its recreational benefits and the image of the well trained dog. They argue their cause on its own merits.

Finally let’s look at the planning process. I am currently involved in trying to gain planning permission for a local sports association to establish a football training ground on an adjoining piece of waste land. The land in question is an old industrial site unused for a very long time and by its nature unsuitable for residential or alternative commercial development. The owner is happy to donate the land the proposed purpose. The project has the support of local residents, the council, the local MP and other sports clubs in the area. It is being strongly opposed by the local Wildlife Trust. The Wildlife Trust have classified the site as “grassland” in spite of the fact that the original grassland lies under some 20-30’ of industrial waste! Instead of assuming that we can steam roller their objections due to our overwhelming support we have instead held meetings to establish precisely what their concerns and objections are. We are in the process of establishing what we can do to accommodate them in our plans but if necessary counter their arguments. When the plans are presented formally for permission we shall be able to show that we have made efforts to include all viewpoints and made amendments in response to objections. We expect our plans to be accepted because we can demonstrate support and we have consulted fully. We didn’t ask the objectors if they have ever played football and then decided to disbar them on that account. We have acknowledged that everyone is entitled to a viewpoint.

For those of you that have got this far, well done. For those of you that use pejorative terms, the offer is open, I neither support nor oppose Kemble, it’s not in my back yard, its a long way away. Where have I said differently?I have no view on the matter other than that everyone is entitled to theirs, a view that is not held by many others here. I do not expect anyone to automatically acquiesce in their views because of any involvement or otherwise in any activity. You have to earn support, it doesn’t come free.

GA in the UK feels beleaguered and has mainly responded by retreating behind its airfield perimeters. It doesn’t work, you have to engage with those outside to gain their acceptance. For the activities that I am involved with, I write articles for the press, give talks at Women’s Institutes meet with councilors and MPs. It’s not exciting, it’s hard work and rarely shows any direct result, but it is essential. If you want your hobby or activity to survive then you have to get out there and promote it. Signing petitions and posting on internet boards just isn’t enough.

exmpa

I would have thought that was obvious, but it is plainly not the case.

As another has already pointed out, and was implied by my remark, there is no equivalence between a caravan park yet to be laid out and an airfield which has existed for years with heavy use at times. I would not be at all surprised that you yourself have flown from Kemble.

I fail to understand their logic.

Clearly and this is not surprising for you are here displaying a considerable lack of that facility in using such a fatuous example and also in the next totally silly example which follows.

Let me try and out it another way. On 1st Jul this year smoking in enclosed public places will no longer be allowed. Why is that? It is because the majority do not smoke and have decided that they are no longer prepared to put up with the effects of smoking by others. The hobby of aviation is the preserve of an even smaller minority. It can only operate with the acquiesence of the public at large. If they do not wish to put up with the noise or disturbance generated by this voluntary recreational activity then permission to carry out may be witheld.

exmpa

Perhaps we should push for more aircraft carriers then nearly all operational flying and training can be done far out at sea where nobody is disturbed (excepting on the growing number of cruise liners) and there will then be no need for the noisy RAF to disturb people at night.:D

exmpa

You say that we cannot live in the past and that times must change.
May I ask why?

The changes I have seen in this country in the last few years that have favoured the minority groups pandered to by the PC brigade, have gone totally OTT. It seems to have become a very British thing to complain about things that would have been taken for granted not so long ago. The only minority group not benefitting seem to be the aviation community.

There was a time when I was proud to be British. These days I frequently get embarrassed at what this this place has become. Nimby RAF and airline pilots – never thought I’d live to see the day!

Rant over.

On second thoughts, can I ask one last question.

expma. Why are you posting on a pro (not anti) aviation heritage forum?

By the way I am not opposed to you indulging in your hobby, so why the invective?

You may have to point me to the ‘invective’ of which you speak.

Moggy

Help Save Kemble

Make sure that you sign-up and get the petition circulated to as many people as possible!

Don’t forget to add your sensible comments and observations in the space provided.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-flying-at-kemble-airfield.html

Well I guess we’ve found Kemble’s nimby…

Where have I expressed a view either in support of or against the continuation of operations at Kemble? I have merely stated the case that those opposed are entitled to their opinions.

BTW you haven’t answered the question I posed you:

Where did the pilots you have worked with in the airline industry come from?

Now on to Moggy:

Exmpa is, of course, entitled both to his opinion, and to express it here.

Those of us who use Kemble and value it can only ponder on his blinkered view of the source of career pilots and his somewhat distasteful “I’ve had my flying – b*gg*r the rest of you” attitude.

Leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

OK Moggy, what references can be provided to back up the view that GA plays an essential role in the provision of commercial pilots? I really would like to see the evidence, because I have looked for it over the years, not just views.

By the way I am not opposed to you indulging in your hobby, so why the invective?

exmpa

………….i think the locals should be grateful – they have cheap exMQ’s which were left abandoned for years after the yanks pulled out. Done many an exercise at kemble with TCW in the RAF.
As i’ve said before, if you move next door to an airfield what the hell do they expect – put up with it or move away!! They should thank themselves lucky that the site hadn’t been turned into an immigration centre, or a prison!

tim
😀

Exmpa is, of course, entitled both to his opinion, and to express it here.

Those of us who use Kemble and value it can only ponder on his blinkered view of the source of career pilots and his somewhat distasteful “I’ve had my flying – b*gg*r the rest of you” attitude.

Leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Moggy

Calm down dears!

Calm down dears!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-flying-at-kemble-airfield.html

Do you think airliner pilots grow on trees, or would you agree that perhaps they need training, and GA training flights provide the first step for a great number of airliner pilots?

Er no, I know they don’t. In fact none of the airline pilots I flew with in the 18 years I was employed as such grew on a tree. Where did the pilots you have worked with in the airline industry come from? Many of the newer pilots in the industry are products of integrated course, a good many of course are ex-service. The modular route still figures strongly, but with the move towards the Multi-Crew Licence I believe that will will weigh in favour of the integrated route. The bottom line is that the link between professional training and GA has been weakening for some time and is at best tenuous.

What do you define as a ‘public service’? I would certainly include an active airfield, particularly one offering flight training, as a public service.

SAR, Air Ambulance, Police Aviation. “Flight Training” is either a commercial operation of recreational, but it certainly not “a service to the public”.

It really is time to face up to the facts. This is a crowded little island and becoming more so. You have to be able to demonstrate that the disturbance you may cause is worth it for the benefit derived. You must be able to demonstrate this objectively. It is no use saying “Kemble has been here for years and that’s that”. Times change, circumstances change. The public accepted the necessity for a military airfield at Kemble in the past but that does not mean they have to accept the current operation.

Very little of what has been written on this thread would be of any assistance to Kemble’s case. Many of the attitudes displayed on this thread will only serve to alienate the public and in some cases the arrogance is breathtaking.

exmpa