When is an Air Experience Flight not an Air Experience Flight??

Having lived next door to a well known aviation museum that has flying as well for a long time, I am not surprised at all by people complaining about any aspect of the what goes on there. Over the years, someone living in a nearby village started to get upset by the flying and stated that when the airfield was Royal Air Force operated, that was alright, but “these wealthy collectors playing with their toys is all wrong”. And, someone bought a house next to the airfield and within six weeks of living there decided it had to be closed as it was too noisy and caused congestion on the road, thus impeding her ability to get to Tesco!
However, the noise of a major road and a motorway nearby was never ever complained about, even though it was audible 24/7.
The e-petition about motor sport may work, but I doubt if airfields with vintage aircraft will get thought of in the same way. Planning applications for housing, shopping centers and business parks abound near this particular site, they will not give up and eventually, the onrush of new building will become too close for safe flying activities.

These petty restrictions are typical of what passes for common sense at all levels of government here now. No wonder the country is going down the plughole.

Roll on the Revolution!

…an aviation museum in the UK…

Are we allowed to know which one?

I think our local authority should introduce that idea in respect of EGTK.

I think that article 9 of the forum code of conduct (ban on using textspeak) should be extended to cover aerodrome codes, for the benefit of those of us tho don’t carry the entire ICAO directory of 4-letter codes around in our heads.

I agree that there needs to be a grandfathering policy so that incomers can’t object to established airfields, church bells etc, however the problems usually arise with a change in status (though not always, there are plenty of examples of people just being selfish nuisances).

For a long time Kemble was a fairly sleepy RAF airfield until it was sold and use has since increased so I can see why people that have lived there for years might now be unhappy with the airfield now. Similarly, use of many motor racing circuits has increased from a few weekend meetings and the odd club day to track days several days every week and then festivals etc at weekends as well. Part of the problem at Mallory was the increased track day use which caused a lot of grumbling over a number of years, then there was a badly organised weekend event that combined car “drifting” (therefore a lot of engine revving and tyre noise) and very loud music both of which went on well into the small hours. The event also attracted an audience who weren’t as respectful to the area or the locals as the usual race crowd are. On top of the existing problems, that single event (and the threat of a repeat of it in future years) caused the opposition to crystalise.

“HM Government has approved an important e-petition” – this is highly misleading. someone has just set up a petition on the Government’s e-petition site. This wording suggest the Government supports the petition.

This may have some relevance should it go through

Moggy

I think our local authority should introduce that idea in respect of EGTK.

As a general comment I have never understood why people who decide to reside near an active airfield (airfields and their associated activities are pretty much plainly apparent) decide that the noise level is too much and start complaining.

and possibly after they,ve bought the house cheaper than normal due to the vicinity of the airfield…

The answer is because the complainers come to understand that aviation and related activities are extremely sensitive and of course vulnerable to accusations and complaints of this kind and generally go out of their way to avoid promoting a robust response – which, of course, is the sensible and only way to deal with these compulsive troublemakers.

As a general comment I have never understood why people who decide to reside near an active airfield (airfields and their associated activities are pretty much plainly apparent) decide that the noise level is too much and start complaining.

This may have some relevance should it go through

The HM Government has approved an extremely important e-petition designed to protect the motorsport industry in the UK.

The petition is designed to introduce a mandatory noise complaint waiver for anyone who buys or rents a property close to motorsport venue.

The petition states: “There are innumerate cases of people knowingly moving within close proximity of motorsport venues, only to try to have their planning permission revoked or have them closed completely when they take exception to the noise.

It is extremely detrimental to the UK’s motorsport heritage, when all the motorsport venues start disappearing. Motorsport and the associated mechanical/engineering business is a key British export and second to none in the world of motorsports.

As such, anyone who wishes to buy or rent a property within a determined distance of a motorsport venue should have to read and sign legislature that waives their right to complain about the noise from the nearby venue. If they do not wish to be bothered by something that was a fixture of the community long before they arrived, they should not move there in the first place.”

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/72458

Moggy

Even at the airport near me nimbism has had the opposite effect, they installed sound detectors a couple of miles from the threshold and fined aircraft over a certain limit… The answer, use excess power and go like the clappers then throttle back as you go over the sensors, result increased noise in the highly populated area nearer the airport but less noise and fines near the sensors where no one really actually lived.

Problem is (and can be confirmed by heli1), these flights are not being conducted FROM or TO an active airfield (although it is an ex-airfield), therefore there are no other flying activities. There are also ‘internal council politics’ at play here which I’m sure doesn’t help the cause.

Being someone that regularly flies out of Kemble which IS an active airfield, and the aggro generated by some of the locals which have made Kemble an interestingly shaped circuit to fly due noise abatement requirements, the moaners and complainers seem to get far more notice taken of them than those carrying out their legal and licensed activities.

Out of curiosity which museum is this and what air experience flights are they operating?

Indeed, local authorities have no jurisdiction here. In all the terms I have come across, length of flight is not a issue. If the paying passenger handles the controls they are accepting instruction and therefore it is an “air experience/trial lesson” If the passenger is just sight-seeing, it is a pleasure flight. As them under whose authority they get their information from

FB

The criteria of what does and does not constitute an Air Experience Flight are surely down to the CAA to stipulate, not a local authority.

It would I suppose depend on how close to the airfield, the flights are taking place ?
A local noise issue perhaps ?