The Branscombe Air Day and associated Devon Strut and Aeronca Club fly-ins, planned for 27th July have been cancelled. A minority of local individuals opposed to the airfield have organised a clay pigeon shoot in an adjacent field on the same day and, in the absence of help or support from the police or local council, the airfield owner David Hayman considers it to be too dangerous to continue with the Air Day.
Local villagers are hugely disappointed at the loss of this East Devon aviation spectacle which has raised over £100,000 for charities over the years.
Branscombe Air Day & Devon Strut Fly-In Cancelled
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Frank Parker
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:49 pm
Indeed!
EASA Opinion 3/2007: Paragraph 33
"As suggested in NPA06/2006, a vast majority of stakeholders considered that some critical elements necessary to mitigate safety hazards related to air operations near aerodromes can simply not be legally imposed on the aerodrome owner or operator.
The reason for this is that these hazards originate in areas outside the aerodrome perimeter and cannot be directly addressed by the aerodrome owner or operator.
The Agency then is of the opinion that the Basic Regulation must create obligations on Members States themselves to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect aerodromes against activities or developments, which may cause unacceptable risks to aviation in their direct vicinity."
EASA Opinion 3/2007: Paragraph 33
"As suggested in NPA06/2006, a vast majority of stakeholders considered that some critical elements necessary to mitigate safety hazards related to air operations near aerodromes can simply not be legally imposed on the aerodrome owner or operator.
The reason for this is that these hazards originate in areas outside the aerodrome perimeter and cannot be directly addressed by the aerodrome owner or operator.
The Agency then is of the opinion that the Basic Regulation must create obligations on Members States themselves to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect aerodromes against activities or developments, which may cause unacceptable risks to aviation in their direct vicinity."
-
Captain Pulsar
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:20 pm
I recall a situation elsewhere when a nimby placed a digger near the threshold with its bucket as high as possible to baulk aircraft approaches.
The CAA deemed this was not safe and was unnecessarily endangering a legal activity and promptly had the digger removed. Aviation safety, or indeed any matter that pertains to the safe operation of aircraft is a matter for the CAA who have the power to prevent it.
Perhaps someone should tip them off whats going on here. If it can be shown the clear intent by the nimby's is to endanger aircraft operations then I think they might have something to say about it.
The CAA deemed this was not safe and was unnecessarily endangering a legal activity and promptly had the digger removed. Aviation safety, or indeed any matter that pertains to the safe operation of aircraft is a matter for the CAA who have the power to prevent it.
Perhaps someone should tip them off whats going on here. If it can be shown the clear intent by the nimby's is to endanger aircraft operations then I think they might have something to say about it.
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
I used to shoot a lot. IMO this is a matter for the Police Authority not CAA. Anyone discharging (or threatening to discharge) their weapon where shot might pass over or fall into neighbouring property should be reported to the the Police as they are in contravention of the terms of their shotgun licence and (at least) should have it revoked.
This is from an application for a shotgun certificate:
"The counter signatory should therefore be aware that the Firearms Act 1968 requires a chief officer of police to be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to public safety or the peace"
I would go farther and say any attempt to discharge a weapon at or near an aircraft in flight would be considered an act of terrorism. I hope they like water boarding.
This is from an application for a shotgun certificate:
"The counter signatory should therefore be aware that the Firearms Act 1968 requires a chief officer of police to be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to public safety or the peace"
I would go farther and say any attempt to discharge a weapon at or near an aircraft in flight would be considered an act of terrorism. I hope they like water boarding.