Norwich Airport Controlled Airspace

John Price · Post by **John Price** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:53 pm

There initial report with regard to the consultation has been published and here's a link to it.

http://www.norwichairport.co.uk/downloa ... ue_1.0.pdf

Paragraph 3.2 is quite interesting.

John.

rogcal · Post by **rogcal** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:32 pm

and not one of the 9 MPs offered the opportunity to respond, did so!

Alan Kilbride · Post by **Alan Kilbride** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:28 pm

Perhaps the common issues are applicable to all those who objected ie no need for airspace as no aircraft fly there or indeed will in the near to distant future.

John Price · Post by **John Price** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:25 pm

What it says, is that 534 individuals or organisations saw through the smokescreen, thus, they, Norwich will chose to ignore it or find some shabby way to convince the CAA that 534 responses need to be ignored.

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:41 am

Norwich has complained to the CAA about the 534 individuals who objected on the basis that this was an orchestrated campaign against them and that this was an abuse of process. They think consultation should be restricted to the organisations they identified. (I paraphrase here). We have written to the CAA about the use of incorrect data in the consultation. I spoke to the CAA this week and they are well aware of the issues not least becasue someone posted the Assistant Director's email address on the Flyer website and he has had quite a few emails of complaint about the Norwich statement.

Of the organisations consulted, 94 supported and 23 objected making the final responses tally ayes 94, nays 557.

There will be some more stuff on this on the LAA website on Monday when Penny is back to upload it.

John

John Price · Post by **John Price** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Well done John and your crew.

John.

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:12 am

Yes-i did see more info on monday, very interested that 94 organisations supported them. Now just who might they be -hopefully a list will out. Perhaps not by LAA. Seems to me that - this consultation will demonstrate just how easily 'consultation' can be skewed.
Choose you organisations carefully = get your own result.
Cannot believe that in this democracy- oh why bother!

Bill Scott · Post by **Bill Scott** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:35 am

Shirley thou doth jest ?
Elected dictatoship, more like!

94 organisations consulted, I believe this included many parish councils. Perhaps we should have actually conducted an orchestrated campaign, by putting the opposing argument to the various bodies, thus enabling them to come to an informed conclusion. Also, I suspect that not objecting to the proposal was tantamount to being a supporter? Please correct me if that's wrong.

In days gone by, yer average Englshman would proclaim his inalienable right to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to organise for the defence of a just cause.

Interesting how the term "orchestrated campaign" is used in a way that hints of unethical activities.

Was Rome like this in the last days?

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:29 pm

I think they are tying themselves in knots, or showing their ignorance by using the phrase "orchestrated campaigns" as if it is underhanded. A dictionary definition of campaign (if you take out the military one) is "a series of organized, planned actions for a particular purpose".

Light Aircraft Association

Norwich Airport Controlled Airspace

Norwich Airport Controlled Airspace

Democracy?