Busy Maypole

@andy Oh, for a moment there, I thought you might treat us all to a pithy haiku. How disappointing.

@burroughs

Plane flies super low

In the dim light set between

Earth and falling night

@andy How disappointing.

@Tony Wells You seem to think that Heathrow is being built next door. It isn't. What is proposed is a very small light aircraft airfield.

It won't be in use day in, day out either, unlike a large commercial airfield.

The weather plays a great part in light aviation and many days aren't flyable at all, especially in the winter in the UK.

Unlike roads, which are in use all the time.

@Andy I'm so enjoying this conversation but I must be getting on, so this will be my last post of the day.

Firstly, I agree, I exaggerated the statement about "day in day out, every day of the year" (I must stop doing that).

But a couple of points.....

Given the few light aircraft we get in a typical day at the moment opening this airfield will be like having Heathrow next door to us.

The days that they will be able to fly will be the days when we want to be outside, so the noise from these planes will be more of a nuisance.

@andy you are correct Andy, weather does play a part.

Unfortunately when the weather is good, that's when the residents want want to be outside enjoying the peace of the countryside. This will coincide with pilots ruining that enjoyment whilst they play with their noisy poluting toys. And of course the number of flights predicted will be concentrated into those fine days. These planes serve no purpose other than for the enjoyment of 20 plane owners hobbies. Not carrying goods or transporting many people from a to b. Just pilots out on a jolly.

Ref the quieter aircraft that you mention, how many of these are there in the 20 planes that are planned for Mongeham?

It certainly won't be all of them, aswe understand that many of the planes from Maypole (you will be familiar with it from your visits there) will be coming to Mongeham. There are some nice photos in the papers of them with their angry owners. Some were vintage planes, much noisier than the plane that you quote. I didn't see any photos of that plane.

I can understand their anger, being given a month's notice to vacate the way of life that they had experienced for up to 20 years.

So hopefully you will understand the anger of many more residents who can see their way of life being disrupted by this proposal.

All wholly avoidable, if the CAA recommendation to engage with the community had been followed. But no,....no engagement, trying to avoid full environmental scrutiny, and starts work without planning permission.

No respect, no consideration all so 20 pilots can have a jolly, and the landowner can turn a profit. As you are not a resident here, you won't be affected, so probably don't care.

Considering the above......how else would you expect the local community to react?

@Jelly tots Perception cannot be totally "correct" for everyone as such, it belongs to the individual. In that sense, perception is always correct.... for the individual.

Your question isn't about perception, it's about opinion.

Some people base opinions on verifiable facts of the time, and as knowledge increases, their position may change. A Scientific approach, if you will.

Contrast this with opinions based on hearsay, or emotion, or irrational or uninformed data. People with opinions formed this way tend to be fixed and no amount of factual data will sway them. Religious fanaticism falls into this category.

Which camp do you think I fall into?

@andy we would only be guessing........so are you in favour of or against the new airstrip?

@Paul Osborne guess away.

@tonywells.me Of course all things to "consider", but like this one, you quoting from an anonymous forum (aren't they all?), so the truth may well be different and it could be that the former Maypole airport was "talking up" it's status?

Either way, not to relied upon, but a consideration, certainly.

@andy are you saying that Tony Wells quotes from the papers are not true?

Did the owners secure hanger space elsewhere for the evicted pilots?

Was the airport not used as a stopover before heading across the channel?

@Paul Osborne I've no idea where the aeroplanes that used to be at Maypole are now.

I do doubt that Maypole was "popular" stopover for cross channel flights, though some people undoubtedly stopped. France isn't that far away (less than 20 mins to Calais)

There's little point in an extra landing when even from the Midlands France is only just over an hour and a half away at light aircraft speeds.

@andy my house is 360m from the end of the runway. This is a fact borne out by the plans submitted to ddc for the screening submission. With a 5deg angle of approach, the plane will be 30m above my house. Obviously, with your experience that the angle should be more like 3deg, the planes will be closer to my house than 30m.

Facts are rarity so far. For example The screening report that was submitted by Mr Ledgers reps states

'There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site'

Also

'Most Little Mongeham residents and users have flown for many years across East Kent

Where do you live Andy?

@Linda Steger You seem to have me confused with someone else. I'm not the gentleman you refer to, nor do I know (of) him.

Every debate has at least two sides, sometimes more. I find it's worth the time listening to all viewpoints before settling on an entrenched position.

Since this is an open forum, everyone can air their views (and have them challenged or supported appropriately). Compromise is usually the order of the day.

Not engaging is probably the most unhelpful position to take.

@andy if you refer to the civil aviation authority document on unlicensed airfields, it gives advice for prospective developers on planning etc.

This document recommends engagement with the local community.

Mr Ledger has failed to follow this obvious step, and has requested

the local authority to allow him to not submit an environmental impact assessment, so the full impact of the proposal can be seen.

If the airfield was a positive thing, and there was nothing to hide, why would Mr Ledger take the above course of action?

You don't appear to be a local resident, so you wouldn't be suffering the negative consequences of the proposal.