Yesterday we were surprised and dismayed to receive a decree from Bournemouth airport, stating that we were no longer allowed to bring fuel onto the airfield. Requiring (ideally) MoGas or UL91, neither of which are available on the airfield, all of the Rotax powered aircraft based their have been bringing fuel in cans for a long time. Now we are faced with constantly ferrying the aircraft somewhere to get UL91.
The ‘logic’ behind this move is apparently to prevent the airfield being liable, should we have an incident due to poor fuel quality.
Our options now are:
Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?
The ‘logic’ behind this move is apparently to prevent the airfield being liable, should we have an incident due to poor fuel quality.
What a flawed logic. Alas, that’s the way the world goes nowadays…:-(
Will they also ban working on your own aircraft? Ban using your own oil?
This is very sad. Completely pointless and something which could be negotiated with an insurance company, I am certain.
I would try a meeting with the management. Often, there is an easy solution, perhaps with a very small increase in hangarage to offset the insurance premium. Just about anything can be insured.
Will they also ban working on your own aircraft?
Most UK airfields already do exactly that. I have to do my 50hr checks outdoors, and the Annual (myself and an A&P/IA for a few days) is done in a discreet hangar hired for a few days, 1hr away.
My own airfield operator (the aeroclub) has a better solution: they promised the installation of a MoGas pump. Now to see it in real life…
Yes, the only viable option we can explore at the moment is via some sort of disclaimer agreed with our and their insurance companies. They have rejected the option even of allowing in UL91 in containers, on the basis that it could have changed between source and destination. One would have thought that 40 litres of fuel accompanied by a receipt from a verifiable source, for 40 litres of fuel would be enough.
’Elf and safety gone mad unfortunately.
Looks like we could be relocating shortly… Luckily Lee-On-Solent have hangarage and a good runway, which is shortly to be resurfaced.
If you follow this logic the airfield would be libel for just about any thing that happeneds to an aircraft that takes off from the airfield, in my view this has far more to do with forcing GA out of Bournemouth intergalactic space port by a management who see airliners as giving them credibility and small aircraft as a something that is below their consideration.
What they don’t see is that if they want to have airliners flying from BOH they have to have to have the infrastructure in place and this costs, for next to no additional cost they can have GA aircraft adding to their profit but they fail to see the logic of this.
Yes, I thought much the same; they obviously can’t even see the profit they could make from a Mogas or UL91 pump. Who signed their MBA accreditations?
Apparently this is a licensing requirement from the CAA of the airport operator. Just when we all thought some of the red tape was being removed, something ridiculous like this pops up. I am trying to get hold of the document from the CAA as this could potentially impact other licensed airfields in the UK. Hopefully a meeting next week will clear things up.
Despite the relatively high landing fees (although quite reasonable for the facilities if you need them), Bournemouth is a rather pleasant airfield with all the facilities you could need, except of course for us the ability to refuel 
Hopefully this is not an exercise to drive out GA, as it would appear to go against their recent efforts trying to encourage more GA. They are having a General Aviation Day on September 28th with I think a £5 landing fee. A good excuse to fly in if you are looking for something different to do and ATC are always helpful and often witty!
The ‘logic’ behind this move is apparently to prevent the airfield being liable, should we have an incident due to poor fuel quality.
Lelystad will loose it’s Mogas supply in April – also due (allegedly) to liabilty issues. The current supplier has terminated the contract and the airport are indisting any new supplier indemnifies them against claims resulting from the use of non-aviation fuels. This despite clear warnings on the pump that Mogas is not a certified fuel. Makes we curious about the value of a Mogas STC.
The ‘logic’ behind this move is apparently to prevent the airfield being liable, should we have an incident due to poor fuel quality.
I understand what but you say but fail to see the “logic”. Where is the connection between an airport and the fuel an aircraft uses?
