Peter wrote:
We had this “air park” debate before several times and my view is that all but the totally fanatical flyers without a life don’t actually want to live in a small house next to a noisy runway. And that is where the various air park projects failed
Most of the houses I’ve seen on US residential air parks are large by US standards, and not that close to the runway. 2CA4 is a pretty good example. Also, if you build 20 houses around a runway there’s not that many operations, even when counting visitors coming and going.
That aside, I agree that houses for most people are primarily about family, and in my (US) area there are a quite a lot of families whose lives involve flying and planes to a substantial degree. It’s a life style, and it’s quite the opposite of living “without a life”. For example, I went on a ‘fly out’ today with three other pilots and spouses, and between the four of us we own seven planes. More than half the planes were built by pilots in the group (three RVs and a GP4) the rest are factory built, but largely maintained by their owners. For people like that having a hangar at their home is nirvana. I’d guess between the group, maybe 400-500 hours per year are flown on local flights and trips, and in the broader group there’s also an active social interaction that includes spouses who don’t want to fly so much, frequent parties and etc. I can’t see a reason why any of that wouldn’t be popular in Europe except that I think those with the money to do the same in Europe are too preoccupied with the work, and the image, required to make enough money. The weather probably doesn’t help much either. As mentioned in my post above, the closest ‘scene’ I’ve seen personally is in Italy, where the weather is pretty good, at Aviosuperfici where club and flying activity also seemed to involve family.
PS heaven in retirement for me might involve having one of these quasi residential hangars, located near me, and not exactly in the middle of nowhere. The one with the green roof is my favorite, half hangar and half house with a nice enclosed porch to watch the runway while having dinner. The social scene is pretty good there too, and the property maintenance not too much.
Silvaire wrote:
I can’t see a reason why any of that wouldn’t be popular in Europe except that I think those with the money to do the same in Europe are too preoccupied with the work, and the image, required to make enough money.
What is the image that is required to make more money in Europe?
Too many people kill themselves to acquire the various status symbols of life…
But that’s easy to say for those who managed to reach happiness via a different route 
On topic, it seems that the (real or perceived) issues in getting Planning for a hard runway have defeated everybody in the UK (AFAIK) and building houses in the vicinity is just too hard. Even if you could make money selling them, which is IMHO very unlikely.
A few houses with a runway (usually grass, but established for many years, so not on the 28 day limit anymore) do come up for sale periodically, at mega inflated prices, only to sell a long time later for a fraction of the money.
The last airfield in the UK to start off with a Planning permission was reportedly Popham, 1978, which is grass and I was told there was something there beforehand anyway.
That said, all indications I have had are that it can be done (full Planning from Day 1) but nobody dares to try it, or nobody wants to risk the cost (expert noise surveys, a barrister to do the appeal, etc).
In the west of Scotland we do get rain sometimes, but it’s not all bad:
Glenswinton and Falgunzeon are true all-weather strips built on rock and peat.
Bute is on sandy soil, which I have never seen waterlogged.
Glenforsa has a decent cross fall, so it ought to drain quickly.
Lennox Plunton is on top of a knowe in drumlin pasture, so it’s dry soon after prolonged heavy rain.
In the south east of England, Thurrock installed a new tarmac runway a couple of years ago, so it can be done.
what_next wrote:
And you really think that in one of the US states which are as densely populated as our part of the world you will be allowed to concrete your own runway behind your house?
Well, if you look at the aviation infrastructure in the US, first of all, you don’t need to build your own airstrip. There are enough undisputed airports with a lot better facilities for GA around in the US and Canada where you can park or hangar your airplane without having to satisfy flying clubs and local anti noise folks. And that freedom is not restricted to the boonies, but very present in built up areas too.
True, California in many regards is different than the rest of America from that. They are in many regards comparable to Europe and they also breed a lot of politicians who would love to see similar situations as here. And they do exist elsewhere, why do you think America is politically so divided these days. But, so far, they are in a minority and are sent packing in most parts of the country. If California wants to become the next world disneyland of make belive, that is up to them.
I’ve experienced US GA in Florida (which would be my preferred place to go to), countless airports and airstrips, quite a few air parks and you can get a house with hangar and a 1500m paved strip outside for 150-300k USD… one of those houses would fit 3 terraced houses from here, one of which cost close to a million. I’ve experienced aviation in the Chicago Area and know that evil politicians are around there too… remember Meighs field, yet if I want to fly in Illinois there are literally hundreds of airstrips and quite big airports which will be happy to have you. I’ve flown out of CMI, Frasca Field, Kankakee and others in that region. Most are 24 hr open, many are unattended with pilot controlled lights, e.t.c. nobody cares if you land there at 3am or take off at 5 to make a meeting at 8 in the city. What a difference to European airports where often enough you can only fly during daytime and even then restricted, ppr, expensive memberships e.t.c.
And yes, if I could find a livelyhood, Montana or Idaho any day over overcrowded Europe please. But even my friends who live in the NY area do fly a lot, out of the many airfields around that area. I know a guy who lives and works on 42nd street and is off most Fridays with his airplane to his 2nd home in the South… where he will eventually retire, to return Monday morning. The airport he flies out of is very close to Newark, Linden I belive, it’s cheap and has great facilities.
But you do point out one very valid point. Freedom has a lot to do with population density but also with tolerance, which in Europe is getting less and less. In the US, I find people a lot more tolerant towards aviation in general, with notable exceptions such as California, and aviation has a much more vocal and powerful lobby.
Your friend in Canada fell into the same trap as many pensioners who go to the land they only know from vaccations to find out it is not that great after all. That happens, tough. I know enough people, myself included, who could very well imagine living in such a place where I don’t have to ask my neighbour if it’s ok to hang up the washing on a Sunday, can have a party in my own home for longer than 8pm and,yes, have my own airstrip if I so desire.
As to the former GDR airfields: I’d have to dig into old forum posts but I do recall several attempts to create something out of those runways, all failed due to lack of funds, German bureaucracy and quite immediate opposition from the local inhabitants. Still, probably in the former GDR area people might be more open to aviation then they are in the densely populated places, but it doesn’t even remotely compare to the possibilities one has in the US and Canada.
I missed the bus on that… had the chance and didn’t use it and have been kicking my arse ever since.
Your friend in Canada fell into the same trap as many pensioners who go to the land they only know from vaccations to find out it is not that great after all.
I am sure that is true for every country in the world
The ones which are nice for a holiday are invariably disfunctional (to varying degrees) at the “ground level”. Which is usually why they are nice for a holiday.
The really scenic places are invariably economic wastelands where you can’t do much apart from retirement activities/projects and, for those who don’t have activities/projects, getting pi*ssed on cheap alcohol (which is basically what most retired Brits living in Spain do… the wine comes out at breakfast time) and that is true in the USA (where I travelled a lot in the 1980s) as much as anywhere.
Also many are corrupt at the ground level. In Greece – more stories than anybody down there could write. Spain is not far behind. In France – a box of booze for the mayor as a starting point. N Europe tends to be a lot more transparent in its officialdom, but then you can’t do anything interesting
The USA is completely different to Europe, starting with airport funding – a private air park, no visitors allowed (in practice), can get an FAA-funded GPS approach.
We need another thread: “your fantasy location for flying out of”
I need to investigate it more, and will, but incidently, I see that some of these things happen in Bulgaria now.
GA was almost nonexistent there until maybe 10 years ago. Since then, a lot of small and nice airports have popped up, some on former military instalations but several completely newly built, with asphalt runways and very economical fees. LBPR, Primorsko, is one of those, Ihtiman another, Lesnovo (near Sofia) basically the center of GA in BG. Additional to that, lots of UL and other private airfields seem to pop up, I know of several near Plovdiv and one near Sinemoretzs, which are on no map but have quite active traffic. I once asked at one of those fields near Plovdiv if I was welcome there with my airplane and they said sure, they’d be delighted. So it appears, there is a lot of growth there.
BG is also a place where a lot of people retire to. Relatively cheap housing, good climate (for most of the year) makes it a good place to be for people who can hardly exist on their pensions elsewhere. There is a lot of Brits and Russians about near the sea side.
It would correspond to the trends that a lot of construction of light planes happen in Eastern Europe these days.
I think France has some airparks as well. But France has become a rather uncomfortable place to fly to, with all the withdrawn AOE’s and the mounting reports of hassle by authorities.
Maybe we need to extend the scope of tolerance… the biggest intolerance against aviation seems to pop up in places where people are reasonably well off too. Maybe that is why even large industries have moved into poor areas in East Germany (Leipzig cargo hub vs Brussels comes to mind) and why any chance of new job creation is welcomed rather than fought with “citizens against ……” campaigns like north of the alps.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
with notable exceptions such as California,
Mooney, don’t confuse California with Santa Monica. Here’s a list of airports in the Los Angeles area. Most open 24/7/365, the only exceptions I am aware of are Santa Monica and Catalina, the former having a night-time take-off curfew m(you can land H24), the latter being private and closing at 7pm in summer, 5pm in winter.
Well, I am aware that also California still has paradisic conditions in comparison to Europe, but it is also clear that they are very much on top of the list of US states regarding green extremism. I know of several airports and airfields under threat there, not only Santa Monica but also Oceano and some more, the anti noise stance of John Wayne Orange County is long known e.t.c. But clearly, even in California, aviation is much better off than here.
The main factors that support people’s aviation activity in California, where general aviation is extremely active, are the weather and the geography. The state politics aren’t that supportive, as Mooney_Driver correctly points out. However, that negative influence is mitigated by two things, the first is that the aviation negative types are very geographically concentrated in two coastal urban areas (as 172driver correctly points out 
) The second is that US aviation is largely controlled and funded by the Federal Government, not by the states, and there’s not that much that state or local governments can do about it. There is a balance of power.
There might be a positive analogy for Europe, if a pan-European FAA-style body someday takes over aviation regulation and funding in Europe. I don’t believe that could happen until the current EASA fiasco has run its course and gained some stability.
