Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Jodel impounded in Plymouth

Having followed that story since the beginning, the airport was closed down by SHH as being unviable and have requested permission to develop the site. However until they get the permission to go ahead with redevelopment, the airport has to be seen as of no value to the community – allowing an aircraft to land on the strip in an emergency demonstrates the worth of the airfield so SHH do not want it to depart, claiming to allow it to do so is risking those whose houses are around the perimeter of the airfield.

On top of this, the airfield is unavailable for emergency services – for example, there was the story that medical helicopters are not allowed to land on the property but have to fly to a field nearby; the knock on effect is that at night, this field is difficult to find so the police have to floodlight it. This is all an attempt by SHH to get the airport declared surplus to demand and have the right to build houses on.

The pilot is quiet because he had hoped a conciliatory approach might be the best – eat humble pie, apologise profusely and be allowed. But for SHH, the fact that the airport has potentially saved a life is embarrassing as it destroys their position that no-one will suffer from it’s demolition and redevelopment…..

EDL*, Germany

Steve6443 wrote:

But for SHH, the fact that the airport has potentially saved a life is embarrassing as it destroys their position that no-one will suffer from it’s demolition and redevelopment…..

What kind of logic is that? It’s like having an old ship floating around just in case someone fall overboard in a nearby boat.

Why don’t they simply get hold of a helicopter and get the plane out of there? It’s done in minutes,

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

What kind of logic is that? It’s like having an old ship floating around just in case someone fall overboard in a nearby boat.

Why don’t they simply get hold of a helicopter and get the plane out of there? It’s done in minutes,

Because once an airfield has been demolished, it’s practically impossible to replace it so Plymouth City Council have yet to allow them to develop it; what hurts SHH even more is the fact that different reports are saying that, if Plymouth can get slots to London (City or Gatwick), then there is a need for the airport. By quietly saying “the airport has not been required these past 4 years”, SHH are hoping to add weight to their argument that they should be allowed to tear up the runway and build houses on it.

The council was not aware of the plane doing a precautionary landing, nor were they aware that they emergency services were losing time due to being forced to land in an unlight park at night instead of on a lit helipad on the airport – SHH did this to undermine their case – see, don’t need an airport, there’s a field just over there.

Now, why won’t the owner take action to get the plane out? Your guess is as good as mine……

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 20 Aug 21:36
EDL*, Germany

The UK obsession with real estate development starts to sound a lot like the Spanish one.

AOPA still lists Plymouth airport as a member of the Strasser scheme, which presumably means that the safety minded folks in charge of the airport forgot to rescind their undertaking to act as a safe-haven for aircraft undertaking unplanned diversions, despite the fact that they seem to be of the view that their airfield is going to be unserviceable in the long-term.

If you have agreed to accept unplanned diversions and never revoked the undertaking, how can you then claim that someone making an unplanned emergency diversion to your airfield is a trespasser?

Last Edited by kwlf at 22 Aug 00:00

That said, we have to emphasise that this site is no longer a functioning airport.

A safe landing and a trouble free takeoff — so what exactly is not functioning about this airport?

The owner ?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

A result for common sense

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

Nope. Common sense would have been to allow him to fly out without previously obtaining “airworthiness and insurance indemnities”! He’s been blocked for over two weeks!

Last Edited by boscomantico at 26 Aug 16:44
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Indeed. It would have made commerical sense too.

Get him back out, quietly, before anyone noticed. Now they have fueled a lot of interest again in why the airport is closed, which is the one thing that they didn’t want to happen.

EIWT Weston, Ireland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top