This is the latest, from the LAA
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.
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!
A result for common sense
The owner ? 
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?
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?
The UK obsession with real estate development starts to sound a lot like the Spanish one.
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……
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,
