Just released in the local press today!
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/runway-plans-axed-for-airport-revamp-181888/
That’s a pity because without tarmac the place will just keep having the same problems with being water-logged.
I wonder if they can do the green plastic surface instead. Together with mole draining they could make a sort of reasonable runway. Unfortunately that surface results in a lot of mud getting thrown up at the aircraft.
Peter wrote:
I wonder if they can do the green plastic surface instead.
I had the same idea. It brings a similar result for light GA and is much more acceptable for neighbors.
According to PERFOs website, Rochester Airport already uses their hardware.
At the end of the article, you understand the real reason for this airfield’s renovation : closing one grass runway to make houses !!
They promised a hard runway for the project to be accepted, then they say it became too expensive … Business as usual
I don’t know about Rochester’s situation but if an airport has spare land which is not needed, it is not an unreasonable thing to sell some of it, if it safeguards the airport’s future. It’s a bit like allowing commercial property on-site; an unsubsidised airport cannot maintain itself in a good condition (with a hard runway etc) without some of that.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know about Rochester’s situation but if an airport has spare land which is not needed, it is not an unreasonable thing to sell some of it
Sure, but not for houses. You’re going to able to count the time from completion of the housing project to the first noise complaint in minutes.
A crosswind runway hardly strikes me as something that’s not needed.
172driver wrote:
Sure, but not for houses. You’re going to able to count the time from completion of the housing project to the first noise complaint in minutes.
And then the first petitions for reductions in movements/times of movements within a day. Houses on an airfield is a terrible idea, unless they are deed restricted to be sold only to aircraft owners!
This is all true, but if an airfield has a full planning permission, complaints are not worth a great deal.
It is all the strips which are running on the 28 day rule that are extremely vulnerable to complaints, during the first 10 years, and in most cases for ever afterwards because they don’t want to rock the boat by applying for the statement of lawful use.
A planning permission is a “permission” for the specified activity, at the specified level, and is permanent It it wasn’t like that, nobody would build a house.
What was Rochester’s plans with this tarmac runway. PC12 ops or just more of the same just not grounded when its waterlogged?
I’d say a fair bet would be: both.