Complaint on YouTube over air park (From Bucks Free Press)

HamsterWheel, Prestwood says...
10:27am Fri 8 Aug 08

Typical - these moaners buy a house next to an airfield then whine when planes use it.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
10:39am Fri 8 Aug 08

Ive watched both the videos on YouTube and all they show is a plane in the air with the sky as the background. They could have been shot anywhere. At no point do they give a clear view of houses with the plane clearly flying overhead.

The Air Park is good for the town long may it be in Booker.

I think they should do more aerobatics, how about giving us a display with a Spitfire?

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
10:42am Fri 8 Aug 08

I think the boys from the recent Red Bull air race may have been based at Booker. There was an awful lot of stunt practising going on last week.

Loved it.

Report this post »

Blaze Falconburger, HW says...
11:15am Fri 8 Aug 08

Correct Ivor the videos do not prove any specific location so I doubt much will come of it. Also it is hard to judge the distance - the videos are very shaky and are clearly on a high zoom.

recording aircraft performing manoeuvres close to her home

The retired furniture company owner said: "I was amazed that they would do it directly over the house.

So was it over your house or close to it?

If the plane was outside the 500ft zone then she should be campaigning to get that changed - good luck!

Just how the hell would she have coped during WWII with planes scrambling at full speed?!!

Report this post »

Mutley, High Wycombe says...
11:17am Fri 8 Aug 08

lodged by Mrs Pratt, one of the organisers of the Wycombe Air Park Action Group.

Obviously an ulterior motive at work here. Stand by to start receiving any number of these petty complaints to try and build up their case. I agree the aircraft could do their stunts over the open fields but its hardly cause to close the airfield. Perhaps these Pratts could try living near an RAF base with fighter jets taking off they might just find they have things easy.

Report this post »

sue, denham says...
11:24am Fri 8 Aug 08

Re Elmos remarks about the Red Bull planes - these were indeed amazing to watch, however, not a good idea for them to practice their aerobatics over the M40 motorway and distract drivers !!!

Report this post »

JimG, jamesglennie@waitros e.com says...
11:51am Fri 8 Aug 08

aerial acrobatics = aerobatics?

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:11pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Well, to me it looks close enough to her house to cause distress. If the lady wanted a personal aerobatic display I'm sure she would arrange her own. Over the past two weeks there have been a lot of planes over Sydenham making a real nuisance of themselves. There were a lot of complaints made to the CAA, I do not know of one local resident who actually enjoyed it. Do these piolts think everyone on the ground is looking up and saying 'wow, isn't he good!'. If you could read their lips it would be more like 'clear off!' If I was to take the exhaust off my car and drive around carelessly and causting distress to the public, I would be arrested in no time. Aircraft seem to be a law unto themselves, especially those who do it as a hobby rather than commercial aircraft. I'm all for organised air displays like Duxford and Farnborough, but just like firework displays, it's the ones that just don't know when to stop or have to do their own little thing, that spoils it for everyone. Hopefully aircraft noise will become as regulated as any other noise as I would appreciate being able to sit in my garden in peace and quiet too, and I am nowhere near an airield. The pilots of these planes are not that difficult to track, just get the G number from the plane, go to the CAA website and find the G data search and you will then have their name and address. Put that into the BT online directory and you could even get their phone number. Worked for me twice, rang them up and haven't seen or heard them over here since. A personal visit works wonders too. Rich boys and their toys eh, I bet if you had put any of them in a Spitfire during WWII, they would have wet their pants!

Report this post »

micklefield72, high wycombe says...
12:18pm Fri 8 Aug 08

the air park has been there long before the houses. shut up and move.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
12:22pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Re the comments of Terminator, Oxfordshire on 12:11pm (above)

If I was to take the exhaust off my car and drive around carelessly and causting distress to the public, I would be arrested in no time

Not in Castlefield you wouldnt!

Well, to me it looks close enough to her house to cause distress.

But you cant see her house in the videos! These videos could have been shot anywhere with the planes at any height. The film does not even show any local landmarks so they could have been taken in another country for all that we know.

I do not know of one local resident who actually enjoyed it

I have realised recently how nice the aeroplanes are so yes, I am a resident who enjoys their presence.

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

Tharus Bond, Wycombe says...
12:22pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Terminator wrote:
Well, to me it looks close enough to her house to cause distress. If the lady wanted a personal aerobatic display I'm sure she would arrange her own. Over the past two weeks there have been a lot of planes over Sydenham making a real nuisance of themselves. There were a lot of complaints made to the CAA, I do not know of one local resident who actually enjoyed it. Do these piolts think everyone on the ground is looking up and saying 'wow, isn't he good!'. If you could read their lips it would be more like 'clear off!' If I was to take the exhaust off my car and drive around carelessly and causting distress to the public, I would be arrested in no time. Aircraft seem to be a law unto themselves, especially those who do it as a hobby rather than commercial aircraft. I'm all for organised air displays like Duxford and Farnborough, but just like firework displays, it's the ones that just don't know when to stop or have to do their own little thing, that spoils it for everyone. Hopefully aircraft noise will become as regulated as any other noise as I would appreciate being able to sit in my garden in peace and quiet too, and I am nowhere near an airield. The pilots of these planes are not that difficult to track, just get the G number from the plane, go to the CAA website and find the G data search and you will then have their name and address. Put that into the BT online directory and you could even get their phone number. Worked for me twice, rang them up and haven't seen or heard them over here since. A personal visit works wonders too. Rich boys and their toys eh, I bet if you had put any of them in a Spitfire during WWII, they would have wet their pants!

Most World war II pilots were young men who had very little training! So it doesn't matter who you are facing the germans would have been terrifing but their sense of patriotism was stronger!

I look up at the aircraft to see whats up there! I don't look to see if they're being a nuisence or listen for the noise to complain!
We don't hear of anybody complaining that they have a railway outside the back of their house complaining about the trains!

[quote][bold]Terminator[/bold] wrote: Well, to me it looks close enough to her house to cause distress. If the lady wanted a personal aerobatic display I'm sure she would arrange her own. Over the past two weeks there have been a lot of planes over Sydenham making a real nuisance of themselves. There were a lot of complaints made to the CAA, I do not know of one local resident who actually enjoyed it. Do these piolts think everyone on the ground is looking up and saying 'wow, isn't he good!'. If you could read their lips it would be more like 'clear off!' If I was to take the exhaust off my car and drive around carelessly and causting distress to the public, I would be arrested in no time. Aircraft seem to be a law unto themselves, especially those who do it as a hobby rather than commercial aircraft. I'm all for organised air displays like Duxford and Farnborough, but just like firework displays, it's the ones that just don't know when to stop or have to do their own little thing, that spoils it for everyone. Hopefully aircraft noise will become as regulated as any other noise as I would appreciate being able to sit in my garden in peace and quiet too, and I am nowhere near an airield. The pilots of these planes are not that difficult to track, just get the G number from the plane, go to the CAA website and find the G data search and you will then have their name and address. Put that into the BT online directory and you could even get their phone number. Worked for me twice, rang them up and haven't seen or heard them over here since. A personal visit works wonders too. Rich boys and their toys eh, I bet if you had put any of them in a Spitfire during WWII, they would have wet their pants![/quote] Most World war II pilots were young men who had very little training! So it doesn't matter who you are facing the germans would have been terrifing but their sense of patriotism was stronger! I look up at the aircraft to see whats up there! I don't look to see if they're being a nuisence or listen for the noise to complain! We don't hear of anybody complaining that they have a railway outside the back of their house complaining about the trains!

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:22pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Mr Mutley, maybe you could try living in an earthquake refugee camp for a few weeks and all your little problems might seem insignificant too. What kind of stupid comment is that, she is not exactly near the airfield and as long as the planes take off and land over the designated flight path, then noise is kept to a specific area. It's when these idiots who think everyone loves aircraft, and should be honoured to have them fly over their house, start making a racket over residential areas that gets on peoples' nerves.

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:30pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Well, it seems like you lot appreciate aircraft noise and traffic more than most. I would love to know what kind of noise YOU would consider a disturbance where you live, that you would consider complaining about?

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
12:38pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Re the comments of Terminator, Oxfordshire on 12:30pm

I would love to know what kind of noise YOU would consider a disturbance

How about the noise of football supporters going to the match and subsequently cheering when a goal is scored or the nuisance of having cars parked across your drive on match days.

The aerodrome and the slight noise it creates is trivial compared to what some people have to put up with.

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:44pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Do you live near a football ground then Ivor?

Report this post »

Plus ça change..., Looptheloopcombe says...
12:47pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Could have one of those 'speaking boxes' fitted on the chimney pot with a sensor set at 500 feet with an appropriate pre-recorded message.

I'd have some suggestions.

That's only just over 150 metres in proper units.

Was it as noisy as the 'Chepping Chopper'?

No whisper mode, you see.

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:47pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Do you live near a football ground then Ivor?

Report this post »

sharon, UK says...
12:53pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Unbelievable.....How can people complain when they choose which house to buy and where!People pay alot of money to see shows like this....

Report this post »

sandman, on a beach says...
12:58pm Fri 8 Aug 08

I can't see the problem. It says that the video's were recorded on the 24th & 29th of July. Both of them are weekdays when a majority of people are at work.
Yes they look low but again no landmarks to tie up the footage. If it was at the weekend then i may have some concerns about the noise but to be honest the kids who play in the road are louder than that.
oh well each to there own keep up the bickering!

Report this post »

David St, High Wycombe says...
1:14pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Is that really a pic of Ms Pratt? She doesn't look 63!!
I'd have though with all the stress of the planes she'd be grey and haggered looking.

Report this post »

Iain, Beaconsfield says...
1:29pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Careful Ivor, you've already changed your mind once...
http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/search/d
isplay.var.2411408.0
.air_park_campaigner
s_welcome_stadium_pr
oposal.php

Report this post »

me, Marlow says...
1:36pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Someone has been doing there research!

Report this post »

Plus ça change..., Noisecombe says...
1:47pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ivor did an Immelman turn or a 'split S'...

Unused new-fangled washing machine money spent on flying lessons?

Report this post »

manuiabeach, High Wycombe says...
2:20pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Sadly, no-one seems to be paying much attention.
Many shift workers live in the High Wycombe area so that the noise criteria regarding time of day or day of week is hardly relevant if you have an angry bee in your ear for 3 hours at a time.
I can also assure all who question the proximity of the aircraft to the house in question, that the concern is valid. While we who live in the area all tolerate or even enjoy aircraft movement (yes, we all knew where we bought our houses), and agree with the Air Park management that control is good and that 98% of flights are well regulated, we have to question the CAA's decision to allow such aerobatic nonsense so close to a residential area. Also, while some of us enjoy such displays, and pay to go and watch them, we would prefer not to have them inflicted upon us for practise toward a non-local event sponsoring a product which has been proscribed in some countries, and in some classified as a medicament. There's a whole lot of unpopulated sea out there, where no-one will be disturbed.
As for proximity itself, not to put too fine a point on it, if a plane falls on you from 500 feet you're going to be just as dead as if it fell from 32,000, but if it just happens to be overhead for three hours as opposed to a second there is rather more likelihood.
When I contacted WDC, I was informed that complaints about aircraft noise could not be dealt with by their Environmental Health department, any other noise - yes.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
2:31pm Fri 8 Aug 08

manuiabeach, High Wycombe on 2:20pm:
Sadly, no-one seems to be paying much attention.

Perhaps that's because in reality there is no real problem. The only evidence provided so far is a rather dubious video which doesnt really prove anything.

The aerodrome is preferable to a football stadium.

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
2:47pm Fri 8 Aug 08

THis silly woman, in 1993; buys a house opposite the Air Park, (and the motorway)then complains about it.

Ms Pratt should do us all a favour and move as far away as possible; as for her 'campaign', far from damaging the airfield, I think she has done far more to benefit; it's great to learn that so many people consider the airfield to be an assett to the town.

Report this post »

Icarvs, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil says...
2:47pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ivor did an Immelman turn or a 'split S'...

It seems to be a vertical scissor - a very aerobatic dog fighting maneuvre...to be avoided by civillian pilots!

(Poor Ivor must be fighting Boeckle or Galland to try something so risky!)

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
3:03pm Fri 8 Aug 08

So there was footage of an aircraft taking off, then there was footage of a zoomed in camera, of an aircraft performing aerobatics, erm, so what's she moaning about?

All i heard was the voice of some bint in the background.

Report this post »

Iqbal Mohammed Akhtar Ahmed, Castlefield says...
3:34pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ivor wrote:

manuiabeach, High Wycombe on 2:20pm: Sadly, no-one seems to be paying much attention.
Perhaps that's because in reality there is no real problem. The only evidence provided so far is a rather dubious video which doesnt really prove anything. The aerodrome is preferable to a football stadium. Save the aerodrome! Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Me and Ivor are together on this one. I used to moan and moan about the aircraft noise from aeroplane activity. My life was a living hell.

BUT

Now I realise that one of my properties up near Booker could be detrimentally affected by a possible football stadium I feel a little bit of happiness along with the nuisance cause by the infernal machines!

I too watched the videos and my opinion is bit divided. Mrs Pratt is clearly a lady of good upbringing and I could not imagine such a person making a fuss if the airfield was not daily torment for her. She is clearly an upholder of community spirit and acting only in the interests of other people, neighbours etc.

But after watching the videos it clearly would not hold up in any kind of enquiry or tribunal.

Report this post »

RobinsonR44, Lane End says...
3:43pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Not sure if some of the bloggers here need to go to specsavers but is that not a section of roof of a house that appears in one of the videos ? clearly the same part of the roof that features in the BFP pictures of lady stood in garden. How does this equate to not having any evidence of planes flying near or over the house ? The aerobatics combined with 20,000 helicopter movements and nearly 100,000 fixed wing movements per year over residential housing is not acceptable - some old folk have lived in their houses in the vicinity of the air park for a very long time indeed - long before the days of this current business for profit flying, student circuit flying and all the other money making activities being pursued by the air park at the expense of local resident's enjoyment of their homes. Lets be very clear on this - this is not nostalgic win the war stuff - this is money making activity - flying for profit literally at the expense of others including the Wycombe tax payers who subsidise the disgracefully low rent being paid by wycombe air park to WDC. The inadequately informed supporters of the air park quite possibly do not pay tax so will not be worried. Those who think opposers of the activities at the air park are a bunch of complainers should be made aware that amongst the opposers are some very well contacted, high profile individuals who do have better things to do but also value their right to enjoy their homes in peace and quiet. To those who think having off track, low flying aircraft over the house all day is an okay activity think again - it can be compared to having have a pneumatic drill operating outside your bedroom window all day every day. It is possible to be under the flight path of landing aircraft and hardly hear anything - take off is on full throttle and a very very noisy exercise. Helicopter noise is even worse - particularly when being flown by inconsiderate pilots who take no action to reduce the impact on local housing. Public should be aware that low flying activity also takes place over classes for disabled children who regularly ride ponies in an outdoor paddock - these low flying helicopters scare the animals - this could be dangerous for the children. This problem has been addressed with the air park but the children remain at risk as nothing has changed. However, it was suggested that if it was dangerous then perhaps the children should move elswhere ! Those who love the aircraft may want to consider the bigger picture going on here. There has been another incident involving a horse and low flying helicopter - conserable dama ge was done to the animal during it's panic to get away. So, those who think Wycombe air park is God's gift to Wycombe think again.

Not sure if some of the bloggers here need to go to specsavers but is that not a section of roof of a house that appears in one of the videos ? clearly the same part of the roof that features in the BFP pictures of lady stood in garden. How does this equate to not having any evidence of planes flying near or over the house ? The aerobatics combined with 20,000 helicopter movements and nearly 100,000 fixed wing movements per year over residential housing is not acceptable - some old folk have lived in their houses in the vicinity of the air park for a very long time indeed - long before the days of this current business for profit flying, student circuit flying and all the other money making activities being pursued by the air park at the expense of local resident's enjoyment of their homes. Lets be very clear on this - this is not nostalgic win the war stuff - this is money making activity - flying for profit literally at the expense of others including the Wycombe tax payers who subsidise the disgracefully low rent being paid by wycombe air park to WDC. The inadequately informed supporters of the air park quite possibly do not pay tax so will not be worried. Those who think opposers of the activities at the air park are a bunch of complainers should be made aware that amongst the opposers are some very well contacted, high profile individuals who do have better things to do but also value their right to enjoy their homes in peace and quiet. To those who think having off track, low flying aircraft over the house all day is an okay activity think again - it can be compared to having have a pneumatic drill operating outside your bedroom window all day every day. It is possible to be under the flight path of landing aircraft and hardly hear anything - take off is on full throttle and a very very noisy exercise. Helicopter noise is even worse - particularly when being flown by inconsiderate pilots who take no action to reduce the impact on local housing. Public should be aware that low flying activity also takes place over classes for disabled children who regularly ride ponies in an outdoor paddock - these low flying helicopters scare the animals - this could be dangerous for the children. This problem has been addressed with the air park but the children remain at risk as nothing has changed. However, it was suggested that if it was dangerous then perhaps the children should move elswhere ! Those who love the aircraft may want to consider the bigger picture going on here. There has been another incident involving a horse and low flying helicopter - conserable dama[bold]bold[/bold] ge was done to the animal during it's panic to get away. So, those who think Wycombe air park is God's gift to Wycombe think again.

Report this post »

rdv, marlow says...
3:50pm Fri 8 Aug 08

If the noise of aircraft was an issue why choose to live so close to an airfield? I note that the WAPAG has around 100 members, enough said

Report this post »

odbyt, High Wycombe says...
3:50pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ms Pratt, Unless your house is Council, Please move!!

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
3:52pm Fri 8 Aug 08

LOL, I wondered how long it would be before the anti airfield moaners start using the "we're kiiillling our baaaabbbbbies" argument.

Incidentally, I saw the house (hope I get a gold star), you couldn't miss it with the x10 magnification of a Sony.

PS, answer YES or NO:

Do you and have you, used that 'subsidised' and commercial commodity called air transport when going on holiday?

Report this post »

Iqbal Mohammed Akhtar Ahmed, Castlefield says...
3:52pm Fri 8 Aug 08

But it saves myself, Ivor and the community of Wycombe from the inconvenience of a possible, potential stadium.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
3:57pm Fri 8 Aug 08

RobinsonR44, Lane End on 3:43pm
Not sure if some of the bloggers here need to go to specsavers but is that not a section of roof of a house that appears in one of the videos ?

The section of roof could be anywhere. The footage could have bee shot in the grounds of the Air Park itself! Or the plane could be a radio controlled model. The video carries no weight at all!

From looking at a map Spring Coppice, Lane End appears to be in the middle open countryside and I feel the planes are perfectly justified in their use of this open country air space.

Isnt the shooting ground near by? If so why is the person complaining about the noise of the guns going off?

Ive got a good mind to get in my historic race-tuned heritage motor vehicle and take a drive along Spring Coppice this evening. Then they would know what noise (and air) pollution really was!

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

sarge, High Wycombe says...
3:58pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Won't someone please think of the children!

My house backs onto the railway line in Wyc. Maybe I should start a campaign to reduce the amount of trains passing everyday. Especially the noisy "West Waste" trains that pass late at night. Anybody with me?

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
4:01pm Fri 8 Aug 08

.... sorry my previous post at 3.57pm should read "If so why isn't the person complaining about the noise of the guns going off?"

Report this post »

Merge in Turn, says...
4:03pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ivor the Engine might be.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
4:04pm Fri 8 Aug 08

sarge wrote:
Won't someone please think of the children! My house backs onto the railway line in Wyc. Maybe I should start a campaign to reduce the amount of trains passing everyday. Especially the noisy "West Waste" trains that pass late at night. Anybody with me?

Yeah and i'm going to complain about the road outside of my house and get it closed down, I know some wheely well contacted people who are so influential that they could close it down wheely quickly but don't because, there are some even more well contacted and influential people who want it to remain open.

Report this post »

RobinsonR44, Lane End says...
4:11pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Well Wayne seems to have a problem expressing himself in anything other than objectionable and inappropriate language - if a person wants to set about improving their lot then why is wayne so upset about this. It is not for him to insult and rubbish a person's point of view or criticise a person's actions. Wayne you could for a change try constructive comments instead of this low grade drivel. Anyway it is sprising Wayne has any time for this blog - thought he was too busy going to court with WDC over his parking tickets and wheel clamps. There are some good therapists in Wycombe Wayne - try one.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
4:34pm Fri 8 Aug 08

LOL, it's quite simple, having had to deal with the muck from the liars of Bucks CC (not WDC...yet), I've learned that the softly softly approach does not work with you people. I go for the throat and if that upsets you tough, don't start a campaign if you're going to cry about it. As for therapists, why would you know so many? and you think I have a problem, shucks!

Report this post »

Blaze Falconburger, HW says...
4:46pm Fri 8 Aug 08

I can't see that video holding weight, 3 roof tiles does not identify a property, and as they appear at a very similar height to the point of focus clearly a high zoom is being used, or the camera person is on a ladder.

The picture of Susan Pratt above shows her stood in a lane looking upwards at a 45 degree angle. Probably for the pose, but we'll make the assumption she is stood at the boundary of her property - then unless the property is quite large then a plane even at 500 ft is most likely not directly over the property.

I can imagine... some pilots who might fancy a little bit of practice this weekend practicing very locally to the Pratt household, all within the limits of the regulations of course!

Report this post »

manuiabeach, High Wycombe says...
4:56pm Fri 8 Aug 08

I understood this blog was for debate.
In order to understand others' point of view, one should be able to read. Perhaps Ivor, you could find someone to read to you while you're writing. The debate is not about the airfield per se, but about a particular incident on specific dates.

By the way, the Americans didn't land on the moon either.

Report this post »

norbert, bucks says...
5:02pm Fri 8 Aug 08

RobinsonR44 wrote:
Well Wayne seems to have a problem expressing himself in anything other than objectionable and inappropriate language - if a person wants to set about improving their lot then why is wayne so upset about this. It is not for him to insult and rubbish a person's point of view or criticise a person's actions. Wayne you could for a change try constructive comments instead of this low grade drivel. Anyway it is sprising Wayne has any time for this blog - thought he was too busy going to court with WDC over his parking tickets and wheel clamps. There are some good therapists in Wycombe Wayne - try one.

Whatever the arguments for or against, you chastise a correspondent for not providing 'constructive comments', only to then do exactly the opposite yourself including an Ad Hominem.

Report this post »

Tharus Bond, Wycombe says...
5:10pm Fri 8 Aug 08

I've just watched the videos on youtube and the last one shows the plane going up into the clouds at the end. Now we've had some low cloud cover recently but it still looks like that the plane is further from the house than stated! I bet if she lived near Heathrow she would keep a tally of how many "noisy" planes have woken her up in the middle of the night!

Report this post »

bea, lane end says...
5:20pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Mrs Pratt must think she is really special if she thinks she can ban planes from flying over her house. As a Lane End resident i have never found the planes from Booker 'deplorable' or 'unbearable'.There was a spitfire flypast at the weekend in Kingshill, which was excellent, i hope they have one over Lane End soon. This lady needs to get a life.

Report this post »

Plus ça change..., Buzzcombe says...
5:23pm Fri 8 Aug 08

... and, Icarvs, your wings melted so I am wary of your flying expertise & advice...

Anyhow, if you try again, avoid Wycombe for obvious reasons, stick to Crete, mate.

This is all initially about a apecific event and about noise too.

Noise concerns us all and is a growing problem.

I am not sure it is taken seriously enough yet.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
5:25pm Fri 8 Aug 08

bea wrote:
Mrs Pratt must think she is really special if she thinks she can ban planes from flying over her house. As a Lane End resident i have never found the planes from Booker 'deplorable' or 'unbearable'.There was a spitfire flypast at the weekend in Kingshill, which was excellent, i hope they have one over Lane End soon. This lady needs to get a life.

There's a Spitfire hangared at Booker Bea.

Report this post »

Ashley Hopkins, Flackwell Heath says...
5:28pm Fri 8 Aug 08

In 58 years I have never felt compelled to write to a newspaper, but this woman, Susan Pratt, without wishing to be rude appears to be living up to her name. I feel sure that most people would just grab their binoculars and watch in awe regardless of the noise and lets face it, she moved there in the full knowledge that there was an aerodrome for small aircraft. What does she expect them to do? stay in their expensive hangars all day. I would much rather they came over Flackwell Heath as opposed to the flights out of and into Heathrow, but even that can be interesting and like her I cannot complain because they were there before I moved in. All I can say is thank God she was not living in Kent during the 2nd World War with the Battle of Britain raging above her head when she might have had something to grumble about. She needs to get a life or a large pair of ear defenders. But still, they would probably spoil her haircut and make her look intelligent, so we have to conclude that she is just another NIMBY on a swanky lawn out to spoil other peoples fun and enjoyment. Shame on her and everyone of her mindset.

Report this post »

bea, lane end says...
5:49pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Never before has the name Pratt been so apt. This woman obviously feels that no one else is entitled to have interests which in any way intefere with hers. She is clearly so unthinking that she bought a house right next to an air field when she finds planes 'deplorable'and 'unbearable'. Its people like this with their arrogant self righteous opinions who water down our culture into bland obscurity. Thank you Mrs White Middleclass.

From: Henrietta Harold

Report this post »

Icarvs, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil says...
5:49pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Plus ça change...

...plus ça même chose.

First of all, mate, you must face the noise, that´s the main concern here. Despite the Mrs.Pratt high profile on beauty, living under a Flying Circus can make some disturbance...I can say it for myself, for I lived on just below Concorde route!

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
6:15pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Blaze Falconburger, HW on 4:46pm:
I can imagine... some pilots who might fancy a little bit of practice this weekend practicing very locally to the Pratt household, all within the limits of the regulations of course!

I fully agree. They should get the spitfire out of it's hangar and practice flying it at regulation distance from her house! Perhaps the wonderful sound of the Merlin engine so close to her home will make her change her mind....

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

RobinsonR44, Lane End says...
7:51pm Fri 8 Aug 08

The terminology used in some of these blogs conveys an image of being unhinged. Obviously some of the very defensive stuff is being written by users of the air park desperate to keep their planes flying. In order to quell the growing number of residents who are angry about the off track low level planes and helicopters all that needs to be done is for them to stick to the designated flight paths. The choice is their's they are choosing not to fly considerately - so expect complaints. NO ONE IS MENTIONING THE HELICOPTERS - noisy machines - it is not just about planes. Wayne must be very short of something to do if he spends his time looking up how long people have lived in their homes - sad, but only to be expected. To BEA - your anger and hatred is very evident but unfortunately you are so busy being hateful you have failed to make any kind of point. Try again with some intelligent remarks - perhaps we will be able to understand you.

Report this post »

faisal, sands says...
8:20pm Fri 8 Aug 08

SAD LADY MOVE HOUSES IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PLANES?

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
8:36pm Fri 8 Aug 08

How I spend my time is of no concern of yours and if you knew of the person who provided the information to me, you would not call them SAD, that I can assure you. Nevertheless, the factthat Mrs Pratt moved into the area knowing full well that there is an airfield, is highly relevant.

I give Mrs Pratt credit for standing up for herself (which does take guts);I'm puzzled however, that the campaign is now a mere question of flightpaths, of live and let live; your website states the following:

1.Helicopters out
2.Restrictions on 3.Circuit flying
4.Embargo on Weekend flying
5. Less Noise
(Not mentioned on the website, A 6.Sports facilities no doubt in the form of a stadium)

Were you genuingly promoting a compromise, then I would imagine there might be a degree of empathy but the underlying message from the campaign is threats of closure. The attampts at video taping the aerobatic aircraft i'm afraid displays acts of desperatism and mischief that don't bode well for your cause.

Compromise? yes, demands? I doubt many will listen.

E&OI

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
8:37pm Fri 8 Aug 08

RobinsonR44, Lane End on 7:51pm:
In order to quell the growing number of residents who are angry about the off track low level planes....

What number of residents who are angry? Everyone on here seems to be in favour of the wonderful planes!

Long may the planes fly from Wycombe Air Park!

Save the aerodrome!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

proplane, near airfield, lane end says...
9:48pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Absolutely spot on! Amazing, fantastic, superb!

The only way we can describe the exhilerating display.

For us poor & meagre folk who would have loved to have gone and seen the Red Bull display they were truly wonderful performances and free of charge to boot!

Chill out Mrs Pratt!

Report this post »

Blaze Falconburger, HW says...
10:01pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Seeing as this 'incident' is blatantly going to be used with no other intention other than to shut the air park down,here's a bit of background research...

The Helicopter Noise Coalition domain is registered to David Shufflebotham and has contact details of
PO Box 19, High Wycombe, HP14 3WE
T: 01494883728

Which is the same telephone number and PO box as a company called:

R & V Fleet Lease
Moor Common Rances Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP14 3HR

So if anyone has any business with R & V Fleet Lease then you may wish to consider if you want to continue your business with David Shufflebotham.

Info on WAPAG coming soon, in the mean time an article written by Susan Pratt, Lane End:

http://www.sheffield
telegraph.co.uk/lett
ers/Quick-car-park-s
top-earned.4132278.j
p

Report this post »

keith, Under the flightpath says...
10:18pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Oh no not another NIMBY trying to ruin everyone elses activities!
I've read all the comments so far and seen the unberable video it appears I'm not the only one to suggest Mrs PRATT should have looked over the fence to see she had bought a house near an airfield. As for 'appears to be doing loop the loop',come on, either it was or it wasn't they're easy to spot. Oops, careless move if you don't like aeroplanes.
We all know what comes next don't we...'it wasn't this busy when we moved in', um, its called progress dear and I think you'll find all the traffic on the M40 over your other fence has increased too. Try living on the end runway 28L at Heathrow, that'll really give you something to moan about.
Booker was opened in 1939 and even by my limited maths that means it was there 53 years before you moved in. So you know what to look for next time airfields are easy to recognise, the dead giveaway is that the odd aeroplane can be seen going in and out.
The airfield owners over at Kemble had similar problems a year or so ago with their local NIMBY. They got taken to court by him but unfortunately for him he lost, BIG TIME.
By the way if theres such a large campaign to have the airfield closed,restricted and have weekend flying banned, why, with potentially 1000's of local residents has this 'WAPAG' only got a mere 100 members.
Bring back the airshows you lot had stopped in the 70's! More power to you Booker. Over and out.

Report this post »

Bogart, Marlow Bottom says...
11:46pm Fri 8 Aug 08

Ignoring the fact that the aerodrome has been around far longer than Mrs. Pratt, and she should have realised that aircraft noise might possibly be a byproduct of living near an airfield, looking at the photo, if she's 63 I'll eat my hat ! Unless the photo was taken 20 years ago.

Report this post »

Edgar, High Wycombe, Bucks. says...
1:04am Sat 9 Aug 08

I see that RobinsonR44 is treading the well-worn path of the (allegedly) well -educated; if someone disagrees with your point of view, insult them. "Low grade drivel" and "unhinged" make me think of "Physician, heal thyself." Aircraft, around an airfield, can't keep to "designated flightpaths." If other aircraft are in the circuit, they must circle, and wait their turn, and, would you believe it, probably out of a sheer joy of flying, a pilot indulged in a little aerobatics practice, while waiting his turn.
120,000 aircraft movements equates to 328, per day, every day (slightly fewer in a Leap Year.) If the airfield is open for 12 hours a day (which it isn't,) that's a fly-over every 2.5 minutes. Oh, really? I can believe it of Heathrow, but Booker?
So there are 100 members of the anti-Booker alliance; I wonder which one took a shot at, and damaged, a helicopter. But then, it's only one of those infuriating aircraft, so it's only to be expected. Oh yes, and to pre-empt the inevitable response from Mr. RobinsonR44, I'm 67, and live right below one of the Booker approaches, with some aircraft around 100' above me, and the noise brings me outside, but to watch, not complain. I also live on a main road, and regularly get disturbed, after midnight, by the booming of sound systems, in cars, as they pass.
Several years ago, a children's day was regularly organised, at Booker, and disabled, and orphaned, children were given flights, and other treats, by those hated helicopters, and others. There were even complaints about that, so the present crop shouldn't surprise anyone.

Report this post »

deecee, high wycombe says...
8:38am Sat 9 Aug 08

Mrs Pratt (apt name) aka moaning minnie, go and move to the Outer Hebrides and stop moaning about something you knew was already there when you bought the house, ie. the Airfield

Report this post »

Regredkite, Marlow says...
10:13am Sat 9 Aug 08

Theres always one to spoil the fun,
I learned to fly in world war 2.

Report this post »

Steve, Totteridge Hill says...
10:18am Sat 9 Aug 08

Bring out the spitfire and do a few loops this weekend!

Report this post »

R. D., says...
10:26am Sat 9 Aug 08

The retired furniture company owner

Noisy,(plus dusty and smoky) furniture factories should have all been shut down fifty years ago. Mrs Pratt then might not have made barrels of money, and bought this house. She could have been happily living in a council house miles away from Booker Airfield, in Micklefield perhaps.

Not everyone has a choice of where they live Mrs Pratt, sell your house to someone who likes planes, and move to somewhere quiet.

Or, better still I will do a swap, I have a three bedroom council house, in quite a quiet part of Wycombe.

Report this post »

stuartg, high wycombe says...
6:26pm Sat 9 Aug 08

I live in Sands and i thought they were great and far enough away over the fields, not over Lane End.
Any plane looks close to your house when your camera zoom is on full!!!

Report this post »

George - Wycombe, says...
1:50am Sun 10 Aug 08

Many of the Booker aircraft fly over my home, some at night, could the night ones be delivering Mail, parcels etc? who knows and I am not really bothered, what bothers me though is NOISY WEEKENDS, those home owners who continually mow their bleeding lawns, it is nice to have the peace and quiet of weekdays.

Mrs Pratt has filmed the pilots flying their aircraft with her zoom camera, now if the helicopter pilots hovered outside her bathroom window with their zoom cameras, she may have cause for complaint.

THE MAJORITY OF PUBLIC OPINION IS ONE THE SIDE OF THE AIRFIELD.

I hope WAPAG get lumbered with a thumping solicitors bill from those whose lives THEY are making a misery with their unnecessary NIMBYISM.

Report this post »

Plus ça change..., BBQcombe says...
8:40am Sun 10 Aug 08

What about smells?

With all the rain this year nature has thankfully taken over...

Nothing is worse, not even noise, than having the gross smell of some neighbour's greasy barbeque wafting into your house from several doors away.

Wycombe with its slopes and subvalleys is just not made for neighbour-friendly barbeques!

It's not really a Brit thing as we live so close to one another anyway.

The stink creeps up the slope or slinks down the slope but it never stays in the place where it originates.

It is insidious & gets through even quadruple glazing.

It is simply disgusting that we have to share the foul stench of someone else's fat-laden chipolatas or lardburgers.

We are not in the Middle Ages smell-wise.

And when it it gets into your house, like an uninvited guest, it lingers for days and it will not go away!

'Parfum de burger' for weeks & weeks & weeks...!

You are probably absorbing more of your neighbour's nasty smelling barbeque than they are... even weeks after.

A plea:

Wycombe Barbequists, next time the sun peeps through the clouds and you're tempted to unleash your malodorous cuisine & share its fetor with the rest of Wycombe, just bear in mind that it is not everyone's cup of tea.

And go & get a takeaway.

Share the clean air with your neighbours.

To be sure, smells are the 'next noise'...!

Report this post »

Kitty, High Wycombe says...
11:33am Sun 10 Aug 08

I don't think the question is whether or not to close the air park, which has been there a long time, and has been increasingly noisy for some time. The point is that over the past 2 years, aeroplanes have been coming over Lane End, Stokenchurch, Sydenham and doing aerobatics, which has caused increased noise, particularly the droning as they go up and screech to come down again. It is excessively noisy and, if not over homes, VERY close. Perhaps if we had a contact to complain to, that would help.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
3:57pm Sun 10 Aug 08

I disagree that noise has got worse, aerobatic aircraft are not over Lane End and rarely near to Lane End; That said, I hear the motorway more than the aircraft and in reality, none of it bothers me anyway. I concede aerobatics does create more noise than general aviation, but in reality, is no more noisy or prolonged than next doors' lawnmower or hedge strimmer; if there were to be a straw poll, i'm quite sure that many more people would find the aerobatics pleasurable to watch than not. Your aternatives will be more housing, more industry or an 18000 seater stadium.

We live in the South of England, we are an over-populated Island and i'm afraid were you rid one noise, another would become more prevalent and equally annoying.

That said,your attitude of a medium rather than trying to simply lobby to close the airfield, is likely to mean that you are likely to be taken more seriously than the disgusting and disgraceful tactics of protaganist who use a zoom lense on a home movie camera in order to make what would otherwise, be a very serious complaint.

The Princes Risborough and the Reading training areas are used by many airfields and not just Booker so generally, unless you obtain the aircrafts registration, it would be difficult to distinguish from which airfield the aircraft originated; again, that would also be assuming that the aircraft was doing anything wrong in the first place.

Notwithstanding the above, unfortunately the perception that an aircraft is low, or close to a built up area is one that is regularly exaggerated (not always purposely, as likely in your situation). Many aircraft simply look closer than they really are but from the cockpit, being in the air (duh), the pilot knows whether he is within both the law and the guidelines.

Look at the CAA website if you want further information etc, the Council have very limited powers regarding noise etc and are to be fair, often stuck between a rock and a hard place with aviation related queries.

I disagree that noise has got worse, aerobatic aircraft are not over Lane End and rarely near to Lane End; That said, I hear the motorway more than the aircraft and in reality, none of it bothers me anyway. I concede aerobatics does create more noise than general aviation, but in reality, is no more noisy or prolonged than next doors' lawnmower or hedge strimmer; if there were to be a straw poll, i'm quite sure that many more people would find the aerobatics pleasurable to watch than not. Your aternatives will be more housing, more industry or an 18000 seater stadium. We live in the South of England, we are an over-populated Island and i'm afraid were you rid one noise, another would become more prevalent and equally annoying. That said,your attitude of a medium rather than trying to simply lobby to close the airfield, is likely to mean that you are likely to be taken more seriously than the disgusting and disgraceful tactics of protaganist who use a zoom lense on a home movie camera in order to make what would otherwise, be a very serious complaint. The Princes Risborough and the Reading training areas are used by many airfields and not just Booker so generally, unless you obtain the aircrafts registration, it would be difficult to distinguish from which airfield the aircraft originated; again, that would also be assuming that the aircraft was doing anything wrong in the first place. Notwithstanding the above, unfortunately the perception that an aircraft is low, or close to a built up area is one that is regularly exaggerated (not always purposely, as likely in your situation). Many aircraft simply look closer than they really are but from the cockpit, being in the air (duh), the pilot knows whether he is within both the law and the guidelines. Look at the CAA website if you want further information etc, the Council have very limited powers regarding noise etc and are to be fair, often stuck between a rock and a hard place with aviation related queries.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
4:42pm Sun 10 Aug 08

Re the comments of wayne, wycombe on 3:57pm:

Wayne: You are right. The current Air Park is far preferable to a football ground or more unnecessary housing and the local residents should learn to welcome it.

If it wasnt for the voices of the NIMBYs there would not be any complaints at all so why should they be allowed to spoil everyone elses fun?

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

Sceaming Cowboy, your house says...
5:41pm Sun 10 Aug 08

Blaze Falconburger wrote:
Seeing as this 'incident' is blatantly going to be used with no other intention other than to shut the air park down,here's a bit of background research... The Helicopter Noise Coalition domain is registered to David Shufflebotham and has contact details of PO Box 19, High Wycombe, HP14 3WE T: 01494883728 Which is the same telephone number and PO box as a company called: R & V Fleet Lease Moor Common Rances Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP14 3HR So if anyone has any business with R & V Fleet Lease then you may wish to consider if you want to continue your business with David Shufflebotham. Info on WAPAG coming soon, in the mean time an article written by Susan Pratt, Lane End: http://www.sheffield telegraph.co.uk/lett ers/Quick-car-park-s top-earned.4132278.j p

Info on WAPAG coming soon, in the mean time an article written by Susan Pratt, Lane End:

What info can you tell me about WAPAG?

I have several parties interested in any information you can provide.

Report this post »

chris toff, South Bucks says...
6:30pm Sun 10 Aug 08

Susan Pratt Need i say more ??? PRATT !!!!

Report this post »

Em, says...
7:28pm Sun 10 Aug 08

One question - if one does not like the sound of the aircraft flying over one's house, then do not purchase a house near an airfield! WAP has been in exsistance for 60 years now and is not going anywhere in a hurry. If Mrs Pratt doesn't like it, she should have thought about it before moving there. On another note, it was indeed the Red Bull Air race teams were practising for the race coming up that weekend. It was a joy to watch them all.

Report this post »

ikeysolomon, radnage says...
8:10pm Sun 10 Aug 08

Why is it always people who move near to an airfield are the ones who then start to moan and complain about the noise..are they stupid? Of course there are planes/gliders/helic
opters by an airfield, that's what they are there for and guess what, they make some noise. Booker is an important part of Wycombe, as much as the town itself. If Mrs Pratt doesn't like the fact she lives in a vicinity where there are aircraft after moving to near an airfield, instead of complaining she should move!

Report this post »

George - Wycombe, says...
9:45pm Sun 10 Aug 08

Maybe Mr & Mrs Pratt should join the locals, go to Booker Air Park, visit the bar, sit outside socialising and enjoy the aircraft taking off and landing.

When we have visitors we take many of them there, they find it interesting, as for children, the air park excites them.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
10:45am Mon 11 Aug 08

To get slightly off-topic, however. It must be said that Ms. Pratt looks rather tasty in the photo, bit of a milf, actually.

Report this post »

davarn, says...
11:48am Mon 11 Aug 08

Someone on this forum mentioned the increase in air traffic at Booker airfield is "progress." I would suggest it is merely the result of a minority of people with excess disposable income, inflicting their noisy hobby on the majority with only self in mind.

Why? Because they can.

I can continually ride a Harley to and fro for one hour each weekend in the streets where Biggles abide, but I have more respect for common sense and I would likely be in the magistrates' court pdq.

I am slightly tempted to do that when I read the pro camp comments here.

I can't see much difference. How would you react?

Report this post »

sr, says...
11:54am Mon 11 Aug 08

wayne wrote:

sarge wrote: Won't someone please think of the children! My house backs onto the railway line in Wyc. Maybe I should start a campaign to reduce the amount of trains passing everyday. Especially the noisy "West Waste" trains that pass late at night. Anybody with me?
Yeah and i'm going to complain about the road outside of my house and get it closed down, I know some wheely well contacted people who are so influential that they could close it down wheely quickly but don't because, there are some even more well contacted and influential people who want it to remain open.

My next door neighbour sneezes a lot with hayfever at this time of year - reckon the environmental health would move her out for hayfever season?

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
12:23pm Mon 11 Aug 08

davarn wrote:
Someone on this forum mentioned the increase in air traffic at Booker airfield is "progress." I would suggest it is merely the result of a minority of people with excess disposable income, inflicting their noisy hobby on the majority with only self in mind. Why? Because they can. I can continually ride a Harley to and fro for one hour each weekend in the streets where Biggles abide, but I have more respect for common sense and I would likely be in the magistrates' court pdq. I am slightly tempted to do that when I read the pro camp comments here. I can't see much difference. How would you react?

As I get questionably road legal quad bikes, speeding buses, drunken students, drunken chav wife-beaters and anti-social yoofs all outside my front door, which opens directly onto the street, at all hours of the day and night I can tell you how I react.

I ignore it.

Apart from one time after the previously mentioned yoofs had egged our front window every day for two weeks, then I called the police.

However, after having our front door repeatedly kicked, spat on, burger sauce wiped on, grapheeteed(sp?)etc. all we tend to do is clean it off.

That is until I catch someone in the act...

Report this post »

LillyMoe, High Wycombe says...
1:16pm Mon 11 Aug 08

OMG 2 days of the year ? and how can she prove how high/low the plane was ?

Report this post »

A Lines, Chinnor says...
1:19pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Well done Su Pratt, Its about time this was stopped. I have had occassion to contact Booker on many occasions to complain about aircraft performing stunts over Chinnor village, with little or no response from the control tower. Perhaps when I shoot one down they will take notice

Report this post »

redkite, Newmer Common says...
2:31pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Instead of engaging in childish insults why dont you consider the facts.

WAP was created in 1938 in anticipation of war and served an excellent purpose during 39 -45 war.

After the war, and with the advent of jet planes, it no longer served a useful purpose and was going to be closed down.

A group of pilots employed by precursers of BA and SAA persuaded their bosses to take out a lease to enable them to indulge their leisure hobby flying.

WDC presumably had no other use for the 204 acre site at that time and agreed an initial 7 year lease, followed on by a 42 year lease in 1972, at a very modest rent.

The site today is probably worth about £ 200 million as a development site. If WDC simply sold it and put the money in a Building Society, our council tax would effectively benefit circa £ 10 million per annum.

WAP is still used almost entirely for leaisure flying by a small minority of people, an unknown number of whom are not residents of Wycombe District.

Noise nuisance, primarily from repetitive fixed wing and helicopter trainee circuits, is caused to many WDC residents located mainly to the west and east of WAP. Many of these houses were built before WAP was established.

WASPS, the current premiership champions, urgently need a bigger stadium if they are to remain in the Wycombe area.

Wycombe Wanderers may not currently need a bigger stadium but if they had one, perhaps this would encourage a better team and a rise thorugh the leagues similar to Reading FC. Meanwhile, they benefit financially from the ground sharing agreement.

Report this post »

RobinsonR44, Lane End says...
3:18pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Small Flame Henburger or whatever he calls himself - sorry Blaze Falconburger - seems to have his knickers in a twist. Wayne does come up with some constructive stuff some of the time and is obviously well informed on a number of issues. Unfortunatly he resorts to some below the belt stuff at times which dilutes his impact. The fact remains if people are disturbed hour after hour on a daily basis by noise from big boy's expensive toys they have a right to complain without being rubbished by those who quite rightly have an alternative point of view .

By all means support the air park, this is your right but do not be so disrespectful of others who do not wish to live with this menace flying over them.

Those who moved to houses near the air park, even 16 years ago, did not do so with the current level of air traffic flying from WAP. The number of flights then was not of any real significance compared to now. This is NOT ONCE A YEAR STUFF. In the last few years White Waltham residents got rid of their helicopter traffic and moved it to WAP thus creating yet more noise than could have been envisaged.

Elmo most certainly has a problem and deserves support - but to say you ignore it and then say - until I catch one - is a conflict - obviously if you catch someone you are not going to ignore it - good for you -they deserve whatever you dish out. Good luck.

When it comes to photos of aircraft the CAA can identify the height of a plane once they have information on the camera and lens used. So those who rubbish any possibility of the videos being of any use are ill informed.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
4:00pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Elmo most certainly has a problem and deserves support - but to say you ignore it and then say - until I catch one - is a conflict - obviously if you catch someone you are not going to ignore it - good for you -they deserve whatever you dish out. Good luck.

Yep, if they find the charred remains of some miscreant tied to a chair by their own entrails in a shed that had apparently been lined with many layers of plastic supermarket bags before being set alight, then the police may want to come knocking on my door. Although they may want to do it quietly.

Report this post »

George - Wycombe, says...
5:19pm Mon 11 Aug 08

The Airport could be used by travellers.
Thousands of them could camp out there until affordable housing is built.

Report this post »

redkite, Newmer Common says...
6:19pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Kitty
If yopu want to complain about the aicraft you can make an official complaint on the WAPAG website.
Just go to www.wapag.org.uk
your complaint will go automatically to WAP and a copy to WDC.

Report this post »

Blaze Falconburger, HW says...
6:43pm Mon 11 Aug 08

@Robinson44 - you almost displayed a bit of intelligence with that wit, until you posted:

When it comes to photos of aircraft the CAA can identify the height of a plane once they have information on the camera and lens used. So those who rubbish any possibility of the videos being of any use are ill informed.

Even with my limited photography and trig knowledge I cannot work out the distance can be calculated at all accurately without the following information:

- The height the camera is held from the ground

- Degrees of elevation the camera is being pointed at

The last point is obviously crucial to calculate the actual position of the aircraft, as distance from the camera is meaningless otherwise!

Report this post »

Sceaming Cowboy, Your House says...
11:51pm Mon 11 Aug 08

Sorry to disappoint you Blaze,
The altitude of an aircraft can be calculated from a picture or video, there is a lot of data required but it can be done, trig is only a small part of it, there is several computer programs dedicated to working this out, mostly military, the best has a 2% error (the further away the object the greater the error) some of the data required before to make these calculations is the width length of the aircraft, the focal length of the lens, the CMOS or CCDs aspect ratio, a land based object is helpful but not necessary, an easy giveaway can be the focal length of the lens determined by the f., the lower the f. the shorter the focal length the more accurate it is to measure the aircrafts distance from the camera, there is a lot more to it but I have outlined the basics for you, there is some info on older methods in this site, http://www.r-s-c-c.o
rg/rscc/v1l2.html, to me this aircraft in the video looks above 500 feet, does anyone know who the pilot was or have the aircraft registration number?

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
5:03pm Tue 12 Aug 08

redkite wrote:
Instead of engaging in childish insults why dont you consider the facts. WAP was created in 1938 in anticipation of war and served an excellent purpose during 39 -45 war. After the war, and with the advent of jet planes, it no longer served a useful purpose and was going to be closed down. A group of pilots employed by precursers of BA and SAA persuaded their bosses to take out a lease to enable them to indulge their leisure hobby flying. WDC presumably had no other use for the 204 acre site at that time and agreed an initial 7 year lease, followed on by a 42 year lease in 1972, at a very modest rent. The site today is probably worth about £ 200 million as a development site. If WDC simply sold it and put the money in a Building Society, our council tax would effectively benefit circa £ 10 million per annum. WAP is still used almost entirely for leaisure flying by a small minority of people, an unknown number of whom are not residents of Wycombe District. Noise nuisance, primarily from repetitive fixed wing and helicopter trainee circuits, is caused to many WDC residents located mainly to the west and east of WAP. Many of these houses were built before WAP was established. WASPS, the current premiership champions, urgently need a bigger stadium if they are to remain in the Wycombe area. Wycombe Wanderers may not currently need a bigger stadium but if they had one, perhaps this would encourage a better team and a rise thorugh the leagues similar to Reading FC. Meanwhile, they benefit financially from the ground sharing agreement.

Stop telling porkies!!!!! The facts are obviously lost on you aren't they? Booker Aerodrome (formerly Barmoor farm) was purchased to accommodate a flying school, it was always conceived as a civil aerodrome but in 1941 was acquired by the MOD for Flying Training where it remained in MOD hands up until 1964, civil flying resumed, (as orginally intended), in 1965 until present.

There is no subsidy by taxpayers of the airfields only, as i mentioned in another thread and which you have not yet reconciled, Maybe I am subsidising the oxygen with which you breath by planting trees in my Garden, you are likely to be subsidised by a high rate taxpayer who pays more tax than you do, shall I ask that you be wiped off of the face of the earth as a result? No, like your reasoning, it would be both a ridiculous and fallacious argument. Maybe we should concrete over the Rye because we can make a few quid, the more money that gets made, the more money that gets wasted.

Airfield movements have actually decreased since the 80s so statements that the airfield is busier year upon year are unfounded as are statements that most of the pilots are from outside of the are which IS the case with London WASPS supporters and alike.

[quote][bold]redkite[/bold] wrote: Instead of engaging in childish insults why dont you consider the facts. WAP was created in 1938 in anticipation of war and served an excellent purpose during 39 -45 war. After the war, and with the advent of jet planes, it no longer served a useful purpose and was going to be closed down. A group of pilots employed by precursers of BA and SAA persuaded their bosses to take out a lease to enable them to indulge their leisure hobby flying. WDC presumably had no other use for the 204 acre site at that time and agreed an initial 7 year lease, followed on by a 42 year lease in 1972, at a very modest rent. The site today is probably worth about £ 200 million as a development site. If WDC simply sold it and put the money in a Building Society, our council tax would effectively benefit circa £ 10 million per annum. WAP is still used almost entirely for leaisure flying by a small minority of people, an unknown number of whom are not residents of Wycombe District. Noise nuisance, primarily from repetitive fixed wing and helicopter trainee circuits, is caused to many WDC residents located mainly to the west and east of WAP. Many of these houses were built before WAP was established. WASPS, the current premiership champions, urgently need a bigger stadium if they are to remain in the Wycombe area. Wycombe Wanderers may not currently need a bigger stadium but if they had one, perhaps this would encourage a better team and a rise thorugh the leagues similar to Reading FC. Meanwhile, they benefit financially from the ground sharing agreement.[/quote] Stop telling porkies!!!!! The facts are obviously lost on you aren't they? Booker Aerodrome (formerly Barmoor farm) was purchased to accommodate a flying school, it was always conceived as a civil aerodrome but in 1941 was acquired by the MOD for Flying Training where it remained in MOD hands up until 1964, civil flying resumed, (as orginally intended), in 1965 until present. There is no subsidy by taxpayers of the airfields only, as i mentioned in another thread and which you have not yet reconciled, Maybe I am subsidising the oxygen with which you breath by planting trees in my Garden, you are likely to be subsidised by a high rate taxpayer who pays more tax than you do, shall I ask that you be wiped off of the face of the earth as a result? No, like your reasoning, it would be both a ridiculous and fallacious argument. Maybe we should concrete over the Rye because we can make a few quid, the more money that gets made, the more money that gets wasted. Airfield movements have actually decreased since the 80s so statements that the airfield is busier year upon year are unfounded as are statements that most of the pilots are from outside of the are which IS the case with London WASPS supporters and alike.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
5:05pm Tue 12 Aug 08

London Wasps attendance at Loftus Road - 2000

London Wasps attendance at Adams Park - 8000.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
5:21pm Tue 12 Aug 08

Those are average fugures too, I'll rewrite the last paragraph, I think you have misinterpreted it:

Airfield movements have actually decreased since the 80s so statements that the airfield is busier year upon year are unfounded, as are statements that most of the pilots are from outside the area, which may well be unlike the case for LONDON WASPS.

I also think the rise in support for Rugby was due to the sport being recognised Professionally and of course the winning of the World Cup.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
7:11pm Tue 12 Aug 08

Elmo wrote:
London Wasps attendance at Loftus Road - 2000 London Wasps attendance at Adams Park - 8000.

But the Adams Park stadium can hold 10,000! So with an average capacity crowd there will still be 2,000 spaces left!

Do they need a new stadium? Not on those figures....

Save Wycombe Air Park!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
12:29pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Blaze Falconburger wrote:
@Robinson44 - you almost displayed a bit of intelligence with that wit, until you posted:
When it comes to photos of aircraft the CAA can identify the height of a plane once they have information on the camera and lens used. So those who rubbish any possibility of the videos being of any use are ill informed.
Even with my limited photography and trig knowledge I cannot work out the distance can be calculated at all accurately without the following information: - The height the camera is held from the ground - Degrees of elevation the camera is being pointed at The last point is obviously crucial to calculate the actual position of the aircraft, as distance from the camera is meaningless otherwise!

When the CAA say 'you can't fly within 500ft of a person, vehicle or building' I think it is safe to say they can measure the distance from the PERSON operating the camera to the plane, NOT from some landmark to the plane. I am a photographer and yes they certainly can work out how close a plane is to my camera and I have already caught one aircraft diving and flying low over Sydenham. This thread has really gone off topic, the complaint was about noise and stunt flying over residential areas. I played drums in heavy metal bands for 25 years. Most people enjoy a concert but most of them would NOT enjoy listening to a drummer practicing for hours on end when they are trying to enjoy some peace and quiet in their garden....just like air shows please some and an individual plane buzzing around houses and villages can be annoying. Aerobatics, just like music is a sport/hobby or even classed as entertainment. It is NOT a necessity and should be treated as such. I also spend alot of time photographing classic American cars and muscle cars, real gas guzzlers - 8mpg even. Now these guys are well aware of the way petrol prices and oil availability will affect their hobby in the future, but the rich kids with their planes must surely think what the future holds for them. You can hardly have a bio fuel or electric stunt plane? Maybe one day, just like petrol powered cars, petrol engined planes will die out too, and the hobby side of it will no longer exist.....hopefully?

[quote][bold]Blaze Falconburger[/bold] wrote: @Robinson44 - you almost displayed a bit of intelligence with that wit, until you posted: [quote]When it comes to photos of aircraft the CAA can identify the height of a plane once they have information on the camera and lens used. So those who rubbish any possibility of the videos being of any use are ill informed.[/quote] Even with my limited photography and trig knowledge I cannot work out the distance can be calculated at all accurately without the following information: - The height the camera is held from the ground - Degrees of elevation the camera is being pointed at The last point is obviously crucial to calculate the actual position of the aircraft, as distance from the camera is meaningless otherwise! [/quote] When the CAA say 'you can't fly within 500ft of a person, vehicle or building' I think it is safe to say they can measure the distance from the PERSON operating the camera to the plane, NOT from some landmark to the plane. I am a photographer and yes they certainly can work out how close a plane is to my camera and I have already caught one aircraft diving and flying low over Sydenham. This thread has really gone off topic, the complaint was about noise and stunt flying over residential areas. I played drums in heavy metal bands for 25 years. Most people enjoy a concert but most of them would NOT enjoy listening to a drummer practicing for hours on end when they are trying to enjoy some peace and quiet in their garden....just like air shows please some and an individual plane buzzing around houses and villages can be annoying. Aerobatics, just like music is a sport/hobby or even classed as entertainment. It is NOT a necessity and should be treated as such. I also spend alot of time photographing classic American cars and muscle cars, real gas guzzlers - 8mpg even. Now these guys are well aware of the way petrol prices and oil availability will affect their hobby in the future, but the rich kids with their planes must surely think what the future holds for them. You can hardly have a bio fuel or electric stunt plane? Maybe one day, just like petrol powered cars, petrol engined planes will die out too, and the hobby side of it will no longer exist.....hopefully?

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
12:54pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Why is it assumed that those that fly are rich? what ulterior motive could the negative campaigners be trying to achieve by spewing such bile?

Many pilots i know are far from rich yet they put their money into a legal activity which many, (a majority it seems), enjoy.

Like i've stated previously, the aircraft movements at Booker have decreased since the 80s, there aren't many aerobatic aircraft based at Booker, the training area is quite substantial and covers many aerodromes, not just Booker.

Report this post »

Terminator, Oxfordshire says...
1:14pm Wed 13 Aug 08

I am not talking just about Booker, I am speaking in general. I can't remember the last time I saw a poor man with an aircraft that drinks petrol like a fish? In fact, even the richest people I know can't afford a plane.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
2:06pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Don't miss-understand me, I do not want the airfield to go. I think there are better places in Wycombe for a new stadium, which Wasps have to have due to regulations put in place by the Rugby governing bodies.

I only wish to point out that the statement that most of Wasps supporters come from outside the area is not born out by the figures.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
5:01pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Elmo wrote:
Don't miss-understand me, I do not want the airfield to go. I think there are better places in Wycombe for a new stadium, which Wasps have to have due to regulations put in place by the Rugby governing bodies. I only wish to point out that the statement that most of Wasps supporters come from outside the area is not born out by the figures.

Who knows Elmo? it is very easy to generalise without knowing the actual figures;that said, I think the popularity of Rugby has increased year on year for the reasons I've already specified, especialyy for league. I like Rugby, more so than football; the crowds are pleasant, it's a sport where you can take kids there and opposing fans shake hands with each other after a game then get on with it, unlike football.

That said, as you state, there are other places where the stadium could be built and I am at a loss, (apart from the egos of Councillors) to understand why the stadium capacity could not be increased at the present site, I'd rather spend 250k of taxpayers money on the exisiting stadium personally.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
5:13pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Terminator wrote:
I am not talking just about Booker, I am speaking in general. I can't remember the last time I saw a poor man with an aircraft that drinks petrol like a fish? In fact, even the richest people I know can't afford a plane.

Depends on what aircraft you buy, most of the aircraft are owned by a Company then leased out, that way flying is open to a majority of people, most aerobatic aircraft are operated by sponsorship, other airraft that are owned are purchased as a share; as such, one does not have to be rich in order to fly.

Secondly, as for the richest people you know, not being able to afford an aircraft, the giveaway is the "I know"; by being the richest that you know, does not mean they are rich enough to be able to afford an aircraft in the first place, nice try with the semantics nevertheless.

Report this post »

Sceaming Cowboy, Waynes World says...
5:54pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Wayne this is a very interesting history lesson, Wayne omitted the bit that when the flying school that was purchased it was for military training and there is no record of civilian use before the MOD aquired it in 1941. civil flying never resumed because it never started!

Stop telling porkies!!!!! The facts are obviously lost on you aren't they? Booker Aerodrome (formerly Barmoor farm) was purchased to accommodate a flying school, it was always conceived as a civil aerodrome but in 1941 was acquired by the MOD for Flying Training where it remained in MOD hands up until 1964, civil flying resumed, (as orginally intended), in 1965 until present.

I have been looking at Wycombe Air Parks official air movements for the last 25 years, Wayne I am not sure where you get your facts from there is a very large increase in aircraft movements during this period, Wycombe Air Park is now one of the busiest aerodromes in Great Britain.
I am not interested in whether WAP is subsidised by the tax payers or not, but looking at your track record I would suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.

Report this post »

Ivor, says...
6:39pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Sceaming Cowboy, 5:54pm:
Wycombe Air Park is now one of the busiest aerodromes in Great Britain.

Thats great news. Lets hope it can continue to build on its success for many years to come.

Save Wycombe Air Park!

Have you read Ivors blog today? Click on the Opinion link on the menu on the left then click on Readers Blogs.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
7:47pm Wed 13 Aug 08

Sceaming Cowboy wrote:
Wayne this is a very interesting history lesson, Wayne omitted the bit that when the flying school that was purchased it was for military training and there is no record of civilian use before the MOD aquired it in 1941. civil flying never resumed because it never started!

Stop telling porkies!!!!! The facts are obviously lost on you aren't they? Booker Aerodrome (formerly Barmoor farm) was purchased to accommodate a flying school, it was always conceived as a civil aerodrome but in 1941 was acquired by the MOD for Flying Training where it remained in MOD hands up until 1964, civil flying resumed, (as orginally intended), in 1965 until present.

I have been looking at Wycombe Air Parks official air movements for the last 25 years, Wayne I am not sure where you get your facts from there is a very large increase in aircraft movements during this period, Wycombe Air Park is now one of the busiest aerodromes in Great Britain.
I am not interested in whether WAP is subsidised by the tax payers or not, but looking at your track record I would suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.

wow!! I've been cooking my own meals for the last 20 years and I'm still cr@p at it. As for the attack on my name, you're so hilarious, you are so original.

As for not knowing what I'm talking about, I'm afraid that I do, look out for my website on the detailed history of Booker Aerodrome, coming soon.

Report this post »

Ms Smith, Lane End says...
9:36pm Wed 13 Aug 08

I have lived in the area for over 30 years and have enjoyed visiting the air park and seeing the aircarft fly overhead. What I have not enjoyed is the increase in noise from the growing number of helicopters. I (and most members of WAPAG) would hate to see WAP close but the fact is the noise level has increased dramatically over recent years. If you can do something about the noise and the low flying aircraft - that would make everyone happy.

Blaze Falconburger's comment about the incident "blatantly going to be used with no other intention other than to shut the air park" is a bit far fetched! The article just highlights the views of one angry resident who has had her peace and quiet disrupted one too many times.

All I can say is long live WAP but please fly considerately (and quietly!) over residential areas.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
10:57pm Wed 13 Aug 08

That's a thoughtful post Ms Smith. As I've stated before, a compromise is best for all, it would be good for the airfield and good for those who do not like noise, that said, it does have to be a compromise; I should imagine that making threats of do as we say or we will close the airfield is not going to endear any user/supporter of the airfield to their cause.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
9:08am Thu 14 Aug 08

That said, as you state, there are other places where the stadium could be built and I am at a loss, (apart from the egos of Councillors) to understand why the stadium capacity could not be increased at the present site, I'd rather spend 250k of taxpayers money on the exisiting stadium personally.

The current site is unsuitable as it only has one road into and out of it. It's a health and safety issue as the road gets blocked by pedestrians after the match making it dangerous for cars parked in the surrounding businesses and for access for the emergency services. The current stadium could hold 11,500 but is limited to 10,000 because of this road.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
9:31am Thu 14 Aug 08

Cheers Elmo,

So let me get this right, they're having to build a new stadium and using 250 grand of taxpayers money to fund a feasability study, in order inorporate three thousand extra people because they need another road? There's no logic to this at all.

Surely a relief/service road could be laid?

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
9:43am Thu 14 Aug 08

It has been looked into, the land behind is all greenbelt and part of the Dashwood estate, so no go I'm afraid.

Report this post »

wayne, wycombe says...
11:18am Thu 14 Aug 08

The air park is also situated in greenbelt. Is Dashwood immune from a compulsory purchase order? The Council has managed to purchase property in Hughenden Road using a CP only then to decide they don't require them; why should a mere strip of land be any different?

This has a rancid stench about it, some more research I think.

Report this post »

bubbles, outer space says...
10:50am Sat 16 Aug 08

Elmo wrote:
London Wasps attendance at Loftus Road - 2000 London Wasps attendance at Adams Park - 8000.

And attendance at welford rd for Leicester tigers is 17,500 :-) regurly sells out!

Maybe the plaintiff is in cahoots with local property tycoons to get the airfield shut down, buy the land cheap then make a bundle by development?

Report this post »

RobinsonR44, Lane End says...
9:01am Mon 18 Aug 08

"I do not consider that as a pilot I have a special right to fly around in a noisy aircraft annoying people on the ground" Ivan Shaw - head of Liberty Aerospace European ops. This is just a small example of a fair minded pilot who obviously does not operate from WAP. Please also note that White Waltham makes every effort to be a good neighbour and funded the fitting of silencers to all their planes. When WAP were offered full funding by a local resident to fit silencers to all their planes they turned the offer down. This in itself speaks volumes as to why WAP is an unco operative, anti social neighbour who has over many decades refused all efforts to improve relationships with local residents. When you know the full stories then you can comment on the strategies used by WAP.

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
9:03am Mon 18 Aug 08

And attendance at welford rd for Leicester tigers is 17,500 :-) regurly sells out!

Shame they didn't all come down for the final though...

Report this post »

bubbles, outer space says...
4:13pm Mon 18 Aug 08

Elmo wrote:

And attendance at welford rd for Leicester tigers is 17,500 :-) regurly sells out!
Shame they didn't all come down for the final though...

Well You go twickers as many times as your average tigers fan and youd be bored with it !

Report this post »

Elmo, High Wycombe says...
10:55am Tue 19 Aug 08

Especially as you keep losing to Wasps.

Report this post »

WEDDINGS

Your Bucks

News RSS Feed