FACC July 2005
Keith Parkins | 25.03.2005 16:21 | Analysis
The dysfunctional Farnborough Airport Consultative Committee met on the afternoon of Thursday 24 July 2005.
Most airports have a consultative committee, FACC is the consultative committee for Farnborough Airport. It comprises one third airport operators and users, one third local community, one third local authorities. Or at least it should. It is actually overloaded with local authority representatives who are a dead weight and make no useful contribution.
The committee welcomed back Jenny Radley. Jenny Radley is one of only two committee members who speak with authority and represent the local community. Most of the councils sit there like stuffed dummies, and when they do speak they simply demonstrate their ignorance and act to the detriment of the local community.
A spokesman for a body representing European business aviation gave a presentation. We learnt that business aviation was good for society, good for the environment, good for the economy and good for business. That their pilots were professionals. That business airports were good neighbours. As an ex-employee of Shell we also learnt what a good company Shell was.
On the approach to Farnborough aircraft terrain follow, come in too low, come in an acute angles. Shell is the company that lied about its reserves, is complicit in atrocities in Nigeria.
In essence, we learnt how business externalises its costs on the rest of society.
After the close of the meeting, I suggested to several people that FACC should have a presentation on the societal and environmental costs of business aviation.
FACC now has a website which went live a few days before the meeting. It is fairly comprehensive. Lacking is a search engine and a discussion forum.
http://www.facc.org.uk
As with previous meetings, there was no publicity for this meeting. A website is a step in the right direction.
The public were allowed to ask a few questions but the public participation is still woefully inadequate for a committee whose sole function is consultation with the local community. For this reason we need an open discussion area on the website.
A lengthy discussion took place on the overflying over Church Chrookham. This would be easily solved by pilots continuing on the centre line of the runway past Church Chrookham before turning, but this would add an extra minute to flight time. A classic example of business externalising its costs.
Roland Dibbs, a Rushmoor councillor, demonstrated what a disgrace he is by claiming residents in Farnborough were not bothered by overflying. There was howl of protest from the public gallery, but the chairman refused any intervention on this item by the public.
Norman Lambert, a Hart councillor, was little better. He could not see that Church Crookham residents, people he is supposed to represent, were experiencing a problem.
When FACC was originally established Councillor Lambert created a huge fuss that Hart was not fairly represented. Now that it is fairly represented, and he himself sits on the committee, he does little to act for the people of Hart.
The problems Church Chrookham are experiencing is down to Rushmoor, as the planning authority, not putting in adequate procedures at the planning stage. There would not be a problem if Rushmoor had defined mandatory flight corridors that avoided overflying residential areas.
The next meeting of the committee will be July 2005. Details can be found on the FACC website.
http://www.facc.org.uk
The committee welcomed back Jenny Radley. Jenny Radley is one of only two committee members who speak with authority and represent the local community. Most of the councils sit there like stuffed dummies, and when they do speak they simply demonstrate their ignorance and act to the detriment of the local community.
A spokesman for a body representing European business aviation gave a presentation. We learnt that business aviation was good for society, good for the environment, good for the economy and good for business. That their pilots were professionals. That business airports were good neighbours. As an ex-employee of Shell we also learnt what a good company Shell was.
On the approach to Farnborough aircraft terrain follow, come in too low, come in an acute angles. Shell is the company that lied about its reserves, is complicit in atrocities in Nigeria.
In essence, we learnt how business externalises its costs on the rest of society.
After the close of the meeting, I suggested to several people that FACC should have a presentation on the societal and environmental costs of business aviation.
FACC now has a website which went live a few days before the meeting. It is fairly comprehensive. Lacking is a search engine and a discussion forum.
http://www.facc.org.uk As with previous meetings, there was no publicity for this meeting. A website is a step in the right direction.
The public were allowed to ask a few questions but the public participation is still woefully inadequate for a committee whose sole function is consultation with the local community. For this reason we need an open discussion area on the website.
A lengthy discussion took place on the overflying over Church Chrookham. This would be easily solved by pilots continuing on the centre line of the runway past Church Chrookham before turning, but this would add an extra minute to flight time. A classic example of business externalising its costs.
Roland Dibbs, a Rushmoor councillor, demonstrated what a disgrace he is by claiming residents in Farnborough were not bothered by overflying. There was howl of protest from the public gallery, but the chairman refused any intervention on this item by the public.
Norman Lambert, a Hart councillor, was little better. He could not see that Church Crookham residents, people he is supposed to represent, were experiencing a problem.
When FACC was originally established Councillor Lambert created a huge fuss that Hart was not fairly represented. Now that it is fairly represented, and he himself sits on the committee, he does little to act for the people of Hart.
The problems Church Chrookham are experiencing is down to Rushmoor, as the planning authority, not putting in adequate procedures at the planning stage. There would not be a problem if Rushmoor had defined mandatory flight corridors that avoided overflying residential areas.
The next meeting of the committee will be July 2005. Details can be found on the FACC website.
http://www.facc.org.uk
Keith Parkins