if i really sued every1 i said i would i school,if be richier than bill gates
Sorry to sound a slightly discordant note guys.
Actually the house had been there for hundreds of years before the base and as I recall, most aircraft movements had been reduced or even terminated in recent years until there was a decision to reactivate with the Harrier training.
Problem was they were using the house to line up the trainee pilots, continuously overflying it and as I recall (although I can't be sure) flying outside of the agreed hours to the extent it was affecting the lives and business of the residents.
Sorry folks, when I saw the recent TV news report I initially felt like most of you but when I heard the full details my sympathies were with the people. Looks like the authorities felt the same way also.
Surely quality of life is more important than the right to fly whenever and wherever you want - especially when there are so many closed airfields in the UK that could be reactivated for the purpose while affecting almost no one.
I'm sure as an occasional posting guest I'll get some flack on this one, but it's too easy to get hysterical if you don't know (or want to know) the facts.
But who would buy a house next to a military airfield? It will be noisy, no matter what you want
Well, the house was built in 1678 so it's been there much longer than the airfield. The present owners moved there in 1963 when activity was confined to conventional aircraft. They had no objection to that & all was fine until the Harriers started operating there in 1967. If you've ever heard a Harrier landing you will know just how noisy they are. I don't usually have much time for people who complain about aircraft noise but have a certain sympathy with the owners in this instance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4622483,00.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests