PILOT Magazine - Interessante Aussage zum Thema "Flugplätze schliessen"

[kerosin]

In der September 2011 Ausgabe vom englischen "Pilot"-Magazin, ist ein interessanter Kommentar mit dem Titel "Be careful what you wish for, Nimbys*" publiziert worden.

* Nimby steht für Not In My Back Yard (Nicht in meinem Vorgarten)

 

Dave Unwin (Autor des Kommentars) stellt eine einfache Frage:

"An airfield is simply a large open space covered with grass... Would anyone really rather trade that for a truck distribution centre or landfill site?"

 

Ich habe den gesamten Kommentar angehängt und wünsche viel Spass beim Lesen.

Why do so many active airfields have to fight a constant battle to remain open? It always strikes me as rather ironic that while many anti-airfield protestors wave a 'Green' banner, a GA airfield is primarily a great big 'green lung'. When an airfield is used for flying (and especially GA), it is simply an extremely large open space covered largely with grass, it is often a haven for wildlife, as no intensive farming or usage of organo¬phosphates and pesticides occur, so insects and birds can thrive. So, frankly, I am astonished at the pressure airfields such as Kernble, Dunsfold and North Weald are put under - and amazed at the naivety of some protestors.

Should an airfield be forced to close, surely the complaining locals don't really believe that it will simply become ‘common land’ and be allowed to revert to nature? Airfields are generally large, well-drained sites that often fall within the definition of ‘Brownfield’ in 'PPS3 Housing, Annex A'. The government has made it plain that its agenda is to redevelop such sites first - and remember that the definition was rewritten in 2006 to redefine airfields, and all the land within the curtilage (the surrounding area) as Brownfield instead of Greenfield.

I suspect that many an anti-airfield protestor has ruefully learned the inherent wisdom of the proverb ‘be careful what you wish for’ - usually when they learn that the airfield they fought so hard to close has just been bought by a rapacious developer. Do you know just how many modern box-homes could be crammed onto a site the size of Dunsfold? A Planning Application submitted in 2006 proposed 2,600 (and don't forget that each house will have at least two cars). Now, can you imagine what the A281 would be like in the rush hour? It'd be carmageddon! And even if an entire town isn't built there, I'm sure the airfield would eventually be turned into something far less agreeable than a large open space.

Would anyone really rather trade that clean, green field for a 24-hour truck distribution centre, a landfill site or a traveller's camp? What about a high-security jail or an industrial incinerator? No, I don't think so either.

I've always felt that airspace and airfields should be viewed as a strategic resource - and should be managed as such. However, Britain's politicians have never been blessed with the gift of foresight, so I imagine that more valuable - and irreplaceable - airfields will soon be sold off for redevelopment.

Will our airfields be betrayed in a similar fashion as the railways? The excellent BBC4 documentary 'Ian Hislop Goes Off The Rails' detailed that debacle, but if you didn't see it, or don't know the story, allow me to elaborate. At the start of the 1950s Britain had an incredibly comprehensive railway system. It consisted of some 21,000 miles of track which connected around 6,000 stations, and it was the envy of The World. But in the early 1960s it was decided that the future of transport lay with roads, not railways, and the then-transport minister (who by curious coincidence, was also the director of a major road construction company) tasked a Dr Richard Beeching with modernising the railways. Beeching's plan was savage and ill-conceived. Its implementation decimated the rail network, and by the end of the decade around 3,000 stations (more than half the total) had been closed and 4,000 miles of railway torn up. It was an unmitigated disaster, particularly for many rural communities.

Last week I set off in 'Biffo' to search for abandoned and disused railways and, believe me, it is truly remarkable just how many you can find once you start looking for them. I also noticed something else - quite often, running parallel with the remains of a long-dead branch line was a road that appeared to be quite close to capacity. I even saw some lines of stationary traffic. Can you imagine how useful all those old lines would be if they hadn't been so thoughtlessly dug up? Modern ‘sprinter’ trains could be shuttling between so many towns... Unfortunately, once the infrastructure has been destroyed it is extremely difficult to reactivate it. The same is true with airfields, particularly if a road has been built across the runway.

To my mind, an airfield is an asset for any community, and for all members of that community. It should be cherished and preserved. Aircraft will continue to get greener and quieter and, as surface transport continues to deteriorate, interest in personal air transport must surely grow. This is one reason why NASA has spent millions of research dollars on the Small Aircraft Transportation System project.

One thing is for sure: once an airfield is gone, it is gone forever.

 

DAVE UNWIN

Past Editor of Today's Pilot, Dave has been flying for 26 years and has over 41,300 hours in more than 250 different types, ranging from antique gliders to jet fighters. I-le owns an Evans VP-1