Comments on the new hangar plans!

[Paramania]

Let's keep this positive, what do you think of the new plans - and do you have any suggestions to improve.  I'm sure that the Trust people still read this forum.  One rule:

- Don't ask questions that are answered in the documents.

Chocks out, GO!

http://planning.doncaster.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=OW61G9FXJRD00

[wcg]

I'm back agin ! 

For those of you out there who don't frequent the UKAR forum, you may be unaware that some objections to the plans have been made....by DSRHA's owners/operators !

As I posted on UKAR, these are the objections that I could find :

    This hangar does not penetrate the OLS surface at any point.
    It is in direct line of sight for radar which will require a detail technical assessment for the impact on line of sight.
    For construction a Crane authorisation Form (CAF) will be required prior to any works.
    Wind modelling may also be requires by to proximity of hangar to the runway threshold
    SPV installation will require modelling with panels ensuring no glare is experienced in line with FAA / ICAO requirements with the developer using a SGHAT tool specifically and reference its results as this was developed by the FAA and Sandia National Laboratories as a standard and approved methodology for assessing potential impacts on aviation interests.
    The airport will need certified signed documented testimonials, a safety case and / or risk assessment that the glare will be at safe levels and that the type of SPV panel to be used will have a reduced glare to minimise the risk to aircraft unlike other standard residential and commercial reflective surfaces for aircraft circling the ATZ or approaching from the north.



    1. A line of sight survey must be conducted with a review of the impacts on DSA primary radar, which must be submitted to the airport and evaluated prior to any construction taking place.
    2. Any high reach equipment over 10m in height above ground must be approved by the airport authority before its use. Forms can be found at http://dsa.aero/ops-information/useful- ... -documents
    3. Any SPV installed will require modelling with panels ensuring no glint or glare is experienced in line with FAA / ICAO requirements with the developer using a SGHAT tool specifically and references its results as this was developed by the FAA and Sandia National Laboratories as a standard and approved methodology for assessing potential impacts on aviation interests. The airport will need certified signed documented testimonials, a safety case and / or risk assessment that the glint or glare will be at safe levels and that the type of SPV panels to be used will have a reduced glint / glare to minimise the risk to aircraft unlike other standard residential and commercial reflective surfaces for aircraft circling the ATZ or approaching from the north.
    4. Detail to ensure that no part of the build will increase any wild life activities within the aerodrome boundary by ensuring the structure does not increase / encourage roosting or nesting.

[sickbag_andy]

I did notice the comments on UKAR Clive.

I don't think any of these are show stoppers, it will probably end up with approval with the points raised listed as conditions to be met before construction commences, that is quite common. I has a similar situation a several years ago when I designed a golf course, it was passed on appeal but with various conditions placed on the approval all that had to be met to the satisfaction of the authority before construction could commence.

the bigger impact will more likely be on cost - all the investigation will cost money, some of it is specialist work so the provider is in an advantageous situation and any changes to the design are likely to push the cost up. What effect that will have on any sponsor for the construction I don't know but it may commit them to a higher budget than they expected. The cost of the investigations and reports etc may need to be borne by the Trust - bang goes some of the name plaque scheme monies earlier than expected!

[wcg]

As some have commented on UKAR, though, if discussions took place with the airport's owners before the plans were submitted, why weren't these points raised at the time ?

[sickbag_andy]

as the airport is probably the no.1 key player then yes it would have been logical to hold discussions AND a competent consultant should be fully aware of these sorts of issues, they must be pretty standard for airport works.

re the interference with radar signals, that should have been an obvious one to check. when I was resident engineer on the new Southend sewage works in the late 1990s we had to sent radio signals between the Southend site and Rochford sewage works which was close to the approach and the line of signals was almost parallel to it so that was the first thing I raised with the designer, he was an in house guy and a sewage treatment rather than aviation works expert and wasn't aware of potential issues but I suppose it was only my interest in aviation made me aware of it but in this instance it's on an airport site so really should be looking at potential hazards to the site owner. I am surprised if it wasn't discussed up front (and as the airport have raised it now it seems it wasn't).

[dee]

Pppfffftttttttttttt

[sickbag_andy]

Or on the other hand the Trust or their representative may have decided to submit without the investigations with the attitude thatit may or may not be of a concern to the airport andif not and the airport did not ask for them then they could have spent money on a report which was unnecessary.

Remember these are not objections as such, just requests for information or clarification where they (the airport) feel more info is needed. That really isnt that unusual in planning applications and is a way of avoiding unnecessary work

[brains_mt]

The subject of radio waves and disturbance from buildings etc is an odd one. There are two wind turbines at East Midlands Airport which have been working there for a number of years. However there are two turbines in Spondon some miles away and these tow have only just started to work as they had been found to cause problems at EMA with the aircraft. Its taken years for this to be sorted out!

[sickbag_andy]

I visited the new Bristol Aerospace museum on Thursday, it's in 2 parts with most of the exhibits in the old WW.1 hangars and Concorde in a brand new purpose built building which is excellent - that would act as a good 'blueprint' for the Trust to follow. I posted pics of it here: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/smf/index.php?topic=7893.msg81883#new

or if you're not logged in my pics are in this Flickr album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125470545@N07/albums/72157690452144886

It's got plenty of viewing space at both ground and higher level with static exhibitions as well but fairly 'functional' construction. The quoted price for the whole museum is £19 million but I can't find a cost for the new building element as a comparison.
For the Trust to produce something similar that will be the hardest part -funding it.

[minty4371]

Permission has been GRANTED today for the hangar.
http://planning.doncaster.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OW61G9FXJRD00

[dee]

Lovley Address she now recides under!!

[jakspeed]

Won’t be long before the begging bowls are out again - ‘oh joy, we have the planning for the Hanger now give us yer money so we can build it!!!’

[ADI]

the plans show the swift to be living outside the new hangar    had lots of begging emails this last week,


hope the whole thing works out for the aircrafts sake

[StAthan lecky]

Won’t be long before the begging bowls are out again - ‘oh joy, we have the planning for the Hanger now give us yer money so we can build it!!!’

now give us yer money so we can build it!!!’ I think you got that bit wrongJax ! it should read "now give us yer money so we can squander it "!!!’

Mike

[StAthan lecky]

Perhaps the Trust would like to take a leaf out of "The Peoples Mosquito" news letter that has just been published and I quote


A key pillar of our existence is to be honest to the public on funds raised and monies allocated.


The TPM board remain fully committed to this policy of open and transparent reporting of all our activities, and always willing to answer any question on our accounts.

I live in hope

Mike