Where has XH558 thread gone?

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
Locked
vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

Skymonster wrote:The airport has raised a number of objections to the proposed Vulcan hangar development which, while not stopping it dead in its tracks, seem likely to involved further design / planning / assessment before work can go ahead. Maybe I am naive to the nuances of the planning process, but I am rather surprised that the designers did not investigate the impact the hangar would have on the airport radar, sight lines from the ATC tower, wind turbulence for aircraft on approach, and light glare. More cynically, the question "have they really thought this through?" comes to mind.

The local ecology planner has also raised objections that need to be address, and further clarification of issues surrounding water drainage and air quality impact have been requested.

Intresting, but it was expected.
Nothing on the ILS etc then.

IgnatiusJReilly
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2014, 4:59 pm
Location: New Orleans

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by IgnatiusJReilly »

Skymonster wrote:The airport has raised a number of objections to the proposed Vulcan hangar development


Maybe I'm naive or a bit simple, but wouldn't anyone with half a brain have made sure that what you were proposing has, at the very least, got your neighbours approval before you go as far as submitting a planning request?

The last time we had building works, we made sure we first had the neighbours support - or at least an agreement that they wouldn't object - before applying. (Or in our case before even getting the drawings done)
:dizzy:

Although the conspiracy theorist in me would suggest that this conveniently provides a more palatable excuse for why they aren't proceeding with building anything, which sounds better than 'we whizzed all the cash up the wall on salaries'..
Eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion..

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

IgnatiusJReilly wrote:
Skymonster wrote:The airport has raised a number of objections to the proposed Vulcan hangar development


Maybe I'm naive or a bit simple, but wouldn't anyone with half a brain have made sure that what you were proposing has, at the very least, got your neighbours approval before you go as far as submitting a planning request?

The last time we had building works, we made sure we first had the neighbours support - or at least an agreement that they wouldn't object - before applying. (Or in our case before even getting the drawings done)
:dizzy:

Although the conspiracy theorist in me would suggest that this conveniently provides a more palatable excuse for why they aren't proceeding with building anything, which sounds better than 'we whizzed all the cash up the wall on salaries'..

It's like a lot of us on this forum keep saying, that the airport dont seem to want it.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

Oh my god, this just gets worse and worse. I remember reading the initial press release VttST made in maybe 2013 when it started talking about retirement plans and the wording was such that the decision could not be made lightly as where she landed would be where she would stay forever. Yet the decision seems to have been made purely on wishful thinking and boundless enthusiasm rather than any agreement or commitment from the airport or local developers. The taxi runs, the Etna project, Canberra to the Sky, all great in principle, but no substance at all. Build it and they will come, or rather land 558 here and they will come, seems to have been the extent of the plan. This is despite a perfectly obvious location in Leicestershire, which wanted her to return, where she could have joined her old friends for a few more decades at least.

Mr Pleming has taken a massive gamble with 558's future, and sadly, the gamble just doesn't seem to paying off. It's so tragic as I really don't see what can be done now. Lets hope she can be kept running for a couple more years at least. Although it pains me to give my money to this bunch of clowns to frit away, I think anyone who would like to hear 558 one last time, should book themselves on to the next event in the new year (hopefully they will be able to do some more), as you might not get the chance for much longer the ways things are going.

Skymonster
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri 28 Aug 2009, 2:21 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Skymonster »

vulcan558 wrote:Intresting, but it was expected.


If the airport's objections were expected, why were mitigation measures not developed before the plans were submitted?

As I said initially the objections do not appear to stop the project dead in its tracks, but seem to suggest further research and design work might be required. I guess the end result could range from anywhere between "no changes needed" and "project as proposed not feasible". To my view though, which is maybe naive, the issues raised seem to point to the prospect of further delays.

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

I'm surprised that those for whom this was 'expected' didn't tell us all about it before now...

User avatar
aviodromefriend
Posts: 2415
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by aviodromefriend »

MicrolightDriver wrote:I'm surprised that those for whom this was 'expected' didn't tell us all about it before now...
I thought there was something about animals discussed when the planning was submitted. Surprised though that the airport seems to have some kind of trouble with this. The trust were telling everybody how cooperative they were (or are the problems raised by people working for companies at the airport, not bij the airport itself?)
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that

Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program

Skymonster
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri 28 Aug 2009, 2:21 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Skymonster »

I seem to recall VTTST saying they'd spent time consulting with the airport before the plan to build a hangar next to the sewage farm was hatched and the land allocated. Maybe I'm being naive again, but if they'd been talking to the airport why wouldn't they check with the airport that the plans for the hangar were ok before they were submitted to the council - I mean how hard is it to ask "Will this be ok for you?" I guess it's possible the airport's objections can be overcome quickly and easily, but I struggle to understand the seeming lack of joined up thinking. Is this really the way planning applications typically evolve, or is it a sign of something else? I dunno - greater minds than mine may be able to explain with greater clarity.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

These objections really are quite odd when you stop and think about it. VttST said the plans had taken considerable preparation over many months. The airport is helping them with the acquisition of the land. The only explanation is either the airport have moved the goal posts or VttST have screwed up and not given the airport a preview of the full plans before submitting them. Either one of these possibilities isn't good.

Frankly what does it matter? The seach continues for that elusive developer with £2.8 million burning a hole in his pocket ready to build a visitors center that won't be able to pay the rent (or at least not enough rent). There's not exactly any rush for the planning permission as nothing is going to be built anyway in my opinion.

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:I'm surprised that those for whom this was 'expected' didn't tell us all about it before now...

Who is Us.

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

Skymonster wrote:I seem to recall VTTST saying they'd spent time consulting with the airport before the plan to build a hangar next to the sewage farm was hatched and the land allocated. Maybe I'm being naive again, but if they'd been talking to the airport why wouldn't they check with the airport that the plans for the hangar were ok before they were submitted to the council - I mean how hard is it to ask "Will this be ok for you?" I guess it's possible the airport's objections can be overcome quickly and easily, but I struggle to understand the seeming lack of joined up thinking. Is this really the way planning applications typically evolve, or is it a sign of something else? I dunno - greater minds than mine may be able to explain with greater clarity.

The Elusive 50k a pop Consultant I guess will be in next years accounts, doing a sterling job.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Brevet Cable »

The objections from DSA that I can find, both of which contain pretty much the same points :
This hanger 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.


Given the fact that the damn things will roost anywhere, the only difficult one will be in preventing nesting by seagulls & pigeons ( I've never seen a hangar covered in bird-spikes :lol: )
Last edited by Brevet Cable on Fri 27 Oct 2017, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
HeyfordDave111
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat 21 Feb 2015, 5:30 pm
Location: In my minds eye, Greenham Common for 'that' show.

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by HeyfordDave111 »

To resubmit a revised planning application isn’t free you know.

It costs, and Whatever it does cost, it will now cost twice.

Amazing that the airport weren’t consulted, and they objected, as they are allowed to do, on sensible and I’d imagine quite crucial points.

So.....taking Into account the place allocated to build this hangar, how are they going to overcome the objections and build a ‘safe’ hangar the airport and the CAA (presumably) can live with. After all, it must be easy to move the plot elsewhere, or change 558’s position and RCS, etc, mustn’t it?

I’m not saying this is it, but these objections to a building that is designed to fit 558 inside, could be the death knell for the hangar at that location.

As for another airport location? I know a farm area was mooted a while back on here, but i’d Venture that hard standing filled with holiday makers cars for 7-14 days at a time will bring in more money than 558 will.
After all, what does 558 bring to the DRH party now? I’d suggest nothing. But what would car parking for 2000 cars bring to the party?

And remember, they might want a new hangar or 2 or a second terminal themselves that they will need space for.
Got to love Russianhardware

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Brevet Cable »

Would they need to resubmit, though ?
None of DSA's objections would appear to require they do so as they don't seem to be demanding changes to the structure.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

MicrolightDriver wrote:I'm surprised that those for whom this was 'expected' didn't tell us all about it before now...

The same We, that said too the Us, not to retire 558 to Doncaster.

vulcan558
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2012, 9:45 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by vulcan558 »

Brevet Cable wrote:Would they need to resubmit, though ?
None of DSA's objections would appear to require they do so as they don't seem to be demanding changes to the structure.

Just a stalling tactic.

User avatar
MicrolightDriver
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:23 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by MicrolightDriver »

Brevet Cable wrote:Would they need to resubmit, though ?
None of DSA's objections would appear to require they do so as they don't seem to be demanding changes to the structure.


Sounds a bit like tying up loose ends really - the airport obviously need to make sure they have auditable documentation in place. Unfortunate, but hopefully something resolved before too long.

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2872
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by NAM Updater »

Often in situations like this Conditional Planning Permission is granted and then you have to pay a separate fee for each of the conditions that you get discharged - once you have discharged all of the conditions then you are allowed to proceed with the project!

Been there, done that, got the etc., etc. :smile:
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

Neverfuel
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat 29 Oct 2016, 7:33 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Neverfuel »

I don't see any showstoppers in the consultation replies. Usually planning will be granted with conditions which need to be discharged as more detailed information becomes available during the next stage of the project.

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

Neverfuel wrote:I don't see any showstoppers in the consultation replies. Usually planning will be granted with conditions which need to be discharged as more detailed information becomes available during the next stage of the project.


Just been reading the various papers, and indeed, nobody is saying over their dead body! Looks like the Newts are still an issue, but again there seems to be ways to mitigate this. What amazes me is everyone who submitted the proposal and those who replied including the VttTS and the Airport (who you'd think would know being involved in aviation), all seem to be incapable to spelling the word Hangar and insist that its a Hanger being built presumably to hang 558 from. Its only the thing they are building after all!

User avatar
Gonzo230
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 01 Jul 2012, 8:13 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Gonzo230 »

Look like standard conditions for the erection of any building on/near an airfield to me.

I doubt that these would have been unexpected for anyone involved in developing the application.

User avatar
speedbird2639
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by speedbird2639 »

I doubt that these would have been unexpected for anyone involved in developing the application


And yet Vulcan to the Scrapyard didnt think to contact the airport to discuss likely objections or attempt to anticipate them and include evidence as to how the potential object/ issue has already been mitigated?

Given the VTTS exposure to the aviation industry you would've expected them to include "We appreciate we will need the airports approval before using a crane over 10m tall; we will ensure any lights don't cause any light pollution detrimental to the airport operation; we will ensure the building doesn't impact on the radar line of sight" etc

Amateurs.

User avatar
HeyfordDave111
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat 21 Feb 2015, 5:30 pm
Location: In my minds eye, Greenham Common for 'that' show.

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by HeyfordDave111 »

Can I just ask please, as I cannot find anything that says the hangar will have anything that makes it an environmentally friendly building, with insulation, solar cells, a ‘bfb’ For power storage etc.
In fat anything to make the building closer to self sufficiency?

I can only assume that as it’s a temp building they won’t be going down that route, as someday the next organisation to lease the building might not want such things.

Mind you, 2.4 mil doesn’t buy much nowadays, and i’d be surprised if the hangar does truly cost out at that price. Also who will own the land it’s on?
Got to love Russianhardware

User avatar
Gonzo230
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 01 Jul 2012, 8:13 am

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Gonzo230 »

speedbird2639 wrote:
I doubt that these would have been unexpected for anyone involved in developing the application


And yet Vulcan to the Scrapyard didnt think to contact the airport to discuss likely objections or attempt to anticipate them and include evidence as to how the potential object/ issue has already been mitigated?

Given the VTTS exposure to the aviation industry you would've expected them to include "We appreciate we will need the airports approval before using a crane over 10m tall; we will ensure any lights don't cause any light pollution detrimental to the airport operation; we will ensure the building doesn't impact on the radar line of sight" etc

Amateurs.


Well, do we know those discussions didn't go on?

Xm657
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 27 Aug 2016, 6:41 pm

Re: Where has XH558 thread gone?

Post by Xm657 »

I believe the airport is buying the land from the water authority. Whether the developer will buy the land I don't know, but I expect the airport will retain it and charge a ground rent to the developer, who will pass the cost to the VttST who in turn will have the vast number of paying guests visiting this three exhibit musuem to pay everyone including their own staff with.

Locked