Bookmark This WebsiteReturn To Home PageContact Us
This website requires the free Flash plugin to be installed.

Welcome to Ashcroft-NOLAC Airfield 21 Dec 2014 Click on RED

Pilots who are not involved with the Lancashire Aero Club please click Here

Ashcroft is 'wading through' the latest batch of LAC false legal statements
Four years has trained us to deal with this 'behaviour'. However, Pilots
considering joining the LAC might be forewarned by our experience with this ... 'Malignant Regime'

The Lancashire Aero Club have embarked on a downward spiral of deceit with:

  • Her Majesty's Courts
  • The Civil Aviation Authority
  • The Air Accident Investigatiion Branch
  • Their own members [and] members of Lowton Community

Top-heavy: How many Vice Presidents can any Club have?  The answer is...   Here  


Lest we forget ... on this day .. [10 Dec 2014]  3 years ago [10 Dec 2011]

  • The Lancashire Aero Club gave Ashcroft a Christmas Eve deadline of litigation.
  • The LAC Committee had resigned en masse (even the Chairman had stepped down)

The LAC ... have subsequently sent Ashcroft Airfield 1447 legal documents ...

  • Have not been upfront with .. 1. several Courts .. 2.  the CAA and .. 3.  the AAIB ...
  • Have flown illegally for many years using hopelessy inaccurate, unlawful  AFM data
  • Have damaged Ashcroft gates (now being reassessed in the Crewe Court 06 Jan)  

We at Ashcroft, would like to repay this 'kindness' with the following warning:

As Aviation Lawyer, Philip Bass [Clyde & Co] asked .. 'what's at the end of the Runway?'
If LAC hotshots damage our public using illegal AFM perf: the roof will come down on their heads
District Judge Grant & Kate Howe [ex LAC Committee member] have both confirmed that the LAC Chairman (Eric Mort) is ultimately responsible for the actions of the Lancashire Aero Club and it's members. The LAC have already shown a reckless disregard for public safety at 2 airfields. If our public is endangered by the unlawful activities of LAC members, then the pecking order for retrieving compensation would be 1. Chairman 2. Committee 3. Members.
£4,000,000 would be a typical compensation claim by members & families of our general public

Can anyone trust in the bona fides of any organisation ..  that has no bona fides



LAC NB: A premier London aviation lawyer [John Kimbell] has these comments
"Having learned for example that the owners of the Aircraft [LAC 2 Ton Focke Wulf] were not using the Civil Flight Manual which is the only appropriate manual and were not carrying it on the Aircraft, it was it seems to me quite proper for the Defendants [Ashcroft] to prohibit the Aircraft from taking or landing off until this was remedied"

Does the new LAC Safety Officer have the bollocks to stand-up & address safety issues

Lancashire Aero Club NB: District Judge Grant's order .... "act more responsibly"
Lancashire Aero Club
  'clean up your act' .. don't endanger our general public.
Lancashire Aero Club ... Comments from a LAC ex-Committee Member [Kate Howe]

.. You may be aware that the existing Committee became split some time ago.
.. The majority of the Committee have been in conflict with the remaining members
.. That has never been healed and we now find ourselves in a calamitous situation.
.. The Chairman is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the Club
.. We have nothing of substance to offer new members .. the membership is dwindling
.. The Club is now in a perilous position…  we are inert ... we may not have a future.
.. It will require an extraordinary and formidable Chairperson ....who has drive & energy
.. They [he] will need tenacity, vision and brio and must possess the leadership skills
.. It will require herculean efforts to save this Club
.. I do not know if the person who possesses these unique skills …. actually exists.
.. I fear that under the current malignant regime a successful outcome is not possible.

Forget the LAA Rally .. visit the Lancashire Aero Club 'Pegging out Party' . Click Here
500 residents want to 'peg down' Hercules & Co ... Ashcroft has 1447 reasons to offer support





Ashcroft Property Damage by the Lancashire Aero Club:
Ashcroft is now asking the Law Courts to decide whether LAC members damaged our gateposts ... or [as the LAC have vexatiously claimed] we pulled down our own gatepost with a 'tractor & rope'. Eric Clifford Mort has been informed of our claim [A8QZ715H].
Q. When will the LAC realise that damage to Ashcroft property ... will not be tolerated?


Public Safety update: If the Lancashire Aero Club continue with their reckless low flying at Ashcroft, then their 'activities' will be recorded by at least 5 high definition cameras (in the interests of public safety ... and ...  based on substantial legal advice).

The Lancashire Aero Club seem willing to adopt an irresponsible attitude of flying aircraft over our public road well below 50ft in the 55,000 kgm/sec weight/speed category, whilst clearly ignoring the legal requirement to comply with ANO 5(3)a.
Meanwhile 99% of normal Ashcroft flights operate in the more acceptable 15,000 kgm/sec category and easily comply with CAA ANO regulations.   

If we consider the risk to Public Safety to be unacceptable, then we will canvas public opinion & request an enquiry to be held
at a high level (independent of any 'transitory' CAA opinions) 
Andy Burnham has already critically commented on safety responses at another Airfield
In addition, we can ask any Constable to carry out a document check of any LAC pilots.
Everyone wants rules to be relaxed but not at the expense of increased risk to the 'uninvolved' / 'uninformed' ... 
[whatever the latest buzzword is] ... (our) general public.

Lancashire Aero Club ... don't endanger our general public ..!


UPDATE: The Lancashire Aero Club have .. Wonga'd .. Ashcroft for 4 yrs

(1) The LAC representative has sent us literally hundreds of inflammatory emails / letters ... and threats of financial loss ..... all we had to do was lower our safety standards, which would contradict established CAA policies on aircraft performance.

(2) The LAC's "Expert" report is in the process of  being formally challenged (BAAC).

(3) The LAC want to base a 2 ton Focke Wulf at Ashcroft using Military performance data

(4) This Military perf data is unapproved for use for the LAC's aircraft. In the event of a fatality on our public road, then we will join our public in pursuing manslaughter charges.

The LAC Focke Wulf has already ''landed long',  crashing on Stretton Vehicle test track

(6) The LAC Chairman's 'head-in-the-sand' attitude, contradicts the role of any Chairman
His ... 'it's your problem' ... attitude was even criticised by a District Judge earlier this year.

(7) Despite a Court Order requiring a joint Expert to assess the LAC's aircraft, the Lancashire Aero Club 'short-circuited' Court proceedings on 28 Feb and appointed their own Expert, after 'high level' discussions (contrary to accepted legal practice).
(8) The LAC's expert appeared influenced by aspects outside the remit of the Court directions and subsequently had an apparent disregard for the safety of the general public, exercising their lawful right to use our road (which was our primary concern).
(9) We keep an open mind on the CAA's attitude to the risks to the general public but current CAA draft guidelines seem to be occasionally at odds with all established CAA safety documents. Despite this, the CAA have treated us with the utmost respect.
In the event of a LAC related fatal accident at Ashcroft, any 'transitory' CAA opinions will be compared with established CAA policies, Safety Sense Leaflets, AIC publications ..etc

Safety at Ashcroft: We have now 4 Skyranger aircraft based at Ashcroft. None of these aircraft (and any other aircraft at Ashcroft) are 'flown like 'Hooligans' in the proximity of the general public. We aim to maintain traditional high standards of aviation and public safety, that have been the benchmark for safety standards for the last 100 years.

Ashcroft-NOLAC Airfield ....  Newsletter (Spring 2014)
Is it ...“New buds of hope” .. for Ashcroft …or .. “fulfilment of our dreams”.
No .. just going about business as usual to provide a safe & enjoyable environment for pilots

We are fortunate to be blessed with bona-fide resident pilots who have high standards of integrity, adopt a responsible community aware attitude and come on to the Airfield using the traditional methods of ... opening the gates instead of clambering over them 4 at a time.
They are also well aware of the “performance characteristics of their aircraft, and recognise that  the aerodrome dimensions are appropriate and  proportionate to that activity”

At this time of year we normally get several requests for hangarage and we would like to welcome 2 new arrivals who we hope will benefit from a low cost & relaxed environment.
Now to a more difficult topic. As you will have recently seen on the website we have been forced to take the LAC to Court concerning, what can only be described, as a “Military” style ‘assault’ over our main gates on 30 July 2013. Six attempts to communicate our concerns to the LAC Chairman failed to yield any response & resulted in the LAC Committee shuffling in to the Crewe Court, some wearing anoraks and rushing (in Keystone Cop style) to sit down on the front bench, leaving Jane and I slightly bemused by the door. Most of the LAC were then ordered to the back row. Recommendations of disciplinary measures were met with a stunned silence and a prepared statement ‘barked’ out from the LAC Safety Officer (probably heard in adjacent Courts) was met by a ‘wince’ and a order to get legal advice.
It seems that the LAC Committee are vexed by recent events and now the LAC Safety officer has pushed aside the Newsletter editor and constructed a rudderless article, raising more questions than could ever be answered. It is a point of fact that the LAC Committee started a dispute with us on 07 Dec 2010 when attempts to buy Ashcroft were refused.
Since then we have received, on average, one legal document for every single day and just for good measure, the LAC have tried to take Ashcroft Airfield apart ‘piece-by-piece’.
We now understand that the owners of Barton have taken the LAC back but wisely positioned the LAC portacabin adjacent to the Airport Exit (presumably keeping all options open)
With 14,000 incident free flying hours & 35 years flying our own aircraft in the GA environment, I have often noticed that Airfield Owners have looked at things ‘differently’ to the Pilots using their Airfield. After 14 years of operating Ashcroft with a good safety record, we do our best to be ‘GA friendly’ but when a Balloon recovery crew breaks open our gate locks, trashes one of our Runways & drives away without attempting to contact us, it tends to colour our opinionof some people, as we question the motives and agenda of others.
The reality is, a LAC contingent is engaging us in a 31/2 year legal dispute, which we believe relates to .. “the safety of aircraft and of persons and property carried therein, [and] for preventing aircraft endangering other persons and property”. On the 25 June this issue will be resolved, one way or another.  None of this dispute will affect Ashcroft or its residents.

Steve Billington      11 April 2014

Airfield .. Owner, Safety Officer, Treasurer, Membership Secretary, Tractor Mechanic,  roofing repair ‘specialist’,  plumber, toilet cleaner, head cook and bottle washer .. etc

1. Lancashire Aero Club (banned from Ashcroft until 2050 AD)

... Legal proceedings re: LAC gate damage to Ashcroft property now re-established
... Ashcroft working at a 'high level' with other disgruntled parties to ensure fair play

... Ashcroft establishing total digital vocal & video recording of LAC for legal reasons

2. Current Issues ... Public Safety
We welcome the CAA's new policy to ... "Develop and adopt an evidence and risk-based approach proportionate to the risk-appetite of participants while ensuring protection for uninformed third parties;" 
Independent assessment of public safety standards iaw a Circuit Judge comments required.

Common Sense and Best Practice approach to .... public safety
Plan to fly at 50ft above our Public Road to give adequate clearance to vehicles that are hidden from a high hedge when landing on RW27. Planning to fly over the road at 20ft is unacceptable and a breach of ANO Rule 5(3)a "Failure of a Power Unit"

After a High Court Judge recognises Ashcroft's concerns re: LAC low flying over public highways, commenting "cries out" for a proper Expert assessment, Ashcroft responds by constructing a central HD tri-video device to protect our General Public (this is in addition to the 2 cameras that  'caught'  the LAC flying over our road at 19ft 4 in)
These devices are affectionately referred to by Ashcroft (& the environs) as LAC Busters
... If the LAC continue to endanger our Public, we will contact our Member of Parliament

3. Public Safety ... Expert assessment (by a Hot Air Ballonist)
A "Top 50" London Aviation Lawyer criticised the LAC for trying to stop Expert assessment for a 2 ton aircraft that 'landed long' and crashed on a vehicle test track.

On 27.02.14 the LAC unilaterally appointed an Aviation 'Expert' (specialityBalloons! )
On a 38min tour the 'Expert' assessed our boundary road and hedge as a 'non issue'.
Despite providing the 'Expert' with photos of the hedge in the summer (twice the height and much thicker than shown below) hiding vehicles / pedestrians (the general public) from view to pilots landing on RW 27 & 30, he apparently chose to ignore these risks.
The legal issues of 'Failure of a Power unit' [ANO Rule 5 (3)a] were not considered.

Safety concerns were dismissed as 'trivia' (contradicting a High Court Judge's assessment)

Hopefully this 'Expert' is insured against liability claims from the General Public since:
Incorrect Runway distances were used for Flight Manual performance calculations.  

Safety data that he relied upon : ....

  • Was unapproved by the regulatory authority
  • Was unamended and 13 years out of date
  • Featured incorrect graphs with errors in excess of 200%
  • Had critical pages missing (including the amendment page)
  • Originated from a non-existent aviation company.  

The 'Expert' had a 'light touch' when answering questions but a 'firm grip' on his £8k fee.

 4.  Large Aeroplanes (>5,700kg) / Private Aircraft 
All pilots wishing to use Ashcroft Airfield should attempt to conform with the principles of "common-sense aircraft performance planning and normal airmanship" (which is 'highly recommended' and 'best practice' ...a benchmark of safe aircraft operations).

(a) Large Aerploanes (> 5,700kg MTOM) are obliged to comply with AFM performance
(b) Aircraft defined in the "Private" category can include a Boeing 737 or larger aircraft.

Any type of aircraft planning to use Ashcroft must be below 5,700kg MTOM and operate in a non-commercial category to comply with ICAO international aviation regulations.
Aircraft (between 1,200kg - 5,700kg MTOM) not using Ashcroft on the normal (telephone / email) PPR basis are assessed as 'high risk' to the general public using our road,  (unless 'common sense aircraft  performance planning' is observed)

In an attempt to adapt to the latest CAA policies regarding GA risk-based regulation, we will continue to assess risks to the uninvolved general public iaw recent CAA guidlines.

This offers a measure of protection to the general public exercising their lawful right to use our public road on our Eastern Airfield boundary and minimises any liabity issues by pilots not complying with UK & International Aviation Laws. 

5. Fly over our road 50ft minimum to comply with Rule 5(3)a

Since our road is used by the general public, appropriate aircraft performance calculations (iaw the most recent performance data) are legally required to clear this road by at least 50ft iaw ANO Rule 5(3.a) ... pertinent to Unlicensed Airfields

SSL 078(c) "You should always ensure that after applying all the relevant factors .... the Landing Distance Required (LDR) from a height of 50 feet does not exceed landing Distance Available"
In our experience, most pilots act in a responsible manner and adhere to the relevant CAA safety policy documents regarding aircraft performance and Rule 5

6. Civil Aviation Authority (UK)
CAA regulatory review of GA"for securing the safety of air navigation and the safety of aircraft and of persons and property carried therein, [and] for preventing aircraft endangering other persons and property". The UK Rules of the Air Regulations are enabled under the ANO"
Ashcroft Airfield: attempting to secure the safety of aircraft & persons carried therein [and] preventing aircraft endangering other persons & property

7. Civil Aviation Authority (UK) 
QUOTE ....Accidents such as failure to get airborne, collision with obstacles after take-off and over-run on landing occur frequently to light aeroplanes. Many have happened at short licensed runways, as well as strips, often when operating out of wind or where there was a slope. Poor surfaces, such as long or wet grass, mud or snow, were often contributory factors. Many, if not all, of these performance accidents could have been avoided if the pilots had been fully aware of the performance limitations of their aeroplanes. The pilot in command has a legal obligation under EU Part-NCO and Article 87 of the Air Navigation Order 2009, which require the pilot to check that the aeroplane will have adequate performance for the proposed flight .. UNQUOTE

8. Civil Aviation Authority (UK) 
QUOTE .... Unlicensed aerodromes and private strips are often used by pilots and private owners. They may be more convenient or cheaper than licensed aerodromes; however, they do require special consideration. Approximately one third of GA Reportable Accidents in the UK occur during take-off or landing at unlicensed aerodromes .. UNQUOTE

9. See and Avoid ... Peripheral and ... Tunnel vision
Caution: Regarding limitations of the "See-and-Avoid" Principle. Peripheral vision is reduced under conditions of high workload.

"A number of researchers have shown that peripheral stimuli are more difficult to detect when attention is focussed on a central task"

Safety Sense Leaflet 13: Collision Avoidance

"Another inherent eye problem is the narrow field of vision. Although our eyes accept light rays from an arc of nearly 200°, they are limited to a relatively narrow area (approximately 10–15°) in which they can actually focus on and classify an object. Although movement on the periphery can be perceived, we cannot identify what is happening there, and we tend not to believe what we see out of the corner of our eyes. This, aided by the brain, often leads to 'tunnel vision'.
"The pilot’s functional visual field contracts under conditions of stress or increased workload.
The resulting ‘tunnel vision’ reduces the chance that an approaching aircraft will be seen in peripheral vision" Web Site Design Company : eCommerce Software Shopping Cart Solutions