Fort Langley Float base closing to general public

kingfisher · Post by **kingfisher** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:56 pm

Apparently after being such a great asset to the flying community, Fort Langley Float base is closed to the general public

This is very sad news for the hundreds if not thousands of students/pilots who have practiced soft field landing there for years.

Several years ago it was acquired from long time owner/ operator Walter Davidson by Ron Martini. Ron Martini is a local business man who's main business is owner of Starline Windows Ltd of Langley.

Martini has acquired several new aircraft lately, a Pilautis PC12 and a turbine powered Beaver on amphibious floats. Incidentally, it is this aircraft that is rumored to have been the one to flip over in Crawfish Lake recently, resulting in a search and Rescue operation, see thread
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=30796

The Runway at Fort Langley has been recently Paved to accommodate Martin's new aircraft and the word is getting out that no more aircraft are welcomed to land there.

I just don't get some people in such a great Country of ours. Who have obviously achieved great success from the opportunities available to them here. and then turn around and restrict opportunities of others. The loss of this facility is another nail in the coffin for general aviation. Especially here in BC, Where we just can't afford to lose airfeilds.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:18 pm

Sad... Can't see how he has a right to close the river though for the floaters...

I guess if it's your land it's your land if you want to be a dick about it...

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:25 pm

For that very reason - I should take the Buffalo there.

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:53 pm

I'm hoping the float facilities will still be there. I believe only the runway is going to be PPR.

That leaves us with the shitty spot at Pitt meadows.. Damn...

Maybe alpha aviation will build a ditch at ZBB! hahahahaha

privateer · Post by **privateer** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:57 am

whats so bad about pitt meadows, and plus when i did my float rating it was on open sea or the gulf islands not on some river? wouldn't it be better to spend more time on sea than a river?

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:37 am

It was not his turbo beaver that flipped at crawfish lake.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:44 am

While he can't restrict the river, he can forbid the use of his on-ramp and any facilities on the field. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen as Ft. Langley is among the largest GA float bases in the lower mainlandm - there's good people and companies that operate there.

SAR_YQQ - I would pay to see a buf going in/out of Ft. Langley.

Barney · Post by **Barney** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:56 am

Anyone know if Papi is still teaching floats there. Learned alot
from him in the little time I spent in the area.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:43 am

When people come into money, they turn to themselves and shut "the public" out. Same can be said about Saltspring Island. There was a lot where a little grass strip was used for flying to the island. When a rich guy didn't want the traffic, he simply bought the lot and closed it off (actually, just let the grass grow). This was to the dismay of the island's business community.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:32 am

ei ei owe wrote:When people come into money, they turn to themselves and shut "the public" out. Same can be said about Saltspring Island. There was a lot where a little grass strip was used for flying to the island. When a rich guy didn't want the traffic, he simply bought the lot and closed it off (actually, just let the grass grow). This was to the dismay of the island's business community.

Of course it could also be an insurance / liability issue coupled with an inability to charge fees to cover the additional cost?????? Just guessing based on what has happened to liability insurance costs in the past few years.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:19 pm

Liability for what? You mean the former owner of the field when he gets sued by a pilot that landed on his field because he allowed them? Or do you mean the Ft Langley strip. Is/was that all private? Wasn't there a club of somesort?

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:33 pm

ei ei owe wrote:Liability for what? You mean the former owner of the field when he gets sued by a pilot that landed on his field because he allowed them? Or do you mean the Ft Langley strip. Is/was that all private? Wasn't there a club of somesort?

No personal knowledge of the operation, was just guessing that there might a reason other than those voiced. I am surprised that the owner is not getting any credit for allowing people to use his private facilities in the past and is instead being dumped upon. Perhaps those who don't like what he is doing should invest some $$$ and create their own facility and of course allow the public to use it for free.

kingfisher · Post by **kingfisher** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:21 pm

I don't think the owner is really intentionally being dump on here, There is a bigger issue. It's hard to retro appreciate the current owner for allowing his Certified Transport Canada airfield to be used by others, in light of what is happening there now.
The big issue is that facility has been a in public use for 40 years or more. Just about every pilot in the lower mainland has flown in there during training. It is not inconceivable to understand a reaction of dismay and disappointment that comes with such news. It true some people are going to feel pissed. This is fully understandable
. Out of all the owners that have had possession of Fort. Langley ,I suppose it was inevitable that eventually there would be one that would decide not to carry on the tradition of maintaining it as an open site for general aviation, That is becoming the way of the world. today.

As for your comments Mr.Longtimer, about creating another facility. Well I don't know exactly how long you have been around, but you are probably remembering the good old days when developing an airfield was probably not as difficult or impossible as it would be today. With sprawling urban density and the city types who come out to live in the country, and complain about animal smells in a farming community, a new airfield to replace Fort Langley I'm afraid is an impossible reality.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:59 am

kingfisher wrote:I don't think the owner is really intentionally being dump on here, There is a bigger issue. It's hard to retro appreciate the current owner for allowing his Certified Transport Canada airfield to be used by others, in light of what is happening there now.
The big issue is that facility has been a in public use for 40 years or more. Just about every pilot in the lower mainland has flown in there during training. It is not inconceivable to understand a reaction of dismay and disappointment that comes with such news. It true some people are going to feel pissed. This is fully understandable
. Out of all the owners that have had possession of Fort. Langley ,I suppose it was inevitable that eventually there would be one that would decide not to carry on the tradition of maintaining it as an open site for general aviation, That is becoming the way of the world. today.

As for your comments Mr.Longtimer, about creating another facility. Well I don't know exactly how long you have been around, but you are probably remembering the good old days when developing an airfield was probably not as difficult or impossible as it would be today. With sprawling urban density and the city types who come out to live in the country, and complain about animal smells in a farming community, a new airfield to replace Fort Langley I'm afraid is an impossible reality.

My comment re building your own was more tongue in cheek as I find that some of those who enjoy freebies and complain when they are cut off are seldom willing to pony up any of their money to operate a "free facility" or to reimburse the operator for any expenses. A little like this forum, where lots of people post, some complain about how the forum is run but not all have sent any money to our host to help out with the expenses.

Top-Gun · Post by **Top-Gun** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:14 pm

twotter Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:37 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not his turbo beaver that flipped at crawfish lake.

he did manage to flip his piston beaver tho... a couple days after he pretzeld the prop and wrecked the pt6 on his turbo beaver at fortlangley!!
what an idiot.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:29 pm

And your point is?? I commented on one thing and you twisted it to another.. Are you saying that the owner did this?? If you are, it is you who is the idiot.. He had nothing to do with either..

BTW.. As I understand it, the strip is not closed, it is just PPR, in other words you need to ask before you can land there..

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:12 am

Did anyone think that PPR is a way of limiting training and the asociated liability with it. A few years ago at Ft. Langley CFC had a cherokee land a little short (field before the runway ripping the landing gear off) on a Ride (I heard the retard still got a partial pass of all things), if I recall correctly isn't Delta Air Park PPR and no training allowed how come nobody's jumping down the RAA's throat about that! just because you are Capt. Big bars in a 172 ( see dry land admirals) doesn't mean that you and the risk of lawsuit that come with your inexperience lack of airmanship and poor training is welcome eveywere.

Just my 2 cents.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:21 am

A few years ago at Ft. Langley CFC had a cherokee land a little short (field before the runway ripping the landing gear off) on a Ride (I heard the retard still got a partial pass of all things)

Absolutly true, I was to do my ride with the examiner the next day. All he had to do was go back up and demonstrate he could land a plane at an Airport.

Here's the CADORS http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... sition=476

CADORS Number: 2000P0599 Reporting Region: Pacific

Occurrence InformationOccurrence Type: Accident Occurrence Date: 2000/09/01
Occurrence Time: 0800 Z Day Or Night:
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: Aerodrome Name:
Occurrence Location: Fort Langley, BC Province: British Columbia
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: Duty Officer AOR Number:
TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No.:
Event InformationCollision with terrain
Aircraft InformationFlight #:
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: PIPER Model: PA-28-140
Year Built: 1973 Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: Engine Model:
Engine Type: Reciprocating Gear Type:
Phase of Flight: Landing Damage: Unknown
Owner: CANADIAN IFR RATING INC Operator: CANADIAN FLIGHT CENTRE
Operator Type: Commercial

Detail InformationUser Name:
Date: 2000/09/06
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.:
Narrative: Student pilot misjudged the field before the airfield to be the runway. Aircraft sustained major damage but both the instructor and student were not injured. OPI: System Safety Update from the TSB - September 6, 2000 A00P0167: The student pilot was being evaluated for a commercial pilot rating, in a Piper Cherokee, by a Class 1 flight examiner when he mistook a farmer's field as the grass airstrip at the Fort Langley airport. The flight examiner was writing notes at the time and did not notice the mistake until they were already committed to land. The aircraft landed and ground rolled smoothly on the farmer's manicured turf until it struck a dirt mound with the left main landing gear. The left wheel broke off, the aircraft veered to the left and skidded along the field until it crashed into some irrigation equipment. Both occupants were uninjured. The aircraft sustained substantial damage and the farmer's 'golf green' turf and equipment were severely damaged.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:18 am

The student pilot was being evaluated for a commercial pilot rating, in a Piper Cherokee, by a Class 1 flight examiner when he mistook a farmer's field as the grass airstrip at the Fort Langley airport. The flight examiner was writing notes at the time and did not notice the mistake until they were already committed to land.

The examiner did not look outside the airplane at any time during the circuit join , circuit and approach?

privateer · Post by **privateer** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:32 am

Trust some american to buy up some Canadian heritage and use it just for himself. I surely miss flying into Ft Langley...

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:26 pm

Has anyone actualy tried calling to get permision to land there or even find out the real deal?

Top-Gun · Post by **Top-Gun** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:54 pm

twotter Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:29 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your point is?? I commented on one thing and you twisted it to another.. Are you saying that the owner did this?? If you are, it is you who is the idiot.. He had nothing to do with either..

martini was in both aircraft when this happend..... i dont know who was at the controls, but i know that both accidents were from pilot f-ups.

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:13 pm

Cat Driver wrote:

The examiner did not look outside the airplane at any time during the circuit join , circuit and approach?

now Cat you of all people shouldn't be suprised.

it was a TC examiner!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:38 pm

now Cat you of all people shouldn't be suprised. it was a TC examiner!

Not according to the CADORS report.

However regardless whether or not the examiner was employed by TC it really makes no difference.

If the student had to take another ride to prove they can land on an airport versus someones field did the examiner have to take another check ride?

Or am I missing something here and the student is 100% at fault and the examiner was just along as an observer who had no particular intrest in where the airplane ended up?

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:27 pm

A valid point..

If I'm doing training and someone screws up real bad I should be able to take control and keep the airplane from crashing.. If not, maybe I shouldn't be doing training..