I WRITE in response to the article you published on October 1, from a John Hunter regarding aircraft flying over Nailsea. Firstly you state Mr Hunter is chairman of Nailsea LAT. What is Nailsea LAT, what is

I WRITE in response to the article you published on October 1, from a John Hunter regarding aircraft flying over Nailsea.

Firstly you state Mr Hunter is chairman of Nailsea LAT. What is Nailsea LAT, what is its constitution and aims or what does it do, who are its members and are they qualified to comment on the safety of aircraft flights?

Secondly, what does Mr Hunter see as the danger of aircraft flying over Nailsea?

Thirdly Mr Hunter states: "There are more serious accidents involving light aircraft than there are with airliners in the UK." I would doubt the validity of this statement. Bearing in mind a light aircraft will usually carry up to four people and an airliner, say 250-300 people, an airliner crash would involve more casualties on the aircraft and on the ground, than any light aircraft. I wonder which accident the other residents of Nailsea would consider the 'more serious'.

Fourthly last paragraph regarding aircraft flying above 1,000 feet above a built up area, is incorrect and misleading. If Mr Hunter feels inclined to quote such rules he should study Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air and get the facts reported correctly.

If Mr Hunter, or anyone else would like more information about the safety issues regarding flying over built up areas I would be happy to quote rule 5 of the rules of the air, chapter and verse.

TONY DAVEY - Ilminster Close, Nailsea