Airport Charges for Military Helicopter Emergency Flights [Archive]

DP Harvey

29th Dec 2005, 17:58

I don't understand the issue here, unless we should also demand free comprehensive support for all of our national SAR assets, as well as free ambulance and fire engine maintenance and support. Not to mention free crews to fly and drive them.

OK, so someone found out that the tax payer has to pay for using a closed airfield during an emergency outside normal working hrs. So what? Everything, including emergency services, comes at some cost. I don't know who owns that airport but I would guess that the "bill" is only a case of deducting a number from one public account and adding the same number to another public account.

Remember the government "contribution" to the tsunami disaster relief program? Whatever the announced figure was, it included the costs of actually providing the assistance. This included the cost of deploying and operating the armed forces, etc. We don't come free.

vecvechookattack

29th Dec 2005, 18:10

£250 seems a bit steep. I totally agree that a charge should be made bu that seems a bit over the top. I recently landed at a Civ airfield and was charged £8. Not sure why Guzz airfield charges so high.

Pontius Navigator

29th Dec 2005, 18:30

Charges probably came straight out of the book with no thought to the type of flight or the airfield being closed. The MOD would charge a civvie landing at its airfields regardless of the aids and services available.

movadinkampa747

29th Dec 2005, 18:40

Runaway Gun

29th Dec 2005, 18:49

Have you seen how hard he THUDS that Cessna down? I'm sure a Sea King hardly dents the runway....

FJJP

29th Dec 2005, 19:17

The charges should be sent to the local NHS Primary Care Trust for payment. So should the cost of the SK.

That should set the cat among the pigeons...

vecvechookattack

29th Dec 2005, 19:55

I think you'll find that they might do that. Depends on the classification of the sortie. Was it a Casevac or Medivac?

Ali Barber

30th Dec 2005, 02:37

Many moons ago, a light aircraft got lost crossing the North Sea from Holland. Binbrook ATC picked up a faint Mayday and got a F-27 diverted out of the airway to conduct a search. The airliner (full of pasengers) found it and led it back to North Coates where he did a roller to show him the runway. The MOD wanted to charge the airline landing fees!

SASless

30th Dec 2005, 02:48

Just what services did the folks get for that Landing Fee?

I am surprised the aircraft was allowed to use the airport at all after hours....what with the worry about liability issues. Crikey...no fire brigade and if there had been a crash? Who would have been liable?

Oh...no...no....mustn't fly from a "closed" airport Gents....that just isn't on!

WorkingHard

30th Dec 2005, 07:01

I, like you, am a taxpayer so pay for all MOD services in my taxes. If I wish to land my a/c at RAF ****, in or out of hours, why should I pay for something already paid for? Rhetorical question folks but you see the point I hope. At what point does anything become "free"?

Point0Five

30th Dec 2005, 07:47

Furthermore WorkingHard, as a taxpayer who pays for all MOD services in your taxes, if you wish to fly on one of the RAF's VIP jets, you should be allowed to do so without paying for something already paid for!

Come to think of it, I want a ride on an aircraft carrier........ I mean that's what the Military is there for isn't it; meeting the random wims of the taxpayer? :}

DP Harvey, well said :ok:

tmmorris

30th Dec 2005, 08:43

The point is, though, Point0Five, that the marginal cost to the RAF of a visiting C152 (during hours) is negligible, unlike, say, taking a Tornado for a spin. As ATC, fire section, VAS, &c &c are already on duty, they cost nothing, effectively.

And even if the visiting C152 pays the exorbitant landing fee and jumps through all the hoops regarding insurance, they are still stuffed to the back of the queue for landing, takeoff, and everything else.

Tim

Point0Five

30th Dec 2005, 09:13

I see your point tmmorris, but that logic will only lead to a thread called "RAF fails to charge for civilian flights"; complete with complaints about how it is unfair that the military has to pay civilian landing fees when all services are already on duty, and effectively paid for.

As DP Harvey alluded to, everything has a price.

vecvechookattack

30th Dec 2005, 09:27

As far as I can see we are all arguing the same. The Military charge the Civilians and the civilians charge the military. Whats wrong in that?

p.s. £5500 an hour for a Herc ?????? surely not.

Pass-A-Frozo

30th Dec 2005, 09:35

Good point on the military aircraft going around because of the civvie traffic. Downunder the civvy aircraft don't pay anything for shooting an approach etc at our bases - it's free. We have to (well, the tax payer) pay for movements at little country airstrips. It's not to pay for repairs etc. though, trust me - I had a $1400 claim placed against one of my moves in a military aircraft. I blew away $1400 worth of dirt from the side of the runway.

What got my back up was flying aid into Indonesia after the big wave, and being billed landing fees for it!

Tigs2

30th Dec 2005, 13:07

They should land it in the car park and buy a pay and display ticket,when the ****** comes through for landing there,tell the airport to shove it..................

Edit: Swearing like that - hidden or not - will get you a ban next time. Geddit?

Am i missing something here or just being stupid. What has Markflyer6580 done to warrant an edit comment like this?? Was the swearing hidden? if so there are 100000 examples of this on the site without comment. Would the mod who edited please elaborate

vecvechookattack

30th Dec 2005, 15:27

There is a slight difference in the weight of a Cessna and a 10 ton Seaking. So, if a civvy airfield can charge £8 for a Seaking, then why does Plymouth charge £250?

jayteeto

30th Dec 2005, 19:19

Why should the military get free landing fees at civvie airfields when civvies get charged by the military??
If you don't want to pay, go elsewhere.
Our helicopter had a brdstrike last year and we diverted into liverpool. The engineers arrived within the hour and we were gone soon after. It cost over £200 just to put the engineers through security and the overall bill was MUCH higher. Next time I might land in a field, not as safe, but cheap.

Whooper5

31st Dec 2005, 00:28

Why should a twisted ankle on Snowdon be covered by the MOD when an 18 month baby with meningitis from a cottage hospital to definitive care is charged to the Hospital Trust? They’re the same flying costs.
Oh, before the ‘we’re not an ambulance’ argument is put; the last place a physician would want a critical patient is the back of a helicopter. If they ask for a helicopter, they need it.

Whooper 5

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 00:54

HELLO!

I politely suggest you lot miss the exact right question....why are you each paying these outrageous fees in the first place? You all pay rates, income tax, and the like to the guvmint. Why are you now having to pay yet again and not small sums at that? Ever stop to consider that most other countries do not have such a system as yours and our taxes are not that much different.

I hate to beat the USA versus UK deal to death...but you guys ought to look westward and at least consider the way we do things here at the western end of the salt water divide.

Consider the simple thing of booking in...booking out you do...call by telephone to get permission to use an airfield,etc. No use of an airport after hours because the tower is closed or the fire brigade is gone for their tea....what sense does that make? You show up to buy fuel and get charged a landing fee...do a touch and go and get done twice...and in a helicopter you might not even touch down but the one time....so wear and tear on the surface is not the issue.

The entire way you finance aviation is simply "crazy"!

Think what it would cost you to drive a car if you did that the way you do your aviation?

BEagle

31st Dec 2005, 08:35

SASless, regrettably the UK government sees General Aviation as either a source of income (through high levels of taxation), a rich man's hobby or as a nuisance. You would be astonished at the restrictions placed upon most of the tatty little GA aerodromes which do manage to survive in the 21st century.

Whereas in the US, GA is seen as a normal method of transportation, local airports are considered an asset and receive substantial local funding.

I delivered a light aeroplane for repainting recently. The painter is based at an ex-WW2 aerodrome with a single short runway - less than half the length of the original. It has no approach aids, lighting or anything other than a single information officer in a VHF-equipped tower, but it is a 'licensed' aerodrome. The aerodrome has extensive and tedious 'noise' routings due to a vociferous, rich horse owner who arrived in the area long after the aerodrome but whose voice influenced the local moaners...

Another pilot followed me in to give me a lift back to my point of departure. He didn't even shut down; all I did was park the aeroplane I'd flown over in, get into the other one and go home.

Excpet for one other thing - to pay a landing fee of $15 for the second aircraft.

No wonder so few people can afford private flying in the UK.

The MoD is even more greedy. The infamous 'Wider Marketing Initiative' now seeks to extract every last penny from the tax payer and even underused military aerodromes now have to charge for approaches and landings by civil aircraft.........

SASless

31st Dec 2005, 13:49

Beags,

Here in the USA, we view aviation infrastructure as a vital part of the "common good" and believe we each gain value from it as taxpayers. That comes from being able to hop onto an airline flight for holiday, business, or not having an airplane fall upon our heads for some reason.

Thus, the FAA is funded from general tax revenues (in general).

I do enjoy the notion the CAA is supposed to make a 6% return on their budget...or is that a wive's tale?

I take a written test...at the FAA office...it is free...no charge.

I take a checkride with an FAA Inspector....it is free...no charge.

I land my airplane at any airport...it is free...no charge.

I use the navaids....it is free...no charge.

I laughed and walked off when I was told what it would cost to renew my UK ATPL. Thank goodness I had that option....unlike you good folk.

BEagle

31st Dec 2005, 16:34

I've just renewed my PPL Examiner authorisation:

'Dummy Skill Test' with CAA-authorised FIE: $200 for ac hire, $260 for the Examiner's fees and $465 to the CAA. I also have to revalidate my FI Rating in 2006; that'll be either $440 plus overnight costs at a 2-day seminar or similar if I choose a Revalidation flight test. Then there are the 6-monthly medicals which everyone over 40 has to have to instruct at PPL level, call that roughly $260 every 6 months....... IMC Rating revalidation? Another $140 to the Examiner and about the same for ac hire.

Yes, the CAA are a non-government organisation and are supposed to make a % on their costs....:rolleyes:

As for the recent rise in ac insurance costs thanks to blinkered Eurocracy.....:mad:

Roghead

31st Dec 2005, 18:16

Landing fees- great topic.
A few years ago I was sent from Warton in one of our shiny HS125-700's to collect three Government Ministers and three Airships on a mission at the request of the Italian government. We landed at Milano(Malpensa I seem to recall) to be met by the full works of official cars police outriders etc and the Italian Government minder confirmed that no "paperwork" or airfield formalities were necessary. However engine start was refused and Captain instructed to go to the "Tower". We had to pay plus the normal, in triplicate, paperwork to complete. I was trailed around by the Captain of a Swiss Medi-emergency jet (live liver or similar on board) who was getting the same treatment. Banks were closed, insufficient Lire, charge cards not acceptable, nor any other currency. When senior Air Marshal informed said he would "sort it out with the Airport Manager". When we arrived at Mario's office was met by "You no pay - you no go!"
So we had a Lire wrip-round(sp), which was fun particularly from the Ministers, and dully left.
Took ACM **** to Leuchars as a favour to the RAF where he was Guest of Honour at a Summer Ball or similar together with our own Chairman and CEO. Guess what , we were due landing fees.

So, all this means is that the beancounters still have the last word, and whilst I think it's tough for the medi(casa)vac chopper at Plymouth, it remains a sad reflection of perceived values by people who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Merry New Year to you all.:)

tmmorris

1st Jan 2006, 08:21

SASless - even better, I get an FAA PPL issued on the basis of my JAR one - free of charge, thanks to your tax dollars...!

(Yes, I know there's a fee now, but that goes to the CAA, and when I did mine it wasn't necessary)

Tim

Point0Five

1st Jan 2006, 10:46

Come on SASless, if you're going to beat the drum about how the USA supports the "common good and believe we each gain value from it as taxpayers". Why don't you tell us how your health care... is free... no charge?

SASless

1st Jan 2006, 11:35

Point,

What does health care have to do with airport charges?

Hard Port

1st Jan 2006, 13:26

Charges maybe because MOD charges ambulance srvice ie, NHS £5000 for first hour and £1000 per hour or part of for subsequent hours for same flights! Swings and roundabouts.

[email protected]

1st Jan 2006, 14:03

I think that the point of this thread was not that charges were made for landing at Plymouth, but that the charges were made for landing when the airport was shut and did not provide any services (other than a piece of tarmac to land on) at all - no ATC, no lights, no nav, no fuel, no nothing. We have to land at the airport because the hospital LS is too small and Plymouth Hoe is too far away for a critical casualty (I took a cas there in the middle of the night a couple of months ago who had fallen from a cliff and broken his back).
Either all SAR and HEMs flights should be exempt from landing fees (the better option) or the NHS should foot the bill and recoup it from central government.

Whooper5

1st Jan 2006, 14:31

Crab

Why would it be any easier for the NHS to recoup the fees from central government than for the MOD to do the same?

Whooper 5

vecvechookattack

1st Jan 2006, 19:06

Why should a twisted ankle on Snowdon be covered by the MOD when an 18 month baby with meningitis from a cottage hospital to definitive care is charged to the Hospital Trust? They’re the same flying costs.
because one is a MEDIVAC and the other is a CASEVAC. Different sorties, different charges.

Whooper5

2nd Jan 2006, 01:09

Vecvechookattack

Thanks for your reply.

I’m afraid that I’m not too sure of your terms. I’m aware of “MedRescue” and “Medevac”; with Medrescue being the twisted ankle and Medevac being the 18 month baby. I assume your CASEVAC and my Medrescue are one and the same, please correct me if I am wrong. I have dabbled in CASEVAC although that was a shooting affair.

However, your reply only tells me they have different names, not why one should cost and the other comes free.

Not wishing to imply that charges should be made for the twisted ankle, more wondering why a patient assessed by a senior doctor to require helicopter transport should incur charges when a mobile phone call to 999 from Joe Public is an instant freebie, it would appear to me that someone a long way from SAR operations came up with this.

Thanks again

Whooper 5

[email protected]

2nd Jan 2006, 06:24

Whooper - a medevac flight is a pre-planned one requested by the NHS through ARCC Kinloss when no other means of transporting the patient is viable. The NHS trust must satisfy the ARCC that all other methods of transporting the patient have been explored and that the clinical need of the patient is so great that using a SAR asset is the only way of preserving life.

A med-rescue is when we pick someone off a cliff/mountain/vessel/beach/lilo etc and, because they require medical attention (whether it be for hypothermia or a broken back), we take them to hospital.

As for recouping the fees - the NHS seems to be better at squeezing more money from the treasury than the MoD, after all they are expanding and we are contracting.

Whooper5

2nd Jan 2006, 09:25

Crab,

Thanks for that, pretty much as I thought. I’m not sure I follow your logic on the costs though.

My wife (a nurse) sees the NHS side of this and questions the premise that the NHS recoups the funds from government. It would appear the structure of the NHS is such that these costs are paid locally, not through a central budget. Thus it is nigh on impossible to recover the funds as it becomes ‘local’ finance departments fighting the big boys in London. I’m sure you can imagine the impact of these costs on a local trust. I suspect your funding not only comes far higher up the food chain and would carry a bit more clout when seeking reimbursement but is also a drop in a far larger pot.

I’m honestly not trying to apportion any blame or create scandal; I just can’t see the logic in one flight being free and the other costing. I guess someone has to pay and it just came down to the toss of a coin, perhaps this is indicative of the UK’s ad hoc funding and policy for SAR , that is assuming there is no ‘central SAR pot’ in the UK.

Whooper 5

vecvechookattack

2nd Jan 2006, 11:03

Thats correct. In simple terms, a CASEVAC is when you transfer the casualty from a dangerous environment to a safe environment. For a casevac the MOD pays. A MEDEVAC is when you transfer a casualty from a medical facility to another medical facility. For medivac the NHS pays.

However, regardless of the mission, the airport concerned would be correct to demand payment. Saving lives isn't free.

SASless

2nd Jan 2006, 11:41

VEC,

Same charge for using the airport after hours for an emergency...when the only service provided was....NONE?

vecvechookattack

2nd Jan 2006, 17:16

The service they provided was building an airfield exactly in the position the SK wanted to land. Thats business. If aircraft wanted to land on your land would you allow them to free of charge? Nah ....

SASless

2nd Jan 2006, 17:26

Ah yes dear boy...but competition is a wonderful thing!

Keep yer rates too high for too long and someone will find a way to take care of the customer better than you.

Maple 01

2nd Jan 2006, 18:07

The service they provided was building an airfield exactly in the position the SK wanted to land.

Er, can't think of many airfields in the UK that weren’t built for the RAF/RN/RFC/RNAS/AAC so actually it's the airport authority that had the service provided when they bought the place for half bu@@er-all. So offering free landing/hardstanding to med flights might look like pay-back for their subsidy and good PR

If aircraft wanted to land on your land would you allow them to free of charge?

No worries, any if SAR ops want to drop in tea and biccies will be provided

[email protected]

2nd Jan 2006, 18:31

VecVec - when you take a casualty from a dangerous environment to a safe one it is called a rescue, when you take them from a dangerous environment to a medical establishment it is called a medrescue and when you take a patient from one medical establishment to another it is a medevac. Pedantic I know but that's what we have to put on our Form Rs because that is the official classification.

Whooper - I see your wife's point but there are so many different budget holders in the RAF alone, not to mention the rest of the MOD that no-one would be able to make a decision on billing without many years of committees and sub-committees, steering groups and the like, it would takes years of staff work just to work out who to send the bill to, let alone how much to make it for.

Maple01 - what's the grid reference?

Sven Sixtoo

2nd Jan 2006, 20:07

Crab - spot on.

Its not entirely logical, but there is a boundary. RAF SAR got into considerable trouble with the BHAB some years ago for allegedly doing the industry out of work (we were underslinging building materials to a remote location for a charity that would otherwise had to do the job by backpacking several tons of cement etc).

I doubt very much that Plymouth Airport was where the SAR cab actually wanted to go. They wanted to land just outside the door of the local A&E (Derriford isnt it?). That, it seems from posts here, is not possible. You could try asking why. In several locations in the UK there are hospitals that have taken the trouble to establish landing sites that are within walking / carrying distance of A&E and that can cope with the largest helos in UK service. In others the consultants car park is in the crucuial spot.

I have in the past given a sandblasting to several BMW 7s:E :E

Sven

Whooper5

2nd Jan 2006, 20:10

Crab,

you got me laughing out loud! There is nothing better to bring us back to earth than a bit of reality. You got the MOD nailed!!!

:D

Whooper 5

diginagain

3rd Jan 2006, 01:06

Pymouth City Airport is owned by Sutton Harbour Holdings, so I suppose as a commercial enterprise, they can charge whatever they want for the use of their tarmac. I'm rather surprised as to why the HLS at Derriford wasn't found to be more suitable, unless the patient being transferred wasn't going into the hospital - going to a local private establishment perhaps?

[email protected]

3rd Jan 2006, 12:39

Digin - as mentioned on a previous post, Derriford Hospital has its own LS which the Air Ambulance uses, but it is too small for a Sea King so any casualties brought in by SAR aircraft have to land at the Airport (just across the road) and be transferred by ambulance. Plymouth Airport have been less than helpful in the past with regards to parking etc and seem to attach no special importance to a SAR flight carrying a critically injured individual so it's not a huge surprise that they have started charging us as well.