Beware landing at Farnborough

[Pace]

Yesterday morning I was flying a Seneca light twin over a fog bound London. Destination was Fairoaks. Ok wishful thinking but approaching CPT I got an actual for Farnborough which was next door to Fairoaks.

Weather was 1500 metres overcast at 200 feet.

Asked for a weather diversion into Farnborough to be told that they would accept me but at a minumum charge of £360 for a 1999 kg seneca.

So pilots of GA beware flying in weather were you need an ILS.

Pace

[Vanpilot]

???? I thought they were supposed to be free if the diversion was for saftey reasons. Were you flying private??

Seem to recall something like that, but not sure what sector it was aimed at.

[BackPacker]

Pace, were you IFR or VFR? And did the weather deteriorate unexpectedly, making Farnborough your only alternative?

[mm_flynn]

One would hope at a minimum the intent was to be IFR once within 1000 ft of the fog layer.

My recollection of the weather yesterday morning in the area was - it was forecast to be foul and it delivered on the forecast - hence a bit of cheek trying to argue that landing at the ILS next door was a weather diversion.

I suspect somewhere like Biggin would have been more amminable to viewing it as a weather diversion (there is no incremental costs) whereas for Farnborough, it uses one of their very limited and hence highly valuable landing slots (which could have been used for a Hawker with a few limos and another couple of cases of Cristal from caterring :green eyed envy comming out: )

It is a shame the town has capped the movement level at such a low level (and also not put differential caps in - i.e 15k turbine movements/>7.5 tonne and 15k light movements) This would have kept the local peace but not so badly constrained the use of a wonderful facility.

[Pace]

Pace, were you IFR or VFR? And did the weather deteriorate unexpectedly, making Farnborough your only alternative?

I was flying IFR but outside controlled airspace. Weather was low all around London so admittedly poor chance of getting into Fairoaks but a chance if it lifted and broke enough on route.

They did have a weather diversion clause in place but now think you have to pay up front and then write in and make a good case which mine probably isnt :) I could imagine many would file for a VFR airfield when weather made it not possible and then divert???

One interesting point is i do not think Farnborough take singles anymore other than in a very genuine weather/emergency. A request by me to depart up north and return pm had the ops needing to check that a standard arrival was ok in a light GA. As it was a twin the answer was yes but never made it back anyway.

But it is a concern that GA lights are persona non grata and charged a fortune to keep them away. It would be interesting to hear others and their experiences and charges around other major london airports?

My point is if you do fly hard weather in light GA and have to use largish airports expect to be stung even if your destination was not achievable.

Genuine diversion would now read deteriorated weather at your VFR airport destination after departure not hoping for it to improve at destination before arrival :)

Biggin was in fog as is usually the case as it starts to lift from the ground.


Pace

[mm_flynn]

The No Singles policy at EGLF is NOTAMed and is still valid.

[BackPacker]

Well, to be brutally honest, I don't think your flight, in this particular case, would have been called a "weather diversion" under the Strasser scheme. I'm not sure what the exact criteria would be, but it sounds like you could just as easily have diverted to any other airfield in SE UK (and fuel permitting, outside of that area as well).

I realize that Farnborough would be ideal as it is close to your destination (Fairoaks) but "being close to your destination" should no longer be on your mind for a genuine all-charges-waived weather diversion, should it?

[Pace]

The No Singles policy at EGLF is NOTAMed and is still valid.

That is a shame and I am sure would not occur in the USA. I can understand when a single could use Fairoaks, blackbushe etc in minimal VFR but where do they go when thats not the case?

But maybe you shouldnt fly a single above 100/200 foot cloudbases? That would upset the TBM700 and Pilatus brigade.

I realize that Farnborough would be ideal as it is close to your destination (Fairoaks) but "being close to your destination" should no longer be on your mind for a genuine all-charges-waived weather diversion, should it?

Backpacker

I take your point and to be fair to me I did not push for a genuine weather diversion or not wanting to pay( but pay what ? £360 seems very excessive for the weight of plane and is a warning to others.

Pace

[IO540]

The No Singles policy at EGLF is NOTAMed and is still valid.

Really easy to find that out while airborne.... Just need a satellite phone, linked to a PC running a web browser :)

There actually aren't that many bad weather options with an ILS around these parts. Southend or Bournemouth both offer 200ft or so DH. Biggin is much less likely to, being on top of a hill.

Manston perhaps? There seems to be a permanent notam that their radar is O/S.

[apruneuk]

Pace

Out of interest, where did you manage to land in the end and what did it cost you?

AP

[mm_flynn]

I am sure EGLF's decision is based on the very limited number of movements they are allowed and the very small amount of money you can reasonably charge a single. It is a tremendous shame that such an asset has so many restrictions on it :(

IO - you sound almost like you have near time radar/ Serfics, TAFs, METARs and NOTAMs (for a few extra # given its larger page size) delivered via satcom to the cockpit ;)

[Reheat On]

Bournemouth:
Landing fee: £14.50 per tonne MTWA plus parking


Add fuel, ... , hmmm, not that bad I reckon

The old days of declaring a PAN come to mind :)

[Pace]

Out of interest, where did you manage to land in the end and what did it cost you?

AP

Landed at Farnborough and IT cost £360 but did not cost ME :) But in that sort of weather you are becoming limted with your options on cheaper landings.

would love to know why the no singles policy PC12 comes to mind?


Pace

[IO540]

you sound almost like you have near time radar/ Serfics, TAFs, METARs and NOTAMs (for a few extra # given its larger page size) delivered via satcom to the cockpit

Not even a masochist would be getting notams over a satellite internet connection :)

But, seriously, Farnborough is a bit like Italy :)

[drauk]

Not even a masochist would be getting notams over a satellite internet connection

Oh I don't know... A single simple URL (Fly (http://fly.dsc.net/tra)) will give you all current RA(T)'s in about 30K, works fine on small screen, etc.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not sure why all the talk of singles, given that Pace was flying a twin.

I had to make a safety diversion close to Farnborough a few years ago - I was offered Odiham or Farnborough. I chose Odiham simply because they were nearer (but not by very much) who were the height of professionalism, and didn't charge me a fee because it was a safety diversion.

But, be aware that Odiham has no Avgas, only Avtur.

G

[mm_flynn]

Just for info, this is the articulation of the policy.

NON FARNBOROUGH BASED SINGLE ENGINED AIRCRAFT, BOTH ROTARY AND
FIXED WING, WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO LAND UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR DETAILED INFORMATION CONTACT TAG OPS ON ++441252
379002. SINGLE ENGINED HELECOPTERS WISHING TO OPERATE TO/FROM
FARNBOROUGH HELIPORT DURING FI2008 SHOULD CONTACT ELITE HELICOPTERS
FOR DETAILS.

So clearly no worries if your PC12 is EGLF based. And If you are a down on your luck rock star forced into the single engine turbine class you probably are an 'exceptional circumstance'!

[PompeyPaul]

But, be aware that Odiham has no Avgas, only Avtur.
A bit like Fairoaks then, apart from EGTF don't have Avtur either!

[will fly for food 06]

So I was 't the only one flying yesterday. Was nice being above the cloud but not fun getting down.

[Pace]

So I was 't the only one flying yesterday. Was nice being above the cloud but not fun getting down.

Agree with that the sky seemed devoid of light GA. Maybe Farnborough should say cloud below 300 feet and light GA welcome. They wouldnt have many callers as there werent that many idiots like us bashing around :)

Pace

[READY MESSAGE]

ILS u/s at Biggin wasn't helping the cause yesterday either! VOR/DME approach only.

[Mike Cross]

Interestingly Farnborough is signed up to the AOPA scheme and Biggin is not.

Full list here. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/pdf/campaign_s.pdf)

Mike

[BEagle]

Yesterday morning I was flying a Seneca light twin over a fog bound London. Destination was Fairoaks. Ok wishful thinking but approaching CPT I got an actual for Farnborough which was next door to Fairoaks.

Weather was 1500 metres overcast at 200 feet.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Hmmm - some questions:

1. Was this a private flight? You state that someone else paid the landing fees, so was this flight aerial work for an aicraft operator?

2. Had you filed a Flight Plan? If so, what was the declared destination?

3. What was the forecast for your stated destination?

4. Does Fairoaks have any published IFR approach procedures?

5. To what aerodrome operating minima at Fairoaks were you working?

I thought that it is mandatory for you to establish before departure that your destination aerodrome has a landing forecast for your ETA no worse than that required for the type of approach available? And that it is the responsibility of both the aircraft operator and the aircraft commander to comply with this requirement.

The days of launching off 'hoping that Met was wrong' are long gone. I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound as though you had a particularly sound plan, irrespective of its legality - trying to find the cheapest diversion option in flight when your destination is as poor as the original Met forecast stated is not a healthy idea and is well outside the intentions of the Strasser scheme.

A year or so ago, I asked AOPA to intercede on behalf of a member. The pilot had checked the en-route weather, destination and diversion weather and all was well within limts. During his flight, the weather deteriorated unexpectedly so he diverted to Farrnborough - a genuine Strasser scheme diversion. But he was charged a large fee by Farnborough. AOPA investigated; when Farnborough became fully aware of the circumstances they refunded the fees without question.

[Pace]

This concession applies to genuine emergencies and diversions to airfields other than
the destination and the filed alternate airport.
Wide awareness means that GA pilots in a difficult situation can at least eliminate
the cost factor as a potential worry. Publishers of Airfield Data have been asked to
highlight this safety concession and so far Aerad, AFE and Pooleys have agreed
to do this in their “VFR Flight Guide”. No Response from Jeppesen/Bottlang.
Unfortunately
15 Airports/Airfields have so far decided that they will not implement the CAP
667 9.2(c) recommendations. Hopefully they will have a change of heart and join the
majority of UK airfields that have.
Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Exeter, Filton,
Gloucestershire, Humberside, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester,
Norwich, Teesside.
And
3 Airports have not been approached - London Heathrow, City and Gatwick.
In recognition of their outstanding contribution to UK General Aviation

Its interesting that it refers to EMERGENCY and DIVERSIONS other than the destination and FILED alternative. There is no reference to whether the flight is VFR or IFR. It discounts filed alternatives but appears to refer to diversions as well as emergency diversions which would imply that ordinary diversions are acceptable as long as they are not filed alternatives on a flight plan.

I think the principal seems to be to encourage pilots to land and not be deterred from doing so by cost rather than attempting to make a destination which could jeopordise the flight.
Hence Farnboroughs policy of paying the charges and writing in for a refund so you can make a case for your landing there.

My flight although not on a flight plan with filed alternatives was using Farnborough as a genuine alternative and part of my plan for not getting into fairoaks. This would not have met the spirit of what the agreement was put in place for.

My arguement is more on the minimum cost of £360 rather than the weight costing on the aircraft and the fact that there are less and less practically useable airports around the southeast which have low costs for GA and full instrument approaches.

Pace

[Pace]

A year or so ago, I asked AOPA to intercede on behalf of a member. The pilot had checked the en-route weather, destination and diversion weather and all was well within limts. During his flight, the weather deteriorated unexpectedly so he diverted to Farrnborough - a genuine Strasser scheme diversion. But he was charged a large fee by Farnborough. AOPA investigated; when Farnborough became fully aware of the circumstances they refunded the fees without question.

Beagle

I fully checked the weather before departure and while hoping there might be an improvement which would allow a landing at Fairoaks really expected to divert into Farnborough or Southend. I also had full fuel 5 hrs endurance for 1 hour flight so I could have gone anywhere in the country :) My flight was IFR out of controlled airspace.
I did not expect a refund and didnt try for one as it is not my cost anyway but highlighted this for other PPLs IMCR or IR who do fly on a budget in minimal weather.
For your info I hold an ATP and type ratings on corporate jets as well as flying piston and turbine twins.

Pace

[CherrytreePilot]

I was returning to Blackbushe, talking to Farnborough. They informed me BB was shut due to a crashed a/c on the runway. They suggested I divert into them at no charge.

Thaey could not have been more helpfull and I had to leave the plane there overnight. All at no charge. There were other BB a/c who landed there also but dont know whether they were charged or not.

[BEagle]

I fully checked the weather before departure and while hoping there might be an improvement which would allow a landing at Fairoaks really expected to divert into Farnborough or Southend.

Nevertheless, your clear intention before departure was to land at an aerodrome with weather forecast to be out of limits. You stated as such when you wrote:

Yesterday morning I was flying a Seneca light twin over a fog bound London. Destination was Fairoaks.

and later:

I fully checked the weather before departure and while hoping there might be an improvement which would allow a landing at Fairoaks really expected to divert into Farnborough or Southend.

Was this a private flight? What was your declared destination when you booked out?

[englishal]

Whatever....£360 seems a bit steep to me, especially as it was not "out of hours".....

[Pace]

BEeagle

Firstly Fairoaks will only give you an estimate of their weather conditions as it is a pure VFR airfield.

Secondly I am sure you are aware that TAFS which cover fog conditions are vague so you might get a TAF staing becoming 3000 metres few at XYZ between 0800 and 1000 ie fog is very difficult to predict and where it lies.

If you fly in my world you would on a number of occasions be stacked over an airport with a number of other commercial aircraft waiting for an RVR to come up above minima....

I dont really see what your point is. There are pilots who fly for the fun of it and those who have to. If you are somehow trying to say that my flight involved some sort of poor airmanship then all I can say to you is BULL.

I posted this to make PPLs with IMCR or IR capability aware of the costs of using a number of airports with instrument approaches and the diminshing ones with instrument approaches which will not cost you an arm and a leg.
I am lucky I do not pay for flying I get paid for flying but most here dont.

I had numerous destinations available to me, some close some not so close which were within my limits and ability and within the aircrafts range. A request was made for a landing at Farnborough the flight accepted with the costs given which were accepted. Had the flight not been accepted then I would have had to go somewhere else simple as that.

Pace

[BEagle]

The point is that, if VFR conditions were not forecast for your intended VFR destination, then surely you must have selected an available alternate before departure? If that was Farnborough, then you would have known about the cost before you took off, assuming that you checked the aerodrome details.

Which does seem unreasonably high, I agree.

[Fuji Abound]

I thought Pace said he had planned to divert to Sarthand or Biggin?

Personally I would have gone to Southend or Lydd - but as ever it depends if it is just to sit out the weather or you have to consider getting Pax on their way. Neither of these is great for onward travel.

I would imagine Luton would be cheaper than Farnborough, but I havent landed their in a while. Southampton would definitely have been cheaper (even with handling) and good onward travel.

[BackPacker]

Pace, the way I read your initial post was that you were complaining about Farnborough not giving you a free landing because it was a weather diversion - which I disagreed with. And I think I'm not alone, judging by the amount of flak you received here.

But if you were fully prepared, as your subsequent posts show, to pay a normal landing fee at Farnborough because you already had it as your alternate in your mind/plan, and just were surprised by this rather steep fee, then fine. I agree.

[Red Four]

Well, as Fairoaks is a pure VFR airfield, then in the weather conditions you could only expect not to get in to Fairoaks, so were all along expecting to go elsewhere.
The only airfields that can supply Official actual Met reports are those with accredited Met Observers/Forecasters, and then publish this METAR via AFTN. In poor weather conditions, would you really expect to get into Fairoaks on an 'unofficial' weather report and without an IAP?
The original wording of the Strasser scheme was for emergency/precautionary landings, including those caused by a weather element.

Unfortunately IMO, the wording of the weather diversion element of the scheme is now becoming stretched to include WX diversions where there is no emergency or precautionary landing aspect,but just flying to the normal alternate destination, and certain sections of the piloting fraternity are using this to take advantage of some airfields that have agreed to participate.

Again, if your planned destination has the runway blocked at short notice, why should this be a free diversion at alternate if there is no emergency (with your aircraft). Surely every take-off includes the possibility that the runway you want to land on may not be available, and you should have an alternate planned.

[Pace]

BEeagle

Yes I am aware of Farnborough and have used it a number of times with corporate jets. No I did not check the landing cost.

One hint I will give you is that when you fly because you have to you do learn to play the system a little ;) and that is the case with every corporate or airline pilot I know.

But if you were fully prepared, as your subsequent posts show, to pay a normal landing fee at Farnborough because you already had it as your alternate in your mind/plan, and just were surprised by this rather steep fee, then fine. I agree.

Backpacker

The above was correct if I implied otherwise it was more to generate an awareness and discussion of likely problems for the poor PPL who is then faced with huge bills he can ill afford.

My post was also a genuine concern at light GA being pushed out of the system by ever increasing costs and thus making light GA a fun pastime rather than a serious travel tool. I can remember years ago flying a PA28 into places like Manchester and Luton for a cup of coffee. What a change now.

Pace

[Fright Level]

Fairoaks also has special rules regarding vis being 3000m for non IFR as it's within the LHR zone. With no published approaches IFR traffic has to somehow get to a position in sight of the runway. Farnborough won't accept responsibility for terrain separation below 1700' QNH, so Fairoaks can be tricky to legally operate into.

I live on the 24 final approach course and I often see/hear planes emerging from the low level clag over my house when the cloudbase is at 500' or lower and vis well below 3km. All home made GPS approaches no doubt.

[plus7g]

Pace - thanks for the info regarding the costs of a div into farnborough. This , I believe was the point of your posting and I see no reason why BEagle should get on his high and mighty horse and go on about whether it was a private or commercial flight. The guy seriously needs to take alook at his attitude :bored:

[Pace]

Plus7G

The nature of these forums is that you expect to get some Flack now and again and I would rather it that way as at least the post is generating opinion and I can quite happily defend my corner :)

There was a time when you could fly into any airport big or small, get radar services, approaches and blend in with the bigger stuff much like is the case in the USA where all varieties of aviation live together.

I could place a Seneca at Malaga and have done for peanuts in cost in the near past. Light GA is now not wanted in the UK and priced out of existance at the majority of larger airports, basically told to go away and not bother them.

At what point does GA no longer become a practical means of transport but a keep away from anybodies airspace toy for sunny days only.

Pace

[IO540]

At what point does GA no longer become a practical means of transport but a keep away from anybodies airspace toy for sunny days only.

That's how it has been in Europe for far longer than I can know, if you cannot fly IFR.

If you can fly IFR, the issues reduce to PPR, avgas, PPR, PPR, avgas, airport opening hours, availability of Customs, PPR for Customs, and avgas :)

So, if you have a turboprop, it reduces to PPR, PPR, PPR, airport opening hours, availability of Customs, PPR for Customs :)

And a call to a handling agent usually sorts all of the above; even to the extent of lubricating certain local "commission arrangements" in the more southern parts of Europe. It is the pilots who are as tight as the proverbial and (like me) try to avoid the handling agent's fee, who get all the hassle.

Farnborough is a bit of an unusual case, I think. But a lot of the bigger European airports (say Prague) are in the £150 area nowadays, 2T.

[Fuji Abound]

My post was also a genuine concern at light GA being pushed out of the system by ever increasing costs and thus making light GA a fun pastime rather than a serious travel tool. I can remember years ago flying a PA28 into places like Manchester and Luton for a cup of coffee. What a change now.

Exactly!

Of course we all accept it - and do nothing about it. You will even hear - it is there airport they can do what they like.

Well, I dont subscribe to that view.

There are many reasons why airports shouldnt charge what they like or ban GA.

I hate to drag the Americans into it - but it doesnt happen in the States - and it shouldnt be the case here or in Europe for that matter. Nor, in most cases, is there any justification for it.

[BEagle]

I live on the 24 final approach course and I often see/hear planes emerging from the low level clag over my house when the cloudbase is at 500' or lower and vis well below 3km. All home made GPS approaches no doubt.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

One hint I will give you is that when you fly because you have to you do learn to play the system a little ;) and that is the case with every corporate or airline pilot I know.

plus7g, whilst such cowboy activity continues to infest our skies, I will continue to 'get on my high and mighty horse'.

Don't like it? Tough.

And Pace, please tell me which airlines these pilots of you acquaintance fly for, so that I can make a positive effort to avoid flying with them.

Of course Fairoaks, if it is ever to be taken seriously, should have some sort of IFR approach available. Even if that's nothing more than a full ATC service and a surveillance radar approach from Farnborough, it'd be better than nothing. An IFR GPS approach to non-precision limits? Regrettably the UK is still a long way from general acceptance of approaches defined by GPS - unless progress is made towards such acceptance and wider availability of IFR activity in general, light GA in the UK will never be viewed as anything more than a rich boy's hobby, I regret to say.

[smarthawke]

Perhaps I'm missing the point here...

It is their airport and they can charge what they want. If they have severely limited allowable movements then they surely have to make what they can out of each one. Farnborough is well known to be a bizjet haven and why not?

If you don't like what they charge, don't go there - intentionally or 'not' intentionally....

It would also appear that they will listen and act accordingly to genuine diversions. Perhaps they also know that commercial pilots like to 'try it on' and get away with what they can.

I think BEagle's point may be that you wanted to go to that area fairly seriously (perhaps pax to deliver, commercial or not) and you knew the chances to get into Fairoaks were slim. You chose to land at Farnborough and then complain about the landing fee? Your choice - as you say, you could have landed anywhere in the UK with the fuel on board, so why there?

Perhaps in your want to help PPLs you could have made the thread about the dangers of setting off for a destination where the weather was forecast to prevent a successful arrival...?

Incidentally, I saw the Seneca parked on the ramp during an organised visit to Farnborough Radar and ATC. A nicer, more friendly bunch of people you could not hope to meet. The Vulcan is parked there awaiting a brake pack change - an all FOC courtesy of TAG. Looks like they are kind to the people who deserve a bit of charity....

[LH2]

Weather diversion or no weather diversion, £360 for a Seneca is armed robbery + buggery. :ooh:

[mm_flynn]

Weather diversion or no weather diversion, £360 for a Seneca is armed robbery + buggery. :ooh:Having taken the Seneca they will probably loose the revenue for a Hawker, plus the fuel, plus the handling, plus the catering +....

It is the local governments/councils that set ridiculously low movement caps that treat a jet the same as a light piston. It almost forces the airport into being jet only. (Which in no way excuses the practice of some airports that are not capacity constrained that price or administer GA out just to simplify their lives)

[IO540]

Is Farnborough actually working against the movements cap right now?

[plus7g]

BEagle "whilst such cowboy activity continues to infest our skies" suggest you wind your neck in and live and let live - we have enough people thinking they are the police without you adding your worthless comments :=

[mm_flynn]

Farnborough has been 'sold out' on weekend slots for a while (but has just recently had this allocation extended by the council) and I believe they are closing in on their total allocation. If they didn't actively discourage certain classes of aircraft (i.e. us) they would be at their limit for weekdays as well.

[Fuji Abound]

So lets see:

Food prices have risen in our country faster than any other. 75% of the food business is controlled by four companies. Of course its their supermarkets - they should be able to charge what they like.

NATS have the monopoly on our air traffic services. There are many an airport that would like to offer a radar assisted approach service. NATS will provide the feed - at a cost - around £100K I gather. Ah yes, our airspace, our government’s license, but their monopoly - of course they should charge what they like.

Take a look at the airports around Fairoaks. Consider for a moment the number with ILS procedures - there aren’t many. Now factor in a strong northly wind and see how many you are left with. Ah yes, I forgot, their ILS, they should charge what they like.

Capitalism at its best - the trouble is it doesn’t work when a few are allowed to control the market to the detriment of the consumer. It is within the grant of the CAA to license airports and within their grant to regulate how the facilities are used - airports such as Farnborough should not be permitted to ban singles (for which there is absolutely no justification) and should not be permitted to impose charges that deny access to the majority.

Fortunately even capitalism recognises monopolies are dangerous - it is a shame so far as we pilots are concerned that the government has not seen fit to limit organisations such as NATS and some licensed aerodrome providers from charging what they like. Kid yourself not, there aren’t the market forces to keep prices in check - these organisations can charge what they like because there isnt any competition.

[Pace]

And Pace, please tell me which airlines these pilots of you acquaintance fly for, so that I can make a positive effort to avoid flying with them.

BEagle

Do lighten up a bit :) Will give you one tiny example. You are flying a jet you are held at FL330 but really want higher, FL370 or FL390 to reduce your fuel burn or get better winds. You state you are experiencing a pocket of turbulence or some other excuse not that you want to save fuel.

Asking not to take a turn because you hope for a more direct routing and stating your reason as avoiding weather is another.

There are many ways pilots work the system and if you dont believe that what world do you fly in??

Pace

[Pace]

And Pace, please tell me which airlines these pilots of you acquaintance fly for, so that I can make a positive effort to avoid flying with them.

BEagle you sound a real bundle of fun :) do lighten up a bit. Every airline and corporate pilot I know uses techniques for getting higher cruising levels or more direct routings and much more and very much do legally play the system.

Put the appropriate posting in the relevant forum and you may get your eyes opened somewhat :)

Take care

Pace

[Bright-Ling]

Fuji

So lets see:

Food prices have risen in our country faster than any other. 75% of the food business is controlled by four companies. Of course its their supermarkets - they should be able to charge what they like. RELEVANCE

NATS have the monopoly on our air traffic services. WRONG... go do some research as NATS is split into NERL and NSL. There are many an airport that would like to offer a radar assisted approach service. NATS will provide the feed - at a cost - around £100K I gather. OOOhh where did you pluck that number from? And how much do you think providing and maintaining radar costs? Ah yes, our airspace, our government’s license, but their monopoly - of course they should charge what they like. INCORRECT...... go do some research. Come back when you can demonstrate that you can understand the regulators role and CP2/3

Take a look at the airports around Fairoaks. Consider for a moment the number with ILS procedures - there aren’t many. Instrument approaches at Lasham, Biggin, Odiham, Benson, Oxford, Southend. oops forgot to mention Farnborough, Southampton etc etc Now factor in a strong northly wind and see how many you are left with. Benson, Southamton and Biggin seem perfect... Ah yes, I forgot, their ILS, they should charge what they like.

Capitalism at its best - the trouble is it doesn’t work when a few are allowed to control the market to the detriment of the consumer. It is within the grant of the CAA to license airports and within their grant to regulate how the facilities are used - airports such as Farnborough should not be permitted to ban singles (for which there is absolutely no justification) and should not be permitted to impose charges that deny access to the majority.

Fortunately even capitalism recognises monopolies are dangerous - it is a shame so far as we pilots are concerned that the government has not seen fit to limit organisations such as NATS and some licensed aerodrome providers from charging what they like. NATS have nothing to do with the landing fees at any of the UK airports....... Kid yourself not, there aren’t the market forces to keep prices in check - these organisations can charge what they like because there isnt any competition. Oh dear, if only the rest of your waffle wasn't so incorect people would listen to your rant!

[Bright-Ling]

Oh and for what it's worth, £360 is extorniate but given that they have x number of slots of course (which they normally run out of near year end - ask Blackbushe!) they want the highest paying aircraft in there. One light twin in and out is two movements gone... which could be a nice BBJ!

Pace, sorry to say that if you got airborne when the TAF turned out as bad as you feared then there is little point complaining - esp as you admit that you could go anywhere in the South. No doubt that your client was billed for the extra costs?

[BEagle]

what world do you fly in??

One without liars or cheats at the helm.

[Fuji Abound]

RELEVANCE

The dangers of uncontrolled monopolies

WRONG... go do some research as NATS is split into NERL and NSL.

NATS Holdings owns both NERL and NSL - they are wholly owned subsidiaries.

OOOhh where did you pluck that number from?

NATS actually - of course they could have plucked it from somewhere.

And how much do you think providing and maintaining radar costs?

The radar heads have to be provided. How much do you think a feed costs? Have you been to Calais. You should if not. Ask how their feed works and how much they pay for it.

INCORRECT...... go do some research. Come back when you can demonstrate that you can understand the regulators role and CP2/3

I do.

Benson, Southamton and Biggin seem perfect

Southampton does not have a northly ILS, you obviously have never used Benson, Biggin is also not northly.

NATS have nothing to do with the landing fees at any of the UK airports.......

I never said they did.

Oh dear, if only the rest of your waffle wasn't so incorect people would listen to your rant!

Your claim as to my factual incorrectness seems to have gone disastrously wrong.

You may well disagree with regulating access to airports so that GA is not effectively excluded, but you should avoid debating the facts, unless you can do a better job.

[Lost man standing]

OK, so Pace was expecting to fly into Farnborough. Not a problem, assuming he had a second alternate (or in fact a third, since it seems Farnborough was not forecast good enough for a non-precision approach so not a suitable alternate. Since Pace says he was not paying, it seems likely he was working under EU-OPS. If not, the rules are sensible for flight safety). We've all hoped for the best, but we also planned for the worst. He appears not to have checked with their handling agents that he would be welcome.

Farnborough did ban all pistons. It might be that they now allow piston twins, but it appears Pace didn't check. £360 for an unscheduled arrival when the crew knew they were likely to be flying in does not sound unreasonable, especially in an airport trying to discourage that class.

[Mike Cross]

It is the local governments/councils that set ridiculously low movement caps that treat a jet the same as a light piston.

Not quite. It's the Land Compensation Act which makes no distinction, which is why the residents around Southampton lost their compensation claim when GA was kicked out to make way for CAT.

[jamestkirk]

All pace wanted to do is say how expensive Farnborough was.


BEagle, you wrote;
One without liars or cheats at the helm.

If you have been in aviation as long as 'you sound' you have, then you know that sometiems its as bad as the motor trade (the bad ones). You seem to judge quickly but I am sure you must have been in situations where you said to yourself, 'is it legal and safe'. If the answer was yes then maybe a rule/SOP must be bent a little.

P.S I had to edit this post because i spelt Farnborough wrong. That is because I don't go in there very often because its so f~cking expensive

[Thud105]

Ouch! Flying on the other side of the pond really is expensive isn't it!

[ExSp33db1rd]

One without liars or cheats at the helm.


Precisely where is that then ?? :ooh:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Ouch! Flying on the other side of the pond really is expensive isn't it!


Come to NZ. Took my microlight into AKL Intn'l., slotted in between 2 Big Boys, didn't even have to hold. Cost ten quid - approx.

Bit tricky maintaining a mandatory 90 kts to 300 ft. tho' as gear operating speed 80kts and flap limit speed 60 kts. but it worked OK ( yes, variable prop. and retractable gear and it IS a microlight under NZ regs. :ok:)

[Pace]

Lost man Standing

I am starting to wish I had never bothered to post this. I did not expect to get into Fairoaks or Farnborough but did want to get as close to where my passengers needed to be.

I had a number of other options icluding Southend Lydd, Southampton Bournemouth or turning back north where there were a host of pure VMC airports.

Having gone into Farnborough I posted this to warn PPLs of the cost and the need to prove your emergency diversion to avoid such a huge landing fee.
I did not arttempt to avoid it myself.

From the days (not that long ago) when I flew with friends in a PA28 for a cup of coffee into places like Manchester or Luton the changes now for light GA are massive and the options for using light GA as a serious means of transport are getting less and less.

That was my message.

The people at Farnborough are great and I have used Farnborough flying corporate jets a number of times.

BEagle

I bet you are active in the local residents association amd neighbourhood watch. I have flown with some great Pilots in my time so keep to your world because I wouldnt want to be in it.

Take care

Pace

[chevvron]

Just a reminder (I know it doesn't apply in this case) simply filing Farnborough as alternate on your flight plan isn't sufficient to guarantee a diversion; the airfield is strictly PPR via TAG Operations (ATC have no say in the matter unless you declare an emergency) who are always quite flexible.

[Fuji Abound]

From the days (not that long ago) when I flew with friends in a PA28 for a cup of coffee into places like Manchester or Luton the changes now for light GA are massive and the options for using light GA as a serious means of transport are getting less and less.

Pace

Well I have to say I am with you. You have highlighted how expensive many airports have become.

How is it that NZ (see the earlier post) are able to charge a £10. How is it that Miami Int. charge not many bucks. Even in France you can go round and round on the ILS if you wish and be charged a few Euros.

Ah, yes, I forgot, because it is their airport and we are all happy they can charge what they like. Strange old country really.

If you are doing instrument training I would vote with my feet. If you are any where near the south coast go to France.

[jamestkirk]

Don't get too upset with people giving you an unjustified dig.

You sound like you do single pilot ops. If so, you are a better man than I. The reason I say this is that you have to rely only on yourself and get 100% of the workload and have to fly all of that in marginal weather.

[Lost man standing]

What's up with charging £360?

That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft! Try landing an Heathrow. It appears you also did not warn them of your possible arrival, nor were you genuine emergency. Of course you have to prove genuine emergency to have landing fees waived, or it would be chaos, with people claiming weather diversion whenever possible.

The company I work for does use small aerodromes with no instrument approaches. If the weather is in any doubt we arrange contingent handling at alternates, and warn them of our possible or likely arrival.

If you are flying for an AOC operation, Pace, then your operations people are not doing their jobs!

[Fuji Abound]

What's up with charging £360?

That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft!

Yeah, on second thoughts not a lot.

I think they should charge whatever they like.

£600 would seem a great deal more resonable.

[Lost man standing]

Fuji

If Farnborough allowed cheap access to light aircraft, then they would start having to turn away light jets. How much money do you think one of them pays? How much money do they spend on fuel, handling and catering?

It's the way capitalism works. Supply and demand - if supply is lower than demand then the price goes up until demand drops or supply increases (not possible in this case unless price rises enough for Blackbushe to establish an instrument approach).

[Fuji Abound]

LMS

You make a very valid point. If I was running Farnborough I would probably charge close on "as much as I could get away with".

That is just about the same for any business operating in a free market.

Returning to my orginal analogy if you were running a supermarket and operated the only chain in the country we all know what would happen to prices. If there are four major players in the business the temptation for them to get together and rig the price is a constant danger to the consumer. If there are ten the consumer is probably on to a good thing.

All basic economics of course.

I was perhaps a little tongue in cheek advancing an alternative position.

However .. .. ..

Airports in this country are a bit different. The majority of larger airports dont actually operate in a free market. BAA control many of the major airports. Rightly they have been forced to sell off Gatwick because of the concerns expressed about the way they operate. NATS, however you want to argue the corporate structure, own both the division concerned with airspace and the divsion concerned with providing air traffic services at many of our larger airports - including Farnborough to whom they are contracted. NATS are a monopoly bailed out by the taxpayer when they nearly went bust and nearly owned in the majority by the taxpayer (49%).

Airports with an ILS are licensed by the CAA and in the case of Farnborough use nearly majority government owned agency to provide air traffic services (albeit I appreciate on commercial terms). In short in a country in which particularly in the south, land for airports is in short supply and is in any event fiercely controlled by enviromental concerns there may be an argument that charges and access should be regulated so supply is available to all.

If you take the free market argument to its logical conclusion in the south east of England you will end up with not a single airport where a light aircraft can expect to be able to fly an ILS for less than £100 and possibly a lot more. We are not too far removed form that scenario already.

Around the south of London the only airports available with an ILS are Gatwick, Heathrow, Biggin, Farnborough and Southampton. (I have exlcuded form the list Manston, Lydd and Southend which are all in the back of beyond!). As we all know the approaches vary and as we also all know the direction of the approach can be far more critical for light aircraft so the list can end up being very small.

Ultimately that can result in light aircraft being effectively denied access to any airport with an approach in this part of the country.

So what I hear you say - light aircraft pilots should not be setting off in these conditions.

Well of course that is why light aircraft will never become a realistic means of transport in this country. It is also why fewer commercial pilots will train in this country - why would you when you can go to Spain or the States and get the job done for half the price.

Ultimately of course it is GA that suffers.

I recall when Bournemouth hiked up their prices and effectively excluded GA. Unfortunately they did so at about the same time as the last recession. As CAT traffic declined of course they were anxious to welcome back GA - the damage was done and it took a long time before the traffic came back at significantly lower prices.

Southampton was a vibrant home for GA - now it has all but gone. I go there often. It is worth taking a few minutes to survey the acres of unused concrete - despite what they would tell you. Ah yes, and then there is the traffic argument. However you will never have a problem booking a slot and parking with the handlers.

I even recall when I started flying you could do T and Gs at Gatwick. When I was there earlier this year it was as quite as a church hall around midday - as is often the case. Again, it was revealing to survey the acres of concrete that were unoccupied - all sorts of acres where a dedicated GA parking area could be provided. Of course the reality is they dont want you. Moreover, to be fair during their peek times GA would be a nuisance. Even more worrying is they have done such a good pa job of telling everyone how busy they are and how little space thay have that most GA pilots actually believe this to be true.

So, unless I am very much mistaken, Farnborough is no where close to its capacity in terms of parking or slots. It may well be close to its capacity in terms of the number of slots given - I dont have the figures.

However, the fact remains if matters continue as they are the vast majority of GA pilots will have to think thrice about landing at any of the airports with an ILS approach in the south east of England before long not because the price is high (I go to Newquay regularly and do not object to paying their fees for approach and parking) but because it is unreasonably high, or, they have simply been banned altogether however fat their wallet might be.

That will be a shame for GA - but what do I care?

[panjandrum]

So what do GA pilots consider an acceptable price for a landing fee at an airport with ILS approach in SE of UK, say for a two tonne aircraft?

[Bright-Ling]

Oh dear Fuji, there you go again.....:=

So, ignoring the fact that NERL is a pseudo monopoly (the pricing is not set by NATS wish as you well know - and the governance is with the CAA) and that NSL only provide ATC for various airport companies (TAG/BAA/London City Aiport/Luton/Biggin Hill are some of the London Airports and owners) why do you think that NATS has anything to do with landing fees!??

Also, the NSL side of the operation operate in the free market, bidding for contracts - like the cleaners. They are just contrators. Contracts can be won and lost.

With resepct, your mis-understanding is massive. :ugh: If NATS controlled all the slots/operated the airports more ATCOs would be flying in themselves!

[Lost man standing]

Fuji

However those are issues over which Farnborough has no control. Slots are limited by planning regulation. If they were free I am sure they would not have discouraged business! Also note that government policy if for Farnborough to be used to take bizjet traffic away from other London airports, especially Heathrow, in order to free up runway slots there where possible for scheduled traffic.

Capitalism can only work within the constraints of the regulations placed upon it, and will be influenced by pressure from the regulating organisation or anyone else who can affect its business. Government policy will always have some effect.

[Foxy Loxy]

I believe he is heavily involved in management of an ILS-equipped airfield in SE UK.

Perhaps anyone thinking of answering panjandrum's question should exercise some caution?

[Trinity 09L]

I have been away for 2 weeks and not aware of this incident at EGLK - any news?

I completed all my training at Blackbushe, and now have a share now based there. I was always (and still) conscious of what would happen if EGLK was blocked as above, as my first choice would be EGLF (especially when training). It appears they are ready & able in circumstances of the above incident.:ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

To answer Panjandrums question I reckon £1.50 is about right given the level of service and b*ggeration you get when taking GA a/c into most ILS equipped airports.

[Fuji Abound]

why do you think that NATS has anything to do with landing fees!??

I dont - but if you cant be bothered to read what I said and prefer to misrepresent me then any debate is pointless, unless that is, you can point out where I said any such thing.

I did however say NATS have a monopoly over air traffic services. I did say they want £100K pa to provide a radar feed to an airport that might like to provide a radar approach service. I did say, which you choose to also misrepresent, that this cost was for the feed - not for the radar heads which are already in place and necessary to meet their other responsibilities.

I do say that the government should consider ensuring that this information is available to airports that wish to provide this service at a reasonable cost to enhance the safety of all airspace users.

That however is another matter and not pertinent to this debate.

I did not intend to single out Farnborough, but to express the more general view that for various reasons GA is being priced out or prevented from having access to airports in this region with an ILS. I have expressed my view why this could be a bad thing for GA. You may well disagree.

Enough said. Its us that should be concerned about the future of GA - if you want to fly in an area where GA finds it increasingly difficult to access any of the airports with an approach or you are happy to pay ever increasing fees for the privilige that is a matter for everyone on this forum.

[Avioactive]

ILS approach slot at EGTK is £25+VAT plus landing fee for anything under 6,000lbs MTOW is £15 or £10 at weekends - how's that stack up?