Kemble - disgraceful behaviour - or not?

[Monocock]

A stude landed at Kemble just after 5 the other day and was presented with a £150 landing fee and told that he had landed 2 minutes out of hours (he wasn't told in the air) and everyone had to be paid half an hours overtime.
That stinks. He won't be going there again. Their loss.

[bad bear]

I don't think the situation was quite how it appeared. There are tapes that can be replayed.....
However, perhaps GA should find a solution to out of hours problem that does not involve such high costs. Would it be practical to have one "out of hours permit" for all UK airports that also allows gliders to aero tow retrieve from consenting aerodromes?

bb

[dstevens]

Maybe if "pilots" read NOTAMS, and respected the fact that most airfields are PRIVATE PROPERTY and they land they only WITH PERMISSION, then the poor hurt little soul wouldn't have got himself/herself in to a pickle.

The whole tone of most of these whingers is "why should I have to pay £x to land". Well, pal, if we don't pay for the facilities, they will gradually disappear. How it is ok to pay 140quid an hour to fly a fourty year old heap of rust, then moan about 15 quid to land at a place with professional fire service, regularly swept runways, fuel, cust grass, CAA rules all met? Beggers belief.

I've flown in/out of Kemble weekly for 8 years - and I can assure you they are unfailingly polite and helpful to GA.

[Rod1]

“Well, pal, if we don't pay for the facilities, they will gradually disappear. “

Interesting argument but it does not hold true of reality. There are many more free or almost free landing sites within ½ and hour of me then there were 10 years ago and fewer licensed airfields which charge big bucks.

“How it is ok to pay 140quid an hour to fly a fourty year old heap of rust, then moan about 15 quid to land at a place with professional fire service, regularly swept runways, fuel, cust grass, CAA rules all met? Beggers belief.”

I would not pay £140 an hour to fly anything, but if you want to good for you. Pro fire cover has not saved a single GA life and the CAA have abandoned it as a requirement for flight training. More free landing sites offer me mogas than licensed airfields and the grass is just fine.

There is more than one way to view the world and for GA, the argument that you get what you pay for rarely works. The mantra that the more you know the less you pay (or the less you get ripped off) is far more appropriate.

Rod1

[soaringhigh650]

dstevans,

Maybe pilots are calling for public ownership of airports and/or tax collected to fund relevant transport infrastructure for the public.

I don't pay more than $25 for large airports out here, and almost everywhere else where I need to go is free.

May it remain that way.

[AndoniP]

The whole tone of most of these whingers is "why should I have to pay £x to land" blah blah

it's more about the principle of it in my opinion. he landed 2 minutes late. why not give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him flying there?

[IO540]

and the grass is just fine.

Hmmm... you are guaranteeing that personally, Rod1? With your cheque book open in case anybody's aircraft gets a prop strike?

No I didn't think so.

I can see the grass will be just fine for rabbits, but who pays the man to fill the holes afterwards when no landing fees are charged?

Anybody thinking that the future of GA is farm strips in living in a dreamland.

But yes they should have given him the leeway in this case. The problem is that perhaps they can't (economically) because a percentage of the people working there are on strict union rules to watch the time exactly and make a big fuss if just over. It wouldn't suprise me if the airport gets a big £££ hit if certain employees are required to stay past the end of their duty.

Whether those employees are actually needed to facilitate the landing is a separate issue.

[Danscowpie]

Given the tragic events which led to the death of a highly respected member of staff at Kemble this week, the inability to a pilot to ensure he can do the job he set out to do, pales into complete insignificance.

I'm a bit suprised Monocock considers an unsubstantiated allegation regarding money is more newsworthy than the above.

Each to their own.:mad:

[S-Works]

With all due respect an industrial accident has nothing to do with the issue being talked about here. There has been no thread hijack other than yours.

People die all the time, its life. Get over it.

[SunnyDayInWiltshire]

The flyer forum thread now includes an explanation and additional facts from the Ops manager at Kemble.

Worth reading

Seems to put this in perspective

SD

[Danscowpie]

and here it is:


Wow, this has certainly got peoples attention and it's time to put the record straight from a Kemble point of view. This has been a very trying and difficult week for us after the tragic accident here on Friday that claimed the life of our fire service boss, Steve Mills, and we will all miss him greatly.

The aircraft in question on Monday ppr'd to say he would be arriving at 1640hrs local, the aircraft was late and hastly joined on a right base from the Gloucester direction as he was running late. The aircraft confirmed that he did not have an indemnity to land after hours and the duty FISO (equally hastly) did say that an out of hours charge may apply. The aircraft landed at 1706hrs local and a £150 charge was mentioned (not on the radio) because 6 of our staff (3 x ops and 3 x Firemen) had to stay back to deal with it, not just the landing but the subsequent taxiing and ops staff in the tower had to hang around for the pilot to appear. Anyhow, the £150 was not paid and it was not even invoiced so no fee was forthcoming, we are not in the business of giving GA pilots grief but in this case a point had to be made because of the knock on effect.

Had the pilot requested to land out of hours we would have sorted him out with a form, taken his landing fee over the phone and none of this would ever had surfaced. This is the same way we would deal with any out of hours request and if you land before 1700 local you can depart anytime afterwards (unlicensed) and long as you make the correct blind calls and had a brief prior to leaving. Most of you on here have already stated how friendly and helpful we are, this is what we will always try to acheive but unfortunately a lot of us have worked a lot of hours (above and beyond the call of duty) over the last week dealing with the aftermath of the loss of a great friend and colleague.

If we ever fall short of not giving you all a better than average service then as Operations Manager I want to know about it and I would be happy for you to contact me direct on [email protected] and, as always, I will try and sort out any issues that you may have.


BOSE - X

People die all the time, its life. Get over it.

Normally I wouldn't give people like you the courtesy of a response, but this time I am going to bite.
Steve Mills was not only a very good friend, a close family member and a consumate professional, but he was also a gentleman of the first order.
Something which you may consider wishing to aspire to but I very much doubt you'll ever achieve.

[S-Works]

Normally I wouldn't give people like you the courtesy of a response, but this time I am going to bite.
Steve Mills was not only a very good friend, a close family member and a consumate professional, but he was also a gentleman of the first order.
Something which you may consider wishing to aspire to but I very much doubt you'll ever achieve.

I am sure he was. At what point did I indicate otherwise? And at what point did you gain the right to insult me?

I would suggest that if you are so emotionally engaged in this guys death that you see insult to his name in every comment and have to respond with venom then you are doing an equal disservice to the memory you are trying to protect. Perhaps time to step back and leave the keyboard alone.

His death is absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in hand.

[mur007]

Bosex - maybe the death of that man influenced how the staff at Kemble were feeling / behaving? Of course, had you been there they would have gotten over it within minutes; people die all the time after all. :ugh:

So-cal - regardless of what point bosex was trying to make, the bit about "People die all the time, its life. Get over it" is unnecessarily aggressive and insensitive.

[A and C]

That is quite the most distastefull and self centered comment I have seen in a long time.

[kindupnorth]

Words Fail me. I think you should get back in touch with reality before you make another insensitive post !

[Heliport]

If it was looked at out of context bose's comment would seem callous, but what has the sad death got to do with the landing fee? :confused:

SoCal:
How lucky you are to live and fly where there aren't usually any landing fees and, on the rare occasions when there are, they are very reasonable.

[S-Works]

If it was looked at out of context bose's comment would seem callous, but what has the sad death got to do with the landing fee?

Exactly my point. I followed a motorcylist two days ago who crashed into a barrier ahead of me and died. Does his death have any bearing on this thread?

I may seem callous to the casual observer, but I did not know the guy that died at Kemble, I did not know the motorcyclicst who died so I have no emotional involvement and won't pretend otherwise.

This thread until it was hijacked was someone having a gripe about landing fees and that is something that does effect us all. I am interested to see it pan out and see both sides of the story which are starting to come out now.

Let's leave the emotion out of it.

[BabyBear]

I can't argue with your point, bose, however for most it is basic human etiquette to show some respect for those emotionally involved and not be so callous.

At least your comment was in bad taste and totally unnecessary!

BB

[S-Works]

Seeing as how we seem intent on side tracking the thread.

Please explain to me how me pointing out that the death of an individual from an unrelated industrial accident should have any bearing on Monococks right to complain about a landing fee? I have no idea if the recent death of a member of the Kemble staff had any bearing on the professionalism of the staff or not. If they were that compromised that it had bearing on this discussion then it opens up a whole new discussion.

As it is Kemble have responded to the discussion and shown both sides of the story. As seems to be the case with these things there are indeed two sides to the story.

Just because someone knows someone who has died does not make it right to attempt to censure free speech.

There is a thread running that allows people to pay tribute to the gentleman concerned.

[blagger]

The sad death does have nothing to do with landing fees - everyone is agreed about that. However a comment like 'get over it' was a direct attack on how an individual chooses to deal with their grief. Trying to pretend otherwise while dragging out the landing fee issue is a classic diversionary tactic. Very sad that someone with such qualifications and status in the industry sets such an example.

[BabyBear]

blagger, exactly, well said!

Having the right to free speech and exercising it, as you have, does not give automatic credence to the words spoken.

What surprises me, bose, is you inability to recognise your insensitivity!

Hopefully the management at Kemble will recognise they could have handled the situation a little better and make the necessary action to prevent it happening again.

BB

[S-Works]

Sorry, I am must be missing something here. I have never claimed to be all sensitive and cuddly, l will leave that to the Guardian readers. I have merely made point that diverting the thread around an unconnected matter is bizarre.

Let's avoid trying to emotionally blackmail me into having a connection with a complete stranger to satisfy your own needs to vent grief?

Reading the tributes to the gentleman in question I have no doubt he was a fine person. I did not know him and don't want to be dragged into an emotional fray around a stranger.

Making personal attacks about me because you don't like my stance on dealing with death would appear to lower people to the very level they are vilifying.....

Sorry if that offends people.

[BabyBear]

This is getting silly now.

My last comment on this!

Bose, you are repeatedly defending your comments in a way many find distasteful and accusing people of personal attacks.

IMHO you are well aware of the point people are trying to make, as explained well by blagger, and I would go as far as to say that face to face I do not believe you would have used the words 'get over it' to someone who was emotionally involved, albeit the reason for not doing so may be the knowledge that there would be a high probability of an understandable physical attack in retaliation.

BB

[patowalker]

The original complaint on the Flyer Forum was posted by the pilot's ex-instructor. I wonder if he is going to offer his ex-stude a free nav lesson, as the 26' ETA error indicates there might be some weaknesses in that area.

[S-Works]

This is getting silly now.

Yes it is and attempting to bludgeon me into changing my stance and now suggesting that I would be facing physical violence for not having the emotional connection other people seem to have is also very silly.

We all deal with death in our own way. I am clearly able to get over it in a different way to others. Others need to get over it in their own way just don't get on the soapbox and expect everyone to agree with you.

[Katamarino]

It's natural for people to be badly affected by an incident such as the accident at Kemble. However, if they are affected to the point where it it is having a negative effect on their performance or professionlism, perhaps they should be taking some time off; this is a safety critical business, after all.

[BRL]

This is going around in circles now, please remember there is a condolences thread running in this forum and it can not be nice for his friends, colleagues to be reading this bickering.

Enough of the life/death issue, back to the OP's point in his post please.

[Monocock]

Couldn't agree more BRL.

Oh and by the way dancowpie:

I'm a bit suprised Monocock considers an unsubstantiated allegation regarding money is more newsworthy than the above.

Each to their own.

If you go to the link below you might realise it is sometimes better to engage one's brain before one's mouth.

FLYER Forums • View topic - Steve Mills RIP (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69662)

[Duckeggblue]

1. A pilot landed out of hours
2. The pilot was not charged £150.00
3. The ex instructor states that the ex student will not return to the airfield in question
4. The End :)

[stickandrudderman]

I'm feeling awfully left out.
My keyboard doesn't appear to have a "whinge" button.

[NigelOnDraft]

Out of interest, when an airfield has a clearly published closing time, states this in the PPR, states it on the radio, includes mentioning an out of hours charge... and then re-iterates what the charge should be (but does not impose it)... How late should you be able to land, taxi in and shut down after that time, and with all that advice, and just be told "welcome", and ignore the effect that 6+ staff have stayed after knock off time?

Oh, and given the thread's title Kemble - disgraceful behaviour can someone remind what the "disgraceful" part of their behaviour was please?

We have in the UK a variety of airfield types, catering for different needs. Kemble is hardly the cheapest place for a "bimble" type aeroplane on a low budget - so yes, maybe these types might find other places more suitable for a quick cuppa. However, Kemble offers many facilities for "other" users that require suitable staffing / facilities that "cost".

In addition, there are non-aviation activities, including using the runway, that require a level of regulation of visitors / out of hours use, that as indicated above, are available if desired. That requirement clearly does not apply to some other airfields, but just because unlicensed / non-RT / no paperwork works at 'Little Grassy in Nowhere' does not mean, IMHO, it should therefore apply to Kemble.

IMHO Kemble 1 Late Pilot 0 - in fact Late Pilot's ex-instructor -1 for then whinging on here :oh:

NoD

[Heliport]

IMHO Kemble 1 Late Pilot 0 - in fact Late Pilot's ex-instructor -1 for then whinging

Or .......

Well done to the thread originator for drawing (additional) attention to what might happen if you land late.
A useful reminder. :ok:


H.

[airpolice]

can someone remind what the "disgraceful" part of their behaviour was please?



Making remarks about the staff and management of Kemble to cover up a lack of flight planning strikes me as unwise, if not actually disgraceful.

I certainly don't have all the facts, but based just on what I have read in this thread, I don't think that "Kemble Airport" are the bad guys here.

[POBJOY]

This thread says more about some peoples attitude with regard to aviation than about the "Non Incident".
I have used Kemble for both commercial and "puddle jumping" flights the operation is a model for GA and we are lucky to have such a facility available in the UK.
To fully understand the thankless task of being an airfield operator you have to be one which of course leaves out 99% of pilots.
Not only are you required to operate under the auspicies of the CAA and Europe but then you can add on the quite onerous task of being a target for the local planning authority, the potential cost of which makes the normal regulation fees see almost reasonable.
Kemble have had two "attacks" on their operations (one at Kemble and one at LLanbedr). They survived the local one (at great cost to themselves) but LLanbedr (a potential operation) is still lost to GA at present.
Flying is a community situation and not understanding other peoples operational requirements does not help the system to work,cooperation should be the word, not complaining.

[Final 3 Greens]

As a disinterested party, I see two causes behind this aggro

1) a student pilot planning to arrive within 20 minutes of the closing time of an airfield

2) an airfield giving permission to a student planning to arrive within 20 minutes of the closing time

When I was a stude (and for some time after), I sometimes ran late (usually through my slowness in checking the aircraft after finding something unexpected, running through the checks etc) and I didn't have the skill or experience to know how to manage it.

It sounds as if both parties carry some of the responsibility to me.

[hoodie]

From the original thread on Flyer, the pilot in question was not a student.

The OP refers to him as "my ex-student", and he has carried pax, so it seems he is a PPL.

[Final 3 Greens]

Hoodie

I don't subscribe to Flyer, here is post #1in this thread

A stude landed at Kemble just after 5 the other day and was presented with a £150 landing fee and told that he had landed 2 minutes out of hours (he wasn't told in the air) and everyone had to be paid half an hours overtime.
That stinks. He won't be going there again. Their loss.

If it was a PPL, then it puts a different slant on things.

Socal

The point may be moot now, but if an airfield accepts a student flight, then it should expect that one or two things may not be as polished as an experienced pilot.

Yes, the instructor who let the flight plan things so tight would obviously have to take a share of the load.

[hoodie]

Final3, where'd you get that from?

The original Flyer post (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69687) actually says:


One of my ex studes landed at Kemble just after 5 the other day

[Final 3 Greens]

hoodie

I just cut and paste the whole of post #1 from this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/448773-kemble-disgraceful-behaviour.html

[mur007]

Final3, where'd you get that from?Page 3 of the thread on Flyer:

Steve, is this the same ex-student of your who had a flat tyre in the Cirrus at Kemble on Sunday, and I had to rescue with his passengers in the Seneca ? If so, he's having an expensive time of it.

Iceman 8)
Afirm. But its not the money. In his words "Its hardly in the spirit". Hope it doesnt put him off flying.

[Lasiorhinus]

Im coming from a background where there is no such thing as an airport being "closed" unless the runway is actually unserviceable - but I am absolutely at a loss to understand why you can't land at an unmanned airfield. Most places I land at are hundreds of kilometres from the nearest source of electricity.

Why do these people need to stay on past 5 o'clock just because someone is going to land a light aircraft?

[NigelOnDraft]

Im coming from a background where there is no such thing as an airport being "closed" unless the runway is actually unserviceable So if, say, out of hours the runway was being used for testing race cars, it's still good practice for people to just land there unannounced and hope everybody misses each other :ugh:

NoD

[Rod1]

It is quite normal to land at an unmanned airfield with no radio even in the UK. There are more such landing grounds in the UK than there are licensed airfields. 100’s of pilots are trained at such places and the accident rate is low. We have 24 aircraft based at our strip. We use Safty Com and do a lot of flying all over Europe. You just do not need anything other than 600m of grass (probably less) to fly VFR dawn to dusk.

Rod1

[NigelOnDraft]

Rod1...

Not sure who your post is addressed to? However, since mine precedes it, I will assume me :ooh:

I am quite familiar with small airfields, LAA types, grass strips, non-RT. I might even own shares in 1, or even more, LAA aircraft ;) We might even live on, and base an aircraft at, a private strip... with no radio / tower (or even orange windsock). We might even be building a (second) LAA type ;)

However, just because I (and you?) do, does it mean Kemble, or even LHR, also has to operate that way?

NoD

[Lasiorhinus]

Thanks, Rod.
Id certainly got the impression from Pprune that every airfield was "manned". Good to see theres still some normal regular country airstrips:ok:

How does it work with manned fields? I'm still unsure why you cant land there after everyone has gone home. Is it a legal requirement?

Nigel, if a runway was being used for a purpose such as testing race cars, that would certainly render the runway unserviceable, and as such would be NOTAMmed for any certified/licensed aerodrome. If its a private aerodrome, they'd tell you when you called ahead for permission to land, and you'd plan accordingly.

[silverknapper]

Again I don't see any fault on the part of Kemble at all. Well publicised hours etc etc. Where do they draw the line? I wonder if the student would work for free in his/her profession for no reason other than the 'customers' ignorance? The instructor kicking up the stink needs to do a bit of self reflection before they start posting crap on pprune.

I have used Kemble a few times, always found them nothing other than friendly, welcoming and helpful. Last visit a few weeks ago I had to be there first thing on a Sunday morning to pick someone up. Spoke to them the night before and they couldn't have been nicer. Even offering to let me in if I arrived ten mins early.

I take a different view from Rod in that I think GA would suffer badly were it not for places like Kemble. It has other activities going on to make money, the F1 testing etc. Hopefully (though with a big H) this will keep costs to GA in check. Lovely cafe makes it a Sunday afternoon type of venue for interested parties which I hope keeps interest alive. Chuck in some interesting airplanes dotted about and I guess it just is a nice place for aviation people to go.
Private grass strips are wonderful and have their place, but some people need avgas, or indeed Jet A1, and have a preference for tarmac, be it for performance, or indeed structural reasons. The type of infrastructure, even in a small operation like kemble, doesn't come cheap. Had said student departed the runway and became trapped in some wreckage I'm sure he wouldn't have complained about the fire crew staying back.

[NigelOnDraft]

Nigel, if a runway was being used for a purpose such as testing race cars, that would certainly render the runway unserviceable, and as such would be NOTAMmed for any certified/licensed aerodrome.. Perhaps it is Kemble's experience that the sort of people that pitch up out of hours, don't read the NOTAMS either :{ In fact, general UK GA expeirence would suggest that the NOTAM system is not a good way to keep things safe (both the lack of people bothering to read them, and the poor facilities in being able to read them).

If its a private aerodrome, they'd tell you when you called ahead for permission to land, and you'd plan accordinglyThey told him the closing time when he called ahead, but he failed to "plan accordingly". Once they are closed, there is nobody to "call".

We don't tend to have "public" aerodromes here, apart from a few Govt/Military ones... they are all "private".

Kemble is a busy airfield, and effectively "industrial" complex, with numerous businesses operating, including using runways etc. PPR etc. might be over used at some airfields, but Kemble is not one of them IMHO ;)

NoD

[Final 3 Greens]

The last pilot who landed on a runway being used for car racing was, IIRC, an airline pilot ;)

[PompeyPaul]

Perhaps it is Kemble's experience that the sort of people that pitch up out of hours, don't read the NOTAMS either
Maybe it's just me that thinks the NOTAM poimulgation is the most unintuitive and use unfriendly IT system I've come across.

If we seriously want to avoid issues, due to pilots missing NOTAMs, then sorting out the AIS website would be a great start.

Having to use an archaic language such as "DCT GWC DCT SAM DCT OCK" for a narrow route brief to cover the area I'm flying in is just asking for mistakes.

I don't think it would take much to add a "point and click" interface so that pilots can point at where they're flying to / from and the NOTAMs automagically appear. I bet it would lead to tangibly fewer airspace infrigements right there.

[Shrimps]

SkyDemon Light (http://www.skydemonlight.com/)

New from NATS to reduce infringements - makes it a lot easier to get a narrow route, though not quite so useful for simply 'bimbling'.

[wigglyamp]

I always use the French NOTAM service even for the UK - very easy, intuitive and you don't have to register/remember passwords etc.

SIA - La rfrence en information aronautique (http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/default_uk.htm)

[mur007]

And how many nimbys does your airport have to contend with if it proposes to to so much as erect a new windsock?

I think most UK pilots would love things to be more like they are in the US but for a number of reasons I don't think it will happen.

[pulse1]

Is it possible that the OP could change the heading for this thread. It is now obvious that, although they might have handled the situation better, Kemble have been far from demonstrating "disgraceful behaviour".

I have no particular interest in supporting Kemble as it is not one of my favourite destinations although it is within range of the traditional sandwich run for me. I just think that it is a bit unfair when this heading keeps coming up in my search for new posts.

[dstevens]

There is one factor here which seems to me is largely being ignored by most folks posting......

.....most airfields are PRIVATE PROPERTY that require PERMISSION from the owner BEFORE you land at them.

Try turning up at your local restaurant after they closed, banging on the door, and telling them that you have a "right" to a meal......

[reportyourlevel]

runway was being used for a purpose such as testing race cars, that would certainly render the runway unserviceable, and as such would be NOTAMmed for any certified/licensed aerodrome

Why would I NOTAM a runway "closure" during the published hours of aerodrome closure?