NATS to charge for AFPEx access at GA aerodromes

[TCAS FAN]

Have just seen a NATS email sent to my local GA aerodrome advising them that are to be charged for AFPEx access at £1995 + VAT per annum. It indicated that there had been a consultation between NATS & CAA, have anyone in the GA or other communities been consulted?

I accept that the original intent may have been to provide AFTN access to pilots to file their own flight plans, but AFPEx does provide GA aerodromes the same access to both send and receive flight plans and other flight regularity messages, together with the ability to access NOTAMs, particularly the ability to send them. As such it is a valuable flight safety tool.

What happens now if your GA aerodrome cannot afford the £1995? They will get cut off! Back to sending faxes for FPL and NOTAM, are NATS going to fax or phone when there is an incoming FPL? So much for NATS commitment to safety.

What is happening in CAA, giving in one hand (relaxing some GA regulation), then hitting GA in their pockets with their other?

I would echo the same question as my local GA aerodrome "just what I am I getting for the ever increasing aerodrome licence fee?"

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

What is happening in CAA, giving in one hand (relaxing some GA regulation), then hitting GA in their pockets with their other?

I think you'll find NATS are nothing to do with the CAA anymore.. Nothing but greed from a private company who don't give a rats @rse about their GA customers. Just look at the Farnborough CAS debacle...

[TCAS FAN]

'Chuffer' Dandridge

Appreciate the long gone separation of NATS from CAA, what p****s me off that the CAA has apparently carried out a closed doors consultation with NATS and is now letting them screw the GA aerodromes.

[kui2324]

Not just aerodromes - small businesses too. Our local NATS unit have 'demanded' that we use it to book out with since they moved to Electronic Flight Progress Strips which means our local flying club are also subject to the fee.

So we have international airport prices for landings and fuel already and extra fees like this will just cripple them :ugh: So much for the CAA trying to encourage GA:rolleyes:

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

An e-mail to [email protected] should do the trick, and will elicit any reason why the CAA are apparently agreeing to it..

A tax on flight safety as far as I'm concerned:=

[TheOddOne]

I've written to Martin Robinson of AOPA (as a Club, we're Corporate members - and I'm a personal member too). I look forward to his response.

When I responded to the e-mail telling us about this unaffordable charge, I did get a sympathetic response from the person at NATS, so maybe we'll get a dispensation for small not-for-profit clubs like ourselves. Our AFPEx usage probably isn't much more than a busy private pilot (who will continue to get the service for free) but it's invaluable for us to be able to activate flight plans for our members and visitors alike.

I'm exploring other solutions, such as Rocketroute.

TOO

[TCAS FAN]

Anyone out there a member of the Airport Operators Association, or have a contact who has access to their GA Committee? If so can it be established what prior knowledge the AOA had of the intent to charge?

The whole issue leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, bearing in mind that GA aerodrome operators in Southern England were encouraged by NATS to sign up for AFPEx due to the impending closure of the Heathrow FBU, which provided AFTN access via FAX for the filing of FPL and related messages.

Presumably the Heathrow FBU closure was a NATS cost saving measure - which they now intend turning into a revenue generating measure by charging for AFPEx access.

Come off it NATS, you want £1995 + VAT every year for an internet connection to the AFTN, which by nature is a flight safety focussed system. Who in NATS gets a salary bonus for dreaming this one up!

[mrmum]

It's just ridiculous, as a small flying school, we maybe file a dozen or so flight plans a year, so now NATS want 2 grand a year for the privilege!:eek::ugh:
Well we obviously won't be paying that, there are other still free ways to do it.

[TheOddOne]

I believe that there may be a solution in sight for small outfits like ours that generate less than 20 plans a month. Hopefully NATS will announce this soon.

TOO

[soaringhigh650]

What happens now if your GA aerodrome cannot afford the £1995? They will get cut off! Back to sending faxes for FPL and NOTAM, are NATS going to fax or phone when there is an incoming FPL? So much for NATS commitment to safety.

The solution should be to encourage electronic uptake. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

You can also use Skydemon. Now available on your iPad.

[TheOddOne]

... and Rocketroute.

The problem isn't in generating flight plans, it's small aerodromes having access to a system that allows them to have an alert to inbound and outbound flights that have filed for their location and being able to activate other pilots' flight plans. So far, a system that enables all this and enables those who cannot justify the cost of a subscription to either Rocketroute or Skydemon to generate flight plans has been provided without charge to the end user. Unlike in the States, in the UK the service provider isn't paid for by the non-flying taxpayer, but by the users (in our case, mostly by the airlines) They have said (and so would I) that they are subsidising GA, hence the hike in charge. My point is that it should be proportionate. I suspect that anything less than the proposed charge is going to cost more to administer than the return would be, so for small users, it will be at no direct cost. We'll pay for it when we go for a ride in an airliner, instead!

TOO

[TCAS FAN]

Ref post 5, Tony Rapson, Head of GA Unit, is not the CAA person to contact. A colleague of mine emailed him to express concern and received a very prompt reply offering to forward the email to the responsible person in NATS. I'll post any alternative contact information.

What can we next expect from NATS, a mandatory requirement to carry a contactless debit/credit card if you want a controlled airspace crossing clearance????

[TCAS FAN]

As previously indicated, it appears that at the eleventh hour the issue of charging GA aerodromes is being re-considered with the likely outcome that a cap will be applied to permit limited free usage.

Hopefully someone in NATS now understands that it is usual for a consultation process to involve users.

[chevvron]

Max 20 AFTN messages sent per day before being charged is the rumour with no limit on incoming messages.
Hopefully this will 'roll over' so if (for instance) you only send 1 message one day you can send 39 the next.

[TCAS FAN]

Has anyone received any formal notification from NATS as to the intent to adopt a free fair use policy? I know of a number of people who have contacted NATS to express concern but as yet nobody has received a response to supersede the original letter notifying the intent to charge for AFPEx access.

[TCAS FAN]

Have heard from a reliable source that an announcement of a fair use policy will be made next week. Hopefully common sense will now prevail and GA aerodromes will be able to keep their AFPEx connections for flight safety related messages without being lumbered with the proposed exorbitant annual charge.

[TCAS FAN]

Good old NATS, after coming up with a fair use policy they have notified a nearby GA aerodrome, which operates well within the fair use policy for only DEP/ARR messages/the occasional FPL and sending NOTAM requests to AIS, that unless they pay up the annual fee they will be cut off next week.

[dont overfil]

The (AFPEx) lights are going out at least a couple of airfields in central Scotland on Tuesday.

[Broadlands]

Our airfield was going to be cut off unless we paid up, that is until we asked why some airfield had an extension. The result is NATS backed down and we have another two months.

Due to the cost we will probably terminate the service and let pilots file their own plans.

However, if we did not have the service, would we be notified of incoming aircraft on a flight plan? This question was asked but NATS will not give a direct answer, the implication is that they will but won't admit it.

[Duckeggblue]

The same will happen at Peterborough Conington.

We fall well within the limits for less than 20 flight plans per month - sometimes we have none- but because we have a flying school and maintain our own aircraft, we are considered to be "commercial" and therefore making huge amounts of money. Haha

One suggestion from NATS staff on the phone last year was to put our landing fees up to flight planned aircraft to recover the £2,000.
It would solve the problem I suppose as at fewer than 20 flight plans per month we would not need AFPEx because nobody would pay the extortionate landing fees to fly in!

This is what we have been told -


If you no longer wish to use AFPEx please let us know by contacting the NATS Data Solutions team by email at .......


It is not a question of whether we wish to use it.
Of course we do.
Any organisation would wish to retain a service that potentially enhances safety.
It is a question of being unable to pay money that we do not have (and have no prospect of getting) over and above all of the other regulatory costs that are required these days.

[Johnm]

This whole saga is a gross breach of faith by the CAA and NATS and we should complain loudly to both. We all agreed to go with AfPex as a benefit to to NATS who were able to cut costs as a result o then charge for it is just outrageous and is mostly the CAA's fault. :mad:

[foxmoth]

Not sure what all the fuss is about - you need to file a flt plan to go international or IFR in CAS, file it yourself and activate by phone or in the air just as you would flying from a private strip. For inbound internationaly, which is why you need to inbound notification then just email the arrival airfield. This will actually create MORE work for NATs, once they realise this they may have a rethink!

[TheOddOne]

I had a bit of to-ing and fro-ing with a couple of people at NATS when we got the demand a couple of weeks ago. I said that we're NOT a commercial school, but our constitution prohibits us from making a profit, any surplus funds are ploughed back into the Club. They went away to have a think and I haven't heard since.

We also use our AFPEx account to propose NOTAM. I spoke with the NOTAM office re. an alternative and they sent me a Word pro-forma, a bit clunky having to e-mail proposals; the AFPEx version is easier to use as it sets out things properly with the time and date in the correct format. This is after a considerable struggle to get the ability to publish NOTAM again after we de-licensed. We managed to get our runway closure in for today, but the crane we had in he 23 undershoot had to go through the low flying unit at RAF Wittering, then back to the NOTAM office, with some weird wording.2 months ago, we had the same crane in the same position, no problem through the NOTAM office with sensible wording. Apparently, this is the CAA limiting what we can publish NOTAM about.
I had e-mailed Martin Robinson as we're AOPA members, he said he was on the case but I haven't heard back. Ho hum.

TOO

[rej]

Just a couple of minor observations if I may:

1. AFPEx falls outside the license obligations of NATS and therefore is purely a business aspect of the service-provide and outwith the CAA's regulatory scope (NATS issued a blog recently on its website to the fact).

2. The CAA has not limited the scope of what can be NOTAM'd; anything that is flight safety relevant such as obstructions or aerodrome status can be NOTAM'd for licensed and unlicensed aerodromes. If anything the fact that unlicensed aerodromes can now have NOTAM issued regarding aerodrome status is a step in the right direction.

Happy to chat more about this offline; please feel free to drop me a PM.

[Johnm]

1. AFPEx falls outside the license obligations of NATS and therefore is purely a business aspect of the service-provide and outwith the CAA's regulatory scope (NATS issued a blog recently on its website to the fact).


It is utterly ridiculous that this fundamental piece of infrastructure isn't part of NATS obligations. :mad:

[TCAS FAN]

Filing the occasional flight plan for private GA flights, activating a FPL (DEP message), closing a FPL (ARR message) and sending NOTAM Proposals/cancellation = Flight Safety related messages @ less than 20 per month = £2000 per month according to NATS! I feel an MOR against NATS coming on!

[chevvron]

I believe that there may be a solution in sight for small outfits like ours that generate less than 20 plans a month. Hopefully NATS will announce this soon.

TOO
I thought the limit before being charged was 20 messages per day, that's MESSAGES not just FPLs.

[TheOddOne]

Hi Chevvron,

Yes, indeed, the putative limit is 20 messages a day, but in context we generate fewer than 20 plans a month, just to show how relatively minor our activity is.

Of course, you've also highlighted a dreadful grammatical error in my original. Of course it should have been FEWER, not LESS. Sorry.

Sadly, it seems there is no useful advice emanating from NATS. They are merely pointing us to ICAO 4444 and UK AIP ENR1.10. Guess what it says in ENR1.10? Use AFPEx! Actually, ENR1.10 still maintains the ability to fax a FPL and send the DEP message by telephone. Sadly, we threw our last fax machine away several years ago. I'm not sure they still have the fax facility at Swanwick.

Seriously, if anyone out there has a cost-effective complete solution, then I'd be most grateful to hear about it.

TOO

[Katamarino]

How about an online email to fax service? Maybe they'll get fed up if everyone starts faxing them again.

Bunch of shysters. Why do these people work in NATS and the CAA if they clearly hate aviation so much? Surely they'd be happier as traffic wardens or TV licence inspectors or similar?

[chevvron]

How about an online email to fax service? Maybe they'll get fed up if everyone starts faxing them again.

Bunch of shysters. Why do these people work in NATS and the CAA if they clearly hate aviation so much? Surely they'd be happier as traffic wardens or TV licence inspectors or similar?
I can assure you the people who do the actual operational work in NATS are dedicated to providing services. Unfortunately ever since NATS was privatised, they've employed higher management from other industries with little or no experience of aviation, all they want to do is make money and to hell with the end users.

[Johnm]

I can assure you the people who do the actual operational work in NATS are dedicated to providing services. Unfortunately ever since NATS was privatised, they've employed higher management from other industries with little or no experience of aviation, all they want to do is make money and to hell with the end users.

The British disease in a nutshell :mad:

[TCAS FAN]

If NATS do carry out their threat to disconnect AFPEx from GA airfields, a suggestion for all you fliers, if you need to activate a FPL call London Information 124.75 MHZ/124.60 MHZ (sorry do not have Scottish FIS FREQ to hand) and request they send a Departure message for you. If you want to close a FPL, after landing call London FIS TEL 01489 611970 and ask them to send an Arrival message for you.

[rej]

If NATS do carry out their threat to disconnect AFPEx from GA airfields, a suggestion for all you fliers, if you need to activate a FPL call London Information 124.75 MHZ/124.60 MHZ (sorry do not have Scottish FIS FREQ to hand) and request they send a Departure message for you. If you want to close a FPL, after landing call London FIS TEL 01489 611970 and ask them to send an Arrival message for you.

A service provided by NATS....just saying, that's all

[TCAS FAN]

rej

...and how long before you are requested to provide a credit/debit card number before the requested action is taken?

[TCAS FAN]

Heard a rumour that a deal has been brokered with NATS, possibly by the AOA, to provide AFPEx to those GA aerodromes that have been disconnected for £500.00 PA. Anyone have any details? If correct I hope that they don't have the cheek to charge a re-connection fee!

[Red Four]

Not just a rumour as of 22nd June:
NATS launches new AFPEx Lite service - NATS (http://www.nats.aero/news/nats-launches-new-afpex-lite-service/)

[TheOddOne]

Well, that's still too steep for us, I'd say for our volume about £100 pa would be the absolute limit. The airfield's struggling to find the £600 pa for the radio licence.

I guess we've kind of got used to the work-rounds for lack of AFPEx. The most serious for me was NOTAM proposals. We now do those via e-mail direct to the NOTAM office.

TOO

[DC10RealMan]

Why dont you file an airborne flight plan with those wonderful people at London and Scottish Information as that is part of their remit and it doesn't cost a penny.