OK Guys.... thanks for the above comments, which are noted... all of them! So, trying to be a bit more cooperative, but whilst maintaining anonimity (for all concerned). The light aircraft in question departed from an airfield in the southern UK, the trip top destination was at least 250nms... and may have been the final leg of a longer, possibly International flight. (i.e. not a short hop).
On initial call, 7nms E of the airfield, the crew (two voices on the radio) did not mention a request to come in... simply stated it was their intention. PPR means, in my experience, PRIOR Permission Required... i.e acceptance is obtained before flight, by telephone call, standing agreement, previous arrangement or Flight Plan, and not airborne booking (see below). The PPR requirement at this airfield is clearly published as by telephone call to XXXX
The airfield is medium intensity, operating a complex mixture of traffic, hence although located in Class G airspace, the fact that instrument approaches may be mandatory is published. The flight arrived mid-afternoon, the weather in the area had been bad all day, and at the airfield was deteriorating iaw the forecast. The flight was not a diversion, nor was there any hint of a problem either on initial call or whilst discussing the fact that the weather was not fit for a visual approach.
Flights frequently arrive at this airfield without PPR (hence my post... which has perhaps a touch of "last straw..." about it?), and when able, these flights will generally be accepted. Perhaps there's a point to discuss in itself... does co-operation encourage bad habits?
I sense hints of paranoia in some of the replies... but would like to apologise again if my original tone offended anyone. It was not my intent to slate GA in general, nor "witch-hunt" this particular pilot. As I said in my second post on this thread, I was simply trying to provoke a "flight safety" discussion. I accept, and fully acknowledge, that such negligence (at the risk of accusation of pre-judgment) is not common-place... but don't believe debate on this forum need be constrained to the activities of the majority ... and you only have to look around other forums for proof of that!
If anyone wishes to pick up these points I would be honoured, but grateful if the above could be borne in mind, and we continued in general terms (if that's possible?). Thank you.
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 4th August 2005 at 09:26.