Heathrow Landing Fee

[ABO944]

Hi There!

Does anyone know how much it would cost to fly a PA34 into EGLL and out again after 10 minutes to collect a pax ?

No handling needed !

........ is it possible and if so, whats the damage?

Any contact number would be marvelous!

Best regards ... ABO

:ok:

[Keygrip]

Last time I flew there in a G.A. aircraft (both piper Arrow and PA31) landing fees outside peak (essentially pre 6am) were in the region of GB£90 - outside peak was £300 - for any aircraft up to 50 tonnes.

Handling was mandatory (who else would get you the runway slots?) at approx £60.

Parking was charged in blocks of 15 minutes and it will likely take you much more than 10 minutes to do a turn-round.

It IS possible. I'm assuming you will go IFR - in which case the contact numbers are all in your "plates".

[ETOPS]

Why not try a cheaper alternative.

Denham (http://www.egld.com/)

Ideal for a PA34 and a short taxi fare from LHR.........

[italianjon]

I wonder if I could get SVFR... I could do my PPL QXC there then... :ok:

(JOKE!!! Before I get flamed!)

[spikeair]

you can always try Gatwick instead. For an SEP its just short of £250 including handling charges and first 2 hours free parking!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd recommend Denham or White Waltham plus a hire car, far cheaper and less trouble!

G

[AlanM]

SVFR Fixed wing twins do go in and out fairly regularly, normally the AeroMed boys and girls from Oxford.

I am not sure how you know you will only be on the ground for 10 minutes, as your inbound arrival will be subject to the normal delay. As for departing, you will be in the queue with another 20 so the quickest you will do it is 35 mins I reckon!

Fairoaks or Denham as said. MUCH quicker believe me!

[Genghis the Engineer]

And if picking a pax up from Gatwick, use Redhill, same applies.

Incidentally, I don't believe Denham has a clubhouse, so if you are possibly there for a bit of a wait, take a flask!

G

[Gingerbread Man]

Is this actually possible? I always assumed that landing at Heathrow was out of the question for GA aircraft. I don't really know why, I just thought it was too busy, meaning that if you screw up you make a lot of big boys very unhappy.

Would look good in your logbook though, if you've got the money to do it.

Ginger ;)

[ABO944]

I may as well tell you all why i'm asking this ....

A colleauge of mine, who has worked with the company for over 30 years is leaving, and as part of his send-off we had planned for him to go for a spin in a light twin / single .... but the most amazing send-off would be for him to be picked up from outside the office (Terminal 3) and flown out for his trip and then once over, land at a nearby airfield such as Denham or Fairoaks and he can walk home!

:E


I would be flying him, but wondered if it would be at all possible, perhaps at the quieter time of day at EGLL, around 1500/1600?

The aircraft would be handled by ourselves, and of course no need for fuel or anything else!

Any thoughts ?


:ok:

[Fried_Chicken]

The aircraft would be handled by ourselves, and of course no need for fuel or anything else!

as mentioned previously, handling at Heathrow is mandatory (I think GA flights are handled by Signature, used to be Metro) & are most likely to be given a stand in the Cargo Cul-de-sac (near T4) or up by the fuel farm/T5

I think you need to apply for runway slots upto 3 (or maybe more) days in advance, not sure on this though?

FC

[Warped Factor]

The UK AIP section AD 2-EGLL-1 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/302LL01.PDF) has pretty much all the info you'll need for hopefully putting this together.

Best of luck, look forward to speaking to you on the radio :)

WF.

p.s....

Subject to paragraph (iv), Operators of General and Business aviation aircraft may only operate in the peak during any operating season if they obtain permission to do so from the airport operator as well as a slot in advance of each movement also from the airport operator.

In practice, permission to operate in the peak will be deemed to have been granted under the terms of the Traffic Distribution Rule
(copies available from Manager Heathrow Operations Centre, Heathrow Airport Limited), if a slot for each movement in the peak is granted. Operators of General and Business Aviation aircraft, who arrive and depart at any time, may operate the movement provided that the aircraft departs or arrives to the approved slot time. Those who fail to operate to the approved slot time or who operate in the peak without first obtaining permission and a slot from the airport operator, are liable to be prohibited from operating in the peak thereafter, unless the airport operator is satisfied that the movement amounted to an emergency or other circumstances beyond the control of the operator or the commander of the aircraft. This permission will not be given for flights for recreational, charity and record breaking purposes. Light single and twin engined private aircraft will not be permitted to use the airport. Applications for prior permission must be made not more than 10 days and not less than 24 hours before the proposed flight and should be addressed to the Manager, Airport Co-ordination Ltd, by Tel: 020-8564 0613, Fax: 020-8564 0690, availability office hours; or by SITA: LONACXH.

These applications must include the following information:

i Aircraft owner/operator;

ii Aircraft type and registration;

iii Origin and/or destination;

iv ETA and ETD;

v Number of passengers;

vi A handling agent (Airline Operator or Handling Agent based at Heathrow) is a requirement for all flights including general aviation and helicopter movements.

[Fuji Abound]

So what constitutes a "private" aircraft?

[egld0624]

Hi All,

Denham (EGLD) would be an obvious port of call as already mentioned.

A former instructor at Cabair based at Denham once told me of the CEO of British Midland alternating between landing at LL or LD in his Seneca V. After holding airborne on occasions for 45mins waiting to be granted his pre-arranged slot (due to the typical traffic flow) into LL he stuck with LD.

We do have at least one BA 744 skipper who flies in from home in his own a/c to LD, pulls out his fold up bike and cycles into Heathrow - only to reciprocate a few days after his long haul flight.

What a lifestyle if you can do it!

Good luck,


EG:ok:



www.navex.aero

[Leezyjet]

"This permission will not be given for flights for recreational, charity and record breaking purposes."

Does this bit not rule it out then, as I would have though it would come under the recreational bit ?.



:)

[Fuji Abound]

So a pilot seeking permission flying a corporately owned light single attending on business should be welcome :confused: :D

[halo]

Are you completely out of your minds?

As an air traffic controller at Heathrow you will NOT BE MADE WELCOME!! Do you not think we have better things to do than find ways to squeeze you and your stupid little single into an already overcrowded system.

If you phone us in ATC for permission the answer will be no. We will phone the aerodrome authority and they will say no. If by some miraculous chance you get into Heathrow then you had better get your chequebook ready 'cause it isn't going to be cheap. The landing fee alone will be at least £250, plus it is mandatory handling as well. But before you get to go out... you will have tea and biscuits with the Aerodrome Authority and you won't be sitting down!!

Go and find somewhere else to play.... It's not like there aren't enough places out there!!:rolleyes:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Good old halo ... putting the Service back in to National Air Traffic Services :) :p

[halo]

I am all for the "Service" part, and a lot of these people get their ATSOCA services paid for by the Airlines. The hardworking people of Cardiff, Farnborough, Birmingham, etc provide these services to them free of charge.... They have plenty of airfields to visit elsewhere that won't cause disruption to the very people who pay for their "free" services. I would say that is a pretty healthy compromise considering. The other alternative of course, is that anybody using any ATC service gets charged for it and the GA fraternity can go wherever they like. At least that way the airlines will save some money.

What you have to remember is that we provide an ATC service to the Airport Authority.... in this case the BAA.... and they decide who comes into their airport. Heathrow is a PPR airfield for these kind of movements anyway... and we are under orders to say no. The last thing I want to do is give the guys at TC more headaches by allowing these slow performing aircraft into a very tightly run system. Ask any of the Heathrow Radar guys and I'm sure they would agree

[Fuji Abound]

"As an air traffic controller at Heathrow you will NOT BE MADE WELCOME!! Do you not think we have better things to do than find ways to squeeze you and your stupid little single into an already overcrowded system."

:D 's on this forum old chap sort of imply the point should not be taken too seriously - still I wonder what the tea and biscuits are like? :D

[M14P]

For a hundred quid I'll pick your pax up on my way home from work and drive em to Blackbushe thus saving you bazzillions of pounds...

;)

[Maxflyer]

As an air traffic controller at Heathrow you will NOT BE MADE WELCOME!! Do you not think we have better things to do than find ways to squeeze you and your stupid little single into an already overcrowded system.
am all for the "Service" part, and a lot of these people get their ATSOCA services paid for by the Airlines. The hardworking people of Cardiff, Farnborough, Birmingham, etc provide these services to them free of charge.... They have plenty of airfields to visit elsewhere that won't cause disruption to the very people who pay for their "free" services.
Well I pay income tax and as NATS is partly owned by the tax payer I think that I do pay towards your having a job. The originator of this thread asked a straight forward question and in most cases received a pretty fair response. You however, have to resort to an all out attack! All of your associates using your service in their nice shiny jet propelled aircraft started off in stupid little singles. Get yourself a cup of tea and a few biscuits and perhaps you might calm down a little. You are welcome here on Private Flying, but your attitude isn't.

[halo]

You are of course correct Maxflyer...... and for my outburst I apologise. These comments were made in light of the past few months of some serious pressure for the boys and girls in ATC at Heathrow which is made worse by some difficult issues surrounding our new control casting their shadow over us, and the ever overbearing presence of our customers.

To top it all off, I had a deep and meaningless conversation with an ops manager for a large airline the other night about us delaying a 737BBJ that they were handling... He failed to see the correlation between a delay that happened to occur on the ground to the BBJ, and the fact that we had just landed 8 of his widebodies on the departure runway over the course of an hour and a half (the BBJ was waiting at N4E while we landed one, departed one for a period to help the TC boys out with their holding delay). When presented with the option as to whether we left his 8 widebodies in the hold for another 20 mins and cost them some more money, just for the sake of the BBJ he was reluctant to comment. Hence, telephone call terminated, temper flared, etc

The sad fact of the matter is that we are under strict instructions to refuse all requests for the slow performers to come into Heathrow due to the potential for widespread disruption. I too am a taxpayer and would be extremely happy that my tax is going towards keeping ATSOCA free for the GA community. Sadly, the government no longer fund us, even though they own a share in NATS, and the CAA continue to turn the thumbscrews with the en-route price capping that they are forcing upon us. We have little choice but to do all we can for our biggest customers. Like it or not, they have the say. My suggestion to the GA community is make use of places like EGNX (I have a former housemate who works there who strongly supports GA) while you still can :)

[slim_slag]

Van Nuys (Class D) has more movements that LHR I believe, on two runways, all little aircraft. Good controllers. Same with LGB in the late 90s, Class D during the day and 4th busiest airfield in the world at the time. Good controllers. PHX used to move more heavy traffic than Heathrow when it had two runways and there were a couple of flight schools on the field. ATC would fit a light single in there without too much difficulty and in my experience more often than not with no holding at all. Good controllers. Don't know why LHR should be any different from an ATC point of view. Would think a spamcan coming in would add some variety.

[dublinpilot]

I've never really understood why the speed of light singles is an issue for ATC'ers at large airports.

Yes it would be, if you think in terms of aircraft coming down the glide slope following the localiser, but light aircraft don't have to do that. We can quite happily orbit on base, then when released from the orbits, we'd have a very short final. We'd be only on the extended centreline for a minute of so, and at that speed should make little or no difference.

Is it something to do with seperating IFR traffic from us?

As for the issue of ATC costs, ATC is largely there to protect commerical traffic. It's not their for our benefit, although we do get a benefit. If there was no commerical traffic, there would be very little ATC. Why should we be asked to pay for a service to protect someone else?

dp

[Fried_Chicken]

DP,
I don't believe Heathrow accepts VFR fixed wing traffic (could be wrong, Heli's being a different matter) so any light aircraft arriving will be IFR & will be put into the traffic pattern.

FC

[AlanM]

FC

You mean SVFR of course being a Class A zone...and yes we do have SVFR traffic.

As I said, the Aeromed light twins often take SVFR.

As for the short pattern stuff, that is what we do with SVFR traffic, normally holding abeam a 5 mile final. However, this then blocks the Helicopter routes.

The biggest problem with light traffic is the face that if it arrives amongst a lod of heavies it has to have 7nm vortex and a larger gap behind because of the lower speeds.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I recall once having this problem landing a lightweight aeroplane at a busy military field. The solution was straightforward - they had me land crosswind on a runway which had about double the length I needed BEFORE the intersection.

Possibly civil rules won't permit that, but it made life easier for everybody that day.

G

[Keygrip]

When I first went to LHR - in the Arrow - we were asked by ATC if we could maintain 180 knots to the outer marker. Negative.

We did offer 140kts to the threshold if we could "land long", as we needed to slow down before extending the undercarriage (in the flare and subsequent "float").

I was told that light twins are allowed into LHR but a single could not approach the 27's and still be able to glide clear in the event of an engine failure - dunno about the 09's.

I also thought, however, that a licensed aerodrome was PROHIBITED from political selection of which aircraft it WOULD accept, and that all operators were to be given equal access (assuming air law, runway slots, handling etc).

[slim_slag]

Yes, if you fit a light single in then some airline jockey in an LHR stack is going to get delayed by a couple of minutes or so. No doubt somebody will moan and that will be transmitted down to the guys on the coal face who will no doubt think it's not worth the bother. A shame but seems to be the way things are.

[AlanM]

This has nothing to do with ATC - purely a decision for the Airport Authority.

If they want to land only 38 per hour instead of 44, receiving less money in doing so, and upsetting their resident airlines what do I care!?

(obviously I do care if I have to sit at OCK for an extra 20 mins when off a 14hr flight)

ATCOs get paid the same either way (and go home at shift end regardless of the delays :))

I think the airlines may have the largest grumble at the delay.

And to re-iterate what is already said - any inbound form outside CAS gets the same delay, irrespective of a light single or B747. When a light aircraft arrives they get to hold for the same amount of time as aircraft in the 4 stacks (Often outside CAS) and with an EAT if they are in use.

When they depart, they get the same start up delays as everyone else (often up to 30 mins) and sit amongst 20 others at the hold - which if they are departing one a minute is another 20+ minutes of delays.

....and I say again.... LIGHT TWINS CAN LAND ANY RUNWAY!

[tmmorris]

Genghis - that's called LAHSO (Land and Hold Short Operations) and they do it (and I've done it) in the US, but not here.

I'm a bit ambivalent about it: it scares me a bit. Think about the go-around.

Tim

[M14P]

As a worker bee at LHR may I ask why anyone in their right mind would want to go there in a light or corporate aircraft unless it was absolutely necessary.

I've operated at LHR for two different airlines and I've been in and out as a corporate - it's a huge nightmare (although professionally run) as a sked carrier but private... whew! Awful.

Go to F'Boro, Fairoaks, Blackbushe, Denham or Northolt. They are much better (spesh F'boro)

Sort of related but am I right in thinking that the 'published' delays that we are told at LHR are now on the pessimistic side of things? My expectations are seemingly now better managed and (more importantly) I don't end up whistling around the hold with a lengthening delay.

Does this mean that my ASRs got listened to! Hurrah!

[Warped Factor]

halo doesn't speak for all of us Heathrow folks...well not for me anyway :)

I'd welcome the diversion of the occasional light single into the airport as was fairly common in the past, would make a pleasant change from the usual "leave Lambourne heading the same as you did yesterday, and the day before that as well" routine ;)

Oh for the days when approach was where it was meant to be and we used to get interesting passing trade to give us a flypast down one of the runways, he said wistfully.

WF.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis - that's called LAHSO (Land and Hold Short Operations) and they do it (and I've done it) in the US, but not here.

Thank you, I've seen it in the USA also, but didn't know the terminology.

Whenever I've seen it, it's in a controlled field, where it's timed so that in the event of a go-around you are doing it in a time-slot that ensures no prang. Seems sensible, but not something that you could possibly allow traffic to sort out for itself.

G

[halo]

Warped Factor is indeed correct.... I don't speak for everybody at Heathrow.... However, ask yourself how many go-arounds we have had because the front aircraft was a 146 and because he slowed right down inside 4 DME. Would the problem not be worse with something even slower? How many singles can do 160kts to 4DME?? Once somebody in his 172 corks the speed back inside 4DME the jet behind is going to catch up pretty quickly. Do we need to make the Heathrow Radar peoples lives more difficult with speed control and vectoring, on top of their already heavy workload with weather avoiding and large holding delays?

Alan M is almost correct, except in that the MATS 2 says "Propeller driven aircraft MTOW not above 5700kgs may land on the departure runway PROVIDED IT DOES NOT AFFECT DEPARTURES" . How often during the day do you get a planned gap in departure traffic so that you can land somebody? Everybody moans about doing TEAM, so imagine what it would be like TEAMing with loads of lows and slows.

As mentioned earlier there is the problem of wake vortex inbound (following a heavy requires 7 miles which has to be applied in Class A airspace), and also the problem of departure seps outbound. A standard 2 minute route sep would require 5 minutes for a jet to follow something a bit quicker than a single like a light twin. A few of each of these every hour would soon reduce our runway utilisation and cause some serious delays for the airlines.

From purely an ATC point of view as well there is the added problem of losing the little fellas on the airfield. How many controllers have sat there an wondered where the Learjet has gone to or the Navajo that has come in on a medical flight? By day it is tricky.... by night it is almost impossible to keep tabs on them

I have no bones whether you guys come or not. All get the same excellent service from the radar folk and the tower folk. All I am trying to do is give you a feel for why these type of aircraft are difficult to deal with in that particular environment

[Warped Factor]

halo, the point is light a/c are not difficult to deal with in a Heathrow type environment, we just make it much more difficult than it has to be. Often because many in the system these days, through no fault of their own, have no experience of seeing light a/c in amongst the heavier stuff.

Given reasonable weather a light single operating SVFR would not need any wake vortex separation inbound...it gets vectored to hold on a base leg, gets told its traffic coming down the ILS, reports it in sight, positions visually behind number 2 having been told "caution vortex wake etc", turns in close behind and always above the jet traffic and given the length of the runway lands long and safely. Little time lost in the arrival sequence. There is no rule that says just because it is Class A you can't use reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome

Departing SVFR it doesn't follow a SID, it goes off on a radar heading and aside from probably waiting two minutes behind the departure ahead it is airborne and out the way barely holding the next departure up at all.

We, that is ATC as a group, do tend to have more of a "can't do" than "can do" attitude at times :(

WF.

[FlyingForFun]

Out of interest, would using Rwy 23 for landing get around any of these problems?

As WF says, I can't see any problems with departures - I can be out of the way of jet traffic taking off behind me whilst still inside the airfield boundary, it's something I do on occassion at my home airfield when I've got jet or turboprop traffic departing behind me.

Someone mentioned the glide-clear rule. I suppose it would theoretically be possible to plan to be high enough to be able to carry out a power-off approach. In this case, no problem about glide-clear, although I can see that the lack of flexibility on the glide approach might cause further traffic problems. I would be more concerned with glide-clear on departure than on arrival, as long as I was allowed to maintain a sensible height.

M14P - I understand what you're saying. The delays would certainly preclude me from wanting to be a regular visitor. But I think for many of us GA pilot, simply having LHR in the logbook would justify the delays, just as a one-off. Of course I understand that British Airways (and their pax) don't want to be delayed just so I can put an interesting line in my logbook, but it would be nice to see the airport authorities trying slightly harder to find ways of fitting us in, during the least busy periods maybe, in a way which would cause little or no delays. Ah well, I couldn't afford the landing and handling fees even if it was allowed, so it doesn't really bother me...... :D

FFF
--------------

[AlanM]

FFF

You won't see another 23 movement again sadly.

Officially withdrawn very soon IIRC.

[Red Four]

R23 disappears in October AIP amendment - Heathrow gets rid of 3rd runway to bolster case for 3rd runway??

[vintage ATCO]

Warped Factor . . . exactly so. It's how we deal with light aircraft now. Wouldn't want too many, but would hate to see them gone altogether. :ok:

I've just cleared the same callsigns to push and start four times this week . . . :(

[dublinpilot]

I don't understand why anyone would want a light aircraft on a four mile final (except if in imc) at a busy airport.

Light aircraft are different from heavies. They can't do some things that they heavies can do, but likewise they can do other things much better; such are being more manoeuvrable.

WF described exactly what I was suggesting earlier. A half mile final would be more than sufficient for a light aircraft, a current pilot, and a long runway.

dp

[Keygrip]

With a runway that length, and the space NEEDED for stopping a light single, we could even fly our base leg to the thousand foot point (where the big guys touch down and stop screwing the air up with their wake).

We'd still be able to turn "final" within the length of the runway and stop - vacate fairly deep (or long - whatever the UK word is).

I must say, that the numerous times I flew into LHR, we were handled by British Airways and never had any problems, of any sort.

Every trip I did in light singles and twins went without any drama at all. Just shows how good the staff are at dealing with anything.

The departure argument is lost when you look at Orlando International. They have, effectively, four parallel runways - North/South. Standard light aircraft clearance has always been "As soon as speed and height permit, turn heading 090°, climbing to one thousand five hundred feet".

Oh - there was one security guard who refused to let me pass from a secure area to a public area because he had been told "don't let anybody through this gate who doesn't have a Heathrow security pass". I think he missed the point about which way they were going - but that's another story.

[vintage ATCO]

Someone I knew flew a C172 into Heathrow in late 60s/early 70s. Was told to keep the speed up so was almost flat out down the approach. No probs he thought, nice long runway. Was then told to 'expedite next right!!' so he 'flew' round the corner and landed on the taxiway. :D Big bo//ocking . . . :cool:

[BRL]

Here is a challenge for you. Find a picture(s) of a single at Heathrow for us............ :)

[AlanM]

Seen some video very recently at night....... :)

[egld0624]

Hi Genghis the Engineer & Tmmorris,

Not to brag in anyway but I've just recently come back from practicing LAHSO's and circuits at Zurich International in an Arrow Turbo. A great airport to duck and dive amongst all the heavy metal with its own VFR procedures (all in the Swiss AIP). IMHO the locals admit to being a little RT shy hence they tend to fly "around" LSZH to other a/d's. I went to be signed off on the arrow over there and my instructor was just as thrilled when the Tower gave me permission to land on one runway; immediate backtrack from half way, take off and land half way along another just to safe time taxiing around!! (Apparently that happens once every 15 years due to the typical daily traffic flow... he'd been teaching there for 22+ years. (He put the contributing factors down to a Brit accent too).

So if you fancy some mountain flying, mingling with heavy metal and want to enjoy the complimentary "Follow Me" car to escort you back for the equivalent of £20-30 pounds landing fee: Zurich International is for you.

Best wishes,

EG:ok:


www.navex.aero/ArrowTurbo3.htm