The European PPR disease [Archive]

IO540

29th Jul 2007, 10:39

I've just planned a 3500nm trip around Europe.

IFR, it took under an hour to work out the (Eurocontrol) routings. If this was the USA, one could just GO. But not in Europe.

It took four weeks (total time frame, not the actual time spent on it, obviously) to

- phone the various duff phone numbers in the Jeppesen guides (quite a few belong to private houses); none of these had English speaking staff on them. Why not publish a verified number for ATC?

- fax the various fax numbers in the Jeppesen guides (god knows where some of them end up, and quite a few are duff)

- deal with the replies (fax and email - I always give an email address, and the "smarter" airports, usually E European ones, use email) and ask the questions they didn't answer the first time

- apply for PPR (sometimes have to give an exact date)

- sometimes, repeat the exercise for the resident avgas supplier to make sure they will be open, and have some avgas...

- wait

Yet, in almost every case I have experienced, the airport was big enough to accomodate the whole of the country's air force, or the entire European Netjets fleet, so why PPR?

It's bad enough in the UK, turning up near some piece of grass and they turn you away because you didn't phone them up, but at least I can half understand it because they had to do a planning deal with their local authority. That is the only valid excuse IMHO for a permanent PPR requirement.

All those RAF airfields one can't just fly to, but which are virtual ghost airports... 24hr PPR for Cosford for example.

172driver

29th Jul 2007, 10:49

IO, I don't know where you are going, but in my various travels I've never had to do PPR, outside the UK, that is.

Could this be a self-imposed and UK-flying induced disease ? ;)

IO540

29th Jul 2007, 11:59

On the contrary, 172driver, about 50% (on a very quick guess; I could spend time on this) of international airfields in Europe are listed as PPR in the AIP.

For a quick exercise, start with Greece. LGSA is anything from 4 working days to 2 weeks according to who you ask. LGKR varies according to time of year.

I've just planned a flight to EDWN, which also lists PPR.

Which is not to say that if you just fly to these places they will refuse the landing, or you will get arrested. Well, in Egypt you might in fact get arrested... but most people are not that anally retentive.

Whereas if you fly to say Duxford without having got PPR they will in fact refuse a landing (they did recently).

If you never bothered with PPR and did a lot of flying around Europe, you probably just got away with it. The other day I read a story about a pilot who flew a Robin from UK to Cape Town and back, via Egypt, Sudan, etc. He must have either used an overflight permit company, or just got away with it. Presumably he must have used mogas, or had a huge ferry tank.

172driver

29th Jul 2007, 12:59

Well, IO, while probably nowhere near as much as you, I have done quite a bit of flying around Europe and have, honestly, never come across this. Never been to Greece, though. I always file a flight plan and yes, I do always check the AIP. Perhaps I'm lucky ;)

As for EDWN, as the German AIP is AFAIK not online, cannot check, but their website doesn't say anything about PPR.

Re the chap doing UK-CT, would be interesting to know how he handled the Avgas situation. I've recently done some flying in Africa and this is most definitely something to plan for :eek:

beerdrinker

29th Jul 2007, 18:24

Flown all over France and never PPR'd

Flew in Greece to Corfu (Kerkira) LGKR and Heraklion LGIR and again did not PPR

Only form of advance notice was an ATC Flight Plan if VFR international or IFR.

I find there are more UK GA airfields that require PPR than there are in France.

Life's a Beech

29th Jul 2007, 19:14

It is my job to fly to such places at very short notice. Although of course our ops department deals with that side, I sometimes have to get involved.

I suggest if you are serious about it get hold of a copy of Ac-U-Kwik (http://www.acukwik.com/) for numbers, or even better subscribe to the online info. The phone and fax numbers seem to be kept up to date, we use them a lot. Also use handling agents if you can afford it (not always expensive, sometimes very dear; always check), as they will sort this kind of detail within a few minutes and the help they can give when you are there can be invaluable, especially when you have to change plans!

In my experience airfields don't actually require notice beyond a flight plan. Sometimes we use no handling, other times information is not passed on as it should be, yet in 18 months of flying all over Europe I have never had my right to approach querried except by UK Special Branch (their foul up, not ours!). Remember "PPR" might not mean a phone call is required. A flight plan or even a call on the radio is sufficient for most, but they might not accept non-radio traffic without a prior phone call and might reserve the right (not generally excercised) to refuse approach.

Oh, and if you're flying round France make sure you either know the RT in French or have a crib sheet. I always carry one!

Chilli Monster

29th Jul 2007, 19:59

IO - I would also recommend getting a copy of AC-U-KWIK. At £26.50 it's worth its weight in gold.

172driver

29th Jul 2007, 20:08

Seconding Chilli Monster and LaB - this little book is real gem :ok:

IO540

29th Jul 2007, 20:14

Life's a Beech - thank you for the lead; just ordered the worldwide edition. Not sure what it will do for the W&B though :) It was $140 including delivery. They don't seem to list a Europe-only edition, or at least I did not find one. It will pay for itself even if just the phone/fax numbers are right.

I have never doubted that in general one can "just land". Too many people have done crazy trips around the world, had loads of adventures on the way, didn't (usually) get into much trouble. I am just trying to do things right, whatever that means. When I fax the airport re any PPR requirements and avgas, etc, they often do reply that they want X hours notice.

This doesn't mean one can't just go, I suppose... Last year I got refused a landing (on the initial fax contact) at Venice (Tessera) saying they were closed to GA, but nothing was notamed and the place isn't PPR, so I am sure that if I had not faxed them to check re avgas and just stuck the IFR flight plan in, they would not have stopped me from landing there. But... while they officially list avgas, they didn't actually have any, so the landing would have been a bit pointless (with Trieste and Padova just down the road, both having Customs and avgas).

Edit: I take it you people must have been referring to the smaller "2007 International Airport/FBO Directory"

englishal

30th Jul 2007, 07:23

Take Easy Jet, then go to the USA to get the flying fix :}

That's what I'm planning later this Autumn..to circumnavigate the USA. But you are right in your PPR thing. On a 1200nm X/C in the USA we didn't get PPR once and talked to ATC twice - once on departing for the trip and once on arrival back - because it was a towered airport. All other airfields (by that I mean places like Sedona etc...) were non tower - we did give way to a scheduled Dash 8 though at one place. We had traffic / weather / XM satellite radio onboard.....

If only Europe was like this, life would be perfect....:{

flyems

30th Jul 2007, 13:45

UK to Cape Town and back, via Egypt, Sudan, etc. He must have either used an overflight permit company, or just got away with it
He had an overflight permit company/did the homework and paperwork before he left...

I've looked up the barrel of an AK47 after arriving WITH confirmed overflight and landing clearances in Africa, you dont just get away with this on that continent...

sternone

30th Jul 2007, 13:47

I've just planned a 3500nm trip around Europe.

Please make some kind of blog so we can read all about your trip!! thanks

IO540

30th Jul 2007, 14:50

He had an overflight permit company/did the homework and paperwork before he left...

I now understand completely...

These firms charge significant (but not unreasonable) fees, of the order of £100 for a landing permit in say Egypt. So far I have avoided this option but maybe that should change.

I also think that some of the people who have got away with this in some real far away places (Africa comes to mind) got away with it because the officials thought the pilot (of something hanging together with bits of wire and canvas) must be so totally nuts he must be harmless. I don't think he would have got away with it if he landed a turboprop - especially a U.S. registered one ;)

flyems

30th Jul 2007, 15:08

I would gladly pay the GBP100 for them to deal with that red tape, having frequented african airfields often over the past 15 years, I will not personally take my chances with the local officials thinking I'm 'harmless' because of the machine I'm flying...

flyingfemme

30th Jul 2007, 20:05

Four weeks!

FFS! I've never had more than a week's notice for any trip I've planned. Can do Europe to Oz in that time. Planned/organised SA to UK in 3 days this month.

I do use a clearance specialist - but he's not expensive and I can't be bothered to chase third-world government depts myself very often.

Of course, I do tend to use those airports that aren't a PITA to use.......they deserve our business!

Knight Paladin

30th Jul 2007, 20:33

540:

How dare a military airfield, with it's own task to achieve, insist on you, with your mighty "airways" machine, calling them beforehand. Surely you should just be able to turn up whenever you like, at which point they should dig out the red carpet and feel honoured that you have graced them with your prescence.

Get over yourself.

I can understand your annoyance at finding the wrong numbers listed in the various flight guides; I have had the same problem myself on numerous occasions, but I can't agree with you on a general dig at PPR - it's common courtesy, and enables the airfield in question to ensure you're correctly briefed on any local rules and procedures.

Fuji Abound

30th Jul 2007, 21:57

I 'phoned an airport down south in France once.

Can I come I said - please.

Qui - why are you 'phoning.

Well, stammer, I sort of thought I should.

We are an airport, that's what airports do and muttering under his breath - mad Anglais.

Trouble is a lot of places in Europe hold a different view.

Sorry, and I just have to recount my last visit to Duxford - or near visit.

Can we land please?

Why.

Well, we thought it would be pleasant.

(About three aircraft on the ground, nothing happening, seemed like a good idea)

Have you PPRed?

No.

Well you cant. If only you had 'phoned first.

Well, what about if we land at Cambridge and then 'phone.

Well, we might let you.

So what about if we phone you from the aircraft.

Much spluttering, and grumbling and something about taking the proverbial.

(now I dont mind at all being told to foxtrot something, a polite request and we are too busy today or something like that, but sometimes the way we and other places approach these things is just daft)

IO540

30th Jul 2007, 22:00

enables the airfield in question to ensure you're correctly briefed on any local rules and procedures.

IFR ??

There are these amazingly handy things called approach plates, STARs, SIDs. There are also them big and damn confusing thingz called airways charts although I tend to use them as sunscreens.

Wot you do is you call up Approach and they clear you for the approach, then you fly that approach, then you (hopefully) land.

Most of the rest of the aviation world (i.e. the USA) manages to get by without PPR. And why 24hr PPR?

Anyway, a briefing can be handled by a document on the airfield's website.

Flyingfemme - I too have found that the overflight agents can magically bypass this stuff. Presumably they know exactly the right people to "sweeten up". They can even get you a crew visa, overnight, which normally takes weeks and weeks, through that particular country's UK embassy.

Fuji Abound

30th Jul 2007, 22:25

There are these amazingly handy things called approach plates, STARs, SIDs. There are also them big and damn confusing thingz called airways charts although I tend to use them as sunscreens.

Thought that was the purpose of NOTAMS, not that anyone seems to bother with NOTAMS these days :). (I know you IO and any serious IFR pilot does).

Knight Paladin

31st Jul 2007, 12:05

540:

Would you expect to be allowed to take a short-cut across a military base if it would save you a walk around the outside? No, probably not. So why then do you expect to be able to turn up unannounced and land at one? I'm a big supporter of allowing cicvil use of military airfields, but you have to accept that there will be some limitations on it - prior notice being one of them, to allow the airfield ops staff to make the necessary arrangements with their guard force at the very least. Can't you realise the value to you of speaking to a real person at the other end, who can brief you on factors pertinent to YOUR arrival - aircraft type, time of day, that airfield's particular operations that day ..... or do have some kind of flagrant disregard for anything approaching professionalism?

Please don't get me started again on your personal crusade to paralyse the airways structure of this country by insisting on flying in it in a puddlejumper. Surely it would be quicker to just fly in a straight line with a LARS than cause the fine people at swanick nightmares with your groundspeed....

dublinpilot

31st Jul 2007, 12:47

540:
Would you expect to be allowed to take a short-cut across a military base if it would save you a walk around the outside? No, probably not. So why then do you expect to be able to turn up unannounced and land at one? I'm a big supporter of allowing cicvil use of military airfields, but you have to accept that there will be some limitations on it - prior notice being one of them, to allow the airfield ops staff to make the necessary arrangements with their guard force at the very least. Can't you realise the value to you of speaking to a real person at the other end, who can brief you on factors pertinent to YOUR arrival - aircraft type, time of day, that airfield's particular operations that day ..... or do have some kind of flagrant disregard for anything approaching professionalism?
Please don't get me started again on your personal crusade to paralyse the airways structure of this country by insisting on flying in it in a puddlejumper. Surely it would be quicker to just fly in a straight line with a LARS than cause the fine people at swanick nightmares with your groundspeed....
:rolleyes:

Knight Paladin

31st Jul 2007, 14:39

I know mate, going to take my pills and have a nice lie down now.... :)

IO540

31st Jul 2007, 21:46

Please don't get me started again on your personal crusade to paralyse the airways structure of this country by insisting on flying in it in a puddlejumper

With all due respect, KP, the above is utter bo11ocks. What crusade??

Do you fly a plane yourself?

I did a 700nm flight this morning, mostly FL120, 170kt GS, across the busiest airspaces in Europe. Guess how many planes I got visual with on the flight (not counting contrails at FL350)?

Getting back to PPR, my issue is not with RAF airports in particular. (I don't think they need 24hr PPR - that is just job creation. No briefing was involved in the case of Cosford; they just wanted 24hrs PPR notice and a fax of the insurance papers). It's the general case of PPR abroad.

If you know something useful, just post it. Personal attacks is what this forum used to be known for, they make other pilot forums useless for gathering real info, and they drive away contributors who do have something useful to say.

Life's a Beech

1st Aug 2007, 03:04

IO540

If you knew how military airfields operated then you would know why. They are unlikely to change their operational procedures, tried and tested, just for you! It is a good system for them, and as they are not operating on a commercial basis they don't need to encourage your visit, although most are welcoming when you do!

IO540

1st Aug 2007, 05:41

Life's a Beech; rather than posting a cryptic reply, can you actually explain why a hypothetical UK military airfield, in peacetime, and with acres of parking, needs 24hr PPR? I don't know how they work so would be interested in why.

They are unlikely to change their operational procedures, tried and tested, just for you

Obviously not for me :ugh: I was thinking of other UK pilots. I have little need to fly to military airfields. Perhaps your posting is the answer: why change at all? There is no need to change anything in the world. We can just carry on. The cold war never really ended, of course.

Chilli Monster

1st Aug 2007, 08:31

can you actually explain why a hypothetical UK military airfield, in peacetime, and with acres of parking, needs 24hr PPR? I don't know how they work so would be interested in why.

The job of the Military in peace, is to train for war. With that in mind the 24Hr PPR requirement is there so that you don't end up booked in, on the same day that the station may go on a full, war footing exercise. When this happens the place goes on complete lockdown, with various simulated scenarios going on. There wouldn't be the personnel available to supervise you and get you from the aircraft to the exit, plus any civilian visitor would just be "getting in the way".

Hope this helps explains why.

Wrong Stuff

1st Aug 2007, 08:58

Ummm... I can't see how that explains at all why they need 24hrs PPR, CM.

If there's some big exercise going on, they're going to know just as well if you call 1 hour before your ETA as 24 hours before. If there's no big exercise going on today, they can't let me fly in today because I didn't check yesterday whether there was an exercise going on today?

Chilli Monster

1st Aug 2007, 09:02

24H - "Sorry, you can't come tomorrow, make other arrangements"

1H - "Go away (or words of that ilk), we're rather busy at the moment"

Get the picture?

Wrong Stuff

1st Aug 2007, 09:32

Nope CM - it still doesn't make sense.

What you're suggesting is they're really busy during these exercises. Fair enough. But if they get, say, 10 visitors a day they're still going to get 10 PPR requests whether those happen 24 hrs beforehand or 1 hr beforehand. It makes no difference. On the average day, whether they've got an exercise on or not, that phone is still going to ring 10 times.

In fact, from the workload point of view, it would be better for them to have a shorter PPR. So if they've got an exercise on today, they don't have to spend time taking details of PPR requests for tomorrow when they'll be open to visitors and less busy.

Chilli Monster

1st Aug 2007, 09:58

dublinpilot

1st Aug 2007, 10:49

end of story.

Chilli's standard response when he has nothing convincing to say :}

englishal

1st Aug 2007, 11:10

The job of the Military in peace, is to train for war. With that in mind the 24Hr PPR requirement is there so that you don't end up booked in, on the same day that the station may go on a full, war footing exercise
But bearing in mind that most of these airfields are "closed" after 5pm and at weekends.

I can understand 24 hr PPR to fly into an ACTIVE base possibly, but if the base is notified as closed then why not? I flew into one last week, arrived just after noon when the tower had closed and did some circuits. Many navy places are closed until late August now (Yeovilton for example)..........

Perhaps the military flying clubs should charge a "temporary" membership fee to allow civvies to use these places during these holiday times - or even have notified times. They could use some of the fee to cover any associated costs as well as make them some extra money? If someone said to me "you can pay £50 and have use of Yeovilton for a month while the Navy are on holiday" I'd do it like a shot.

Chilli Monster

1st Aug 2007, 11:16

Chilli's standard response when he has nothing convincing to say :}

dublinpilots standard response when he has nothing useful to add.

There comes a point in certain discussions where there is a natural end which cannot be solved here - you want to solve it, go somewhere where it can be. Until that time that's the situation, live with it. So - with that in mind, nothing wrong with my finishing comment.

Don't be a w*nker all your life - take a day off.

I can understand 24 hr PPR to fly into an ACTIVE base possibly, but if the base is notified as closed then why not? I flew into one last week, arrived just after noon when the tower had closed and did some circuits. Many navy places are closed until late August now (Yeovilton for example)..........

The Navy have always had a much more "enlightened" attitude to airfield useage. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of RAF stations don't have block leave, apart from Christmas / New Year, plus the vast majority of RAF Station Commanders don't want their real estate damaged by an unsupervised civilian - and the runway is the most vital part of their real estate.

Knight Paladin

1st Aug 2007, 11:16

A military airfield is a site protected under the official secrets act, unlike most civilian airfields. As such civilian visitors to such an airfield will require certain security arrangements to be made, which will take significantly longer than an hour to set in motion. While it's true that these might not take a full hour, a nominal 24 hours seems like a sensible catch-all.

A military operater wishing to land away at another military airfield would not have to have such arrnagements made, and yet would still (if at all possible) call the day before to book in, thereby ensuring that suitable handling and services will be available for the planned flight.

DP - No really, CM's right, it IS the end of the story - the military can choose how we operate our own airfields. I wouldn't expect to rock up to a private farm strip and do whatever I liked; it's not my airfield, the same principle applies.

540 - Strangely enough for this site mate, yes, I do fly aeroplanes for a living. While my experience of european airfields is limited, as I can well understand why many UK airfields insist on PPR, I see no reason why european airfield operators should feel any differently.
Sorry if I hurt your seemingly rather delicate feelings, but I wouldn't call my post a personal attack, I just expressed a different side of the debate. I don't recall making any aspersions about your sexual orientation or your mother's occupation....
As it happens I have felt irritated by the apparent arrogance you've shown in previous topics, that you seem to consider yourself superior to VFR PPL flyers because you have an IR. I would still strongly suggest that a relatively straight line would be an eminently more sensible way for you to get from A to B, holding a radar service from a LARS provider for traffic information. As I mentioned before, it would also spare the poor air traffickers the hassle of having to vector all the other airways traffic (although I realise not many will be down at 120) around you tootling along at 170, but I think we're exceeding the remit of the 'private flying' forum there, and we're most definately getting away from the PPR topic!

Wrong Stuff

1st Aug 2007, 14:16

Wrong stuff - if you feel that strongly about it write to your MP, the CDS or the CAS. That's the reason, end of story. At the end of the day it's the military's trainset - they make the rules. There are more important things in the world to worry about.

Really, no need. I wasn't questioning their ability, or even their right, to decide on the operating requirements for their airfield. I was only questioning the accuracy of the answer.

It's unfortunate that their reason for 24hr PPR is so tenuous and goes against simple logic when looked at for more than 30 seconds, that it makes you look like you've just taken a wild guess without really having the faintest idea. I guess that's military bureaucracy for you.

Thanks for your help.

Chilli Monster

1st Aug 2007, 14:24

Wrong stuff - I actually spent 15 years in the military, one of the jobs I did was handling PPR requests. Some of the reasons given for refusal would appear, to the outsider, to be extremely tenuous. However, as I've said, it's their trainset, they can do what they wish.

Other reasons - availability of ground handling staff, availability of security, other programmed events happening which could involve the visitor "getting in the way".

So - sorry to say, no guessing on my part, big assumption on yours.

And you know what they say about Ass-u-me ;)

Knight Paladin

1st Aug 2007, 15:18

Or, in other words ....... rearrange these words to form a well known phrase or saying:

Box. Get. Your. In. Back.

dublinpilot

1st Aug 2007, 15:19

Chilli,

My comment was said with a sense of humour...it had a smiley after it to help make that obvious. I'm sorry if you found it offending....it wasn't meant as such.

I'm always amazed how when ever anyone dares question something the military does, it results in name calling. There is no need for that sort of thing on a professional network.

Knight,

I understand what you mean, but just because someone said that's the end of the story, doesn't make it so. The story isn't over until everyone has what what that want to say....then the thread dies off, but until then, it's not over ;)

As it happens I have felt irritated by the apparent arrogance you've shown in previous topics, that you seem to consider yourself superior to VFR PPL flyers because you have an IR.

I have to pull you up on that comment, as it says more about you than about IO540. I'm not sure who's postings you are reading when you make that comment, but almost all of the post IO makes are arguing in favour of helping those starting out in GA, rather than himself. IO is sorted, in that he has beautiful aircraft, and all the ratings that he needs, yet he regularly argues in favour of changing the PPL training system, for the benefit of those just starting out. I have yet to see him make ANY comment in which he says or even suggest that he is superior to anyone else.

It has been my experience that he is extremely helpful to newbies. I can remember much advice that he offered me in my early European trips. Much offered by PM, and much on the forums, for which I will always be grateful. (He was not the only one, but is the only one under attack here.) Unlike most posters here, when he doesn't know the answer, he had the courage and self confidence to admit that he doesn't know the answer.

If you read his response to others queries, you will often notice that he posts a link to his website, which is fully of articles he has written. These are not written from a "I'm a great pilot" perspective, but rather in a way that is designed to help others making their first steps into touring, and let them learn from the mistakes that he has made. He has invested quite an amount of time writing these articles, who's sole purpose is to help others out. He has on occasion passed me links to these by pm in response to a question I've asked on the forum, so you can't say that he's looking for the publicity.

It's for these reasons that I find your attack (yes I saw it as an attack too) to be totally unjustified. I'm not sure why you feel his posts irritate you, perhaps it's simply because you hold a different point of view.

As for causing hassle to air traffic controllers, IO's point is well made. At the levels that his 'puddle jumper' flies at, the skies are virtually deserted across most of Europe. It's hard to see how anyone could be inconvenienced. In any case ATC is not the property of commercial carriers. It's purpose is to serve those using the airways, irrespective of their size or speed. Dealing with ALL traffic wishing to use the airway systems is their job, and one they are well capable of.

I'm also not so sure why everyone has latched onto the last line of IO's original post, and is commenting about the military airfields. It seems to me that the main body of his post was not concerning UK military airfields, but rather fields that are open all day to international commercial traffic. It does indeed seem difficult to understand why a large international airport would require PPR. There certainly should be no need for a briefing. All the required info should be published in the AIP entry. Any last minute issues can be dealt with in a NOTAM. Then if a pilot turns up unannounced and finds the airfield parking is full, or there is an air show on, or whatever, and gets turned away, it is their own fault for not briefing properly.

Finally, purely to play devils advocate, there is an argument that a military airfield isn't 'their own train set' but rather a public asset. It is after all paid for by the tax payers of that country. There can be made a very good argument that it should be available for public use at all times, except when the military need it's exclusive use, which could of course be published as a notam.

dp

Knight Paladin

1st Aug 2007, 16:12

I have evidently grossly misrepresented IO540, and for that I wholeheartedly apologise. I have tended not to follow the newbie threads, so I have evidently missed all the advice he's dispensed there. I have met some PPL/IR holders in the past who obviously considered themselves a cut above 'vanilla' PPL holders, and would brag about their ability to fly in airways. I have obviously tarred IO with these pathetic individual's brush, and that I deeply regret.

DP - Whilst I can definately see the basis for your devilish advocacy, I suspect we both know it doesn't hold much water. Taxpayer funded institutions, just like any other, need facilities in order to accomplish their task. I would not expect to sleep in a hospital bed to save myself a hotel charge; in doing so I would be stopping the medics doing their job properly, and wasting other taxpayer's money. Similarly, the military must ensure that civil use of their airfields does not encroach on their operations and training to such an extent that it would degrade the service we provide to the taxpayer. One way of helping to ensure that is to make sure that all movemnts are notified to the airfield in question in good time.

I still don't think there has been any "name calling", merely some representation of the other side of the argument. Please remember that mil and ex-mil types tend to be honest and direct - you just have to compare civil and mil post flight debriefs to see that. Being brutally honest about your mate's errors after a trip ensures that he gets the best benefit out of that particular chunk of taxpayers' fuel, and, melodramatically gives him a better chance of coming home from his next trip sausage-side.

Not being a civil airways user, I have a question to ask to remedy my ignorance - would IO pay a charge for using the airways structure? Because the airlines certainly would. The purpose of NATS is indeed to provide a service to all airspace users, but all users should surely pay an equal share for the controller time they use - I'd imagine IO is on their screens for a significantly longer time than an airliner, so should arguably pay more..... Two can play devil's advocate!

IO540

1st Aug 2007, 18:19

It's fair enough for someone to explain the reasons why the military want such a long PPR, and to state that they can do as they wish (which nobody disputes), but it's equally fair enough for some of us to question this policy and ask whether it is reasonable.

My recollection of the example I gave (Cosford I think) was that they just wanted 24hr PPR and a fax of the insurance; they did not ask for detail of crew and passengers so they could submit this to MI5 for a security check :)

Incidentally I tried to join the RAF, for the standard £10/week engineering apprenticeship, back in the early 1970s. They refused because they thought my parents (not exactly from the USSR but close) were KGB agents :)

KP, I reckon you are setting up a trap for me with your Q on airways charges, designed to create another intangible argument. Under the current Eurocontrol system IFR flights under 2000kg don't pay enroute charges, so I don't (1400kg) pay. Like all piston pilots, and most turboprop pilots, I fly in the great void below FL290 or so in which there is virtually no enroute traffic. Today I got a DCT right across the whole of Belgium, with no ATC communication during that leg. I reckon this kind of traffic suits the airways controllers rather well; they do little with it because the Eurocontrol routings keep it away from the busy terminal areas. Even crossing overhead Frankfurt (yesterday, FL120) and going around it (today, FL100) involved almost no radio. No visual contacts on both flights (while IFR). There is another good reason for not having route charges for light aircraft: they would otherwise simply do what many piston twin drivers do already: fly "VFR" regardless of actual conditions. This is not conducive to safety. But this is off topic.

Knight Paladin

1st Aug 2007, 19:11

IO - No wonder they didn't have to contact the feds, they already knew who you were from your soviet background, been monitoring you all along! :) Seriously though, wasn't saying your backgrouynd details would be checked, just that security would be on-hand to escort you from the ops building to the gate, or whatever specifics are necessary at Cosford.

Wasn't trying to set a trap for you old chum re the airspace charges, I'm genuinely ignorant about the financial side of things I'm afraid. If you weren't using much controller workload, then I'd agree there's a strong case for you not having to pay for there use. However, that being the case, I'd also suggest that if not much traffic was using that piece of airspace, then there's a strong case for it being given back to uncontrolled status ..... but then I'm getting even further off-topic .....

IO540

1st Aug 2007, 19:45

Indeed, they could do what they have in the USA: Class A base at 18000ft ;) VFR flight possible more or less everywhere below that. But try getting that agreed around Europe :ugh:

I don't think the RAF has ever had a single major piece of equipment for which the USSR did not have the schematics, parts lists, supplier lists, test procedures, and had them sooner than the UK company contracted to make the item ;) Far too many born and bred British left wing university students went to work in those places. Probably the most anti-communist people are the ex Soviet Bloc refugees.

Anyway, back to my original enquiry re foreign PPR:

Start a copy of Navbox Pro. Like Jepp, the airfield data comes from the national AIPs.

10 random clicks on Germany yield 8 x PPR.
10 random clicks on France yield 1 x PPR.
10 random clicks on Spain yield 2 x PPR.
10 random clicks on Italy yield 5 x PPR.
10 random clicks on Greece yield 8 x PPR.
10 random clicks on Czech Rep yield 5 x PPR.
10 random clicks on Slovakia yield 0 (zero) x PPR.
10 random clicks on Poland yield 0 (zero) x PPR.

Knight Paladin

1st Aug 2007, 19:52

Back to my original point too then - airfield operator's perogative, and I can totally understand them wanting PPR. Surely it's hardly a major drama?

Well, at least not in principle, I can well understand your frustration at the incorrect numbers, but I'd say that would be more frustration with the flight guides than the general concept of PPR.

DFC

1st Aug 2007, 21:15

IO540,

You are planning a long flight and you want to have as few problems as possible. No doubt you also want to go to all of your chosen destinations.
Common sense dictates that you make every effort at the planning stage to ensure everything goes to plan. That in most cases includes talking to the airport authority or handling agent at each planned stop. Every one does it as a matter of course and it is worth it because even if you have perfect photographic memory of the whole AIP, it will never be enough.

USA is different becasue in simple terms the USA is exactly the same. Plan a flight to and from the US in a G reg and you will know. Internal flights in the US are easy (if you know what the procedures are) because they are within a common legal (for the most part) and aviation system.

I hope that you have let Jeppesen know about the incorrect information. That is one of the ways Jeppesen finds out about errors or did you think that amendments were only based on AIP/NOTAM?

To pick up on a previously mentioned point which will be a very important point for pilots like you;
Someone said that you have to have a crib sheet when flying to for example smaller French fields that only use French.
Be aware that there is a soon to be implemented requirement for all pilots to demonstrate language proficiency. Don't think that this is simply English - No - every pilot must demonstrate (and have certified in the licence) proficiency in the language used by the ground station. Thus in order to operate into a field where R/T is only in French one will have to have French Language proficiency endorsed on one's licence.

------------

Dublin Pilot,

IO540 does not argue for changes to training for the better of new pilots - he argues for GPS GPS GPS because he can't find the P*ss pot without it. :D

Before commenting on PPR at UK Mill bases can you please let us know how many times you have operated to/from Baldonnel or Gormanston (when it was open) and what the application process was like?

Regards,

DFC

IO540

1st Aug 2007, 21:50

Somebody makes a point about letting Jeppesen know.

How would this work? All the flight planning software / touring guide / etc publishers get their data from the national AIPs. If you publish something like this, you have to either get it from the AIP, or from "PIREPs". You can't do both, because let's say you have this:

April 2005: AIP says the fax # for PPR at XXX is 00421 123 4567

July 2005: a pilot reports the above is the # of somebody#s house and the correct number is actually 00421 133 4567

(at which point you amend your touring guide or whatever)

April 2006: AIP says the # is 00421 123 4568 (i.e. yet another number)

What do you publish??

There is only one solution and that is to dial the number and check it. In reality almost nobody actually does this. This is evident from the lack of country codes in the Jeppview Text Pages - if you actually ever dialled the number you would have that, wouldn't you ;) Also many of the numbers may be right but have duff area codes.

I don't see how a publisher could implement a system which takes in PIREPs and also the AIPs. You can't do both.

The nearest thing would be a database structure where items are tagged according to the credibility of the source, and are ranked accordingly when it goes to publication, and a PIREP would rank higher than the AIP but only for say 1 year.

A simpler way would be to publish all the numbers you ever saw - anybody actually trying to make contact will dial the lot anyway ...

Jepp have had major errors in their data for a very long time and I therefore suspect they don't have a system for processing PIREPs.

DFC

2nd Aug 2007, 11:49

IO540,
Jeppesen's customers spend a lot of time (unfortunately) letting Jeppesen know of errors in the flight guides.

Remember that for many airlines, the Jeppesen is part of the approved operations manual. Jeppesen will not just take your word, they will check it out but read the big disclaimer at the start of every Jepp!

Serious errors result in MORs.

If you find an error and do not report it then you have simply left it up to the next guy who may be in more urgent need of the number than you.

I must admit that I rarely use the airports section of the jepps because there are so many errors such as incorrect UTC/local time conversions - the most common one being the UTC time from the AIP being quoted as local.

However, when talking about the telephone numbers you forget that Jeppesen is a world wide publication and the international dialing code from UK is different to what you dial from the Ukraine and the way of delaing with the zero in italy area codes is different from Ireland etc etc.

Once you have got a bit of experience of it, you will find it easier.

Regards,

DFC

dublinpilot

2nd Aug 2007, 13:03

IO540 does not argue for changes to training for the better of new pilots - he argues for GPS GPS GPS because he can't find the P*ss pot without it.

DFC,

I'm surprised that you attempt to attack IO540, after KP had the good sense and courtesy to withdraw his comments. You obviously have never properly read IO's comments on GPS. If you had you would have realised that he already has the necessary gps equipment, and has learnt how to use it. Most of his arguments around GPS are in favour of incorporating some form of gps training into the PPL sylabus, to help give those starting out the tools and experience they require to enjoy long distance touring, so that they might enjoy their post PPL training flying more, and stay around longer.

He's here, he can defent himself I'm sure, but since you directed that comment to me, I felt it necessary to address it.

Before commenting on PPR at UK Mill bases can you please let us know how many times you have operated to/from Baldonnel or Gormanston (when it was open) and what the application process was like?

I made very little comment about UK mil bases, other than to act as devils advocte, which I made clear. My comments on PPR were in an effort to drag this conversation back to the original point, which was about PPR at large commerical airports (open for international traffic).

I would point out the Baldonnel and (Gormanstown when it was in operation) are not open to any civil traffic, international or domestic. PPR notice is not relevant there, because it's simply not open to the public. You can't get PPR no matter how much notice you give.

dp