CAA to allow Flight Training from Unlicensed Aerodromes

[Ryan5252]

If this has been posted elsewhere apologies in advance. To me, at first look, this looks like great news. Now coming into longer evenings it looks like schools may soon no longer need to close with the airport or pay hefty hourly rates to keep running, good news for local flying schools, instructors and students!
:D:D

Letter of Intent - Flight Training at Unlicensed Aerodromes | Consultations and Letters of Intent | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1350&pagetype=90&pageid=11200)

[englishal]

Great news :ok:

[IO540]

Maybe this was inevitable once the light/sports lobby started pushing hard.

I went to a CAA/DfT presentation 2 years ago, in which the DfT minister said that their research showed that since WW2, they found no instances where an on-airport fire crew had saved a single GA life. (Obviously CAT is different e.g. the Manchester 737 but this was GA). If true, this is quite an eye opener.

Licensing doesn't exist outside the UK, as such.

However, "licensing" seems to have been operated very differently by different airports. I have been to some licensed ones where there is no fire cover as such - it is a rusting land rover parked in a hangar somewhere, with nobody around to drive it. At others, you have a lot more, and one I know of has a massive fire crew despite being 100% GA.

As regards obstacles, the rule change may not make much of a difference because one patently cannot send QXC students in a C152 to a 500m grass strip with 50ft trees at each end :) The level of PPL training is not up to that kind of thing; performance planning is generally poorly taught. Training, especially solo flights, will have to go to nice and easy places.

My guess is that some airfields will drop licensing and will carry on as before, saving the fee. One example might be Panshanger. The bigger ones won't be able to because they have AOC ops; an example might be Biggin. A halfway case might be Shoreham, which has always had wild dreams of commercial ops but actually there is very little AOC stuff going on these days.

How much does a small airfield pay the CAA?

[Ryan5252]

How much does a small airfield pay the CAA?
c£40,000 I believe...

[ak7274]

HOW MUCH?...........My Airfield pays around £2000 per annum for the license. It's on our notice board.

Granted it's one of the smaller ones with a 800 mtr Grass strip and very little in the way of cuisine, but licensed all the same.

[IO540]

40k...Jesus - you are kidding???

2k is insignificant.

[Ryan5252]

Sorry completely misread your question. Loss to the CAA in fees is estimated at £40,000 which is an average of £1000 per aerodrome x 40*
* where they anticipate 40 aerodromes to withdraw their licence.

A handy PDF file detailing possible impacts is on the CAA website on the above link.
CAA Aerodrome Standards consider that there are up to 40
aerodromes that may consider becoming unlicensed. Aerodrome
licensing charges vary, but if figure of £1,000 p.a. is assumed,
the loss of revenue to the CAA may be in the region of: £40000
This may also be considered a benefit to the industry, as a
reduction in CAA charges.

[fisbangwollop]

At last the CAA is starting to see sense :ok::ok:

[Justiciar]

As regards obstacles, the rule change may not make much of a difference because one patently cannot send QXC students in a C152 to a 500m grass strip with 50ft trees at each end The level of PPL training is not up to that kind of thing; performance planning is generally poorly taught. Training, especially solo flights, will have to go to nice and easy places.

It seems to me that part of the problem is that almost by definition licensed airfields are larger with easier approaches, so currently there is no opportunity or need to teach approaches at sub 500m grass strips with obstacles. I learnt at Norwich with > 2000m of runway and didn't seriously do short field until I converted to tailwheel and started using small grass strips.

This proposal is long overdue and places the onus on the airfield operator and the instructer to make a judgment, which is the way it used to be! It is also the way a lot of regulation in the professions is going, with detailed rules being replaced by broad principles which should be followed, leaving more discretion on their implementation to individuals.

This could have a significant positive impact on the cost of training and if they eventually allow PPL training for remuneration without having to have a CPL then this will further improve the situation. Will we see a rear guard action being fought by existing training organisations who will have cause to fear this proposal?!

[peter272]

This could have a significant positive impact on the cost of training

More likely it will make a few organisations fractionally more profitable. We won't see much reduction in cost, given the other, much more significant costs, such as fuel and maintenance.

[Justiciar]

will make a few organisations fractionally more profitable

What about new organisations? The odd microlight school which is based at an unlicensed airfield curently and decides to branch our into PPL(A)? Do not underestimate the considerably reduced cost of leasing premises on an unlicensed airfield as compared to larger, licensed airfields. Reduced landing fees, fuel which is sold at a strip without the need to make a good % profit. All these elements add up.

[BillieBob]

Before everyone dashes off looking for grass strips to operate from, bear in mind that, for JAA training, there are still some significant requirements:

The base aerodrome, and any alternative base aerodrome, at which training is being conducted shall meet the following requirements.
(a) Have at least one runway or take-off area that allows training aeroplane to make a normal take-off or landing at the maximum take-off or maximum landing mass authorised, as appropriate:
(i) under calm wind (not more than four knots) conditions and temperatures equal to the mean high temperature for the hottest month of the year in the operating area;
(ii) clearing all obstacles in the take-off flight path by at least 50 feet;
(iii) with the powerplant operation and the landing gear and flap operation (if applicable) recommended by the manufacturer; and
(iv) with a smooth transition from lift-off to the best rate of climb speed without exceptional piloting skills or techniques.
(b) Have a wind direction indicator that is visible at ground level from the ends of each runway.
(c) Have adequate runway lights if used for night training.
(d) Have available a means of air/ground communications acceptable to the Authority.

Combine that with the Code of Practice (yet to be finally published) and the fact that the CAA are about to increase oversight of Registered Facilities and it's apparent that this is not a carte blanche to train anywhere you can find a friendly farmer.

[Mickey Kaye]

"2k is insignificant"

Might be for you but for some airfields a significant amount of money. Especially when you add in the other costs associated with being licensed eg fire cover.

It then becomes a significant amount especially for places that train less than 20 PPLs a year. And I now of two such places.

[mad_jock]

How the hell does Netherthorpe Satisfy that critiria that Billie bob has just posted for the first section?

[Duchess_Driver]

Dear Marj

I am a fireman at a local licensed aerodrome.

Should I be worried?

Yours

Jose


..........

[homeguard]

Unlicensed Training Airfields

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

Having studied the LAASG 'Draft code of Practice' on the face of it no one should think that it is a matter of operating out of anywhere without a care.

There is a continued reference within the document to standards already in place for licensed aerodromes. With regard to provision of Emergency Services, by another example, that section uses such phrases as; 'capable' and 'suitable' and 'sufficient people with the knowledge...'. and 'clearly marked'. Who will be the judge of all this. The revision of CAP428 is to be the guidance.

Unless any organisation wishes to stick its neck on the block it is going to be wise to meet nearly all if not all the current licenced aerodrome standards.

The recommended Minimum Physical Characteristics and also detailed minimum clearances from obstructions are part of the 'code of practice'. Many parts of the code are difficult to seperate from that required of a small licenced aerodrome. To ensure 'duty of care' is achieved satisfactorily the process may also require an expensive qualified survey.

It would seem difficult if not impossible, in my view, to demonstrate to an investigator following an incident why the unlicenced safety management system should be different from that in place for licenced aerodromes close by. The great gain will be to be able to modify the full current requirements to meet the type of operations actually undertaken. That is not the same as saying that training can be undertaken without a care!

Planning Permission will, of course, be required owing to any change of use. That I can assure you will not be easy!

[xrayalpha]

What is the news here?

This was a consultation that closed in July 2008 and was meant to change the ANO 2009 Article 208 and Rules of the Air Regulations to allow flight training at unlicensed aerodromes.

We are now in 2010!

Edited to add:

I see from instructor forum it there has been a CAA update and it comes in on 1st April, 2010:

CAA announces go-ahead for flying training from unlicensed aerodromes | CAA Newsroom | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1838)

Or see CAA site, under newsroom.

[Whirlybird]

How the hell does Netherthorpe Satisfy that critiria that Billie bob has just posted for the first section?

Netherthorpe has no obstacles around it and just might...though I've only been in there in a helicopter so can't say for certain. But I'm not at all sure about Derby, which has approx 500 ft grass runways and trees and power lines around. Anyone here fly from either of those? Both do flight training.

[Justiciar]

Having studied the LAASG 'Draft code of Practice' on the face of it no one should think that it is a matter of operating out of anywhere without a care.

I think that the CAA document makes that clear. In modern parlance, any airfield will need a "risk assessment". Even if you dislike the terminology the reality is that it goes back to what any pilot does every time they fly and what instructors and airfield managers used to do before nany stae started becoming prescriptive about every aspect of aviation. This is part of a trend - for example, fire certificates for premises have been replaced by the requirement for risk assessments. This seems to be generally good as it makes people think about their individual situation rather than relying on a piece of paper saying "fire certificate" or "licensed aerodrome".

It would seem difficult if not impossible, in my view, to demonstrate to an investigator following an incident why the unlicenced safety management system should be different from that in place for licenced aerodromes close by. The great gain will be to be able to modify the full current requirements to meet the type of operations actually undertaken. That is not the same as saying that training can be undertaken without a care

I don't agree with the first bit of that but yes to the second! In the case of any incident, the standard will be what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances given the facts they either knew or ought to have known. I don't believe any investigator or court would blindly impute the standards of a licensed aerodrome to an unlicensed one. In fact, certain standards may need to be higher at the unlicensed facility. For example, there may well be stricter supervision and solo rules for a small airfield with obstructions close to the threshold than there would at a larger field with clear approaches. The local licensed field may not have such standards - that will not be a reason not to have them at the unlicensed field if the circumstances dictate.

It seems to me that with less regulation goes greater flexibility and less cost. This is what all aspects of GA need. It may not have a dramatic overnight impact but it all helps. It looks like the new LSA standard will further drive down the cost of flying. All moves in the right direction. Don't knock them.

[jonkil]

While this is a step forward we may find that many strips will not be suitable for much of current fleet. The microlight fraternity have been used to training out of unlicensed fields and short(ish) strips for years in aircraft with superior performance and are able to do so safely, much of the current fleet wont be able to do so.
The future of GA is the new stuff that has the performance and ability to operate out of the smaller fields, unlicensed or otherwise, and this move will only reinforce that fact. The costs of operating the older stuff coupled with this ruling being implemented will make the Rotax brigade an even more interesting proposition that many pilots will move to, and it will also open up many airfields in the newer stuff that PPL's will inevitably train on. All in all this is a step forward but on the other hand it may be the death knell of some airfields that currently offer training, if they were to loose the revenue that training generates then many may become unsustainable..... swings and roundabouts come to mind.

Jon

[David Roberts]

The major cost saving for airfield operators by going unlicenced is no fire crew. Not the saving on the CAA annual fee for licensed status. I would guess at many airfields this will give greater flexibility in staffing and multi tasking, though I know many airfields also use fire crew for other jobs close to the fire tender. But that factor alone is likely to reduce airfield overheads significantly as a proportion of total standing costs. The CAA analysis was a good one in terms of objective risk assessment based on empirical evidence.

[Ryan5252]

The major cost saving for airfield operators by going unlicenced is no fire crew.

Also, I stand to be corrected, but is there not a requirement for airfields to be staffed by FISO's for Air/Ground during hours which the airfield is licensed for operation?

[Pilot DAR]

So they're going to let pilots with no license fly from aerodromes with no license? Sounds prefectly logical and appropriate to me!

Didn't many of us first learn to drive in parking lots?

Well Done CAA...

[Sciolistes]

The CAA seems to be heading in the right direction for GA since that McNulty fellah left the building. Or maybe it is EASA that has taken a load off?

[xrayalpha]

Ryan,

Please stand!

Cumbernauld, for instance, has only air/ground.

To have an ATZ you require a licence and at least an air/ground: or if unlicensed you need a FISO.

That might be what you are thinking of.

North Denes is the only unlicenced airfield with an ATZ, by the way.

[mad_jock]

C152 in the middle of summer 1 person on board dry grass under MTOW doesn't clear the hedge by 50ft. Speaking from personal experence.

[xrayalpha]

Mad Jock:

Sywell, all grass for many years, Sandown.....etc

No problems.

Of course, you could fly in something more modern than a 152 ;-). You'll need to at Strathaven!

[Talkdownman]

North Denes is the only unlicenced airfield with an ATZ
Because, although the aerodrome is unlicensed, the Operator provides ATC. The ATZ is established for the purposes of Rule 45.

[Evilbob]

As far as I have been able to ascertain the only real saving will be in the licence fee itself. The proposed change indicates that although a licence will not be required, the airfield operator and instructors will be required to be satisfied that it is safe to conduct training. This includes the need to maintain IER (Fire crew).

We have recently had our aerodrome inspected by the CAA and a few questions were asked about the proposal and what effect de-licensing an airfield may have. Though I didn't ask the questions or hear the answers first hand, I was informed of the following by a colleague:

1). At present an airfield licensed by the CAA which sells fuel, is able to do so without a separate licence from the local council. An unlicensed airfield will have to obtain a licence to sell AVGAS (Jet A is exempt apparently) from the local council. You can bet this will not be free (and is unlikely to be cheap).

2). Many smaller airfields hold events such as fly - ins. As a licensed airfield additional insurance is not required. Operators of unlicensed fields may require insurance for such events, which may be far in excess of the CAA licence fees.

I have heard the an argument over the years (mainly from the LAA members, but not exclusively), that if the airfield were not used for training it would no longer need to be licensed and therefore a cost saving to the members. My personal view is that £2500 split between as few as one hundred people is only £25 a per person: very little when you consider the overall costs of flying these days and a small price to pay for a little bit of extra safety.

[englishal]

Makes it easier and cheaper and more attractive for flying schools though as they don't have to do the silly "fly off and land somewhere licensed first then go back to base" requirement. That cuts costs for people wishing to learn to fly. That in turn may lead to more pilots / members and hence more revenue for the airfield.....

[mad_jock]

I hope never to have to sit in a C150-C152 ever again in my life. Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e. Which applys to every single one I have had the miss fortune of sitting in.

It was purely Neitherthope I was interested in with that criteria I can't see how they comply for normal ****e training aircraft. And the number of folk who have planted it in the hedgerows would tend to prove that.

My fav grass strip is Dornoch but I couldn't bull**** a risk assement for training there. :*

Who would contact emergency services? err there is always someone walking the dog.

Where is the nearest emergency services.? There is a reserve call out firestation down the road.

Briefing facilitys? There is a shed you can have a pee behind with a map of the beach next to it.

[Rod1]

I think there is a big misconception regarding flight training from unlicensed airfields. Take the example of a gliding club or micro club, which is conducting flight training anyway. Many of these are unlicensed, have full planning permission and have been doing flight training for many years. The micro club could add a VLA version of its existing 3 axis training fleet and start doing the “GA” PPL alongside its existing micro NPPL. The number of sites, which could choose to do this, is quite large. The extra cost of doing this is just the cost of the aircraft and maybe an extra qualification for the existing instructors.

Rod1

[clunckdriver]

Reading this stuff looking out the window at my wifes Champ parked in the side field {on skis} makes me wonder how Britain, the nation which got GA going{Moths, Avians et all} ever got itself buried under such a pile of totally stupid regulations. I have taught folks to fly on floats, skis from all sorts of places from the back forty on the farm to a lumber road in the bush to the nations Capital airport.{some of these kids are now 747 Captains, so I gues it worked} The history of fire trucks and crash crews at civy airports in Canada makes for interesting reading, no lives saved, lots of foam squirted on aircraft already burning , for what? like airport security it gives the illusion of safety.There is a legal case going in Canada right now regarding Provinces trying to regulate aviation, in Quebec the Ministry of Ag want to tell us if we can land our aircraft on our own properties, we are all praying that COPA wins or we may be headed down the same road as the UK. As an end note, a few years back a "new Canadian" hired by the feds {to fill a quota no doubt} sugested that all water landing areas should have bouys marking the landing zone and a windsock, at the time my youngest was flying floats for an Indian band, she pointed out to this twit that in her area there were over three thousand lakes!Turns out he had never been further North than 200 miles from the US border. sounds like your Feds are even more out of touch with the real World than our bunch.

[hatzflyer]

The broader picture Rod is people doing exactly what you have said BUT in their own aircraft as is often the case with Micro's. Now that it is feasible to do it in permit aircraft , that will become the norm in the future.
In the past the instructor was tied to a school on a licenced airfield and they had control . Overnight the instructors effectively have the choice to become freelance.
This then becomes a whole different ballgame with ab initios rubbing shoulders with enthusiasts from day one and not being treated as meal tickets.
The take up rate will be much higher as will the amount of people that keep their licences because they won't be stifled by the pay through the nose syndrome that over regulated flying schools impose.
It has to be wonderful news for all recreational pilots as it will swell the numbers in time and lead to a thriving aircraft industry and give us a bigger voice in the overall picture of top heavy legislation. :ok:

[Pilot DAR]

I hope never to have to sit in a C150-C152 ever again in my life. Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e. Which applys to every single one I have had the miss fortune of sitting in.

Oh, Mad Jock, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about C 150's...

It seems to me that your opinion must differ from the 29000 or so people who bought one, including me, 23 years ago. After 2700 hours in mine, plus a lot of hours in others (including a delightful STOL 150HP taildragger on skis just last weekend), you could not get me to part with mine. It has been hangered here at my home for over 20 years now, and with 100% dispatch reliability, is there whenever I need it. It serves the community with 10 to 20 flights a year to support emergency services, and searches.

As for the apparently (to me) overly restrictive regulations, which seem to govern UK flying (and I know little more about them, than what I read here), it seems to me that the government elected by the people has imposed these regulations on the people. I completely agree with Clunkdriver, and really appreciate our freedom to fly in Canada. My plane lives in the back 40, has landed on that lumber road, and regularly at the nation's capital airport, as well as many other facinating places! With the permission of the landowner in respect of private property, and otherwise as appropriate for public property, I'm free to land where I want, when I want, and if training is a part of that, so much the better! I landed on 5 different frozen lakes last Sunday, as well as my home runway, and two public airports...

Ahhh, life is good, and Cessna 150's are a part of that!

Oh, and a proper cleaning, airing out, and air freshener, are a whole lot more cost effective, than a whole new plane!

[mad_jock]

ok out of the 29000 airframes the 45 that I have flown have been

Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e

Maybe you have the only good one, outa 29000 there has got to be one thats not smelly. And if you are a PORG the cramped won't be a factor and being in a cold country will give you an advantage on the performance.

UK they have all been thrashed to death crashed and generally abused from the day they entered the shores.

I bet your one is a lovely machine which has had more TLC and proper handling compared to your average C150. Its been in a hanger for the last 20years which not alot of them have had the benefit of.

Give me a tomahawk any day. Smelly i will grant you, but climbs better and tons of room.

[Ryan5252]

Give me a tomahawk any day.

I'd rather be in a 152 than fly a garden shed any day! :ok:

[gasax]

Evil bob I think you are over stating the case somewhat.

If the Avgas facility meets the CAa requirements - which of course it must then local authority approval is pretty much a 'given'. My local authority 'sells' a licence for quanties over 50,000lts (should be enough!) for £114 per annum.

The insurance issue is interesting = ask your insurer whether as a licensed airfiled you are covered for a major fly-in, the naswer will be somewhat similar to the answer you get from the CAA. The prospect of additional revenue is irrestible. Both the CAA and insurers will state this is an exceptional activity - and so not covered by the usual arrangements. Having been involved in this a couple of times the answer is to categorically stated that whatever artifical criteria they apply will not be exceeded (the CAA number is IIRC 200 movements so expects the insurers to follow suite).

Overall the airfield simply has to pay a little less money, effectively for nothing. Will it change the world? no, but it is a useful improvement.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, I quite like Tomahawks as well, and were my operating realities very different, would be quite pleased to own one. There are seven distinct characteristics of the Tomahawk which make it less desirable for operation in the type of flying common in my part of the world:

Low wing - less opportunity to operate on taxiways and runways with high snowbanks, particularly when narrow (common).

5.00-5 main wheel tires - get stuck in soft ground more easily

High tail - reduces the effective soft field capability of the aircraft, you can't "drag it off" with the same confidence as a low tail aircraft.

High tail - much harder to inspect, and clear snow from.

Not a candidate for a STOL kit - reduces operational choices.

Harder to load stuff in and out of - can't remove/fly with door off.

Not eligible for operation on Mogas - costs me a lot more money to fly in Avgas, and un-necessarily pollutes the environment horribly

The Tomahawk is a great plane for "temperate", hard surfaced places, not so much for a lot of Canada - particularly the "unlicensed" aerodromes.

[mad_jock]

Aye the old mark ones are better with the big wheels on scotlands beaches

All the points are very true.

There is nothing of that class that really sparks my interest apart from the tommy.

Quite looking forward to getting my hands on the new piper cadet made in eastern europe. From what i have seen it might be quite good and points 3,4 and 6 will be off your list.

[BillieBob]

I once flew a Tomahawk, about 20 years ago. I made the mistake of including the tail in my lookout scan during a spin - never been near one since!!

[xrayalpha]

Thing is, what is needed depends on what you are doing.

That is what experience around the world has shown - and experience here.

So, for at least 50 years, no UK airfield fire service has been any use at all to save lives of trainee pilots or their instructors!

Microlight schools don't have to have fire services etc etc. You can teach out the boot of your car! (I did teach once out the back of my camper van!)

So get an aircraft and start barnstorming.

Reckon there must be a good bit to be made from airfields like Dornoch with trial flights. A week there, a week at Plockton, a week on Mull, a few days on Bute. Bliss!

It is all possible now.

[mad_jock]

That old ****e again about tommahawks.

[seymour beaver]

Great thread, is this another sign of the shift from old c 150/2s traumahawks etc to more modern aircraft based at farm strips cutting costs and reigniting the fun of flying at reasonable rates in these hard times.

[IO540]

So, for at least 50 years, no UK airfield fire service has been any use at all to save lives of trainee pilots or their instructors!According to a CAA/DfT presentation I went to a while ago, there is no record of any life saved in UK GA since records began.

is this another sign of the shift from old c 150/2s traumahawks etc to more modern aircraft based at farm strips cutting costs and reigniting the fun of flying at reasonable rates in these hard times.For many, no doubt, but under current international regs the non-CofA light/sports part of GA is a total dead end as far as going anywhere for real.

Also, while farm strips are a great solution for those who, errrm, are based at one (i.e. can get into the favour of some farmer) it is not a solution for the vast majority who never will be able to. Farm strips are damn hard to find, much harder still to get Planning for (forcing people to pretend they operate 28 days a year - what boll0x - and to watch their back the whole time wrt the locals), and most are tightly knit groups who don't want newcomers. Short of a major change in Planning regs, strip flying will never be accessible to most.

Those who think GA can be killed off and farm strips are the future, are kidding themselves. Sure, strap a lawn mower to your back and you can "operate" anywhere, but it is a dead end hobby.

[worrab]

Quote:
So, for at least 50 years, no UK airfield fire service has been any use at all to save lives of trainee pilots or their instructors!
According to a CAA/DfT presentation I went to a while ago, there is no record of any life saved in UK GA since records began.

This is perhaps true with respect to fires, but IIRC there has been at least one case where a bubble-canopied plane inverted, trapping the occupant(s) who had to be released by other folk.
Legal minds will probably be considering liability issues in running flight training (which could perhaps be considered inherently risky) with piece-meal emergency support.

[Rod1]

“For many, no doubt, but under current international regs the non-CofA light/sports part of GA is a total dead end as far as going anywhere for real.”

IO this is complete twaddle. You and I both know that the 1980’s international agreement gives very extensive access to Europe for these aircraft without any extra work over a full C of A aircraft. With permit aircraft flying round the world fairly frequently, and a home built plastic fantastic having got into orbit you really do need some new lines.

I take it some farmers son pushed you into a pile of poo in your younger days?:rolleyes:

Rod1

[hatzflyer]

IO, I have never read so much bollox in all my life. The lighter end of G A is the ONLY side that is thriving.
Why can't you just accept that not everyone wants to fly commercially?
Recreational flying is on the increase...live with it .

I imagine a poll would prove that there are a much larger percentage of recreational pilots flying foreign trips in permit/lighter aircraft than the heavy stuff that you advocate.

:ugh:

Edited. May I also point out that this forum is entitled " Private Flying"..
( NOT airline wannabies etc )

[Evilbob]

Gasax

Thanks for the fuel info, that will be useful I'm sure.

I don't deny that this is a step forward. The CAA have admitted that the UK is the only European nation to require a licensed airfield for training (and given some the input of the American, Australian and Canadian contingent, probably most of the world). I am looking forward to being able to use our unlicensed runway, which favours the prevailing winds and will mean far better continuity for all concerned.

However, I think it would be foolish to jump to the conclusion that it is an instant money saver without looking at all of the facts. After all, we are governed by people who have a habit of giving with one hand and taking with the other (cynical, me?:}).

On a separate note,

With regard to RFFS/IER and saving life it really depends on how you want to look at it. I would concede that it has been statistically proven that IER has never saved a life in response to an accident. We had an occurrence in recent history in which the responders could do nothing. The injuries were not survivable.

However, in a separate incident IER responded to a hot start in the refuelling area. They dealt with it quickly and no one got hurt in an instance which if allowed, could have gotten rather worse.

Now I'm waiting for the cries of 'anybody could have put that out, it still doesn't mean we need IER'. But in this case, not only did the IER extinguish the fire, they also held back the resident well meaning know it all (actually told him where he could go and what he might do when he got there), who turned up with a water extinguisher.

Now I'm sure that most of us are well aware that water and fuel are immiscible, and that the resulting fire ball from even a small amount of water on a chip pan fire is not good for your health... YouTube - Chip Pan Demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJz109_qgFY)

Our well meaning friend was obviously ignorant of this fact or acted entirely on impulse. Either way I wouldn't have liked to have been anywhere near that aircraft had he managed to use that extinguisher.

[IO540]

I never said I fly commercially. I don't. I am just a private pilot who likes to "go places", VFR or IFR, without having to get permissions from country X,Y,Z. PPR is a big enough hassle already.

Sure one go to Le Touquet in one's homebuilt... but that gets boring after about the 20th visit :)

[hatzflyer]

My RV has been further than Le Touquet as have many others, a couple have been right around the world ( don't think I want to go further than that though, even though there have been homebuilts in space).

[IO540]

VFR or IFR?

[hatzflyer]

I don't have an IR so whats the difference to me if the plane is capable and I am not? I fly because I like to see where I am going... That's the point of recreational flying.
If I HAVE to go I let Ryan air take me.

It seems that makes me a lesser mortal to some on here, but I've managed to enjoy 30+ yrs of flying over 180 types of aircraft.

The point being I enjoy what I do, obviously you wouldn't.... but its horses for courses, I don't see the point in carrying loads of kit that costs a fortune every year if I am not going to use it. But you cannot say that I haven't been anywhere in my aircraft...Clearly I have and what is more I have enjoyed it.

For the record, I have always had a motor bike, but I don't commute to work on it in the snow, I take the car.

[IO540]

It seems that makes me a lesser mortal to some on here

Only in your imagination, but feel free to feel that way if it helps :)

What I am responding to is the assertion that GA as we know it can be relegated to farm strips and still carry on.

It will carry on - until the old guard dies out (literally or figuratively). Or the amount of "28 day" activity in the open countryside reaches a level at which the NIMBYs get their act seriously together.

[Pilot DAR]

This is perhaps true with respect to fires, but IIRC there has been at least one case where a bubble-canopied plane inverted, trapping the occupant(s) who had to be released by other folk.
Legal minds will probably be considering liability issues in running flight training (which could perhaps be considered inherently risky) with piece-meal emergency support.

Do you get so many serious flight training accidents in the UK, that crash fire rescue (CFR) is that important? It is not like that here. In 30 years, I can't recall a fatal flight training accident at an airport, where CRF would have made a difference at all, and this statement includes the Toronto area airports.

Here in Canada, in large portion, flight schools are actively discouraged from operating at airports which do have comprehensive CFR. The biggest airports discourage or prohibit flight training. Most students learn at airports which have no CFR at all, the airport safety plan is to call the local fire department (as a volunteer firefighter, we are called to about one per year). We have as many off the airports as on, and I recall only one being in the flight training role, and it was in the lake anyway. It's usually the experienced pilot either goofing around or scud running, who goes bump.

So, why ban flight training at airports which do not have CFR? If it's bubble canopy aircraft which are the concern, ban flight training in them from non CFR airports (sorry bubble guys, I'm not against you, I'm just stirring the pot).

It can be tolerable when well informed regulators, in meaningful consultation with industry and users, make and change regulation. It does seem silly when poorly informed regulators impose restrictions for who knows what reason! The requirement of CFR for flight training certainly falls in this category for me!

[hatzflyer]

I don't believe it HAS been relagated to farm strips. As I understand it we now have a choice.

[jonkil]

For many, no doubt, but under current international regs the non-CofA light/sports part of GA is a total dead end as far as going anywhere for real.
What a complete statement of Bollox, and well you know it.

[IO540]

I wouldn't say I "know it", no.

VFR-only is a dead end for many pilots, myself included, which is why they do the IMCR and some do the IR.

VFR is fine for sightseeing of course, but let's not start yet another long thread on how people do local trips but soon run out of mates to fly with them on the same old sightseeing trip.

One can indeed go places VFR but one needs to be a retired perpetual traveller to get anywhere far. VFR in IMC helps but only to a degree because you have to do it where you won't be seen.

All these groups of pilots, with different objectives, can coexist perfectly well. But like I say, pretending that GA can shrink to sports planes operating from farm strips is a fallacy.

[Ryan5252]

But like I say, pretending that GA can shrink to sports planes operating from farm strips is a fallacy.
is the assertion that GA as we know it can be relegated to farm strips and still carry on.

IO540, much respect for your views as they come from experience and generally sound advice is given and I can only hope to learn from, but; are there posts which are invisible to me? Who is making these assertions? I can't see this move as being an attempt to confine GA operations to farm strips but rather a welcome and unusual relaxing of mindless regulations and red tape. In real terms, this is only likely to affect FTO/RTF by offering them more choice of where to operate from, granted there will be invariably knock on affects at small airfields.


VFR-only is a dead end for many pilots, myself included, which is why they do the IMCR and some do the IR.

I would disagree. VFR-only is limit but not a dead end. Would only ever holding a single engine rating would be another 'dead-end' by your definition? What about an NPPL? Everything has a limit but these can be extended depending on personal circumstances, choice, cost and desire but we all have a choice with what we want to do and my lifestyle may not appeal to you and yours may not appeal to me. Therefore I may be entirely content to drag friends on the same old sight seeing tour.

*For the record I intend to expand my horizons as much as possible and this will hopefully include a night rating, IMC rating, IR, taildraggers etc etc.

[hatzflyer]

IO, ok having had a good nights sleep I now realise you are absolutely correct and I am absolutely wrong.
The last 30 odd years of my flying past has been a complete waste of time because the were all done VMC.

The fact that my amount of flying each year is only restricted by my income and not the weather is a mere inconsequence and the six and a half thousand hours that I have flown vmc is proof that you can't fly without an airways equipped aircraft.
I have owned airways equipped aircraft in the past by the way, Rallye 180, Cessna, Grumman, Piper, Beech, Wassmer and had access to an airways equipped Commander but hey, what would I know about operating any such aircraft, I only ever flew VMC.
By the way, I did notice that I flew less hours in those sorts of aircraft, the costs made me wince and meant that I could only afford less time in the air. Mind you when I did get them out the passengers were well impressed with all the knobs and dials,( I didn't let on that that I didn't know what half of them were for!).

One other draw back I found flying these types was that the handling wasn't really up to scratch compared to the permit types that I was flying at the same time. The Sennaca was definitely sluggish going around a roll.

Your postings have made me re-evaluate my life.

I have now come to realise that my Jodel D9 is a complete waste of space.Talking of space, that is something it severely lacks..no room for any real equipment and no sparks to work them...hell! it hasn't even got a roof! Absolutely no good for IMC then. I'll get rid of it straight away.

As for my motor glider that flies on 1 gal per hour and is a delight on the long summer evenings after work, well I now realise that is a total waste of time as well so I'll give it to the Pikeys for scrap.( It'll save 'em nicking it anyway Plus I won't have to worry about terrorists using it for an attack against Parliament).

The RV is a total delight to fly compared to anything else I have flown, and of course I have come under the same spell as all the other RV owners that have made Vans the most popular home built ever with a range that suits everyone except the serious IMC flyer. I had overlooked this serious defect and can only apologize. I suspect Vans must be using some sort of witchcraft to hoodwink so many people. I will write to the Pope denouncing him as the Devil as soon as I have stopped typing this , said 5 Hail Marys and self flagellated for half an hour.

I am not even going to mention my involvement in a high performance sailplane ( oops ..sorry..just did! ) as I now realize these are the spawn of Beelzebub only invented to cause near air misses with all you head in cockpit types..and as for gliding sights with cables and other works of the Devil....

Thanks for the guidance I.O.and bringing me to my senses ..must go now...Where did I put that whip???

[robin]

:ok::ok::ok::D:D

[S-Works]

Hatz,

Ah, yes that sluggish old RV of yours. I seem to recall smiling as we settled into the cruise in it somewhere close to the VNE of a TB20 as I recall. Not bad for such a 'tiny' engine.

;)

[hatzflyer]

Errr excuse me Bose /IO 540/Hatz.

BTW..if you put an io540 in an RV4 it becomes a Harmon rocket. Maybe the best use for one yet.(Disregarding a boat anchor :E )

[Cows getting bigger]

IO540, VFR may present some interesting challenges and I agree that your timetable needs to be 'flexible'. However, IFR also brings challenges and, personally, I wouldn't even consider planning my throughout-the-year aviation life around GA IFR unless I had an aircraft cleared for FIKI.

[hatzflyer]

That is such a sad statement. Have you never sampled the joy of a spontaneous flight after work on a summers evening just because you can?

:ok:

[S-Works]

I hope we're going to get a Bose vs IO540 internet forum death match soon, always amusing!

Hang on, where did that come from? I have not exchanged any comments with IO, just recalled how much I enjoyed flying Hatz's RV.

Quit stirring!!!

[IO540]

The ability to stir (and get away with it) correlates well with the thickness of the ice one is standing on

;)

[hatzflyer]

IO nice to see you are still with us , I'm only spending time on here because I'm bored ( does it show) at work and can't go flying anyway.
Are you coming to my fly in tommorrow ? You should be one of the few that the weather won't stop... I'll buy you a bacon buttie.

[Cows getting bigger]

hatzflyer, you misunderstand me - I often fly spontaneously. My point was that the apparent panacea of IFR actually doesn't solve everything. IO540 is peddling that you need to be IFR to get anywhere. I'm saying that you need something more than just an IFR capable aircraft to operate without hindrance throughout the year.

[hatzflyer]

Sorry slightly misread you post. I wouldn't argue with what you say. In my case if I had to be somewhere I wouldn't rely on flying myself.
I suppose it's a bit like driving a huge 4by4. Most people don't ever get to use them in anger, they certainly cost more to run, and when you need one..then you need one.However the simple truth is that most of them are used twice a day in suburbia on school runs.
Meanwhile contrast that with the guy riding the Ducati. He's out for fun, he doesn't realy want to ride it in the rain, he does it because it makes him feel good.

[IO540]

because I'm bored ( does it show)

Yes it does show.....

What fly-in? I don't normally do fly-ins unless the weather is comfortable, which basically means south of about 35N.... which is why I fly a TB20 :)

[S-Works]

I am taking a TB20 down to Jerez in a couple of days time. Looking forward to experiencing the near airliner qualities of the kite.
:)

[hatzflyer]

Tibernham Norfolk. see thread on Flyer forum.:ok:

[IO540]

Tibernham shows as 620m grass. Too short for me especially if soaked. I'd do 700m if dry. 500m tarmac. Can't see anything on Flyer - must be buried in the other forums there...

[hatzflyer]

You are prob looking at priory farm. Norfolk gliding club. 6 tarmac runways. best part of a mile on the longest, 650m shortest.
Look under BB fly in on flyin section of Flyer forum or post saying Tibernham 27th.

NGC has a website with a plate on it.

PPR/ Weather on the day. 077876444451 ( that's me).:ok:

[IO540]

Yes, big enough, but I am busy this w/e. The wx looks 50/50 at present for you.

[hatzflyer]

Oh well it looks like the coast is clear for you Bose :} Bacon buttie or full English?:ok:

[S-Works]

If you are buying it will of course be full English...... :ok:

[IO540]

An excellent decision on my part, evidently :ok:

[S-Works]

With your landings Peter, it's probably a good call. It would take a while to remove a jet liner like the TB from the runway.....
:}:}:}:}:}

[hatzflyer]

No favouritism, I owe him that one.

[IO540]

What's wrong with my landings?

[hatzflyer]

I give up...do tell?

[S-Works]

What's wrong with my landings?

Oh for gods sake Peter. Have you had a clinical by pass of the sense of humour gene? Are you totally incapable of realising someone is teasing you and not attacking you?

I suspect the reason we so often seem to come to blows is your apparant inability to detect humour.

There is nothing wrong with your landings - In typical pilot fashion we gain a little bit of fun from pulling each others legs. In your case, yours seems to have come off in my hand.
:p:p

[hatzflyer]

He knew that ..he was teasing you;)

PS how do you like your sausages...burnt, very burnt or cremated ?I'll researve a breaky for you.

[WestWind1950]

back on subject....

The CAA have admitted that the UK is the only European nation to require a licensed airfield for training

that shows how much they know....

In Germany ALL airfields are certified, even small glider fields and UL fields! They all must of some fire equipment readily available at all times. The fields are usually PPR only, though some do have published opening hours.

Training is available at any of those fields as long as the type of aircraft is certified for it. For example, at a purely glider airfield, no training is allowed there with a Cessna or similar single-engine (just power gliders and MAYBE UL's). So, if it's not certified for the aircraft type, then you could consider it un-certified and thus NO TRAING allowed in that type.

But, there is NO yearly fee to the German CAA! The only fee is when they come to inspect, and perhaps a penalty fee if they don't meet inspection. Other then that.... no cost to the authorities!

As to Canada being less restricted.... well, you have a lot more free space up there! It gets a bit cramped in Europe. ;)

Westy

[fisbangwollop]

Just spent the last hour catching up on this thread....beats reading the telegraph today....some great reading especiall "Mad-Jock" at his best :D..........this really brings the true spirit of flying back.......thats all I want to do......not interested in flying in the dark or the driech pishy weather that Scotland often has to offer.....all I want is cheap flying,in nice clear air and to go out there and have some fun.........just like flying my B4 glider some 20 odd years ago.........this new regulation will hopefully help me achieve that again!!......:cool::cool::cool::cool:

[Pilot DAR]

As to Canada being less restricted.... well, you have a lot more free space up there! It gets a bit cramped in Europe. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


As another PPRuNer told me over a pint at the pub in Hazelmere last year, "In Canada, they think 100 years is old, in England we think 100 miles is far". How true!

[gemini76]

Slightly off topic I know, but having trawled the ANO I cannot find where it is written that an aircraft may only take off and/or land with the landowners' prior permission.

Help please anyone?

[james1013]

ANO will change with affect from 14th April.

ATSIN 178: Notification of Amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2009 | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3988)

:ok:

[Sir George Cayley]

Licensing vs Certification. Ah!, a very British difference :ok:

In broad brush terms I don't see much to choose between the two words - both suggest obtaining an official bit of paper in order to be allowed to do, or hold something.

Firearms certificate, dog licence, Pilot's licence, MOT Certificate.

But it does seem to trouble the CAA, who have long debated (en mass) the semantics surrounding this. Hence, they are able to make claims about 'licensed for flying training...' without worrying about those that respond thinking the word certificated is the same.

Wonder what Dave's lot and Nick's boss Vince think about it all?

Sir George Cayley