Keep the landing fees high please

[Toppers]

This is by no means a post to get peoples backs up as some tend to be in other forums. It is a genuine suggestion that landing fees should be kept up to allow clubs to provide the service we expect as private flyers.

Having visited Goodwood for the first time on Saturday I was somewhat surprised to pay £14 landing fees. However, what a fantastic place. I could not fault it in any way and it must easily be the cleanest and smartest club I have visited.

Every club has its strengths and I am not suggesting that the run of the mill clubhouses are at fault. Sometimes there is nothing better than a cholesterol stimulating lunch in a smoky environment!

What I would say is that the number of people who complain at the standard of some clubhouses, club aircraft, general facilities and having to part with £5 when they land.........get a life.

To pay nearly three times that amount to land at a field five times more enjoyable to have lunch at is worth it.

Any views?

[frigatebird1]

Yes......You've got too much money!

[Zlin526]

When i first read this thread, i thought it was a wind up, but i'm not so sure.

Goodwood is certainly a wonderful grass airfield, but £14 to grace its hallowed turf with my tailskid???? For that, what do i get? To mix it with some toffs wearing blazers and cravats doing a quick 15 mins round the bay to impress their GF in the brand new TB20.. Pleeeeeeeze! Perhaps the £14 is to discourage the sort of aerial riff raff that, you know, sort of upsets the memsahib??

Goodwood seems to be going the way of Redhill, Fairoaks and whatever Halfpenny Green is called this week (London-Midlands-Wolverhampton business airport I think)

Rant over! :mad:

[Kermit 180]

1. Keep em low and make it affordable for EVERYONE who wants to fly to these airfields.

2. As they wont ever lower the prices, make sure you land real hard and get your money's worth out of their precious grass.

Kerms

[Evo7]

make sure you land real hard and get your money's worth out of their precious grass


Watching people landing on 32L on Saturday I'd say they were. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy...

(And that's just me... :) )

[tacpot]

Vivè la choice!

I think it is good of Topper to remind us that there is actually a choice available to us in where we fly to and what we find there. Thanks for the recommendation.

tacpot

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Rubbish - look at Welshpool, £5 fee, clean buildings and a cafe with cracking bacon baps and homemade cakes.

Shobdon is good value as well.

WWW

[AspiringAviator]

I have to say it is with sadness and anger that i read Toppers post. You seem to be suggesting that because you would like better facilities on the ground then everyone should have to pay.

1. Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the airfield only the gateway to doing what you actually want to do (fly)?

2. You do not seem to have considered the implications this would have on the flying community. As someone who is trying to learn to fly it proves difficult when the landing fees and therefore the training prices rise by almost £10 an hour. This might not be much for you butfor a PPL alone this means at least £400 more for training which is clearly unacceptable. This would lead to less pilots doing what they love and less people try this fantastic experience. Other consequences would be that more students going abroad for training meaning less income to flying schools which again is something nobody wants.

3. This would also lead to increased costs in revalidating and maintaining licences, especially multi and instruiment, where more,expensive, revalidation procedures exist. The ramifications of this is fewer pilots which would make this an elitest sport as opposed to one which should be open to all. Maybe you wouldn't be as happy when you precious avgas goes up in price due to decreased demand.

I appreciate that it would always be nice to have a warm clubhouse with warm food but isn't the fact that your able to go flying pretty great already?! It isn't fair to ask those who are srimping and saving for those hours flights to pay more. This is not meant to offend, just to show you that if thought throught through seriously then it isn't as clean cut as it seems.

My rant is now also finally over.
AA

[Final 3 Greens]

Only £14????

That will encourage the sort of people who say they love flying for the sake of flying -tut, tut.

The next thing you know, people will be arriving in old aeroplanes that ruin the appearance of the flight line; D'know, there are still people out there who can't afford a nosewheel or have an aeroplane with more than one wing?

As for that Welsh fellow's comment - bacon baps? what on earth is that - let's stick to the kedgeree and cucumber sandwiches if you don't mind.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Crazy Fool! Of course its not worth £14! What if you dont want to use the restaurant or whatever? What if it takes you half a days work to earn that much? What if it reduces the hours you can fly by 14%?

It should be like in the US with no landing fees at all.

[Right Stuff]

This post is madness! I have just returned from the US where ALL landings were free. The facilities and service at every field I visited were leagues ahead of the UK. We already pay three times what flying in the US costs and the idea that we should be 'fined' for leaving our home plate is ludicrous. There are other ways to generate revenue and frankly I think an attitude change is required over here. I wouldn't complain if I felt my money was working for me, but it isn't. This is just guaranteed income taken very much for granted.

[Jungle Strip]

That's the thing. It would be nice if high fees = superb facilities, full stop. But it doesn't always work that way.

How does the US do it, then?

[sistern]

A number of the airfields I visited in Florida seemed far more integrated into the local community. They encourage people to set up business on the airfield, using the available land more effectively and not necessarily aviation related. The community benefits in terms of the employment that this generates. This in turn leads to further investment of time, money and the kind of goodwill found lacking arround many of our more introspective airfields. The airfields are often seen as an additional link to the outside world and part of the transport infrastructure.

The fact that flying is considerably cheaper, within the reach of more people, and, in the case of places like Florida, helped by the weather, means a higher level of aircraft movements. More movements = more fuel sales & more flyers taking advantage of the facilities. This in turn creates the viable market place for someone to run a cafe business.

[Kermit 180]

That is a very good point. To involve the public in local business on the airfield can help to offset the cost of keeping the airfield at a high standard. It also encourages the local community to take part in the aviation scene, and therefore can help prevent suspicion and antagonism towards the noisy environment that aeroplanes create. Airforce bases are masters at getting communities involved, in fact many towns would die if bases were to close. Food for thought.

[SKYYACHT]

Having flown in the USA on many ocassions, I will now add my 2 pennorth. Yes, the US does offer vastly superior facilities for the pilots, including Free Meteorological info (1-800 WX-BRIEF! Marvellous - what about it Met Office?) from a qualified avaition met officer. As many approaches on the ILS as you want - for nothing, Free licence issue! Touch and Goes all day if you want them.

It is apparent that they are able to do this, because of a fundamental difference in philosophies. In the US, Fligh Safety is in the interests of everyone, including those folks on the ground, as well as other airspace users. It is because of this philosophy that the fundings for ATC, Towers, ILS systems and the like is provided by Federal Government.

Now, the UK philosophy appears to be different for Airspace users. Here, if YOU want to fly, (Thus "jeopardising" others in the air/on the ground) then YOU must pick up the tab for the airfield providing you services such as insurance, drinking water etc.....YOU must also contribute to the provision of the expensive ATCOs in the tower. (ATCers, dont get me wrong, I am NOT advocating that I dont want ATC - simply that it should be provided out of public funds!)

I realise that there will be many responses that suggest that this is undemocratic - bearing in mind that there are only 30,000 PPLs in the UK - but surely everyone benefits from flight safety. A free service would perhaps enable more PPL hours to be flown, aiding competence and currency?

I draw an analagy with the provision of roads. Currently in the UK, we have a good infrastructure of roads. These are provided at vast expense by the local councils, indirectly or directly funded from central government. Motorists pay an annual fee to use vehicles on them, but cyclists, pedestrians and hores riders - also ocassional/light users, pay nothing. In fact as roads are in the public domain, we all enjoy the safety that is provided by signage, street furniture and so on.

Ah, well, I suppose it makes no difference in the end - there are simply not enough of us to make a difference. Join AOPA, Action for Airfields, the PFA.....lets support and look after what we have got left.

Tailwinds

[LowNSlow]

I was browsing through Pooleys today looking for an establishment to go to for a chat about the required hour with an instructor.

Panshanger £10, OK methinks, lets try friendly Fowlmere ah, that'll be a tenner guv.

So I'll drive to Panshanger to do my hour. I don't blame the airfields for these charges by the way. The little strip I fly from pays over £7,000 per annum in rates alone. Oh it's extra for the monthly rubbish skip and the water supply.

All this at a strip which is run by a man as something to do in his retirement and cos he loves old aeroplanes. God knows what a licensed airfield has to pay plus the salaries for the fire crew, ATC, kitchen staff etc. They don't turn up for the fun of it chaps and chappesses.

But of course we pilots are all idle rich gits who can afford whatever levies the local politicos decide are valid. Ho hum.

[Toppers]

Thankyou lownslow.

Doesn't really help the UK's flying prospects if people do disappear to the US to do all their training and hours building. In fact it only compounds the problem.

Remember when you were at school and nobody supported the local 3rd division football team? Everyone would support Liverpool because they were the best (even though they were 300 miles away). Same principle. Thats the problem here, we havent got a chance if our clubs just cannot afford to provide US services at UK costs.

Each time a club closes down (which I fear may start happening more and more) ask yourself if the money you saved training in the US was that well spent now you dont have anywhere to fly from.

Yes, this post is genuine and yes I do feel strongly about this subject.

Any club owners out there to comment?

[Tiger_ Moth]

It is a problem. People think that because you can afford to fly you are therefore rich so they try to squeeze all the money they can get out of you. However in many cases including mine because I fly I am poor.

[Speedbird252]

If 14 quid equates to half a days pay then your lucky to be flying at all. Still, Mcdonalds do give you a free lunch.

:)

Speedburger

[Bouncy Landing]

Speedbird, you man a McDonalds counts as a "meal"......?

[Speedbird252]

Valid point Bouncy. I use the term "meal" with caution!

;)

McSpeedy

[Ursa Major]

I find it difficult to get excited about landing fees. I have to pay nearly £100 an hour to hire the aircraft to get there so whether it be £5 or £15, it has little impact on the cost of the day out.

What I would really like is aircraft hire costs to come down to US levels (I paid less than £40 an hour out there last year). This WOULD make a difference to the cost of my day out!

[WO]

I think the issue of landing fees is a tricky one. After all, I don't mind paying £5 or £10 landing fees to land away from the home 'drome, but consider people doing their PPLs. I trained at Redhill and Shoreham (weather dependent). I'd timed it right so that all my circuit training was carried out at Redhill, which has no landing fees. However, if i'd had to do it at Shoreham, which has landing fees of £14, or £7.50 per touch and go, i'd be looking at about £75 per lesson just in landing fees! I think that all airfields should waive landing fees for student pilots, or maybe have a one-off fee of say, £100 that covers all your landing fees for the duration of your training?

What do you reckon? Is this one to consider, or am I talking out of my a**e?

WO :)

[captaindeakin]

Just before recently qualifying I wanted to do something special (to me anyway).

I decide to land at Birmingham airport (with an instructor at my side). Having travelled from there as a passenger on the big boys toys, I wanted to take a PA 28 in there. Sad but true.

It was worth every penny of the £51 pounds I paid.

I'd like to do Heathrow next, but as a single engine PPL with no ratings, on my own I probably be able to do it once and once only.

Out of interest how much would I need to borrow to take a PA 28 in there? Just in case I get an IR rating in my dreams tonight.

[sanjosebaz]

Correct up to a point, but there are fees imposed by airports for parking/tiedown in US - so touch and goes are free, but if you feel like actually getting out for a walk (or God forbid, a Big Mac), you will get charged!

I don't understand why the wet rates are so much lower though (apart from gas costs, maybe) - they still need maintenance, and I bet the engineers get paid loads more here than in the UK :eek:

There certainly is a case for public funds paying for ATC, etc. in UK ... Maybe you should join AOPA UK and get them to lobby for you??? ;)

Extreme Danger I'm probably wrong, but I think I read somewhere that you basically cannot take a PA28 into LHR. I think they do it by insisting that you are able to maintain a ridiculous speed (200 knots?) on finals, so that the big boys can maintain seperation.... This, I'm afraid, is another area where the USA scores! Not only are you allowed to land say, a PA28 at busy airports (with Instrument rating), you are positively encouraged to do so (or at least were until recent changes to Class B rules, which are being relaxed as we speak). :cool:

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]

[The Nr Fairy]

I do know of someone who went to LHR in a PA28 some years ago. The late Dave Coombes of Aeros went as well, because I think they needed someone with an IR up front.

No idea of cost, I'm afraid. But you could always find a friendly helicopter pilot and so cost-sharing with him while flying over Heathrow VFR - NO IR needed.

[Flybywyre]

Extreeme Danger...............

You don't need an IR to fly into Heathrow.

If you could find a very quiet time (late at night) to fly in you could probably arrange it.Christmas day used to be a favourite.

You would need to telephone Heathrow OP's for a handling agent and general permission (AND COSTS), then Heathrow approach at West Drayton to find out what they want you to do.

Regards
FBW

[Evo7]

You don't need an IR to fly into Heathrow.



Just to check I understand: The Heathrow TMA is class A airspace, so you have to fly under IFR. However you can fly IFR in VMC without an IR. Correct, or more complicated?

I hate Air Law....

[Flybywyre]

Evo7

You would be flying SVFR

Regards
FBW

[FlyingForFun]

I believe I read in Pooleys (don't have it in front of me, and information should be checked in the AIP anyway) that Heathrow won't allow any single-engined or light twin-engined aircraft in (don't know how they'd definte "light" with regard to the twin, but banning singles rules out the PA28).

Also, as FBW says, you'd need SVFR - remember, ATC don't have to give you this, it is entirely at their discretion, so even if you get permission to land, you may not get permission to enter the zone :eek:

Have to agree about big airports, though - I also asked my instructor to take me "somewhere big", and we went to Bournemouth - amazing to be sharing the runway with 737s!

FFF
---------

[poetpilot]

I seem to recall a few years ago (senile Old Git that I am) that a Chipmunk landed at night at LHR without anybody knowing. Of course they knew in the morning when they spotted it on the ground. Otherwise I wouldnt be writing this would I? because nobody would have known....

burble burble.... quick nurse the sedatives. :rolleyes:

[captaindeakin]

Finals in a PA28 at LHR at 200 knots - What's the problem.

Should I do it with flaps or without.

..and do I call for 'landing', 'cleared to land' or 'finals for touch and explode'.

[Skylark4]

I remember the Chippy episode. It was stolen from Elstree or Booker, something like that. I don`t remember anyone ever getting caught for it.

Mike W

[sanjosebaz]

Well, after a little web searching, I've found the definitive answer to EGLL (aka LHR).

May I draw the learned gentleman's attention to paragraph 1.b on page 2-EGLL-1-11 (I kid you not) from the Heathrow AIP, which you can download as a pdf from: http://www.ais.org.uk/uk_aip/pdf/ad/EGLL.htm
(right click on the "textual data" at the top of the page, then save and browse the pdf - this will be quicker than left clicking it, honest!)

If you can't be bothered, here is part of said paragraph:
Light single and twin engined private aircraft will not be permitted to use the airport.

OK - no mention of ultra-fast PA28 requirements, but I did read somewhere that it was landing and take-off speeds which are driving this rule (to make traffic separation easier). Look at it optimistically - you've saved a sh!t load of landing fees by not being allowed :D

You can however enter the London Control Zone under SVFR in order to transit and/or use another airfield within the zone (this is in para 13.c on page 2-EGLL-1-24)

There you go - no charge ;)

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]