End of Landing Fee's in UK

[MR.X99]

Being fortunate enough to fly in Canada I never had to once pay for landing fee's. I,m sure the tax department sorted all that out. The point I,m trying to put out there is in the UK in order to build up our aerospace sector eliminating landing fees and reducing costs for GA would be a step in the right direction.

I believe it may be difficult but not impossible. There must be a change in thinking as in the last 50 years the UK has successfully killed 80% or so of its industry.

Now to write to AOPA.Perhaps we can get a few more MP's thrown into jail.:ok:

[S-Works]

Never happen. Airfields are privately owned and maintaining the infrastructure costs money. Some of that cost is offset by the landing fees. Most places do not have enough alternate revenue sources to be able to fund the infrastructure without the landing fees.

[MR.X99]

Legislation would have to be re-written.
Privately owned airstrips can be addressed ,subsidized and maintained by the treasury,under the guise of national interest.
It is very clear we must begin to re-build industries or we will perish....the numbers are telling the story every 90days at the treasury.
Never Happen.The Wright brothers "Made it Happen"
Think Positive.We don't have any industry in the UK.

[peter272]

I'll have a pint of whatever you're on.......:ok::ok:

[S-Works]

Yeah and me. I would not need an aircraft to fly!! :ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

Running an aerodrome takes a lot of work. If this must be paid for, it is either from the users or from a third party. The third party may be a national authority, as is the case for all military fields, or a local authority, as is often seen in France - and also in the USA, I think - with their tradition of municipal aerodromes.

After reading these pages for several months, I am more and more bewildered by the differences between the UK and what I know of the rest of the world. That means mostly my own Belgian country, and a few impressions from France and Italy. English airfields seem, to a large degree, to be operated for profit by commercial companies and these will grab for money wherever they can. Who can blame them? But the scheme seems basically unsound to me.

Over here, most fields are run by aeroclubs, and worked by volunteers. A modest landing fee is general practice for PPL fliers, but many microlight-only fields (called ULM-odromes in our rural south) are completely free of charge, like many are in France too.

If you can't convince your authorities to run aerodromes as public services, the only realistic alternative is IMHO to have them operated by volunteers. Even then you might not get completely rid of landing fees, but at least they might become reasonable.

[MR.X99]

I do not drink friend, but I appreciate your contribution to the debate perhaps a positive Englishman is to be found yes?

[IO540]

The "problem" with the UK is that it runs mostly on the "user pays" principle.

That this leads to either decrepitude (as in Elstree EGTR) or blatent exploitation of suckers who have nowhere else to go (as in Heathrow, Gatwick, etc, confiscating half your stuff and then flogging you a tube of "duty free" hand cream for £8) is something which "somebody else" worries about.

Airports here are nearly all free standing businesses, which need to raise money from a combination of

- a commercial property portfolio
- restaurant business
- landing fees
- parking charges

and with much of UK GA so tight that (to use my favourite phrase) you could not get a #1 Pozi screwdriver up their sphincters, it is not an easy business. Most UK pilots think a £20 landing fee is way too high :ugh:

A quality airport has to be an industrial estate which just happens to have a runway and a tower next to it.

The real issue is with Planning regs which treat an airfield the same as a commercial park, so if Planning was granted for an airfield, it could be easily converted later into a commercial park, or a housing estate.

So it is almost impossible (so it appears, anyway, since the Planning application budget would need to be close to £100k so few if any people have tried it in recent decades) to start a new airfield, with a cost base appropriate to its usage.

The rateable value of everything there will be based on commercial property which will be so high that hangarage is at least £500/month (in the south east UK) just to cover the rates on the hangar, and that in turn leads to more decrepitude in GA generally because nobody with a half decent plane wants to keep it outdoors.

The most useful legislation by far would be one which creates a new Planning category for light aircraft airfields.

[WestWind1950]

Mr. X99, this is an ungoing subject all over Europe and nothing new.

In the USA, the airfields get subsidized through the sales of fuel, in Europe there is no such system (it was a 40-yr. contract with the government that ran out a couple of years ago and I assume was renewed).

As has been mentioned, airfields cost a lot to run, from up-keep of the general condition, including mowing the grass on non-paved fields or between runways, to re-doing the markings regularly, plus keeping the rescue equipment in good shape, lighting both on the runway and apron if you have night flying, running the radios and other equipment, and perhaps paying some personel to do all that! And then there are the usual utility costs.... electricity, water, sewage, etc. etc.

Not all fields are able to run on volunteers only. Some club-run fields do lots of stuff for free, but some things still need to be paid for, and some clubs don't have enough members to keep things going and need outside help. Or no one in the club has the necessary experise (plumbing for the clubhouse, etc.).

So, keep dreaming.... ;)

[Jan Olieslagers]

The most useful legislation by far would be one which creates a new Planning category for light aircraft airfields.

What need? Over here, the category is "recreational" just like sports grounds, camping parks, and perhaps horse race tracks. Seems to work well enough, at least for existing fields. Not easy to get a new one licensed, though.

[Rod1]

There are 100's of strips in the UK that are free of landing charges.

Rod1

[IO540]

Yes, with strict PPR and top secret ex directory phone numbers :)

Who pays for cutting the grass and filling the potholes, when nobody pays to land there?

[peter272]

I do not drink friend, but I appreciate your contribution to the debate perhaps a positive Englishman is to be found yes? Obviously a sense of humour failure here.

Rod1 is quite correct. There are a large number of strips with no landing fees. They are generally small and run by enthusiasts on their own land, usually on the 28-day rule and with limited movements

They won't have much in the way of facilities or staff, as that costs money.

At the other extreme are the wannabee International Spaceports, like Norwich. But in the middle are a range of airfields with different levels of facilities.

In France I was very impressed at the way that all sport facilities including the local airfields were well-supported by the municipality. At one gliding competition we were front page news in the local paper and the mayor turned up to welcome us.

Contrast that with recent news of Sandown, Wycombe et al and see just how loathed aviation has become.

Caernafon can't afford to continue with GA income being as low as it is, so it has to get income from a wind turbine. GA whinge, but they aren't paying the bills.

Personally I think there is nothing wrong in paying around £10 for a light single to land. Over that can be taking the p*ss.

Airfields are expensive things to run - rates on a hangar can be mind-blowing- so owners have to get income where they can.

In the end government and councils have other priorities than supporting light aviation. So unless we do our bit in supporting airfields - and that means using them and paying a reasonable amount, buying fuel and using their cafes - our airfields will be turned into football stadia, wind farms or industrial or housing estates, which is where the money is.

[WestWind1950]

put it this way..... you go to visit an amusementpark, zoo, movie, whatever and pay an admission fee, so why not pay for landing at an airfield? It's only sensible actually.

[WorkingHard]

Yes landing fees are necessary and OK when "reasonable" but many operators have clearly no idea on how to run a business for the long term. I recently uplifted £250.00 of avgas and was charged a landing fee of £10.00 on top and that was in eastern England. So the operator not only has lost my future avgas sales but I would not even return for the cafe.

[Justiciar]

As already pointed out, all airfields are businesses to one degree or another. Even a small grass strip has to cover certain overheads unless it is a strictly private facility. If the bigger GA airfields are dying off then it is because the economics of it don't make it pay. There are a few very successful airfields and these are usually the ones with a combination of reasonable facilities and plenty of activity and members, such as Old Buckenham or Seething near me. These generally are in a minority.

To be successful an airfield has to offer more than just a piece of tarmac or grass to land on and so the successful fields are those with hangerage, a restaurant or a hotel and often maintenance facilities and a flying school. There is zero chance of government subsidising airfields in this country as they do in some countries. It always surprises me that there is so much winging about landing fees. Some people have a rather strange view of things, in that they are happy to pay £160 an hour and £1.80 per litre of avgas but begrudge a tenner.

On a point of order, there seems to be a stray " ' " creeping into the proceedings. The plural of "fee" is "fees" not "fee's":}

[ShyTorque]

It would be great if it could happen, but it never will.

Why should a private airfield / landing strip owner be forced to cease charging for landing fees? Under what legislation could it happen?

Would a privately owned car park ever be turned into a charity free for all? No. So why should a landing / parking place for aircraft?

The landing fee at one place (UK) I'm obliged to regularly land at is £650. That entitles me to a 15 minute slot. If I remain there over that time, "ad hoc" parking is charged at £300 per hour. Fuel is available at the normal rate but a refuel does not come with free parking. In the past I've had to argue that it was only because their refuel took longer than normal (refuel pump problem) that I strayed into the "ad hoc / excess parking" fee time, after it appeared on the bill.

Do you honestly think any business is going to give up that, or any, form of revenue?

[Jan Olieslagers]

On a point of order, there seems to be a stray " ' " creeping into the proceedings. The plural of "fee" is "fees" not "fee's"
There are more peculiarities to Mr X99's typing. Getting to know the Brits, I was wondering if he is using a Lambeth keyboard or some other such exotism.

[IO540]

Yes, the grocer's apostrophe (do a google) is very irritating.

The curious thing which I always ask myself is how one can write that way, having read any English books :)

Back to the topic, I can't see a rational basis for saying £20 is taking the micky. Sure, it could be lower, but you probably paid £100-200 to get there, and the difference to the airfield is huge (a factor of two actually ;) ).

Experience around the UK tells us that £20 delivers a much better maintained place than £10. Obviously much of it is down to management etc but £10 is evidently hard to make things work at.

Private strips can be free, etc, and there is a vast pilot community which will absolutely not pay more than £5 (they must fly mainly between strips) but then somebody is subsidising it by cutting the grass etc in their own time, which is lovely but not substainable.

[Redbird72]

I think that, to compare the UK with USA/Canada, you're comparing apples with oranges.

Due to their size, topography and winter weather, light GA can often offer a advantage over road or rail in getting from A to B there.

The UK is tiny by comparison and, excluding a week or two a year, the weather makes road, rail and commercial flying massively more practical/economical than light GA. To that end, the powers that be feel private VFR GA flying can only be classified as a hobby or sport over here.

If you want to see how much money the government has to spare for sport at the moment, pop down to your local municiple gym/pool/rec and look at the state of it (if it even still exists). There's a reason why people mug up 50 quid a month to Bannatynes or LA Fitness...

Most marinas and golf clubs are private businesses or clubs, and for as long as private flying is viewed as solely a pastime, most airfields will be too.

[Justiciar]

How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing?

It varies, At bigger fields, resident aircraft (from a flying school) will or may get a reduced landing fee. At some fields, e.g. Old Buckenham, membership means that you don't pay at all. At small grass strips there may be no charge. But yes, you are right that it can be a significant expenditure when learning to fly, as it was for me at Norwich. The situation is a bit better now that training in the UK does not have to be at licensed fields.

[Whopity]

How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing? In many cases not very well. It is a safety concern and in the last 10 years I have watched the standard of circuits drop. Under the old National GFT people were failed if they didn't get it right. Now at the end of a 2.5 hour JAA Skill Test they are half dead, so you can't expect too much, and if they are failed more than once, it becomes a very expensive resit, consequently many examiners give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. The JAA has effectively reduced standards over 10 years.

[Rod1]

Just to clear up a few bits of “miss information”. Most strips are available PPR, and the numbers are in Navbox 99% of the time. Most have planning or legal use. Many are used for flight training on things like Eurostars and are considering expanding into GA training now the rules have changed. £20 for a landing fee…

With regard to sustainability, the strip world has existed for as long as I have been flying (1984). The only difference is there are now a lot more. People tend to lose sight of the fact that the average light aircraft will fly quite well out of 600m of Grass, without a lot of expensive infrastructure supporting it.

Rod1

[miroc]

If a landing at an airfield has a value (and it surely has), it should be paid.

In USA the tax collected from Avgas is used to subsidise the airports, the money is not simply stolen by the government. In socialist Europe that money is stolen by governments and used elsewhere, where it is more visible to the electorate. And we must pay the tax in the price of avgas and landing fees on top of that.

The ideal system in my opinion is WITHOUT fuel-tax and WITH landing fees.
Everyone of us would be more happy.

The idea the local authorities should pay for the running cost of an airport sounds too socialist to me. Where will they get the money from? The answer is simple, print them or order higher taxes.

One of my friends plays tennis. He must pay a hourly fee for the tennis court. Does the local authority pay his fees too? The same logic...

miroc

[Speedbird48]

Mr.X99,

Canada is "mostly" a free landing fee zone but my 172RG always attracts a $53 landing fee in Calgary and I also have a Navigation chage as well.

My Canadian licence is not free, and each year I incur a fee for "processing" my renewal.

That is nothing compared to the "Ministry of Greed and Envy" as practiced in the UK and Europe where aviation is treated like a cash cow to be milked frequently.

In the US, the airports are usually city or county owned and regarded as an asset to bring business to visit the city, and help the economy. Fuel tax is also used to help in the cost. A totaly different attitude to you poor guys in Europe. A lot of civil airports will also have a National Guard in residence even with a military airport close by. The National Guard is paid for by the state so the state gets its dollars back with the use of the airport.

My US certificates, several. (licences) are all free although I pay the Medical Examiner for my medical. The FAA would love to start charging for their services but thankfully we are lucky so far.

We are very fortunate but the UK will never allow no landing fee's, dream on!!!

Speedbird48

[peter272]

Back to the topic, I can't see a rational basis for saying £20 is taking the micky. Sure, it could be lower, but you probably paid £100-200 to get there, and the difference to the airfield is huge (a factor of two actually http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ).

Experience around the UK tells us that £20 delivers a much better maintained place than £10. Obviously much of it is down to management etc but £10 is evidently hard to make things work at.

Private strips can be free, etc, and there is a vast pilot community which will absolutely not pay more than £5 (they must fly mainly between strips) but then somebody is subsidising it by cutting the grass etc in their own time, which is lovely but not substainable.

I can quote one grass strip next to a golf course in the SW where the landing fee is £20. It has no facilities at all but charges the same as Gloucester.

Another charges the same as a local regional spaceport. But here it is because of stringent restrictions on movements by the local authority and although the owner would love to welcome visitors, the local Nimbys are watching for a breach in the agreement to have the airfield closed.

[MR.X99]

I never realized that students had to pay for "touch & Goes" each time during flight training. That is very poor practice. So really practicing landing could add $2000 on to flight training.

It is a simple solution,put "all-aerodromes" under county council authority ,private owners receive grants for maintenance. I can't see cutting grass once a week as being a big expense. Some say its complicated thats because ineffective bureaucracies make it that way. Very simple legislation. Present the bill to the floor,grease the right palms....job done.

Otherwise the extreme measure is to terminate UK aerospace authority under the new "EU Project" and put them under military authority and maintained by the NATO budget.

Easy solution.Just like tax free flight training,to kick stat the industry and compete with other countries. Otherwise in 5- years you will have little or no flight training here except for the elite,which it already is reserved for.

[flybymike]

MR.X99 your use of English suggests that you are not a native. Where are you from?

[MR.X99]

Gotta be a wind-up...

Other posts from him - made reference to the UK NPPL and that neither Canada or the US have an equivalent... i.e. he he had never heard of the Canadian Recreational Permit or the US Light Sport certificate"

Yes I have,they were introduced in the mid-90,s. The primary difference is in the medical. In the UK for a NPPL one does not need to visit an aviation medical examiner. The medical is the same as for a taxi driver,bus driver etc.A GP can sign you off.Different medical regulations.Is this the case with the FAA & MOT ? Please correct me if I am wrong that will be good information if it was the case.

[MR.X99]

MR.X99 your use of English suggests that you are not a native. Where are you from

I am from Western Canada. Currently in Malaysia and on contract in the UK.

[WestWind1950]

The primary difference is in the medical. In the UK for a NPPL one does not need to visit an aviation medical examiner. The medical is the same as for a taxi driver,bus driver etc.A GP can sign you off.Different medical regulations.

That is only possible in the UK because all medical data is centralised (so I haved read). Other countries, have such strict privacy laws and a doctor gets only the info the patient gives him.... often not enough for flying. But that's a whole different subject.

Communities, cities, etc. have no funds to pay for or maintain airfields. Those that do own fields try to sell them, or turn them into more profitable industrial parks :ugh: Turn over the airfields to the city and you can expect it to be closed completely within a very short time!

Most fields offer reduced landing fees for students, at least during the week (because of noise issues often not on the weekends).

As you see, there is a lot more involved here then simply saying get rid of landing fees!

Mowing the grass can be expensive depending on who does it. Many glider fields have a local farmer do it because he can keep the grass for his farm animals, so no cost. But that means he wants it to grow higher then is safe for flying, which can mean a whole lovely weekend on the ground! Others fields get mowed by club members, others have to hire someone.

[Mickey Kaye]

"How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing?"

A far number of flying schools get free landing fees at there home base - although one could argue that this cost is paid and part of the shools rent.

I pay an annual fee at a couple of flying schools (about 100 quid for each) and as part of these terms I get unlimited T&G, Landing fees at those airfields.

This works pretty well but it doesn't give me access to night flying or instrument approaches which I still have to pay for.

Because of this I no longer teach night flying as its simply not cost effective. I also use AM radio stations to practice NDB procedures again in an effort to keep cost done.

[Whirlygig]

That is only possible in the UK because all medical data is centralised (so I haved read).Sorry, you read wrong. It's not centralised. If I transfer to another doctor, my medical records also have to be transferred. If I go to see another doctor in a different surgery, he can only rely on what I tell him.

Cheers

Whirls

[S-Works]

I seem to recall that centralisation of NHS records was another of the massively expensive and failed IT projects?

[MR.X99]

Sorry, you read wrong. It's not centralised. If I transfer to another doctor, my medical records also have to be transferred. If I go to see another doctor in a different surgery, he can only rely on what I tell him.

Thanks for the Intel.

[Shrimps]

How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing?

A number of BAe operated fields (Warton and Woodford for example) offer free touch and go's subject to PPR (if they have Typhoons or Nimrods in the circuit you can forget squeezing a Cessna in); the problem is that it cannot be depended on as a training resource, especially as BAe airfields are weekday only for the most part.

[IO540]

NHS records are centralised to a large degree. I can walk into any of several local GP offices and the doc pulls up my details on the screen.

[pitofrost]

Many airfields charge you an hourly rate (twice the landing fee?) for an hour's worth of landings.

[JOE-FBS]

I read comments on this subject here and in the other place with a wry fascination. Off the topic of flying, the majority of posters on both pilot forums appear to be somewhere to the right of the Daily Mail (for non-UK residents, that is a very nasty, very right wing rag which is horribly popular in the UK) who will rant on about asylum seekers and benefit claimants yet want our expensive hobby subsidised by the state in one form or another. Sadly, our last five prime ministers have made it their mission to destroy the essential social infrastructure never mind discretionary things like airfields, you've got what you voted for people.

[LH2]

Yes, the grocer's apostrophe (do a google) is very irritating.

The curious thing which I always ask myself is how one can write that way, having read any English books :)

I guess you have not seen some of the books I've seen :uhoh: Looks like editors are a dying breed. In modern times, authors by and large have never been much good at spelling (or in some cases, general literacy), so it's left to the proofreaders (another dying breed) and editor to turn manuscripts into recognisable English.

X99
perhaps a positive Englishman is to be found yes?

Clearly not here, but if they are happy to pay for what the rest of us get for free or nearly, why stop them? :)

[WorkingHard]

JOE-FBS is perhaps not portraying quite accurately the UK. The Daily Mail newspaper is indeed very popular and the sales reflect that popularity in the UK so there are clearly very many people who agree with the stance of the Daily Mail. BTW I buy no newspaper at all. As for subsidising a "hobby" well why not? Football, Cricket, Swimming, Cycling, etc etc are very heavily subsidised and if you take football for example the subsidies from council taxpayers alone would keep many small airfields open for years. An airfield cannot just be created anywhere and eveyone we lose affects the whole infrastructre and can never be re-created.

[IO540]

I doubt a subsidy is required.

Where you do definitely need a subsidy for is the payment of wages of a bunch of people. This is a scene commonly seen around European council-owned airports, which manage to "employ" dozens of people despite having (in many cases) a very low level of traffic. Union-safeguarded job demarcation ensures that firemen cannot do refuelling, etc. so you need to employ loads of people, and nothing even approaches the cost of employing people (in Europe). And full ATC is expensive - but mandatory for an instrument approach...

But if you were to start a GA airfield from scratch, you would not do that. You would not have any scheduled services and this enables the fire crew to be virtually eliminated. 1 man can do the whole lot including admin (with suitable automation, called a "PC"). 1 other person doing the other stuff.

What is vital is (a) getting the planning permission and (b) getting the rateable values set at realistic levels (a fraction of present-day commercial park rates). The first is theoretically possible (although almost nobody would put enough money where their mouth is to try it) and the second is probably impossible to achieve to a sufficient degree. One would think that a PP restriction to "aviation only" would do it (enabling the rates to be reduced at a tribunal) but I don't think it works well enough.

[ShyTorque]

proofreaders

Shouldn't that be proof readers?

:E

[malcolmf]

Proof reader's?
I can quote one grass strip next to a golf course in the SW where the landing fee is £20. It has no facilities at all but charges the same as Gloucester.and it doesn't give you a free landing if you stay overnight at the very expensive hotel!

It seems a shame that some pubs etc. don't have arrangements with local farmers to run a strip, having recently come back in to Light aviation, there seem to be a dearth of "destination airfields" to take passengers. Duxford being one (but only if you're an aviation nut). It is hard to sell flying to my wife if all she gets is a plastic cup of coffee for £10! Bembridge was one, a nice cafe, but you really need to get off the airfields.
On that subject, would it not be possible to borrow/rent a bike or two? That would encourage visitors.

[flybymike]

On that subject, would it not be possible to borrow/rent a bike or two? That would encourage visitors.


Or even buy a fold up one.

[Justiciar]

Football, Cricket, Swimming, Cycling, etc etc are very heavily subsidised and if you take football for example the subsidies from council taxpayers alone would keep many small airfields open for years

Are you sure? I know various sports and their facilities get grants from local and national government, if that is what you are referring to. However, sport like almost everything else is struggling for a decreasing size of the cake. Such support as there is is often on the basis of encouraging a healthy life style through sport and similar activities. Aviation would struggle to make an argument there. The reality is that you have to have a certain income to fly and the perception is that it is an activity for the well off.

The most powerful argument is the economic one, i.e. brings jobs and encourages people to the area. A successful GA airfield will do that to a degree but governments will always ask themselves if money can be better spent elsewhere.

[malcolmf]

Or even buy a fold up one.

I've already got 6 normal bikes, and those are just mine:)
I know some airfield in the USA have cars you can borrow.
Just an idea to try and get more visitors to airfields, but if you don't think it's a good one.......

[speke2me]

"Some people have a rather strange view of things, in that they are happy to pay £160 an hour and £1.80 per litre of avgas but begrudge a tenner"

Well quite. Private flying is an expensive hobby in UK. I dabbled four years ago, got 18 hours in and loved every minute, but justifying £100 plus per hour, just for local flights, was too much. So I stopped.

I reckon in UK if you want to persue the hobby and fly say, three or four times a month, and to different airfields, you are looking at a realistic outlay of upwards of £500 per month. And that is in a 'school' spamcan, weather permitting. Landing fees and 'handling' charges (if applied) at other airfields will not help.

My Base airfield was Liverpool EGGP. Nice as you had to circle to let the EZY 737s in before you could land. However I shudder to think what the landing fee might have been had my home school not been based there?

In UK a very expensive hobby. Nice if you can afford it though :)

[IO540]

Well quite. Private flying is an expensive hobby in UK. I dabbled four years ago, got 18 hours in and loved every minute, but justifying £100 plus per hour, just for local flights, was too much. So I stopped.

But surely you knew all that before you started training.

[proudprivate]

And full ATC is expensive - but mandatory for an instrument approach...


Sorry for the stupid question, but why is that mandatory ? Several French NDB approaches are at non-towered airports. Regional ATC clearing you for the approach, "call us after landing" ?


Swimming

...is heavily subsidized. Pool construction and maintenance are considerable (same order of magnitude of a small airfield, and more if you count staffing)

The reality is that you have to have a certain income to fly and the perception is that it is an activity for the well off.

That is very true. For the same reason a golf club is denied subsidies, even if it tries to minimise its fees for maximal membership numbers. On the other hand, by raising taxes, landing fees, training costs and EASA nonsense, flying being for the well off only becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.



How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing?


A couple of airfields work with reasonable "annual fees"; A couple of airfields give discounts for students at a locally based flight school; A couple of municipal airfields in France are free.

In my country the above situation leads to problematic situations when experienced pilots want to practice and maintain their landing skills.

[pulse1]

I think that this may be on the cards but, before it can happen, it is necessary for EASA to come up with extremely complex regulations to permit pigs to fly. As domestic pigs are different to swine prevalent in the rest of Europe, this is going to take some time.

[IO540]

why is that mandatory ? Several French NDB approaches are at non-towered airports. Regional ATC clearing you for the approach, "call us after landing" ?Yes, that's how it is done in the USA too. The regional IFR controller clears you for the approach, and then you can fly the approach and land at a non-manned airfield.

The same could be done in the UK and indeed does happen already at some place... forgotten the name of it but it is some company-owned runway near Liverpool or something like that, which uses a remote controller which is paid by the runway owner.

The problem is that UK ATC is privatised and the IFR controller's employer will bill the airfield for the approach service. In most scenarios this will be unaffordable. The very busy airfields with seriously rich clientele and jet traffic e.g. Biggin Hill can afford it and Biggin pays Thames Radar for the service, reputed to cost some high 5 digits per year, but they can afford it. I reckon Biggin pays a flat rate per year because they say on the approach plate that procedural service is available only when Thames Radar is INOP, which they obviously would not say if they were paying per-approach, as in typical IFR weather the man in the Biggin tower is doing very little and would be better utilised controlling a procedural approach. This annual billing corresponds with the type of accounting practice seen elsewhere within UK ATC e.g. NATS reportedly want £100k p.a. for a radar feed (which costs them nothing to deliver). So if Biggin wanted to, they could become AFIS or even A/G radio and still retain the instrument approach ;) (Of course Biggin want full ATC for other reasons).

It works in the USA because the radar controller is paid out of, basically, general taxes. Same in France and same in most/all of Europe and the rest of the world.

But it cannot work in the UK, which is incidentally why GPS approaches are a bit pointless in the UK because the places where they would be most useful are places without full ATC, but which do not have enough IFR traffic to afford the IFR controller cost. The only place in the UK where GPS approaches will be relevant is where the airfield has full ATC and either doesn't have an IAP already (very few of those; Redhill comes to mind) or has an IAP and wants to dismantle the navaid(s) to save money but does not need an ILS for PT reasons (a fair few of those e.g. Shoreham, Lydd, etc, but the ones with ILS won't dump the ILS until LPV approaches are up and running... say 10-15 years' time).

[englishal]

NHS records are centralised to a large degree. I can walk into any of several local GP offices and the doc pulls up my details on the screen.
I opted out of that when this central dB was created...Mainly due to the fact that at the time so many incompetent fcukwit civil servants had been leaving dB data laying around on trains. I also don't want people accessing my medical records without my knowledge, or worse, accidentally entering incorrect data into them.

Can you imagine if a Dr somewhere messed up and got a digit wrong and you ended up having a history of drug abuse in Glasgow? And then the CAA AME accessed this......!!!

[IO540]

That's a fair point - I didn't know you could opt out.

However, IMHO in the aviation context there is little to gain in opting out since the CAA or FAA can demand your GP record anyway, and if you go to another GP he might well contact the one where he knows you live "out of courtesy". He will certainly ask you for your normal GP's name and address. When I was about 30 I was taken to casualty after a windsurfing accident and when they wanted to know the name of my GP and I said I have never seen one they looked at me like I came from Mars.

Sure most pilots are scared of seeing a doctor until they have clear symptoms of something really serious, but the only sure way to get seen discreetly on something you merely suspect would be to go abroad, I suspect (never having tried it).

[soaringhigh650]

But it cannot work in the UK

Why not? Have you taken this up with your pilot representative organization? AOPA is one which springs to mind.

[patowalker]

That's a fair point - I didn't know you could opt out.You can only opt out of having your medical records on line. You cannot opt out of having your medical records follow you from GP to GP when you move.

Where are they held?
Your GP holds your medical records. Notes from treatment received elsewhere, such as in a hospital, will be kept there. But your GP should also receive a summary report, and this will be added to your medical records.

Your medical records will be held by your GP. Notes generated by treatment undergone elsewhere, for example in a hospital or clinic will be kept on-site, but your GP should receive a summary report from other treatment received by you to add to your medical records.

Who holds my records if I do not have a GP?
Your records will be held by the local health authority or health board (in Scotland) on whose medical list your most recent GP was included.

[patowalker]

I would most certainly *not* give any AME my GP's name, and if he asked for it I would find a new AME.

We do not have that option in the UK.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_MED160.pdf

[madlandrover]

The same could be done in the UK and indeed does happen already at some place... forgotten the name of it but it is some company-owned runway near Liverpool or something like that, which uses a remote controller which is paid by the runway owner.

Barrow/Walney Island. It's used for BAE's dwindling B200 fleet, run under the authority of the boss of BAE Barrow. The UK requirement is for a controller to sequence traffic to the IAF, so essentially as a minimum to "control" a hold & procedure OCAS. No reason at all why it shouldn't work with a correctly trained category of AFISO (indeed, a number of training approaches work on this basis, technically to be conducted only in VMC and for training purposes) in the future. We can hope... Especially with GPS approaches, already a nicer way of flying most NPA!

[patowalker]

- if faced with a form like this I would currently instruct my GP/staff to decline to cooperate

I don't think that would work. The AME would only consult the GP on a matter that potentially affected the patient's safety as a pilot, and by extention the safety of his passengers, or even members of the general public. If the GP was unable to provide the information, the AME would simply decline to issue the medical.

[IO540]

No reason at all why it shouldn't work with a correctly trained category of AFISO

I am going to get jumped on (again) by one or two very predictable individuals here, but there is a huge problem with using a FISO for "controlling" airborne traffic: he is not a CONTROLLER. The job demarcation in ATC is absolute. Controllers get paid a lot more and their unions make sure the separation is maintained.

(indeed, a number of training approaches work on this basis, technically to be conducted only in VMC and for training purposes) in the future.

Is this in the UK? A FISO has no authority to control airborne traffic, so this kind of thing might be just people making effectively blind calls which the FISO has to pretend to not hear.

Obviously, one could make it work.

One way is self-announcement. In the sort of bad weather where people might want to fly an IAP for real, there won't be much traffic, so a working protocol could be established. I was doing that in the USA, in IR training, but that was in VMC so no "clearances" were involved. Once you get away from the idea of a formal clearance, then it is easy, but nobody is going to have the balls for that - anywhere.

Another way is to have a real live ATCO in a hut somewhere; nowhere near the place. He would issue the clearances for the approach. If he has no radar, he would be fairly "cheap"... well you would need several of "him" for 24/7 cover so maybe this would cost about £1M/year, total with the costs of the office etc, but the "hut" could cover a large area, using the same system of multiple antennae as London Information covers a large area. In fact London Info could do it but they would need to employ ATCOs instead of FISOs. I don't think this will happen either - too bold and nobody will spend a single penny for a purely IFR GA service.

Another way would be to use the present LARS service for the approach control. LARS is already funded - mainly to stop GA busting CAS. On bad weather days they are doing very little. On good days they are overloaded and usually almost useless (Basic Service). It would work on real IFR days but unfortunately the system would be brought down to its knees by training flights which are done mostly on nice days.

[MR.X99]

Don,t know how we got onto medicals,but thats fine.I noticed doctors have super egos concerned primarily with pulling down $200k+.
I popped in for a NPPL Medical declaration and the guy was clueless and not interested in reading anything at all.I think it meant putting his brain in gear which would of upset his clinical billing quota. Thats what it felt like.

Ended up filling it out wrong anyway.
I,d say we need a medical ombudsman.

[patowalker]

The key issue is not whether he gets specific medical info from your GP, but whether you are excluded from a process that I believe you should be orchestrating.
There may be a misundertanding. The AME would not consult your GP without your knowledge and consent.

In fairness to FAA AMEs, I have heard from older friends with medical issues of the AME suggesting additional tests etc that could be brought to the table in building a better case for Oklahoma City to review and act on.That is how it works in the UK too, with cases referred to the CAA Medical Department. In my experience, they are very helpful.

[madlandrover]

There is a huge problem with using a FISO for "controlling" airborne traffic: he is not a CONTROLLER.

Exactly, hence why a new category/qualification would need to be created, though that shouldn't be an issue for competent FISOs. It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches. Maybe we could even move on and do it the US way, trusting each other to remain in the hold until the aircraft ahead has reached a certain point on the procedure!

FISOs do of course have no authority over airborne traffic, but they can still request that traffic reports at certain points of a procedure. Just like an ATCO really ;) which is how most training approaches at FIS fields are run. Self reporting and situational awareness make all the difference, meeting a Jetstream taking up the same hold at roughly the same level effectively non-radio makes life a little more exciting than it has to be.

[IO540]

It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches

Yes, but a lot of people in the system find it hard to accept this, philosophically :)

[coolbeans]

as in typical IFR weather the man in the Biggin tower is doing very little and would be better utilised controlling a procedural approach. This annual billing corresponds with the type of accounting practice seen elsewhere within UK ATC e.g. NATS reportedly want £100k p.a. for a radar feed (which costs them nothing to deliver). So if Biggin wanted to, they could become AFIS or even A/G radio

What are you basing that on, IFR weather (especialy LVPS) can the most complex time to work in the tower, especialy when we lose our ability to enact reduced seperation in the vicinity of the aerodrome.

Exactly, hence why a new category/qualification would need to be created, though that shouldn't be an issue for competent FISOs. It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches.

We have this already, its a function of the approach procedural rating, its provided by approach controllers.

You wouldn't save any money by giving FISO's this added responsibility because that would make them Approach controllers and then they would quite reasonably want approach controller salaries.


Maybe we could even move on and do it the US way, trusting each other to remain in the hold until the aircraft ahead has reached a certain point on the procedure!


I dont think the US way would work here, we dont have the vast tracts of airspace required for it.

I'll use EGKB as an example as its the one I know.

The DME arc into Biggin passes through london citys controlled airspace, so if an approach is to be carried out coordination is required with City radar, toss into the mix the limited vertical height available for the hold and you require a couple of air traffic controllers to enable the coordination required.

Granted there are some aerodromes where it would work, but having a piecemeal system is going to confuse an already complicated system.

[IO540]

A piecemeal approach would be a start, and would gradually improve the utility of GA.

Sure it may not work into say Fairoaks (due to LHR proximity) but there are many airfields which do have plenty of Class G, and which are useless (except for the more bold pilots flying DIY GPS approaches) anytime the cloudbase is below about 1000ft AGL.

"IFR" is confusing anyway. No two approach plates are quite the same :) Pilots deal with this.

Got to start somewhere.

Clearly one needs to find a way to get the approach control (or whatever you want to call it) solved. After that, "all" that remains is for the airfield to find the money to pay for the IAP design .....

[IO540]

The stuff about the USA having more room is an old myth.

[coolbeans]

The stuff about the USA having more room is an old myth.

I dont think thats the case

n my local area (of the US), we have four public airports within a 13 mile radius circle having a published total of 2011 operations on the average day. Within that circle there are also two busy military airports with unpublished traffic volume. FYI. All the airspace within the area has radar coverage for IFR traffic, no Class G..

So it all takes place within controlled airspace with Radar, So the US system would not work here as we have class G and units operating without radar.


Most of the traffic is within an 18 hour day. Using 2300 operations over that period to include the unpublished military traffic, it comes out to roughly two new operations per minute within the 26 mile diameter circle.

I'm wondering how that would compare with the busiest areas of UK, greater London for instance.

I think heathrow does roughly half that over a 24 hour period, throw in London City and Biggin Hill within the greater london area and you'll well outstrip that number, plus the various aircraft transiting the area.

[IO540]

One can't pick out just one element of say US airspace management and transplant it over here.

The US model works because they have a lot of Class E, in which you have to be VMC unless you have an IR and are on an IFR clearance, but they at the same time they have always had a very accessible IR, approach controllers who don't invoice anybody for the service, no Class A below 18000ft, easy CAS transits which are mostly enshrined in law and not subject to which side of the bed the ATCO got off, and finally they do enforce transgressions. Plus they mandate Mode C transponders around big airports. Plus the FAA designs instrument approaches for airports, for free. The whole lot hangs together.

The question is what can be learnt over here which is politically possible to implement.

Not a lot...

One could start with the IR. Over the 10+ years I've been flying, an easier IR has been "just around the corner". Now there is an EASA one "just around the corner" but not deliverable before they first screw most of the private and sub-airline commercial pilots who have IRs already, in a blatent finger-up to the USA. The whole thing is wrapped up in stupid Euro-superior and anti-US politics.

A change of Planning regs to enable the establishment of GA airfields away from towns etc. without creating a risk of them being converted into housing etc. Very hard to do politically and would require real vision, which doesn't exist in UK Govt.

Airspace redesign is another thing but also very hard politically.

Etc.

[Gonzo]

Heathrow does 1350 movements between 0600-2230.

Unless it's snowing....... :}