Student Go Rounds
 

We all tell our students to go round if there's anything about the approach that they're not happy with, don't we? At our regional airport (and probably many others) they will be charged a full landing fee for such a go round. Surely this could be detrimental to flight safety when the student is aware that such action will cost him/her an extra £25, (landing fee and flight time). Some will be tempted to continue the approach and landing, possibly with disastrous consequences.
Should not the airport authorities regard this situation in the same way as weather/tech. diversions under the Strasser scheme, and waive the landing fee for that approach?

Yes, of course we all teach go-around from any approach that might result in a less than satisfactory landing.

Have a read in the latest AOPA magazine ref. Shoreham's attitude to this.

Personally I agree that it is inappropriate to charge a landing fee for a go-round. Apparently Shoreham started doing it because some instructors were allegedly doing go-arounds so save landing fees when doing circuits.

At our aerodrome, based a/c pay a flat monthly fee which covers all use of the runway, whether simply departing or arriving, doing circuits, touch-and-goes, go-arounds or whatever. This I believe is a MUCH better way of organising things.

I would urge all school to negotiate a proper scheme rather than try and save money by not paying any 'aerodrome use' fee but only pay a 'per landing' charge.

There remains the contentios issue of visitor go-arounds. I guess some aerodrome managers might suspect that some unscrupulous school might visit another aerodrome to carry out circuits 'on the sly'. I don't think they're doing their students any favours by not actually touching down - the flare and touch are surely such a vital part of flight.

TheOddOne

There is an airfield not too far away from us that I visit to give the student views of a different widths and lengths of runways. 3 * Touch and goes for the price of one landing.

Fair enough :ok:

(Not going to give the game away in case you all start to go there!)

This country isn't going mad, by the way, it already is!

malc4d
Their argument is that the fee is for the approach, not just the landing.

TheOddOne
I understand the problem of some instructors abusing the system, but my concern is for solo students, not flights with an instructor aboard.

At the moment I am in the middle of doing touch & go's at EGNM with Multiflight.

I have only got 14 hours in so far but the first session was spent at a field near Harrogate where I was shown how to configure the aircraft (C152) for the approach and used a long wall as the centerline got to around 50 ft above some trees then power on.

This was ideal as I learned very quickly and saved around £40 on fees that day.

Since then I have spent 3 1 hour sessions doing these for real at EGNM.

i'm lucky, doing circuits in my training at the moment, our airfield doesn't have landing charges, only cheap overnight parking charges :D

malc4d
VFR approach during ab-initio training - go round from finals.

Of course it matters if a go around is an extra £25. Not to every pilot, but to way too many...

To put that in perspective:

Where I fly (Sweden), a yearly fee of about €500 (for a Cessna 172, PA28 or similar) gives unlimited landings at almost every airport in the country, regardless of how many landings, touch and goes or takeoffs you do... The fee is paid by the flying club on a per aircraft basis and included in the club membership fee, so you pay practically nothing for your landings, no matter where you go. Still the level of service, as far as I know, is at least as good as for British airports.

Why in all the world do you agree to such outrageous charges??? :confused:

Having just returned from our Fair Weather Flying base in Phoenix, AZ, i can certainly say the Americans have got GA right. I did 150+ landings (not all of them good but certainly walked away from all of them :O) and didn't pay a single penny. It was even free to land at numerous Military Airfields aswell, such as Yuma Marine Corps sharing the runway with f18's.
Contrast that to when I learnt to fly at Coventry, where we would hop over to Wellesbourne for circuit lessons as they offered the better landing rates!

AB

Have worked at one school where one student has paid over £1000 in landing fees alone.
Its ridiculus that a school can't negotiate a block fee.

I'm currently training at Australia, Sydney Camden Airport. It seems that airports here don't even charge touch- and-goes, only full-stops are charged.

We used to pay an annual contract fee per aircraft. No problem, as the cost was factored into the aircraft hire rates. No such luxury now though. Since the airfield changed hands every landing/approach must be paid for, hence aircraft rate + landing/approach fee for every approach/landing. In the early stages of training this can become very expensive. Such a shame, because in every other respect our field is an excellent place to learn to fly. We totally accept that when we play with the big boys there will be times when we have to orbit or extend the circuit. All good training. and beneficial. Preparation for what will happen in the real world, outside the training environment
Unfortunately there is not another airfield close by that we could use for circuit/ landing training

Mind you not going around from a dodgy approach is good practise for the commercial world!

wow! that's a lot of money per landing I'm used to like $0--- $2.50---$5.00

but 25 lbs/ldg for GA:(

Chirps Chirps Chirps Chirps
 

Everytime a student is clobbered for a landing fee on a go-around - report it! And the resultant safety implications! Something will soon be done about it - airports with FTO's resident have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to ensure that those aircraft can operate safely.

Do we want a Southend type scenario mk.II????

VFE.

VFE
As this accident was discussed at great length on various forums on PPRuNe, I am sure you recall that go-around charges were completely irrelevant to what happened. I consider the question to be inappropriate in the context of this thread.

However, it is clear that it is an issue at some airports, and as such I agree entirely with the rest of your post.

Foxy

I have only got 14 hours in so far but the first session was spent at a field near Harrogate where I was shown how to configure the aircraft (C152) for the approach and used a long wall as the centerline got to around 50 ft above some trees then power on.


mmmmmmmmmmm, rule 5 anyone?

There was no mention of persons, buildings, vessels or structures (unless you consider the wall a structure!) so as long as they could have landed clear if it all went quiet up front, they're still on good terms with the CAA!

B&S :)

I am well aware of the causes that led to the Southend accident Foxy Loxy and unlike you do think it has relevance to this thread here because it is all about airports making money.

VFE.

Hi Three Greens

Neither trees, or the walls you find around fields count as 'persons, vehicles, vessels or structures'.

MJ