Airways NZ Per Movement charge HN/TG (and then everywhere)

[Airpushenbacken]

Surprised this one hasn't made it on here yet!!

Airways’ Proposas to Introduce a Per Movement Charge at Hamilton and Tauranga Airports.

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd (Airways) proposes to introduce a new per movement fee for all aircraft 5 tonnes and under at Hamilton and Tauranga Airports. The proposed per movement fee is:
Hamilton Airport $6.10 per movement per aircraft
Tauranga Airport $4.60 per movement per aircraft
The purpose of this new charge is to recover the incremental costs created by training and GA flights which are essentially aircraft of 5 tonnes or less.
Standard Terms and Conditions

Pretty sure there are some places around that just won't be able to absorb those costs!! Good old airways "World's Best Practice" don't ya know!!
Think its time to duck for cover!

[stonethrower]

So user pays has finally caught up with GA. Reality bites i suppose. I guess as it happens in every other facet of society it's fair enough. Blame it on CTC as they have effectively created a huge drain on resources for little return, and of course the airlines no longer wanting to subsidise GA to the extent they do when such a large percentage of trainees are training for foreign institutions anyway. Then again i hear the Waikato aeroclub head to Te Kowhai anyway to do circuit work so it shouldn't impact on them much. I wonder how long it will be before Rotorua ends up with swarms of GA traffic inbound requesting controlled circuit work???

[Oktas8]

Blame it on CTC

I think most flying schools would substantially increase productivity if ATC went off watch. ATC isn't set up for light aircraft.

Not that I'm blaming individual ATCO's either - it's the rules they have to obey. E.g. effective positive separation between two VFR lighties in Hamilton's CTR/D.

[stonethrower]

I'm sure you are correct and i wouldn't want to work ATC in HLZ in a month of Sundays but the fact of the matter is that ATC are there primarily as a safety measure for the RPTs. CTC made a calculated decision to move into Hamilton knowing this. I guess when you've been established at an airport for however long they have been in Hamilton with however many planes CTC have in their fleet, you may think you are a big player and have a say in how things should be run but commercial reality is that costs need to be recovered, hence the pending proposed price increase. The extra expense of increasing controller capacity to cover the increase in traffic wouldn't come close what CTC cough up in landing fees i'd say. We all know there ain't no such thing as a free lunch in aviation! Reality is that if a flying school can be more productive outside of ATC hours then by all means fly outside the hours of watch, or set up somewhere unattended and fill your boots mate.

[conflict alert]

Otkas8, I presume you refer to runway seps only. Class D airspace does not require to separate VFR from VFR except for runway seps (not talking SVFR either)

[Oktas8]

I read the document. It sounds reasonable to me in a user-pays environment. But then I don't have to pay them out of my own pocket! I imagine all big flying schools will eventually be affected by this.

ATC are there primarily as a safety measure for the RPTs

Whilst true, it is also the reason why GA and ATC cannot work together efficiently in this country. In other countries, ATC is provided for safety and efficiency for all traffic on a first come-first served basis, except for trainers: a social benefit for the entire industry. NZ operates a two-tier system as described accurately in the quote above and in Airways' discussion document: a user-pays resource for the good of the big players and to the detriment of all others. Even with these new fees this isn't likely to change.

Regarding separation. I did mean aircraft separation not runway separation. ATC in Hamilton almost always separate VFR from VFR in all sectors of the control zone.

Pilot: Request joining via Pirongia sector.
ATC: Pirongia not available due traffic. Make South arrival.
"Traffic" means one VFR aircraft departing the zone in that sector...

Here's an example of TG ATC applying the AIP correctly:
Pilot: Request joining via Matakana sector.
ATC: Make Matakana arrival. Traffic is two 152's over Matakana island.

[slackie]

Octkas ... you are showing your lack of understanding of Class D airspace and what ATC are actually doing in the HN CTR. HN ATCOs do NOT separate VFRs in your example, they are merely opting not to pass traffic information probably due to other workload issues. How do you know there is only 1 other aircraft in the Pirongia sector...what about the rest of the CTR, how about in the circuit?? If you had done your pre-flight planning correctly you would have positioned your aircraft to take advantage of the available arrivals. When busy, anything non-standard (i.e. an arrival through the Pirongia Sector) must be verbally co-ordinated between the 2 controlling positions. This takes time, and increases workload, particularly if the Aerodrome controller is busy and the other controller can't get a word in....hence "not available due traffic".

Your example of the way Tauranga do it doesn't comply with the Rules. Traffic information shall be passed to ALL aircraft not just the one being cleared on the arrival, so the TG example should read...

Pilot1: Request joining via Matakana sector.
ATC: Make Matakana arrival. VFR traffic is an eastbound 152 2500ft or below over Matakana island and a southbound 152 1500ft or below 1 mile south of Matakana Island.

then
ATC: Pilot2, VFR traffic is eastbound 152 2 miles west of Matakana Island making a Matakana Arrival.
Pilot2: Copy traffic
ATC: Pilot3, VFR traffic is eastbound 152 2 miles west of Matakana Island making a Matakana Arrival.
Pilot3: Copy traffic

Anything less is not fulfuililng the requirement of passing traffic TO EACH AIRCRAFT INVOLVED.

[Oktas8]

If you'd like to continue the discussion Slackie, PM me. Cheers, O8

[slackie]

Oktas ... check your PM

[27/09]

If there were no RPT at NZHN or NZTG would there be any ATC?

I would say No. Look at Ardmore, it's a busy place with no RPT therfore no ATC.

Therefore who should really pay at NZHN and NZTG?

With no disrepect to the ATC staff at either place it would seem ATC prodecures and protocols choke up the frequencies and the traffic flow.

This does two things:

It makes the controllers busier than they need to be, and;
It produces unnecessary hold ups for aircraft.

We talk much more on the radio than happens in some other parts of the world. We think some of our airports are busy, they are not by comparison with some.

ATC do a fair bit of controller training at both places. I know controllers need to be trained somewhere, but when training is taking place the movements certainly slow down, which directly impacts the operators on each field.

I don't suppose that Airways intend to give any recompense for the impact that their training has on the operations at these fields.

[stonethrower]

27/09, common sense in aerodrome control dictates that obviously you need to train with live traffic. Recompense will never be paid for a number of reasons. a couple of these being (a) training is a fact of life anywhere you go in the world. Sure you could not train at the above airfields and let those working there get no career progression, eventually retire (or more probably resign) and the airlines would suffer when the airspace is uncontrolled for part of the day and the affected zones become restricted airspace by CAA for those times and let me tell you they get VERY restricted which would mean a whole lot of holding for you guys and subsequent gas burn/delays. (b) Applying monetary compensation to people for getting delayed opens a nasty can of worms. Do we send the bill to another airline for another operator consistently taking too much time to roll resulting in a go around for following traffic etc.
At the end of the day it's fun to fly/control, we have great jobs, and you personally don't have to pay the bills mate so move on and enjoy your beer after work. Life's too short.