Shoreham - A rip off
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuffer talks quite a lot of sense, though not perhaps with the right target in mind.
I learnt to fly at Shoreham in the 70's and it had full ATC then. Fact is nowadays that full ATC is a luxury that few of us bimblers need or are willing to pay for. Many licensed fields with ab-initio training work very well with less than full ATC (AFISO or A/G).
There is of course a certain frisson some pilots get from pretending to be a "proper" pilot, landing at airfields with full ATC and other facilities like lighting, navaids and arrival/departure boards whether or not they actually need them. Unfortunately they all end up being paid for from somewhere.
[irony]It goes without saying that Shoreham under the long standing reign of the present Manager was a hugely profitable jewel in the crown of Brighton & Hove Council. One wonders why Erinaceous feel the need to install parking ticket machines after acquiring such a goldmine.[/irony]
I don't think it's at all fair to lay the blame for Empire Building at the door of the ATCO's.
I learnt to fly at Shoreham in the 70's and it had full ATC then. Fact is nowadays that full ATC is a luxury that few of us bimblers need or are willing to pay for. Many licensed fields with ab-initio training work very well with less than full ATC (AFISO or A/G).
There is of course a certain frisson some pilots get from pretending to be a "proper" pilot, landing at airfields with full ATC and other facilities like lighting, navaids and arrival/departure boards whether or not they actually need them. Unfortunately they all end up being paid for from somewhere.
[irony]It goes without saying that Shoreham under the long standing reign of the present Manager was a hugely profitable jewel in the crown of Brighton & Hove Council. One wonders why Erinaceous feel the need to install parking ticket machines after acquiring such a goldmine.[/irony]
I don't think it's at all fair to lay the blame for Empire Building at the door of the ATCO's.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Shoreham
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC may have the ability to keep you waiting, but since I have been a resident aircraft owner at Shoreham, I have never ever been aware of any deliberate delaying tactics. It's many years now since I was in ATC myself (not at Shoreham) but despite that I think I would recognise anything that was not designed to maintain a safe and orderly flow of air traffic.
The guys and gals in the tower at Shoreham are, in my view, some of the best. Indeed, their patience with the great number of students (and the odd instructor!) that train there is really quite remarkable on occasions. The provision of full ATC is a distinct benefit for most students, I feel.
Whilst this clearly increases the costs to use Shoreham, I do think that value is certainly given in terms of landing fees, currently £16.50, compared to Goodwood's £15.90, both inclusive of VAT. Goodwood is all grass, often waterlogged, with FISO's.
We have to hope that the situation with Erinaceous will be sorted out very soon. With any luck somebody, or a consortium of some kind, will be able to take the airport off their hands and give them some much needed cash - we know they are looking to offload assets.
Shoreham is a massive GA asset, and it needs all the support it can get from the GA community. Landing fees may be higher than many other places, but there's plenty to see and do and the food in the restaurants is excellent.
If you have never been, please try to drop in. If you have, then please come back soon.
The guys and gals in the tower at Shoreham are, in my view, some of the best. Indeed, their patience with the great number of students (and the odd instructor!) that train there is really quite remarkable on occasions. The provision of full ATC is a distinct benefit for most students, I feel.
Whilst this clearly increases the costs to use Shoreham, I do think that value is certainly given in terms of landing fees, currently £16.50, compared to Goodwood's £15.90, both inclusive of VAT. Goodwood is all grass, often waterlogged, with FISO's.
We have to hope that the situation with Erinaceous will be sorted out very soon. With any luck somebody, or a consortium of some kind, will be able to take the airport off their hands and give them some much needed cash - we know they are looking to offload assets.
Shoreham is a massive GA asset, and it needs all the support it can get from the GA community. Landing fees may be higher than many other places, but there's plenty to see and do and the food in the restaurants is excellent.
If you have never been, please try to drop in. If you have, then please come back soon.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoreham is a massive GA asset, and it needs all the support it can get from the GA community. Landing fees may be higher than many other places, but there's plenty to see and do and the food in the restaurants is excellent.
Couldn't agree more.
Shoreham has the nicest and most helpful and polite ATC I know of.
If the place shut, loads of pilots would simply stop flying, due to lack of drive-able alternatives. Lydd for example is a 2 hour exhausting drive, in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Goodwood is no good; waterlogged grass.
The landing fee is a few minutes' flying time. Also the place is clean and has an excellent hard runway. Every time you land your nice plane on muddy grass and cover it in muck, or better still ding the prop on a stone (many hard runways are covered in them - take Elstree for example) that is a few quid that will go on your maintenance sometime in the future.
Shoreham should be supported by all.
Couldn't agree more.
Shoreham has the nicest and most helpful and polite ATC I know of.
If the place shut, loads of pilots would simply stop flying, due to lack of drive-able alternatives. Lydd for example is a 2 hour exhausting drive, in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Goodwood is no good; waterlogged grass.
The landing fee is a few minutes' flying time. Also the place is clean and has an excellent hard runway. Every time you land your nice plane on muddy grass and cover it in muck, or better still ding the prop on a stone (many hard runways are covered in them - take Elstree for example) that is a few quid that will go on your maintenance sometime in the future.
Shoreham should be supported by all.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact are, (mostly supported), that to run an airport of any size costs money, substantial amounts of it and it would probably make Al's eyes water to know how much.
He probably doesn't appreciate that, if costs to the airport owners were broken down, landing fees don't even cover the costs of emloyees required by regulatory authorities, (ATC, Fire Service, Security), it's income from concessionares and commercial property which makes the difference.
It's clear from Al's posts that he has an unjustified problem with anyone in authority at an aerodrome, i.e ATC.
He probably doesn't appreciate that, if costs to the airport owners were broken down, landing fees don't even cover the costs of emloyees required by regulatory authorities, (ATC, Fire Service, Security), it's income from concessionares and commercial property which makes the difference.
It's clear from Al's posts that he has an unjustified problem with anyone in authority at an aerodrome, i.e ATC.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much longer will the Shoreham ATIS report that the Shoreham DME is out of service?
With the increasing number of Schedules/ad hoc charters being flown from EGKA I am suprised that operators are not clamouring for its return to service......especially when landing on R/W 20.
Do we have to wait for an aircraft to have an incident before we read that the AAIB is making recommendations that the DME be repaired a.s.a.p.???
With the increasing number of Schedules/ad hoc charters being flown from EGKA I am suprised that operators are not clamouring for its return to service......especially when landing on R/W 20.
Do we have to wait for an aircraft to have an incident before we read that the AAIB is making recommendations that the DME be repaired a.s.a.p.???
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there are many smart pilots around who fly an NDB/DME approach using the NDB and the DME.
Much safer to fly the GPS overlay version - these have been in the IFR GPS databases for donkeys years.
If you set a DCT to "EGKA" or to "SHM" you get a GPS "fake DME" distance, and use the OBS mode of the GPS to track the appropriate radial, outbound and inbound.
I never wrote any of the above of course
A DME is worth having though.
The real problem is that the Shoreham 20 approach is mandatory-DME so you can't even request it at the moment. All you can fly is the 02 NDB only approach and a circle to land - this is fine in daytime and no heavy rain. The MDA is the same IIRC since the 20 IAP is 800ft and while the 02 IAP is about 600ft, the minimum for circling to 20 is again 800ft. The temporary full-GPS IAP which existed during the trial didn't improve on the 800ft which was a real missed opportunity. What is the point of a GPS approach if it offers the same minima as the conventional one?
Much safer to fly the GPS overlay version - these have been in the IFR GPS databases for donkeys years.
If you set a DCT to "EGKA" or to "SHM" you get a GPS "fake DME" distance, and use the OBS mode of the GPS to track the appropriate radial, outbound and inbound.
I never wrote any of the above of course
A DME is worth having though.
The real problem is that the Shoreham 20 approach is mandatory-DME so you can't even request it at the moment. All you can fly is the 02 NDB only approach and a circle to land - this is fine in daytime and no heavy rain. The MDA is the same IIRC since the 20 IAP is 800ft and while the 02 IAP is about 600ft, the minimum for circling to 20 is again 800ft. The temporary full-GPS IAP which existed during the trial didn't improve on the 800ft which was a real missed opportunity. What is the point of a GPS approach if it offers the same minima as the conventional one?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
What is the point of a GPS approach if it offers the same minima as the conventional one?
I think NDBs are due to go in a couple of years. Personally, I'll miss them but practically all the a/c I fly in now have GPS, even if it isn't a moving map. I always carry a hand-held and spare batteries, just in case.
TheOddOne
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear from Al's posts that he has an unjustified problem with anyone in authorit
I think not, when you are paying £350 an hour for a Self fly hire helicopter waiting ten minutes to taxi across to whiskey at shoreham is expensive.
Shoreham is a nice place, but I recall renting a PA28-235 from there for a few days once. The aircraft was nice and thus I wasn't too surprised that it was a bit expensive. But, when you'd added on a fee per landing when doing a few circuits during the checkout, and another lump of money for the instructor, and I think there was some kind of day-club membership involved as well, the price was eye-watering.
But it's not alone; I flew into Bournemouth a couple of weeks ago for a meeting (with a company on the airfield) in something roughly C172 sized, and just got an invoice for £42.07 covering my landing fee and about 4 hours parking - equivalent to about 45 minutes flying in my syndicated aeroplane. I can't fault Hurn as an airport, but the price was a bit frightening.
And then there's Newcastle....
But, big patch of expensive real estate in a prime spot - it'll happen, and we'll just all have to live with it I think. The only thing that I think we can demand is the best possible service for our money (and yes, a ten minute hold in a helicopter costing you £350/hr probably doesn't qualify!).
G
But it's not alone; I flew into Bournemouth a couple of weeks ago for a meeting (with a company on the airfield) in something roughly C172 sized, and just got an invoice for £42.07 covering my landing fee and about 4 hours parking - equivalent to about 45 minutes flying in my syndicated aeroplane. I can't fault Hurn as an airport, but the price was a bit frightening.
And then there's Newcastle....
But, big patch of expensive real estate in a prime spot - it'll happen, and we'll just all have to live with it I think. The only thing that I think we can demand is the best possible service for our money (and yes, a ten minute hold in a helicopter costing you £350/hr probably doesn't qualify!).
G
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
costs
Right, so now we should give flight priorities in order of cost per hour????? Oh come on, at times KA has always resembled bees around a honeypot which is great but expect the odd delay now & again.
Controllers at Shoreham do not delay people out of spite.......well not since I left, anyway
Controllers at Shoreham do not delay people out of spite.......well not since I left, anyway
I've not been there for a few years, but recall taking a PA28 in there for a night stop - service was spectactular right across the board, even a pot of tea and biscuits on a little tray whilst I waited to be picked up.
But the bill was around £50 for landing and a night's parking.
Very much a high quality / high price operation was my impression.
G
But the bill was around £50 for landing and a night's parking.
Very much a high quality / high price operation was my impression.
G
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I first flew from there in an Auster in 1957 and have been flying there ever since, off and on. I remember the argument when they wanted to put in a hard runway. We all knew that the prices would go up. We didn't have to worry about soft ground any more though. I remember the first time I landed on the new runway. I almost wet myself at the narrowness. I am not renowned for greasing it in and it was a shock to the system.
All said, EGKA is one of my absolute favourites. ATC are helpful if pressurised sometimes and the terminal is a joy. It is one of the best run aerodromes I have seen I wish the restaurant was a bit more adventurous though. I have only just seen the parking meters.
Bring back Miles I say.
All said, EGKA is one of my absolute favourites. ATC are helpful if pressurised sometimes and the terminal is a joy. It is one of the best run aerodromes I have seen I wish the restaurant was a bit more adventurous though. I have only just seen the parking meters.
Bring back Miles I say.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah CHUFFER I see why you aim for the numbers now--landing in the undershoot could be classed as taxing and be exempt a landing fee!
PS What a wonderful terminal, worth paying a bit more to keep that going isnt it?
PPS all helicopters should be charged double for everything
PS What a wonderful terminal, worth paying a bit more to keep that going isnt it?
PPS all helicopters should be charged double for everything
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540, thanks for the info about GPS accuracy. My initial point was not to do with the private owners who may which to be flexible with MDA but to the burgeoning public transport operations who can ill afford to be flexible at MDA.
In the event that a mishap befalls a public transport /AOC flight the CAA,lawyers and AAIB will all have access to the GPS memory plots which at the moment are not approved as an IFR approach aid.
back to original point...is the DME to be reinstated and when?
In the event that a mishap befalls a public transport /AOC flight the CAA,lawyers and AAIB will all have access to the GPS memory plots which at the moment are not approved as an IFR approach aid.
back to original point...is the DME to be reinstated and when?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al,
There have been fixed circuit and landing fees at Shoreham for some years
Not saying it's right or wrong.
The circuit fee for rotary is fixed regardless of the number of circuits you complete (IIRC there is a different fee for plank drivers per circuit/landing/touch and go).
As water logged runways aren't a rotary issue, perhaps Redhill or Goodwood would be a better option
For £350 ph costs I presume you fly the 44, in which case always remember you can land on the grass and lower the collective (hence datcon stops running) until ATC allow/hint you'll be crossing soon). Even on a 28 day check there is nothing to force you to maintain a hover.
The other option is to suggest a different order to your flying. Route out from Echo or the Eastern grass runway threshold along the river as that route doesn't interfere with the tarmac runway. On a busy summer day it is far quicker to route East with no delay and then turn North to route clear of the ATZ Westbound than to wait to cross to Whiskey and then route out using the rotary circuit (Conditions allowing, how often do you see one of the instructors conducting a 30 min trial lesson using Whiskey? 99% of the time they'll route in/out using the river, staying as far away from the plank runway in use as possible).
A pivotal point for a P1 to consider is the most appropriate routing and if you doubt the Instructors 'motives' - Question it!
Regards,
FW
Ps Al, I believe we know each other
Say hi to DE when you're next passing, bet it's much quieter now ML has gone
There have been fixed circuit and landing fees at Shoreham for some years
Not saying it's right or wrong.
The circuit fee for rotary is fixed regardless of the number of circuits you complete (IIRC there is a different fee for plank drivers per circuit/landing/touch and go).
As water logged runways aren't a rotary issue, perhaps Redhill or Goodwood would be a better option
For £350 ph costs I presume you fly the 44, in which case always remember you can land on the grass and lower the collective (hence datcon stops running) until ATC allow/hint you'll be crossing soon). Even on a 28 day check there is nothing to force you to maintain a hover.
The other option is to suggest a different order to your flying. Route out from Echo or the Eastern grass runway threshold along the river as that route doesn't interfere with the tarmac runway. On a busy summer day it is far quicker to route East with no delay and then turn North to route clear of the ATZ Westbound than to wait to cross to Whiskey and then route out using the rotary circuit (Conditions allowing, how often do you see one of the instructors conducting a 30 min trial lesson using Whiskey? 99% of the time they'll route in/out using the river, staying as far away from the plank runway in use as possible).
A pivotal point for a P1 to consider is the most appropriate routing and if you doubt the Instructors 'motives' - Question it!
Regards,
FW
Ps Al, I believe we know each other
Say hi to DE when you're next passing, bet it's much quieter now ML has gone
Last edited by Flingingwings; 5th Dec 2007 at 16:48.