Going around - again, and counting the cost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going around - again, and counting the cost.
I am interested in peoples views on airports charging for go arounds?
Go arounds as we all know fall into two categories.
1. Deliberate go arounds for or during training,
2. Go arounds due to an unsatisfactory approach where the intention was to land.
In the first case a charge could be justified because the primary purpose of the go around is not safety but currency.
In the second case the only purpose for the go around is safety.
I appreciate the usual argument - its their airfield they can charge what they like, but does an operator have a responsibility to promote safety and could charging for a go around make some pilots more reluctant to push the levers forward when they know they should?
Where the airport is licensed, do the CAA have any authority in this area or any remitt with regards to an airports charging policy in respct of go arounds?
What are peoples expereinces generally of who charges and who does not and in what circumstances?
If the practise is wide spread is there a case for encouraging airports to join a list of operators who do not charge for go arounds much in the same way as the excellent initiative to publish those airports who do and dont charge for weather or other enforced diversions?
Go arounds as we all know fall into two categories.
1. Deliberate go arounds for or during training,
2. Go arounds due to an unsatisfactory approach where the intention was to land.
In the first case a charge could be justified because the primary purpose of the go around is not safety but currency.
In the second case the only purpose for the go around is safety.
I appreciate the usual argument - its their airfield they can charge what they like, but does an operator have a responsibility to promote safety and could charging for a go around make some pilots more reluctant to push the levers forward when they know they should?
Where the airport is licensed, do the CAA have any authority in this area or any remitt with regards to an airports charging policy in respct of go arounds?
What are peoples expereinces generally of who charges and who does not and in what circumstances?
If the practise is wide spread is there a case for encouraging airports to join a list of operators who do not charge for go arounds much in the same way as the excellent initiative to publish those airports who do and dont charge for weather or other enforced diversions?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Go-arounds due to ATC getting the timing wrong and the aircraft ahead not vacating quickly enough, or other external circumstances preventing a landing on an unoccupied runway.
Charged as well, as far as I know. As soon as you get below 500 feet that is.
Still, interested in the official and informal rules on this.
Charged as well, as far as I know. As soon as you get below 500 feet that is.
Still, interested in the official and informal rules on this.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would add another category. When the runway suddenly becomes unsafe to land on. Say a student lines up when you are on short final at a A/G airfield. There is little you can do but go round again.
Charging for this is ridicules.
Rod1
Charging for this is ridicules.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charging for go arounds can only have a negative effect on flight safety. In the case of an obstructed runway or an seriously unstabilised approach, there should be no doubt about going around, but what about those instances where the PIC is slightly unhappy with the approach? An approach slightly outside parameters will probably still lead to a safe landing, but the presence of a go around fee will certainly influence the PIC's decision to land (the cheap option) rather than go-around (the safer option) in these marginal situations.
Introducing money into the flight safety decision making process is a very bad idea. Shoreham introduced such a charge last year with significant opposition, but this was to be expected from a disreputable, mercenary outfit such as Erinaceous, the now deceased and reincarnated operators, for whom safe and enjoyable aviation seemed to be a very low priority on the business plan.
A few points to ponder:
If a pilot, influenced by the prospect of a go around fee, continues to land following a poor approach and crashes, blocking the runway for several hours, the costs and lost revenue may well exceed the profits from charging the fees in the first place.
In the case of Shoreham, genuine flight safety go arounds, as judged by the tower, would be exempt. How can the tower possibly judge what is going on in the cockpit?
If having called finals, you are instructed to 'continue, one on the runway' and you elect to go-around before landing clearance comes through, would they try to charge you?
Perhaps training go arounds should attract a small fee if there is never any intention to land or touch and go. If you call 'downwind for low approach and go around' your intentions are clear and a reduced fee might be reasonable, but would some pilots abuse this be changing intentions on short finals for spurious flight safety reasons to avoid the fee?
Personally I feel that an airfield operator should be able to set appropriate landing and touch and go fees so that go arounds are not subject to financial considerations.
Introducing money into the flight safety decision making process is a very bad idea. Shoreham introduced such a charge last year with significant opposition, but this was to be expected from a disreputable, mercenary outfit such as Erinaceous, the now deceased and reincarnated operators, for whom safe and enjoyable aviation seemed to be a very low priority on the business plan.
A few points to ponder:
If a pilot, influenced by the prospect of a go around fee, continues to land following a poor approach and crashes, blocking the runway for several hours, the costs and lost revenue may well exceed the profits from charging the fees in the first place.
In the case of Shoreham, genuine flight safety go arounds, as judged by the tower, would be exempt. How can the tower possibly judge what is going on in the cockpit?
If having called finals, you are instructed to 'continue, one on the runway' and you elect to go-around before landing clearance comes through, would they try to charge you?
Perhaps training go arounds should attract a small fee if there is never any intention to land or touch and go. If you call 'downwind for low approach and go around' your intentions are clear and a reduced fee might be reasonable, but would some pilots abuse this be changing intentions on short finals for spurious flight safety reasons to avoid the fee?
Personally I feel that an airfield operator should be able to set appropriate landing and touch and go fees so that go arounds are not subject to financial considerations.
