Beware landing at Farnborough
Just a reminder (I know it doesn't apply in this case) simply filing Farnborough as alternate on your flight plan isn't sufficient to guarantee a diversion; the airfield is strictly PPR via TAG Operations (ATC have no say in the matter unless you declare an emergency) who are always quite flexible.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the days (not that long ago) when I flew with friends in a PA28 for a cup of coffee into places like Manchester or Luton the changes now for light GA are massive and the options for using light GA as a serious means of transport are getting less and less.
Well I have to say I am with you. You have highlighted how expensive many airports have become.
How is it that NZ (see the earlier post) are able to charge a £10. How is it that Miami Int. charge not many bucks. Even in France you can go round and round on the ILS if you wish and be charged a few Euros.
Ah, yes, I forgot, because it is their airport and we are all happy they can charge what they like. Strange old country really.
If you are doing instrument training I would vote with my feet. If you are any where near the south coast go to France.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Don't get too upset with people giving you an unjustified dig.
You sound like you do single pilot ops. If so, you are a better man than I. The reason I say this is that you have to rely only on yourself and get 100% of the workload and have to fly all of that in marginal weather.
You sound like you do single pilot ops. If so, you are a better man than I. The reason I say this is that you have to rely only on yourself and get 100% of the workload and have to fly all of that in marginal weather.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's up with charging £360?
That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft! Try landing an Heathrow. It appears you also did not warn them of your possible arrival, nor were you genuine emergency. Of course you have to prove genuine emergency to have landing fees waived, or it would be chaos, with people claiming weather diversion whenever possible.
The company I work for does use small aerodromes with no instrument approaches. If the weather is in any doubt we arrange contingent handling at alternates, and warn them of our possible or likely arrival.
If you are flying for an AOC operation, Pace, then your operations people are not doing their jobs!
That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft! Try landing an Heathrow. It appears you also did not warn them of your possible arrival, nor were you genuine emergency. Of course you have to prove genuine emergency to have landing fees waived, or it would be chaos, with people claiming weather diversion whenever possible.
The company I work for does use small aerodromes with no instrument approaches. If the weather is in any doubt we arrange contingent handling at alternates, and warn them of our possible or likely arrival.
If you are flying for an AOC operation, Pace, then your operations people are not doing their jobs!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's up with charging £360?
That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft!
That is not especially expensive for an airport with limited movements not really catering for your class of aircraft!
I think they should charge whatever they like.
£600 would seem a great deal more resonable.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
If Farnborough allowed cheap access to light aircraft, then they would start having to turn away light jets. How much money do you think one of them pays? How much money do they spend on fuel, handling and catering?
It's the way capitalism works. Supply and demand - if supply is lower than demand then the price goes up until demand drops or supply increases (not possible in this case unless price rises enough for Blackbushe to establish an instrument approach).
If Farnborough allowed cheap access to light aircraft, then they would start having to turn away light jets. How much money do you think one of them pays? How much money do they spend on fuel, handling and catering?
It's the way capitalism works. Supply and demand - if supply is lower than demand then the price goes up until demand drops or supply increases (not possible in this case unless price rises enough for Blackbushe to establish an instrument approach).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMS
You make a very valid point. If I was running Farnborough I would probably charge close on "as much as I could get away with".
That is just about the same for any business operating in a free market.
Returning to my orginal analogy if you were running a supermarket and operated the only chain in the country we all know what would happen to prices. If there are four major players in the business the temptation for them to get together and rig the price is a constant danger to the consumer. If there are ten the consumer is probably on to a good thing.
All basic economics of course.
I was perhaps a little tongue in cheek advancing an alternative position.
However .. .. ..
Airports in this country are a bit different. The majority of larger airports dont actually operate in a free market. BAA control many of the major airports. Rightly they have been forced to sell off Gatwick because of the concerns expressed about the way they operate. NATS, however you want to argue the corporate structure, own both the division concerned with airspace and the divsion concerned with providing air traffic services at many of our larger airports - including Farnborough to whom they are contracted. NATS are a monopoly bailed out by the taxpayer when they nearly went bust and nearly owned in the majority by the taxpayer (49%).
Airports with an ILS are licensed by the CAA and in the case of Farnborough use nearly majority government owned agency to provide air traffic services (albeit I appreciate on commercial terms). In short in a country in which particularly in the south, land for airports is in short supply and is in any event fiercely controlled by enviromental concerns there may be an argument that charges and access should be regulated so supply is available to all.
If you take the free market argument to its logical conclusion in the south east of England you will end up with not a single airport where a light aircraft can expect to be able to fly an ILS for less than £100 and possibly a lot more. We are not too far removed form that scenario already.
Around the south of London the only airports available with an ILS are Gatwick, Heathrow, Biggin, Farnborough and Southampton. (I have exlcuded form the list Manston, Lydd and Southend which are all in the back of beyond!). As we all know the approaches vary and as we also all know the direction of the approach can be far more critical for light aircraft so the list can end up being very small.
Ultimately that can result in light aircraft being effectively denied access to any airport with an approach in this part of the country.
So what I hear you say - light aircraft pilots should not be setting off in these conditions.
Well of course that is why light aircraft will never become a realistic means of transport in this country. It is also why fewer commercial pilots will train in this country - why would you when you can go to Spain or the States and get the job done for half the price.
Ultimately of course it is GA that suffers.
I recall when Bournemouth hiked up their prices and effectively excluded GA. Unfortunately they did so at about the same time as the last recession. As CAT traffic declined of course they were anxious to welcome back GA - the damage was done and it took a long time before the traffic came back at significantly lower prices.
Southampton was a vibrant home for GA - now it has all but gone. I go there often. It is worth taking a few minutes to survey the acres of unused concrete - despite what they would tell you. Ah yes, and then there is the traffic argument. However you will never have a problem booking a slot and parking with the handlers.
I even recall when I started flying you could do T and Gs at Gatwick. When I was there earlier this year it was as quite as a church hall around midday - as is often the case. Again, it was revealing to survey the acres of concrete that were unoccupied - all sorts of acres where a dedicated GA parking area could be provided. Of course the reality is they dont want you. Moreover, to be fair during their peek times GA would be a nuisance. Even more worrying is they have done such a good pa job of telling everyone how busy they are and how little space thay have that most GA pilots actually believe this to be true.
So, unless I am very much mistaken, Farnborough is no where close to its capacity in terms of parking or slots. It may well be close to its capacity in terms of the number of slots given - I dont have the figures.
However, the fact remains if matters continue as they are the vast majority of GA pilots will have to think thrice about landing at any of the airports with an ILS approach in the south east of England before long not because the price is high (I go to Newquay regularly and do not object to paying their fees for approach and parking) but because it is unreasonably high, or, they have simply been banned altogether however fat their wallet might be.
That will be a shame for GA - but what do I care?
You make a very valid point. If I was running Farnborough I would probably charge close on "as much as I could get away with".
That is just about the same for any business operating in a free market.
Returning to my orginal analogy if you were running a supermarket and operated the only chain in the country we all know what would happen to prices. If there are four major players in the business the temptation for them to get together and rig the price is a constant danger to the consumer. If there are ten the consumer is probably on to a good thing.
All basic economics of course.
I was perhaps a little tongue in cheek advancing an alternative position.
However .. .. ..
Airports in this country are a bit different. The majority of larger airports dont actually operate in a free market. BAA control many of the major airports. Rightly they have been forced to sell off Gatwick because of the concerns expressed about the way they operate. NATS, however you want to argue the corporate structure, own both the division concerned with airspace and the divsion concerned with providing air traffic services at many of our larger airports - including Farnborough to whom they are contracted. NATS are a monopoly bailed out by the taxpayer when they nearly went bust and nearly owned in the majority by the taxpayer (49%).
Airports with an ILS are licensed by the CAA and in the case of Farnborough use nearly majority government owned agency to provide air traffic services (albeit I appreciate on commercial terms). In short in a country in which particularly in the south, land for airports is in short supply and is in any event fiercely controlled by enviromental concerns there may be an argument that charges and access should be regulated so supply is available to all.
If you take the free market argument to its logical conclusion in the south east of England you will end up with not a single airport where a light aircraft can expect to be able to fly an ILS for less than £100 and possibly a lot more. We are not too far removed form that scenario already.
Around the south of London the only airports available with an ILS are Gatwick, Heathrow, Biggin, Farnborough and Southampton. (I have exlcuded form the list Manston, Lydd and Southend which are all in the back of beyond!). As we all know the approaches vary and as we also all know the direction of the approach can be far more critical for light aircraft so the list can end up being very small.
Ultimately that can result in light aircraft being effectively denied access to any airport with an approach in this part of the country.
So what I hear you say - light aircraft pilots should not be setting off in these conditions.
Well of course that is why light aircraft will never become a realistic means of transport in this country. It is also why fewer commercial pilots will train in this country - why would you when you can go to Spain or the States and get the job done for half the price.
Ultimately of course it is GA that suffers.
I recall when Bournemouth hiked up their prices and effectively excluded GA. Unfortunately they did so at about the same time as the last recession. As CAT traffic declined of course they were anxious to welcome back GA - the damage was done and it took a long time before the traffic came back at significantly lower prices.
Southampton was a vibrant home for GA - now it has all but gone. I go there often. It is worth taking a few minutes to survey the acres of unused concrete - despite what they would tell you. Ah yes, and then there is the traffic argument. However you will never have a problem booking a slot and parking with the handlers.
I even recall when I started flying you could do T and Gs at Gatwick. When I was there earlier this year it was as quite as a church hall around midday - as is often the case. Again, it was revealing to survey the acres of concrete that were unoccupied - all sorts of acres where a dedicated GA parking area could be provided. Of course the reality is they dont want you. Moreover, to be fair during their peek times GA would be a nuisance. Even more worrying is they have done such a good pa job of telling everyone how busy they are and how little space thay have that most GA pilots actually believe this to be true.
So, unless I am very much mistaken, Farnborough is no where close to its capacity in terms of parking or slots. It may well be close to its capacity in terms of the number of slots given - I dont have the figures.
However, the fact remains if matters continue as they are the vast majority of GA pilots will have to think thrice about landing at any of the airports with an ILS approach in the south east of England before long not because the price is high (I go to Newquay regularly and do not object to paying their fees for approach and parking) but because it is unreasonably high, or, they have simply been banned altogether however fat their wallet might be.
That will be a shame for GA - but what do I care?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Fuji, there you go again.....
So, ignoring the fact that NERL is a pseudo monopoly (the pricing is not set by NATS wish as you well know - and the governance is with the CAA) and that NSL only provide ATC for various airport companies (TAG/BAA/London City Aiport/Luton/Biggin Hill are some of the London Airports and owners) why do you think that NATS has anything to do with landing fees!??
Also, the NSL side of the operation operate in the free market, bidding for contracts - like the cleaners. They are just contrators. Contracts can be won and lost.
With resepct, your mis-understanding is massive.
If NATS controlled all the slots/operated the airports more ATCOs would be flying in themselves!
So, ignoring the fact that NERL is a pseudo monopoly (the pricing is not set by NATS wish as you well know - and the governance is with the CAA) and that NSL only provide ATC for various airport companies (TAG/BAA/London City Aiport/Luton/Biggin Hill are some of the London Airports and owners) why do you think that NATS has anything to do with landing fees!??
Also, the NSL side of the operation operate in the free market, bidding for contracts - like the cleaners. They are just contrators. Contracts can be won and lost.
With resepct, your mis-understanding is massive.
If NATS controlled all the slots/operated the airports more ATCOs would be flying in themselves!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
However those are issues over which Farnborough has no control. Slots are limited by planning regulation. If they were free I am sure they would not have discouraged business! Also note that government policy if for Farnborough to be used to take bizjet traffic away from other London airports, especially Heathrow, in order to free up runway slots there where possible for scheduled traffic.
Capitalism can only work within the constraints of the regulations placed upon it, and will be influenced by pressure from the regulating organisation or anyone else who can affect its business. Government policy will always have some effect.
However those are issues over which Farnborough has no control. Slots are limited by planning regulation. If they were free I am sure they would not have discouraged business! Also note that government policy if for Farnborough to be used to take bizjet traffic away from other London airports, especially Heathrow, in order to free up runway slots there where possible for scheduled traffic.
Capitalism can only work within the constraints of the regulations placed upon it, and will be influenced by pressure from the regulating organisation or anyone else who can affect its business. Government policy will always have some effect.
Luvverley!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: --
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panjandrum is fishing....
I believe he is heavily involved in management of an ILS-equipped airfield in SE UK.
Perhaps anyone thinking of answering panjandrum's question should exercise some caution?
Perhaps anyone thinking of answering panjandrum's question should exercise some caution?
re post #27 and EGLK incident = divert to EGLF
I have been away for 2 weeks and not aware of this incident at EGLK - any news?
I completed all my training at Blackbushe, and now have a share now based there. I was always (and still) conscious of what would happen if EGLK was blocked as above, as my first choice would be EGLF (especially when training). It appears they are ready & able in circumstances of the above incident.
I completed all my training at Blackbushe, and now have a share now based there. I was always (and still) conscious of what would happen if EGLK was blocked as above, as my first choice would be EGLF (especially when training). It appears they are ready & able in circumstances of the above incident.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why do you think that NATS has anything to do with landing fees!??
I did however say NATS have a monopoly over air traffic services. I did say they want £100K pa to provide a radar feed to an airport that might like to provide a radar approach service. I did say, which you choose to also misrepresent, that this cost was for the feed - not for the radar heads which are already in place and necessary to meet their other responsibilities.
I do say that the government should consider ensuring that this information is available to airports that wish to provide this service at a reasonable cost to enhance the safety of all airspace users.
That however is another matter and not pertinent to this debate.
I did not intend to single out Farnborough, but to express the more general view that for various reasons GA is being priced out or prevented from having access to airports in this region with an ILS. I have expressed my view why this could be a bad thing for GA. You may well disagree.
Enough said. Its us that should be concerned about the future of GA - if you want to fly in an area where GA finds it increasingly difficult to access any of the airports with an approach or you are happy to pay ever increasing fees for the privilige that is a matter for everyone on this forum.
