CAA to allow Flight Training from Unlicensed Aerodromes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major cost saving for airfield operators by going unlicenced is no fire crew. Not the saving on the CAA annual fee for licensed status. I would guess at many airfields this will give greater flexibility in staffing and multi tasking, though I know many airfields also use fire crew for other jobs close to the fire tender. But that factor alone is likely to reduce airfield overheads significantly as a proportion of total standing costs. The CAA analysis was a good one in terms of objective risk assessment based on empirical evidence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major cost saving for airfield operators by going unlicenced is no fire crew.
Moderator
So they're going to let pilots with no license fly from aerodromes with no license? Sounds prefectly logical and appropriate to me!
Didn't many of us first learn to drive in parking lots?
Well Done CAA...
Didn't many of us first learn to drive in parking lots?
Well Done CAA...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan,
Please stand!
Cumbernauld, for instance, has only air/ground.
To have an ATZ you require a licence and at least an air/ground: or if unlicensed you need a FISO.
That might be what you are thinking of.
North Denes is the only unlicenced airfield with an ATZ, by the way.
Please stand!
Cumbernauld, for instance, has only air/ground.
To have an ATZ you require a licence and at least an air/ground: or if unlicensed you need a FISO.
That might be what you are thinking of.
North Denes is the only unlicenced airfield with an ATZ, by the way.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock:
Sywell, all grass for many years, Sandown.....etc
No problems.
Of course, you could fly in something more modern than a 152 ;-). You'll need to at Strathaven!
Sywell, all grass for many years, Sandown.....etc
No problems.
Of course, you could fly in something more modern than a 152 ;-). You'll need to at Strathaven!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xrayalpha
North Denes is the only unlicenced airfield with an ATZ
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I have been able to ascertain the only real saving will be in the licence fee itself. The proposed change indicates that although a licence will not be required, the airfield operator and instructors will be required to be satisfied that it is safe to conduct training. This includes the need to maintain IER (Fire crew).
We have recently had our aerodrome inspected by the CAA and a few questions were asked about the proposal and what effect de-licensing an airfield may have. Though I didn't ask the questions or hear the answers first hand, I was informed of the following by a colleague:
1). At present an airfield licensed by the CAA which sells fuel, is able to do so without a separate licence from the local council. An unlicensed airfield will have to obtain a licence to sell AVGAS (Jet A is exempt apparently) from the local council. You can bet this will not be free (and is unlikely to be cheap).
2). Many smaller airfields hold events such as fly - ins. As a licensed airfield additional insurance is not required. Operators of unlicensed fields may require insurance for such events, which may be far in excess of the CAA licence fees.
I have heard the an argument over the years (mainly from the LAA members, but not exclusively), that if the airfield were not used for training it would no longer need to be licensed and therefore a cost saving to the members. My personal view is that £2500 split between as few as one hundred people is only £25 a per person: very little when you consider the overall costs of flying these days and a small price to pay for a little bit of extra safety.
We have recently had our aerodrome inspected by the CAA and a few questions were asked about the proposal and what effect de-licensing an airfield may have. Though I didn't ask the questions or hear the answers first hand, I was informed of the following by a colleague:
1). At present an airfield licensed by the CAA which sells fuel, is able to do so without a separate licence from the local council. An unlicensed airfield will have to obtain a licence to sell AVGAS (Jet A is exempt apparently) from the local council. You can bet this will not be free (and is unlikely to be cheap).
2). Many smaller airfields hold events such as fly - ins. As a licensed airfield additional insurance is not required. Operators of unlicensed fields may require insurance for such events, which may be far in excess of the CAA licence fees.
I have heard the an argument over the years (mainly from the LAA members, but not exclusively), that if the airfield were not used for training it would no longer need to be licensed and therefore a cost saving to the members. My personal view is that £2500 split between as few as one hundred people is only £25 a per person: very little when you consider the overall costs of flying these days and a small price to pay for a little bit of extra safety.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes it easier and cheaper and more attractive for flying schools though as they don't have to do the silly "fly off and land somewhere licensed first then go back to base" requirement. That cuts costs for people wishing to learn to fly. That in turn may lead to more pilots / members and hence more revenue for the airfield.....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope never to have to sit in a C150-C152 ever again in my life. Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e. Which applys to every single one I have had the miss fortune of sitting in.
It was purely Neitherthope I was interested in with that criteria I can't see how they comply for normal ****e training aircraft. And the number of folk who have planted it in the hedgerows would tend to prove that.
My fav grass strip is Dornoch but I couldn't bull**** a risk assement for training there.
Who would contact emergency services? err there is always someone walking the dog.
Where is the nearest emergency services.? There is a reserve call out firestation down the road.
Briefing facilitys? There is a shed you can have a pee behind with a map of the beach next to it.
It was purely Neitherthope I was interested in with that criteria I can't see how they comply for normal ****e training aircraft. And the number of folk who have planted it in the hedgerows would tend to prove that.
My fav grass strip is Dornoch but I couldn't bull**** a risk assement for training there.
Who would contact emergency services? err there is always someone walking the dog.
Where is the nearest emergency services.? There is a reserve call out firestation down the road.
Briefing facilitys? There is a shed you can have a pee behind with a map of the beach next to it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a big misconception regarding flight training from unlicensed airfields. Take the example of a gliding club or micro club, which is conducting flight training anyway. Many of these are unlicensed, have full planning permission and have been doing flight training for many years. The micro club could add a VLA version of its existing 3 axis training fleet and start doing the “GA” PPL alongside its existing micro NPPL. The number of sites, which could choose to do this, is quite large. The extra cost of doing this is just the cost of the aircraft and maybe an extra qualification for the existing instructors.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this stuff looking out the window at my wifes Champ parked in the side field {on skis} makes me wonder how Britain, the nation which got GA going{Moths, Avians et all} ever got itself buried under such a pile of totally stupid regulations. I have taught folks to fly on floats, skis from all sorts of places from the back forty on the farm to a lumber road in the bush to the nations Capital airport.{some of these kids are now 747 Captains, so I gues it worked} The history of fire trucks and crash crews at civy airports in Canada makes for interesting reading, no lives saved, lots of foam squirted on aircraft already burning , for what? like airport security it gives the illusion of safety.There is a legal case going in Canada right now regarding Provinces trying to regulate aviation, in Quebec the Ministry of Ag want to tell us if we can land our aircraft on our own properties, we are all praying that COPA wins or we may be headed down the same road as the UK. As an end note, a few years back a "new Canadian" hired by the feds {to fill a quota no doubt} sugested that all water landing areas should have bouys marking the landing zone and a windsock, at the time my youngest was flying floats for an Indian band, she pointed out to this twit that in her area there were over three thousand lakes!Turns out he had never been further North than 200 miles from the US border. sounds like your Feds are even more out of touch with the real World than our bunch.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The broader picture Rod is people doing exactly what you have said BUT in their own aircraft as is often the case with Micro's. Now that it is feasible to do it in permit aircraft , that will become the norm in the future.
In the past the instructor was tied to a school on a licenced airfield and they had control . Overnight the instructors effectively have the choice to become freelance.
This then becomes a whole different ballgame with ab initios rubbing shoulders with enthusiasts from day one and not being treated as meal tickets.
The take up rate will be much higher as will the amount of people that keep their licences because they won't be stifled by the pay through the nose syndrome that over regulated flying schools impose.
It has to be wonderful news for all recreational pilots as it will swell the numbers in time and lead to a thriving aircraft industry and give us a bigger voice in the overall picture of top heavy legislation.
In the past the instructor was tied to a school on a licenced airfield and they had control . Overnight the instructors effectively have the choice to become freelance.
This then becomes a whole different ballgame with ab initios rubbing shoulders with enthusiasts from day one and not being treated as meal tickets.
The take up rate will be much higher as will the amount of people that keep their licences because they won't be stifled by the pay through the nose syndrome that over regulated flying schools impose.
It has to be wonderful news for all recreational pilots as it will swell the numbers in time and lead to a thriving aircraft industry and give us a bigger voice in the overall picture of top heavy legislation.
Moderator
I hope never to have to sit in a C150-C152 ever again in my life. Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e. Which applys to every single one I have had the miss fortune of sitting in.
It seems to me that your opinion must differ from the 29000 or so people who bought one, including me, 23 years ago. After 2700 hours in mine, plus a lot of hours in others (including a delightful STOL 150HP taildragger on skis just last weekend), you could not get me to part with mine. It has been hangered here at my home for over 20 years now, and with 100% dispatch reliability, is there whenever I need it. It serves the community with 10 to 20 flights a year to support emergency services, and searches.
As for the apparently (to me) overly restrictive regulations, which seem to govern UK flying (and I know little more about them, than what I read here), it seems to me that the government elected by the people has imposed these regulations on the people. I completely agree with Clunkdriver, and really appreciate our freedom to fly in Canada. My plane lives in the back 40, has landed on that lumber road, and regularly at the nation's capital airport, as well as many other facinating places! With the permission of the landowner in respect of private property, and otherwise as appropriate for public property, I'm free to land where I want, when I want, and if training is a part of that, so much the better! I landed on 5 different frozen lakes last Sunday, as well as my home runway, and two public airports...
Ahhh, life is good, and Cessna 150's are a part of that!
Oh, and a proper cleaning, airing out, and air freshener, are a whole lot more cost effective, than a whole new plane!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok out of the 29000 airframes the 45 that I have flown have been
Maybe you have the only good one, outa 29000 there has got to be one thats not smelly. And if you are a PORG the cramped won't be a factor and being in a cold country will give you an advantage on the performance.
UK they have all been thrashed to death crashed and generally abused from the day they entered the shores.
I bet your one is a lovely machine which has had more TLC and proper handling compared to your average C150. Its been in a hangar for the last 20years which not alot of them have had the benefit of.
Give me a tomahawk any day. Smelly i will grant you, but climbs better and tons of room.
Under powered, cramped, smelly heaps of ****e
UK they have all been thrashed to death crashed and generally abused from the day they entered the shores.
I bet your one is a lovely machine which has had more TLC and proper handling compared to your average C150. Its been in a hangar for the last 20years which not alot of them have had the benefit of.
Give me a tomahawk any day. Smelly i will grant you, but climbs better and tons of room.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evil bob I think you are over stating the case somewhat.
If the Avgas facility meets the CAa requirements - which of course it must then local authority approval is pretty much a 'given'. My local authority 'sells' a licence for quanties over 50,000lts (should be enough!) for £114 per annum.
The insurance issue is interesting = ask your insurer whether as a licensed airfiled you are covered for a major fly-in, the naswer will be somewhat similar to the answer you get from the CAA. The prospect of additional revenue is irrestible. Both the CAA and insurers will state this is an exceptional activity - and so not covered by the usual arrangements. Having been involved in this a couple of times the answer is to categorically stated that whatever artifical criteria they apply will not be exceeded (the CAA number is IIRC 200 movements so expects the insurers to follow suite).
Overall the airfield simply has to pay a little less money, effectively for nothing. Will it change the world? no, but it is a useful improvement.
If the Avgas facility meets the CAa requirements - which of course it must then local authority approval is pretty much a 'given'. My local authority 'sells' a licence for quanties over 50,000lts (should be enough!) for £114 per annum.
The insurance issue is interesting = ask your insurer whether as a licensed airfiled you are covered for a major fly-in, the naswer will be somewhat similar to the answer you get from the CAA. The prospect of additional revenue is irrestible. Both the CAA and insurers will state this is an exceptional activity - and so not covered by the usual arrangements. Having been involved in this a couple of times the answer is to categorically stated that whatever artifical criteria they apply will not be exceeded (the CAA number is IIRC 200 movements so expects the insurers to follow suite).
Overall the airfield simply has to pay a little less money, effectively for nothing. Will it change the world? no, but it is a useful improvement.
Moderator
Yes, I quite like Tomahawks as well, and were my operating realities very different, would be quite pleased to own one. There are seven distinct characteristics of the Tomahawk which make it less desirable for operation in the type of flying common in my part of the world:
Low wing - less opportunity to operate on taxiways and runways with high snowbanks, particularly when narrow (common).
5.00-5 main wheel tires - get stuck in soft ground more easily
High tail - reduces the effective soft field capability of the aircraft, you can't "drag it off" with the same confidence as a low tail aircraft.
High tail - much harder to inspect, and clear snow from.
Not a candidate for a STOL kit - reduces operational choices.
Harder to load stuff in and out of - can't remove/fly with door off.
Not eligible for operation on Mogas - costs me a lot more money to fly in Avgas, and un-necessarily pollutes the environment horribly
The Tomahawk is a great plane for "temperate", hard surfaced places, not so much for a lot of Canada - particularly the "unlicensed" aerodromes.
Low wing - less opportunity to operate on taxiways and runways with high snowbanks, particularly when narrow (common).
5.00-5 main wheel tires - get stuck in soft ground more easily
High tail - reduces the effective soft field capability of the aircraft, you can't "drag it off" with the same confidence as a low tail aircraft.
High tail - much harder to inspect, and clear snow from.
Not a candidate for a STOL kit - reduces operational choices.
Harder to load stuff in and out of - can't remove/fly with door off.
Not eligible for operation on Mogas - costs me a lot more money to fly in Avgas, and un-necessarily pollutes the environment horribly
The Tomahawk is a great plane for "temperate", hard surfaced places, not so much for a lot of Canada - particularly the "unlicensed" aerodromes.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye the old mark ones are better with the big wheels on scotlands beaches
All the points are very true.
There is nothing of that class that really sparks my interest apart from the tommy.
Quite looking forward to getting my hands on the new piper cadet made in eastern europe. From what i have seen it might be quite good and points 3,4 and 6 will be off your list.
All the points are very true.
There is nothing of that class that really sparks my interest apart from the tommy.
Quite looking forward to getting my hands on the new piper cadet made in eastern europe. From what i have seen it might be quite good and points 3,4 and 6 will be off your list.