End of Landing Fee's in UK

[MR.X99]

Don,t know how we got onto medicals,but thats fine.I noticed doctors have super egos concerned primarily with pulling down $200k+.
I popped in for a NPPL Medical declaration and the guy was clueless and not interested in reading anything at all.I think it meant putting his brain in gear which would of upset his clinical billing quota. Thats what it felt like.

Ended up filling it out wrong anyway.
I,d say we need a medical ombudsman.

[patowalker]

The key issue is not whether he gets specific medical info from your GP, but whether you are excluded from a process that I believe you should be orchestrating.

There may be a misundertanding. The AME would not consult your GP without your knowledge and consent.

In fairness to FAA AMEs, I have heard from older friends with medical issues of the AME suggesting additional tests etc that could be brought to the table in building a better case for Oklahoma City to review and act on.

That is how it works in the UK too, with cases referred to the CAA Medical Department. In my experience, they are very helpful.

[madlandrover]

There is a huge problem with using a FISO for "controlling" airborne traffic: he is not a CONTROLLER.

Exactly, hence why a new category/qualification would need to be created, though that shouldn't be an issue for competent FISOs. It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches. Maybe we could even move on and do it the US way, trusting each other to remain in the hold until the aircraft ahead has reached a certain point on the procedure!

FISOs do of course have no authority over airborne traffic, but they can still request that traffic reports at certain points of a procedure. Just like an ATCO really which is how most training approaches at FIS fields are run. Self reporting and situational awareness make all the difference, meeting a Jetstream taking up the same hold at roughly the same level effectively non-radio makes life a little more exciting than it has to be.

[IO540]

It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches

Yes, but a lot of people in the system find it hard to accept this, philosophically

[coolbeans]

as in typical IFR weather the man in the Biggin tower is doing very little and would be better utilised controlling a procedural approach. This annual billing corresponds with the type of accounting practice seen elsewhere within UK ATC e.g. NATS reportedly want £100k p.a. for a radar feed (which costs them nothing to deliver). So if Biggin wanted to, they could become AFIS or even A/G radio

What are you basing that on, IFR weather (especialy LVPS) can the most complex time to work in the tower, especialy when we lose our ability to enact reduced seperation in the vicinity of the aerodrome.

Exactly, hence why a new category/qualification would need to be created, though that shouldn't be an issue for competent FISOs. It wouldn't necessarily be controlling (OCAS!), but issuing slot times for approaches.

We have this already, its a function of the approach procedural rating, its provided by approach controllers.

You wouldn't save any money by giving FISO's this added responsibility because that would make them Approach controllers and then they would quite reasonably want approach controller salaries.

Maybe we could even move on and do it the US way, trusting each other to remain in the hold until the aircraft ahead has reached a certain point on the procedure!

I dont think the US way would work here, we dont have the vast tracts of airspace required for it.

I'll use EGKB as an example as its the one I know.

The DME arc into Biggin passes through london citys controlled airspace, so if an approach is to be carried out coordination is required with City radar, toss into the mix the limited vertical height available for the hold and you require a couple of air traffic controllers to enable the coordination required.

Granted there are some aerodromes where it would work, but having a piecemeal system is going to confuse an already complicated system.

[IO540]

A piecemeal approach would be a start, and would gradually improve the utility of GA.

Sure it may not work into say Fairoaks (due to LHR proximity) but there are many airfields which do have plenty of Class G, and which are useless (except for the more bold pilots flying DIY GPS approaches) anytime the cloudbase is below about 1000ft AGL.

"IFR" is confusing anyway. No two approach plates are quite the same Pilots deal with this.

Got to start somewhere.

Clearly one needs to find a way to get the approach control (or whatever you want to call it) solved. After that, "all" that remains is for the airfield to find the money to pay for the IAP design .....

[IO540]

The stuff about the USA having more room is an old myth.

[coolbeans]

The stuff about the USA having more room is an old myth.

I dont think thats the case

n my local area (of the US), we have four public airports within a 13 mile radius circle having a published total of 2011 operations on the average day. Within that circle there are also two busy military airports with unpublished traffic volume. FYI. All the airspace within the area has radar coverage for IFR traffic, no Class G..

So it all takes place within controlled airspace with Radar, So the US system would not work here as we have class G and units operating without radar.

Most of the traffic is within an 18 hour day. Using 2300 operations over that period to include the unpublished military traffic, it comes out to roughly two new operations per minute within the 26 mile diameter circle.

I'm wondering how that would compare with the busiest areas of UK, greater London for instance.

I think heathrow does roughly half that over a 24 hour period, throw in London City and Biggin Hill within the greater london area and you'll well outstrip that number, plus the various aircraft transiting the area.

[IO540]

One can't pick out just one element of say US airspace management and transplant it over here.

The US model works because they have a lot of Class E, in which you have to be VMC unless you have an IR and are on an IFR clearance, but they at the same time they have always had a very accessible IR, approach controllers who don't invoice anybody for the service, no Class A below 18000ft, easy CAS transits which are mostly enshrined in law and not subject to which side of the bed the ATCO got off, and finally they do enforce transgressions. Plus they mandate Mode C transponders around big airports. Plus the FAA designs instrument approaches for airports, for free. The whole lot hangs together.

The question is what can be learnt over here which is politically possible to implement.

Not a lot...

One could start with the IR. Over the 10+ years I've been flying, an easier IR has been "just around the corner". Now there is an EASA one "just around the corner" but not deliverable before they first screw most of the private and sub-airline commercial pilots who have IRs already, in a blatent finger-up to the USA. The whole thing is wrapped up in stupid Euro-superior and anti-US politics.

A change of Planning regs to enable the establishment of GA airfields away from towns etc. without creating a risk of them being converted into housing etc. Very hard to do politically and would require real vision, which doesn't exist in UK Govt.

Airspace redesign is another thing but also very hard politically.

Etc.

[Gonzo]

Heathrow does 1350 movements between 0600-2230.

Unless it's snowing.......