NATS to charge for AFPEx access at GA aerodromes
 

Have just seen a NATS email sent to my local GA aerodrome advising them that are to be charged for AFPEx access at £1995 + VAT per annum. It indicated that there had been a consultation between NATS & CAA, have anyone in the GA or other communities been consulted?

I accept that the original intent may have been to provide AFTN access to pilots to file their own flight plans, but AFPEx does provide GA aerodromes the same access to both send and receive flight plans and other flight regularity messages, together with the ability to access NOTAMs, particularly the ability to send them. As such it is a valuable flight safety tool.

What happens now if your GA aerodrome cannot afford the £1995? They will get cut off! Back to sending faxes for FPL and NOTAM, are NATS going to fax or phone when there is an incoming FPL? So much for NATS commitment to safety.

What is happening in CAA, giving in one hand (relaxing some GA regulation), then hitting GA in their pockets with their other?

I would echo the same question as my local GA aerodrome "just what I am I getting for the ever increasing aerodrome licence fee?"

I think you'll find NATS are nothing to do with the CAA anymore.. Nothing but greed from a private company who don't give a rats @rse about their GA customers. Just look at the Farnborough CAS debacle...

'Chuffer' Dandridge

Appreciate the long gone separation of NATS from CAA, what p****s me off that the CAA has apparently carried out a closed doors consultation with NATS and is now letting them screw the GA aerodromes.

Not just aerodromes - small businesses too. Our local NATS unit have 'demanded' that we use it to book out with since they moved to Electronic Flight Progress Strips which means our local flying club are also subject to the fee.

So we have international airport prices for landings and fuel already and extra fees like this will just cripple them :ugh: So much for the CAA trying to encourage GA:rolleyes:

An e-mail to [email protected] should do the trick, and will elicit any reason why the CAA are apparently agreeing to it..

A tax on flight safety as far as I'm concerned:=

I've written to Martin Robinson of AOPA (as a Club, we're Corporate members - and I'm a personal member too). I look forward to his response.

When I responded to the e-mail telling us about this unaffordable charge, I did get a sympathetic response from the person at NATS, so maybe we'll get a dispensation for small not-for-profit clubs like ourselves. Our AFPEx usage probably isn't much more than a busy private pilot (who will continue to get the service for free) but it's invaluable for us to be able to activate flight plans for our members and visitors alike.

I'm exploring other solutions, such as Rocketroute.

TOO

Anyone out there a member of the Airport Operators Association, or have a contact who has access to their GA Committee? If so can it be established what prior knowledge the AOA had of the intent to charge?

The whole issue leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, bearing in mind that GA aerodrome operators in Southern England were encouraged by NATS to sign up for AFPEx due to the impending closure of the Heathrow FBU, which provided AFTN access via FAX for the filing of FPL and related messages.

Presumably the Heathrow FBU closure was a NATS cost saving measure - which they now intend turning into a revenue generating measure by charging for AFPEx access.

Come off it NATS, you want £1995 + VAT every year for an internet connection to the AFTN, which by nature is a flight safety focussed system. Who in NATS gets a salary bonus for dreaming this one up!

It's just ridiculous, as a small flying school, we maybe file a dozen or so flight plans a year, so now NATS want 2 grand a year for the privilege!:eek::ugh:
Well we obviously won't be paying that, there are other still free ways to do it.

I believe that there may be a solution in sight for small outfits like ours that generate less than 20 plans a month. Hopefully NATS will announce this soon.

TOO

The solution should be to encourage electronic uptake. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

You can also use Skydemon. Now available on your iPad.

... and Rocketroute.

The problem isn't in generating flight plans, it's small aerodromes having access to a system that allows them to have an alert to inbound and outbound flights that have filed for their location and being able to activate other pilots' flight plans. So far, a system that enables all this and enables those who cannot justify the cost of a subscription to either Rocketroute or Skydemon to generate flight plans has been provided without charge to the end user. Unlike in the States, in the UK the service provider isn't paid for by the non-flying taxpayer, but by the users (in our case, mostly by the airlines) They have said (and so would I) that they are subsidising GA, hence the hike in charge. My point is that it should be proportionate. I suspect that anything less than the proposed charge is going to cost more to administer than the return would be, so for small users, it will be at no direct cost. We'll pay for it when we go for a ride in an airliner, instead!

TOO

Ref post 5, Tony Rapson, Head of GA Unit, is not the CAA person to contact. A colleague of mine emailed him to express concern and received a very prompt reply offering to forward the email to the responsible person in NATS. I'll post any alternative contact information.

What can we next expect from NATS, a mandatory requirement to carry a contactless debit/credit card if you want a controlled airspace crossing clearance????

As previously indicated, it appears that at the eleventh hour the issue of charging GA aerodromes is being re-considered with the likely outcome that a cap will be applied to permit limited free usage.

Hopefully someone in NATS now understands that it is usual for a consultation process to involve users.

Max 20 AFTN messages sent per day before being charged is the rumour with no limit on incoming messages.
Hopefully this will 'roll over' so if (for instance) you only send 1 message one day you can send 39 the next.

Has anyone received any formal notification from NATS as to the intent to adopt a free fair use policy? I know of a number of people who have contacted NATS to express concern but as yet nobody has received a response to supersede the original letter notifying the intent to charge for AFPEx access.

Have heard from a reliable source that an announcement of a fair use policy will be made next week. Hopefully common sense will now prevail and GA aerodromes will be able to keep their AFPEx connections for flight safety related messages without being lumbered with the proposed exorbitant annual charge.

Good old NATS, after coming up with a fair use policy they have notified a nearby GA aerodrome, which operates well within the fair use policy for only DEP/ARR messages/the occasional FPL and sending NOTAM requests to AIS, that unless they pay up the annual fee they will be cut off next week.

The (AFPEx) lights are going out at least a couple of airfields in central Scotland on Tuesday.

Our airfield was going to be cut off unless we paid up, that is until we asked why some airfield had an extension. The result is NATS backed down and we have another two months.

Due to the cost we will probably terminate the service and let pilots file their own plans.

However, if we did not have the service, would we be notified of incoming aircraft on a flight plan? This question was asked but NATS will not give a direct answer, the implication is that they will but won't admit it.

The same will happen at Peterborough Conington.

We fall well within the limits for less than 20 flight plans per month - sometimes we have none- but because we have a flying school and maintain our own aircraft, we are considered to be "commercial" and therefore making huge amounts of money. Haha

One suggestion from NATS staff on the phone last year was to put our landing fees up to flight planned aircraft to recover the £2,000.
It would solve the problem I suppose as at fewer than 20 flight plans per month we would not need AFPEx because nobody would pay the extortionate landing fees to fly in!

This is what we have been told -

It is not a question of whether we wish to use it.
Of course we do.
Any organisation would wish to retain a service that potentially enhances safety.
It is a question of being unable to pay money that we do not have (and have no prospect of getting) over and above all of the other regulatory costs that are required these days.