Biggin Hill Airport To Cut Light Aircraft Activity- Cuts ALL training
 

Biggin Hill Airport To Cut Light Aircraft Activity
March 12, 2018 Cllr. Neil Reddin

From https:// hayesandconeyhall. org. uk/2018/03/12/biggin-hill-airport-to-cut-light-aircraft-activity/

Biggin Hill Airport has informed its landlord Bromley Council that they are actively looking to reduce the overall volume of light aviation at the Airport.

They anticipate that light aviation movements will decline from approximately 35,000 movements annually to around 12,000. In order to achieve this reduction, we understand that the Airport have now served notices to terminate the leases of the resident flying schools, with informal discussions going on for some time now, and with the Airport already having the agreement of nearby light aviation aerodromes, Redhill, Surrey and Damyns Hall Farm, Essex, to accept these businesses should they choose to relocate.

The Airport also said that this was a difficult decision for them to take given the longstanding nature of some of the training schools, but that they are no longer able to mix a high volume of light aviation with growing business aviation whilst maintaining high levels of customer service and all importantly, flight safety.

For the avoidance of doubt and for clarity, the Council has stressed that the Lease and the controls within it, including the Noise Action Plan, remain in place and are not affected by the Airport’s decision.

Residents living under existing light aircraft flight tracks, particularly in and around Keston, should notice the reduced volume of aircraft fairly quickly as the changes come into effect over the next 6 months or so with related training flights stopping.

In terms of overall movement numbers, the Airport envisage that in this time period aircraft movements will decline from around 50,000 movements per annum to somewhere around 30,000 movements per annum.

And when the next recession comes around, and the Bizjet business goes slack...let them eat cake.

These flying schools are more than welcome to relocate to Charleville-Mézières (LFQV) in NE France where investment is taking place for extra light GA activity! Plenty of airspace around there too..

Cheers :cool:

What an incredibly short sighted view...... only in Britain ?? I thought Redhill was under threat of closure. Out of the frying pan into the fire??

Just a month or so ago, they issued a statement saying they were committed to GA.... I don't understand why they are not honest and say why they want us out!

I'd like to believe that jets are MUCH more noisy than SEPs or even MEPs - so it can't be noise!

These movement numbers are VERY low... In fact they're only slightly higher than Schiphol gets in a month, but spread over the whole year!! Schiphol still accepts GA (albeit a little pricey handling charge...) - Southend copes perfectly well, as does IOM, Gloucester amongst many others - why can't Biggin Hill do it?

Business aviation counts as GA as well.

cos they don't want to...!

Unlike Biggin, Schipol has a plentful supply of runways, several of which are in use at any one time, and they seem to have added another runway every time I've been there.

A couple of parking slots for anyone @ Duxford if interested......

American airfields mix light aircraft and biz jets no problem. I reckon this is sheer bloody snobbery; it's not the Biggin I grew up with, nor did Will Curtis.

Haha - so true.. I often hear from people who fly commercially there that they spend longer on the ground getting to the runway than in the air coming back to the UK. But if you land on their "GA" runway you still share it with a large number of jets, and they fit you in very easily without any issues!

Biggin Hill did have several other runways... 29/11 until very recently, Charlie used to be a runway, and there were several grass runways there at one point too! When I was training, 29 would frequently be in use at the same time as 21, without any issues. I don't think that's the issue, the issue is that Biggin seems to think that the 20 or 30 jets they get on a busy day don't mix with the likes of SEP and MEPs.

Even with a single runway, Gatwick handles this number of movement per hour at their peak, not per day!

So yes, I am a little upset about the loss of "light" GA at Biggin Hill... I feel as though now people in the South and South-East of London only have Fairoaks (also under threat I heard and no IAPs), Thurrock (no IAPs), Blackbushe (no IAPs), or fly out of Southend who also have hard runways and IAPs (and still welcome light GA).

The only other options who still accept GA, are Lydd, Shoreham (who currently doesnt have IAPs due controller staffing), Southampton, Cambridge or Oxford which have hard runways and IAPs and none of these are particularly close to London...

(hard runways are important due to wet weather, lights are important because some of us land at night, and IAPs are important because some of us fly approaches regularly...)

Forget Southampton for anything other than a quick visit. Anything more and the parking (if available overnight) is very expensive, even more if you are forced to use a Handling Agent.

As for a training base, forget it, the flying schools were turfed out about 10 years ago, Biggin just following a trend.

Blackbushe? Very quiet with good access to motorways.

Looking on from a distance, I am afraid this is the correct observation. What drives UK aerodrome operators (who seem to be mostly private venture) to chase off part of their custom is beyond me, though. But aerodromes on the continent, both public and private, appear to be in a similar evolution so there must be some fundamental ground to it.

Maybe just simply another part of the ongoing genocide on individual mobility?
Look at discussion items of the current ideological war against Diesel engines.
Politicians once again want us citizens confined, calm, quiet, shut our mouth.

Death by a thousand cuts
 

Sorry as I am, it come as no surprise that this is happening.
GA and 'clubs' have no clout when it comes to 'business owners' directing their focus on generating income and at the same time being seen to reduce an ongoing nuisance potential.
What surprises me is that the 'users' did not see this coming and stand against it.
The problem is there is no where else for them to go in that general area plus it will just add to the pressure at the surviving airfields. Biggin has always been a 'feeder' unit for aspiring commercial pilots, and as such has been a real service provider to the airlines. I remember when in 1959 Croydon closed, and the Surrey flying club flew out to their new base at Biggin to become the S&K flying club. The numbers of clubs soon flourished due to A:- The Need, and B:- the encouragement from the then new leaseholder to GET PEOPLE FLYING.
The input to both the local economy and the many jobs created was a win win for everyone, and the 'nuisance reporting' factor was mainly from people who bought 'new build' properties in the locality and then complained about the aircraft.
I would like to think that certain well established clubs at Biggin will even now be joining together and pooling their legal resources to fight this unfair and unreasonable situation,because if Biggin falls then GA in this country will be going nowhere fast.

Like golf courses, aerodromes take up a lot of acreage for relatively low density activity. Around here, we have lost three thriving aerodromes, with a fourth on the chopping block, yet I see more golf courses open. And those embedded in the city seem to remain and thrive. Yes, golf courses are less noisy that aerodromes, but perhaps more to the point is what I hear people are willing to pay to play golf!

The owner of the property may choose to exploit the greater value from their investment - that won't be aircraft use! Most of society don't really want an aerodrome, so make no effort to sustain one, and surely won't pay toward it! Who's left to pay - the users....

Once the light aircraft business has gone, they will find in a while that business aviation will not take money by itself, and they will be 'forced' to sell the whole area for house building. Which is probably the long term plan anyway. And Bromley Council, as landlords, will be happy, as they will be able to meet the governments housebuilding requirements, and make some money for themselves to boot.

I am still confused with what you are saying POBJOY, I do understand the words, but fail to see how a business would consider stopping to sell to half its customers, and think it good business decision making.

We are not "freeloaders", we pay for hangar / properties on the airfield exactly as the jets do, we pay around £15 per touch and go, and around £30 per full stop landing, £50 for an ILS approach if not IMC, in addition to outdoor parking charges which I know for fact are higher than hangar charges in many other airfields. So perhaps yes, we don't pay the £110 - £300 per landing of a light jet, or the £2100+ to land an A319, but we also don't cause as much damage to the runway when landing, we don't aggravate neighbours as much as the jets and we can easily fill the gaps in their (let's be honest...) very few jet movements they have each day! (I gave a figure up there saying that the number of movements was roughly what Gatwick handles in a peak hour, that Biggin handles in a day). It isn't by kicking us out that they'll suddenly have another 100 jet movements a day!

I think if you total up all the properties that are "leased" to light GA (inc maintenance facilities), all the aircraft parking outside, all the movement charges for light GA, and all additional services provided to light GA by the airfield, I would be very surprised if this isn't significant income that they will lose. Regardless of the fact that property (leased) prices will inevitably decrease on the airfield due to the sudden higher supply versus demand from the big jet companies.

I do think its a mistake, but I am saddened by the fact that there really is nowhere else to go for someone who frequently flies IFR/IMC/Night/Winter other than Southend, Lydd, Shoreham (but not right now), Cambridge or Oxford - all of which are quite a distance from Central London - Southend might be the best candidate as they have a train station now!

I heard that some of these people were highly intelligent, high powered people (whatever that means) and yet they failed to do a little research to realise that the overpriced house they were thinking of purchasing was actually very close to an aerodrome which had been in nigh-on constant use since 1916... I feel as though these people have absolutely no right to complain about it.

I often cycle up a road across the valley from Biggin Hill - within the circuit - at around 5:30pm on nice evenings and usually stop for a breather at either end.

In that period of about half an hour I'll probably see two or three PA-28s or C152s, maybe an Agusta 109 doing the Battersea shuttle, if I'm lucky a Spitfire, and possibly one or two biz jets. Occasionally one of the light aircraft will do an orbit or two while something big and paraffin-fuelled slides down the ILS.

When I was kid and went up to the airfield spotting, circuit traffic was continuous on a nice day and any executive movements - and there were a few Lears, Citations and the like - slotted in without fuss.

Friend was recently two day's shy of signing the contract selling his house; his purchaser was forced to pull out because the purchaser of his flat had suddenly decided that Crystal Palace FC was too close...

Because last month they thought putting up the costs would deter light GA. Didn't work so now they are being honest as this effectively says they don't want us.

Watch others follow suit as I bet that AOPA and all the other organisations in which we place our faith will be totally powerless to stop this.

AOPA, APPG for GA, GAIN, GAAC - all hot air with no substance.

I think there's a slight bit of confusion concerning just which tenants have been given notice. It's the three flying training operators.

I'm not up to date with how many light a/c are still based at Biggin but from what I read none of those have been served notice.

So, whilst sad for those who will lose out, I don't see this as an attempt to remove all lighter GA residents.

They just don't want those nasty circuit bashing types getting in the way of their more lucrative bizjet clients.
Must do some research to see what wartime RLGs there were near Biggin; obviously none operated by Biggin as it wasn't an FTS.
Gravesend would be ideal as an RLG; bit further north maybe Hornchurch or even Fairlop, but these were all fighter stations too.
Biggin traffic sometimes operated over the Isle of Sheppey when I did Farnborough East; used to annoy Manston Radar (moaned at me about it once; screaming NW wind and their excuse was it got in the way of their IAPs on runway 11!) but there are a couple of strips there that might be suitable (Eastchurch and a.n. other)

Staverton seems to manage very well with a good mix along with a lot of RAF movements and approach training and they handle about 90,000 movements a year I believe...

With all due respect, Gloucester Airport (which I think should be called Gloster in honour of the local planemakers) is not hemmed in by Class D airspace north and south and Class A airspace less than 2000ft above the aerodrome, neither is it at one end of a 'Mig Alley' between the CTR/CTAs of two major airports.

About a month ago, they increased landing fees further for all (very) light aircraft, I heard they also increased outdoor monthly parking prices. It is literally just a matter of time... Falcon Aviation who owns both Surrey & Kent and EFG, also owns both planes operated by Alouette so I would have thought that it would be silly for them to remain at Biggin and keep their training ventures at a different airport. It makes it feel as though it really only is a matter of time...

I heard rumours of complaints of the level of proficiency from some light GA pilots (both private and schools) causing unnecessary stress to controllers at Biggin, now I don't know, but I would have thought that removing the local training facilities will only make it harder for based light GA to get the training / currency checks that they need.

White Waltham offers an instructor or someone who knows the circuits well to sit with you over a cup of tea, help you understand what is expected, and offers to sit in with you whilst you fly the different circuits to ensure that you are proficient (completely free of charge - unless you require serious remedial training).

I am sorry - but how is that relevant? How does the proximity of airspace affect their ability to cope with a very low volume of private jets mixing with a few planes doing circuits? I can understand that because they don't have ATC controllers that are allowed to clear planes for the approach, their constant need to coordinate with Thames for approaches and London Control for outbound IFR clearances is an additional workload - but surely you could hire someone whose job is coordinating for clearances as they do at most international airport (ground or clearance frequency). As mentioned above Gloster seems to be handling this relatively well, they however are able to vector planes for the approach without talking to another controlling unit. (Biggin could do this too, but they'd need to either train their staff or hire staff with the appropriate ratings as well as chat with Thames to go through their outskirt).

Sorry - I'll stop moaning now - I've had my fix!

Biggin Hill is not a charitable trust dedicated to promoting GA, it is a business that seeks to maximise its assets and also appease disgruntled locals. At the same time its landlord does not get any brownie points by 'helping' GA and wants a quiet life from the local 'electorate'. Result; GA/training will always loose out because they have no corporate clout, and no business clout to fight the situation. It is so sad that this proud bastion of fighting for freedom and protecting its country when in peril, has descended into the realms of being a 'profit centre' rather than its traditional home of aviation. Biggin has had a huge input over the years and seen its engineers and pilots making a real contribution to all levels of aviation all over the world. We are hopeless in this country at protecting such places that have nurtured the skills that 'oil the wheels', and the Oaks from Acorns scenario cuts no dice when 'Money' prevails.

As nice as it may be to have a convenient airport from which to fly, and possibly train, it is a costly luxury. If an airport can operate and sustain itself, while keeping user fees low, how nice! But the reality is that airplanes use a lot of costly space for their operations, and GA pilots are generally not eager to pay the costs in proportion to the use of space and services they need.

I fly over golf courses embedded in the city, on really expensive property, and again, lots of space for low density usage. But, from what my golfing buddies tell me, enough people will pay immense sums to use that special purpose property. I hardly see most GA pilot/owners happy to pay tens of thousands annually to be a member, and use the airport facilities, but there seem to be enough golfers to sustain this, and then a hundred a round on top of that!

A local to Toronto flying club is nationally known for being the only Canadian flying club to own it's airport, and it's a beauty. There are fees, and they are reasonable. Most other Toronto area airports have either closed, are forecast to close, or have welcomed in more commercial operations, which squeezes GA into less free and economical operations.

Unless you own the property, you're at the mercy of the person who does - you have to hope that they like aviation more than making money!

Well said Pilot DAR.

The same applies to village shops and pubs in the UK. Very low support for what is an expensive business to run. Nice for a few drinks at weekends but unsupported most of the time because supermarkets sell at a much lower price.

However when the facility closes down everyone complains.

GA is not a charity and if you own land the size of an airfield in the UK it is worth several millions as a housing site.

The other problem is circuit bashing annoys the neighbours.

In the case of Biggin I am sure corporate aviation income far exceeds that of flying training.

Pilot DAR has hit upon a point that many in the GA community are unaware of, that is the costs and burdens of running an airfield. I was ignorant of it myself as a pilot until I actually started working at airports and seen for myself first-hand the challenges facing especially smaller airfields where income is minimal and costs are spiralling out of control due to aging infrastructure and increasing regulatory pressures from Europe.


Firstly, unlike other countries, we do not enjoy state subsidy of airfields, due to the traditionally anti-aviation attitude of the UK Govt. So airfields have to make their own income through charges.


Secondly, airfields have many things they are obliged to provide due to regulatory pressure - RFFS & ATC/FISO, with the associated staff & Firefighting/Tels equipment and maintenance obligations, Navaids, AGL etc. - note of which comes cheap. This all has to be paid for through customers.


Thirdly, most airfields date from WW2, with buildings still in use from that era - ATC Towers, Hangars, ancillary buildings etc. - all of which due to age are requiring increasing levels of maintenance and repair, with an associated increasing cost. Replacements are far too costly to consider. I have first-hand experience of this on a day-to-day basis. Cabling on airfields also dates from WW2 in many cases, causing issues with equipment. Runways, Taxiways and Aprons also require maintenance due to wear and tear, generally an expensive business.


As all these costs have to be met through customer charges, that means landing & parking fees, approach charges, hangarage etc. None of which are popular with us. But without that the airfield simply doesn't run. Smaller airports are stuck in the rut where costs are high but they cannot increase charges for the GA community too much as it will drive away people. It's a difficult business.


Bizjets are something of a cash cow as they tend to be operated by businesses and used by weatlthy individuals who will generally speaking willingly pay the fees asked by airfields. In contrast us SEP-drivers, many of us on an average income with kids to feed and a mortgage to pay, already are under pressure at £130+/hr for a hobby so additional charges on top of that make us baulk as we can't justify it, so we won't pay.


That said, I can't see the logic in Biggin's decision, which is saddening and maddening at the same time. Unless they feel that the light GA is constraining Bizjet capacity, its not justified IMO.

I completely agree and understand what you are saying, but I think that I have spent an average of around £2,000 per year on landing and approach fees at Biggin Hill, this is actually only marginally more than most golf memberships that I know of within the London region (obviously excluding the thousands of pounds worth of kit). I understand that perhaps I fly more than some pilots only doing their 3 monthly circuits (which is still £700ish in landing fees a year). If the issue was that there are lots of people flying very little, perhaps they need to rethink their business model and charge fees to all based pilots rather than charge per landing / approach - similarly to White Waltham where all pilots need to be members of the aerodrome club. So yes, okay we struggle with the £130+ (more like £175+) per hour of flight, but we still pay similar sums to the golfers... Perhaps it is also an economy of scale? Are there more people golfing than flying?

Food for thought!

But that's exactly as Gloucestershire Airport. It's owned by the local councils and has the same issues with noise (Churchdown mainly but all parts of the county moan) and manages to attract both corporate and leisure and previously scheduled services and doesn't do too badly. It's actually expanding with the businesses on site.

I'm sure many prospective airline pilots will be extremely happy with Will's revelation regarding training:

:hmm:

If Will is incapable of managing his airfield such that fairly minimal light GA traffic can fit in with fairly minimal bizjets, perhaps he should consider a career he is more suited for as he's clearly inept at aviation.

I don't know the exact charging structure at Biggin, but it is usual for home based aircraft to not be charged for circuits. So if the circuit is full of 3 or 4 GA types all doing Touch and Goes, then that makes about 40 movements per hour (almost as many as Heathrow.), and the airfield will not be making one penny. Remember that for each circuit there will be at least two 'interactions' with ATC, so they will be extremely busy, and hardly have time to draw breath.
.

I pay for all my touch and goes and landing fees, get charged approach fees when VMC and not under an IFR flight plan. I have been a member of 2 of the 3 clubs at Biggin, and part of several shares / owners that have lent me their planes. Not once have I not paid a landing at Biggin... so i am a bit confused by your statement!

Those 40 movements in the hour would likely generate around £700! Which although not much in the grand scheme of things, it isn't nothing...

ps: Heathrow handles up to 90 movements an hour - maybe you meant Gatwick which handles around 55 at its peak?

Hahaha!! Wouldnt that be great?!?? I think he most likely meant "integrated courses" some of which where airlines offer to lend part of the training (generally type rating) but you pay them back once you start earning so its not really funded by them....!

Hi Alex, I once lived in London, until we moved into the country, so am sorry to hear of the charging system being used by Biggin. Most of the GA airfields north of Birmingham, don't charge fees for resident aircraft T+Gs. Some even allow visiting aircraft up to 7 T+Gs at a reduced rate if they land or take on fuel.
.

Hi Scifi,

I know - it is very sad... But people have to eat! So I respect this.

But when people keep telling me that us light GA don't pay... It does annoy me quite a bit because we do pay, at Biggin its presently around £15 for a touch and go, and £30 for a landing of a PA28 that's definitely not insignificant. Most other airfields that I know of charge £5 per T&G and £10-£15 per landing! As I mentioned above, I think my average payments are around £2k per year to the airfield in landing, approach, and TG fees... Although - it is true that they don't charge UKBA Customs fees when coming back from abroad.

Anyway - its just a shame, because now its just Southend that will accept GA and has IAP, hard runway and lights within an acceptable distance from London...

Southend certainly do not charge £5 for a T&Go or £15 per landing. You seem to have mixed up your argument somewhat by bringing pricing into it.