[Bob Upanddown]

The flip side to all of this, is that if the airfield is not commercially viable, then its prime real estate for house builders. I'd prefer to see the airfield survive with GA retaining access to the facilities offered, accepting that its inevitable that we will have to pay a greater proportion of the costs than we do today and fit in around the jet traffic.

But why is it that all "airports" seem to follow the same logic?
Airport is not making enough money > need to make more money > ban or otherwise discourage light GA??

I have heard so many people trying to support this logic using arguments such as “if I reduce landing fees and attract more traffic, I will need more staff so my costs go up and my profit goes down”

All airports seem to think that the only way out is to attract fewer aircraft who will pay more (on the basis one PA-28 costs the same for ATC as a G5 or a 747). So, to make the business case, maybe we do need to stop asking for £5 landing fees, put up and pay more?

[chevvron]

chevvron, I wonder if you have lost context again?

The initial letter from Biggin was about difficulties of ATC integrating traffic. Here you are suggesting their ATZ should be reduced even further to 2nm?

Yes.
It's your fault ; you pointed out the fact that runway 11/29 had been wfu and it's existence was the reason they had the larger ATZ
They are no longer entitled to a 2.5nm ATZ.

[chevvron]

Aha - that makes perfect sense now, I didn't realise it was only the bit between the threshold markings at each end , I thought perhaps they took into account the paved areas at the beginning and end - well you live and learn.

So next time i'm accused by Biggin of FLYING OVER THE VILLAGE I can remind them there ATZ is not the correct size

No 1820m is the total paved length.

[chevvron]

Ref some of the other comments. It's a shame that a workable comprise can't be found for the flight schools on the field. I thought there was an agreement for the schools to use Redhill for circuit training, which seems reasonable. Biggin is a good airfield to train at, especially for those people that are looking to pursue a career as a commercial pilot, as they get the experience of dealing with ATC and mixing with commercial traffic, but it is probably not the best place for 10-15 hours of circuits as part of the initial PPL training.

Circuit training at Redhill is limited by the regular waterlogging of the grass runways and the fact some schools may need a licensed runway for circuits.

[chevvron]

Approach Control in Class G is already rather ridiculous.

But it's also a type of ATSOCA (Procedural Control)

[Dave W]

I didn't realise they'd closed 11/29 as I never go there.
In that case, how come they still have a 2.5nm radius ATZ when they're only entitled to a 2nm radius one? Has anyone told the CAA?

Has the number of runways ever affected the dimensions of an ATZ?

When I did my exams in '84 (at Biggin Hill, as it happens - so I'm sad to see GA getting even further squeezed out), ISTR then that the ATZ sizing was based only on longest runway length, as the Air Law material says it still is today.

Anyway, the break point between 2.0nm and 2.5nm ATZ sizing is 1850m, so it would seem that the Biggin strictly shouldn't have had the larger ATZ anyway, for that reason. I wonder why it does?

[CloudHound]

I wouldn't worry about Biggin's future viability. The reason for the letter is because of the 21% increase in business aviation.

Also, I wouldn't worry about Redhill becoming a housing estate; the Local Authority now favour a cheaper alternative i.e. no motorway spur link road.

Problem for Redhill is the lack of a hard main runway. The battle for that was lost years ago. The debacle over the straitened taxiway has left them with a "not runway" for which retrospective planning permission was refused at committee 16 to 1.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any hangarage space available for a training fleet. If there was I'd be tempted myself.

[reubeno]

But why is it that all "airports" seem to follow the same logic?
Airport is not making enough money > need to make more money > ban or otherwise discourage light GA??

Because the commercial traffic pays a lot more per landing.

A gross over simplification ... but I think Biggin costs in the region of £7m a year to operate (roughly £600k / month or £20k / day). In January there were about 1,600 GA movements (schools & private), which would work out at about £375 per landing, to break even.

In the same month there were about 1,000 commercial movements. So with GA paying £30 per landing (about £50k for the month), the commercial traffic has to cover the rest i.e. £550k (which works out at about £550 per landing on average for jet traffic which is probably in the right ball park).

I know this ignores all the other revenue streams, from property, parking etc, but I don't think the ratios are that far off i.e. the jets paying 20x light aircraft.

The movement figures are reviewed in the monthly meetings and there is a continued growth in jet traffic which month over month typically comes in above budget. The private owners also do quite well, frequently also coming in above the budget. The group that is suffering is the flying schools. Circuit training makes up about 2/3rds of the GA movements (about 1,000 out of the 1,600 in January) and with the restrictions in place has been failing.

Anyway ... I'm not trying to defend the airport, but with the exception of the way the schools are being treated, its not a bad field to be based at, given the facilities provided.

It is possible that all GA will be pushed out one day, but so far it looks like there is the capacity and a desire to retain GA, with the exception of the schools conducting circuit training. Fingers crossed.

[Dave W]

That's understood, and it's an "either bizjets or small GA" way of looking at the issue.

It's often correctly noted that this either/or situation doesn't seem to exist in (e.g.) the USA, where both types of GA can apparently be satisfactorily mixed without the same capacity issues arising.

It's often been asked, but not really able to be answered it appears, as to what makes it different over there c.f. over here.

There may be a logical reason why it's different in the UK, I guess. If there is, I'd love to see it articulated dispassionately some day.

[Bob Upanddown]

I think reubeno has been to the same airport meetings as I have. That is the logic they use to substantiate kicking out GA before they have the Jet / Commercial business. To ditch one revenue stream in the expectation of another growing is a gamble and not all airports have won that gamble.

BUT as Dave W says, why can't we mix the two??

[chevvron]

I didn't realise they'd closed 11/29 as I never go there.
In that case, how come they still have a 2.5nm radius ATZ when they're only entitled to a 2nm radius one? Has anyone told the CAA?

Has the number of runways ever affected the dimensions of an ATZ?

When I did my exams in '84 (at Biggin Hill, as it happens - so I'm sad to see GA getting even further squeezed out), ISTR then that the ATZ sizing was based only on longest runway length, as the Air Law material says it still is today.

Anyway, the break point between 2.0nm and 2.5nm ATZ sizing is 1850m, so it would seem that the Biggin strictly shouldn't have had the larger ATZ anyway, for that reason. I wonder why it does?

All covered in my #1590723 above.

[reubeno]

It's often correctly noted that this either/or situation doesn't seem to exist in (e.g.) the USA, where both types of GA can apparently be satisfactorily mixed without the same capacity issues arising.

Not always the case ... in the late 90s / early 2000s, I'd often go to one of a couple of schools at Teterboro airport (KTEB, New Jersey) as it was easy to get to from New York by public transport and provided the opportunity to do the scenic tour down the Hudson and over the Statue of Liberty. Teterboro is comparable to Biggin, in that it is the business jet airport for New York and over time the flight schools shut. I don't think there are any schools there today (although I've not been there for many years so maybe mistaken).

[chevvron]

That's understood, and it's an "either bizjets or small GA" way of looking at the issue.

It's often correctly noted that this either/or situation doesn't seem to exist in (e.g.) the USA, where both types of GA can apparently be satisfactorily mixed without the same capacity issues arising.

It's often been asked, but not really able to be answered it appears, as to what makes it different over there c.f. over here.

There may be a logical reason why it's different in the UK, I guess. If there is, I'd love to see it articulated dispassionately some day.

A lot of US airfields manage to 'shoehorn' in an extra short runway parallel to the main runway for the use of 'light' aircraft eg New Orleans Lakeside, Van Nuys and Orlando Sanford, something which certain UK airports might consider (but they won't do it because they would have to SPEND money tather than pocketing it.)

[Waveflyer]

.......(but they won't do it because they would have to SPEND money tather than pocketing it.)

There are numerous people, businesses, institutions with huge sums of money they would like to invest for a reasonable return. Nothing wrong with expecting a profit.

[defcribed]

That's understood, and it's an "either bizjets or small GA" way of looking at the issue.

It's often correctly noted that this either/or situation doesn't seem to exist in (e.g.) the USA, where both types of GA can apparently be satisfactorily mixed without the same capacity issues arising.

It's often been asked, but not really able to be answered it appears, as to what makes it different over there c.f. over here.

There may be a logical reason why it's different in the UK, I guess. If there is, I'd love to see it articulated dispassionately some day.

Probably because our smaller airports and airfields are privately owned, and the underlying ownership is often land speculation of one sort of other.