[skydriller]

Why is PPR a bug-bear? Calling an airfield prior to visiting always strikes me as eminently sensible.

Do you call a car park before you go?

Completely different.
Do you call someone before you call round to their house?

Sometimes you might drop by on the way past an see if they are in?
But do you call Tesco, Asda etc, or a shopping center before you go?

This is why I advocate that aerodromes in the AIP should not be PPR, and an aerodrome that considers itself "open for business" should be in the AIP and not require PPR. This stuff about briefing for circuits could be dealt with if the AIP had VFR approach plates.

PPR should be about private airstrips.

Regards, SD..

[rogerb]

Not all C172s. I loved the old ones before they changed the wing and oh those lovely manual flaps.

[CloudHound]

Agree with just about everything so far.

Can I add AFISO phraseology to the list? When v busy in the circuit their requirement to say so much in so short a time actually gets in the way of an expeditious flow.

Three points to help answer previous gripes:

Hi-Viz clothing was never mandated by the CAA. It was mentioned in the first version of CAP642 Apron Safety Management which is a joint CAA/Industry Code of Practice. Aerodromes seized on it and I too have been told to don Hi-Viz due to CAA rules.

The flip side is that one is on someone else's land and they call the shots. And Hi-Viz isn't mentioned in the latest CAP642 either.

Pilot Controlled Lighting has always been allowed away from licensed/certificated aerodromes. I wrote the NOTAL permitting the introduction a few years ago after sustained pressure from Fairoaks.

The poor take-up, I believe, lies with Accountable Managers being accountable even when asleep at home in bed. They don't want to be first into work and notice a wreck from the night before. Also, having landed, getting out of a secured, deserted airfield can be a tad difficult.

"GPS" approaches to smaller aerodromes is progressing though some might use the word glacial in that connection.

Sywell, Wycombe, Haverfordwest, Kemble and Stapleford are all making progress with another handful waiting in the wings. In fact Sywell may well be approved this year with Wycombe and Haverfordwest not far behind.

[Nomad63]

Sack half the CAA, on the possibly mistaken but currently in favour at my house belief that less suits= less ridiculous rules that even those what wrote em don't understand.

[FlarePath]

Sack half the CAA, on the possibly mistaken but currently in favour at my house belief that less suits= less ridiculous rules that even those what wrote em don't understand.

Be very careful here making statements like that, there may be a lot of huffing & puffing from certain members of the elite clique who may demand to know why you think that

[Human Factor]

Either create a UK “experimental” category or allow N-reg experimental over here.

[ls8pilot]

Pre EASA then everything about gliding (licences/certificates, training, airworthiness, aircraft registration, instructor certification etc etc) was managed by the sporting body (BGA) with a couple of staff and some hard working volunteers.

I'm not aware of any accident or major safety breach occurring as a result of this. Costs were low, decisions taken based on experience and common sense, and everything seemed to work in a reasonable manner.

Why not delegate all issues concerned with SEP below a certain weight and NPPL licences to the LAA (or some new GA sporting body) & get it out of government regulation entirely?

[Bob Upanddown]

Hi-Viz clothing was never mandated by the CAA. It was mentioned in the first version of CAP642 Apron Safety Management which is a joint CAA/Industry Code of Practice. Aerodromes seized on it and I too have been told to don Hi-Viz due to CAA rules.
The flip side is that one is on someone else's land and they call the shots. And Hi-Viz isn't mentioned in the latest CAP642 either.

Absolutely correct. But an argument you will never win as the person asking you to wear hi-viz is under instruction from someone who firmly believes that the regulations says you must wear it and, apparently, it is a myth perpetuated by the CAA themselves.

If PPE is all about safety, then based on the fact that I have seen many injuries from heads being hit on bits of aircraft but never seen anyone hit by an aircraft on the ground, around aircraft we should all wear hard-hats.

[T67M]

Don't give them ideas, @Bob Upanddown !

[imperialsam]

This is why I advocate that aerodromes in the AIP should not be PPR, and an aerodrome that considers itself "open for business" should be in the AIP and not require PPR. This stuff about briefing for circuits could be dealt with if the AIP had VFR approach plates.

Yes! It seems to work fine in France, which as far as I know is not awash with unbriefed pilots joining circuits in the wrong direction or flying straight through the glider launch zone or expecting fuel during the fire crew lunch break or whatever. At least no more than in the UK.

No doubt there are a few who don't bother doing any sort of briefing, but requiring everyone else to have to phone a number to prove we've read the AIP (otherwise we wouldn't have found the number) in order to be allowed to visit an airport is surely not the best solution. Could we not assume that most people will act responsibly and sensibly, and then use the regulations to deal with those who flagrantly don't?

I do get the "it's just a phone call" argument, and agree that it's not massively onerous. But it is yet another job to be done and a distraction when I'd rather be focusing on more important preparation for the flight. I also like the idea that I might call in somewhere else either on a whim or because I desperately need the loo or whatever. With PPR you can't even have another coffee in the clubhouse before you set off as it will screw up the ETA you gave when you PPRed.

None of this precludes having PPR at strips and other private or unlicenced airfields, which is absolutely fair enough.

[jerry_atrick]

This has been touched on, but I thought I would make it explicit. Reverse the rule that prevents the CAA returning to uncontrolled airspace the controlled airpace no longer required by some of the airports (either through fabrication or their forward projections that simply didn't materialise).

[Bill McCarthy]

PPR has a lot to do with protection against the injury claims herberts. We are denied the use of a superb hard runway WW2 aerodrome because the farm insurance rep says no, on the grounds that if someone landed, ground looped say, and ran into a straw bale, a cow or whatever, off the runway damaging the aircraft and occupants, then it would conceivably be open to a claim.

[foxmoth]

GAFLYER wrote

No LAA types available for rent... the rentals tend to be the traditional Cessnas and Pipers. Some say the LAA are more fun than the Cessnas/Pipers!

Not sure what you were saying here but if you are saying LAA types are not available to rent they are now available to rent, not sure how many owners have taken advantage of this yet as it only came in last year but we have an aerobatic biplane on a permit at a pretty good price, lancashirebarnstormers.co.uk

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not all C172s. I loved the old ones before they changed the wing and oh those lovely manual flaps.

Only so long as they are banned from use in flying training.

G

[foxmoth]

Some say the LAA are more fun than the Cessnas/Pipers!

I would say that not ALL LAA aircraft are more fun than Cessnas/Pipers, probably only 99% of them