Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
#1698370
TheFarmer wrote:
defcribed wrote:
Yakovlevs wrote: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?


Probably, depends how well I know them.

If someone's house represents a private strip, a pub represents an airfield/aerodrome/airport. Do you call a pub before you go?
#1698376
johnm wrote:
Do you call a pub before you go?


Surprisingly often round here if I want to eat :-)


Well yes, if you want maintenance work done (a meal) then you'd probably call ahead to arrange. If you just want a drink (fuel) then not necessary.

Seriously, if the best arguments for PPR people can come up with are that it's polite to call ahead then I really do despair. It's a flipping airport, not visiting Aunt Ethel in Little Whinging.

You need to know about our circuits and noise abatement = put it in the AIP or on your website.

There's something special going on today = issue a NOTAM or put it on your website.

Someone's stacked it and we've had to close the runway = the visitor will find out when he arrives and can divert as required.

It's polite and 'good airmanship' to call ahead = now you're clutching at straws.

You will benefit from our 'quality briefing' = get real.
mmcp42, skydriller, T67M and 1 others liked this
#1698383
defcribed wrote:
johnm wrote:
Do you call a pub before you go?


Surprisingly often round here if I want to eat :-)


Well yes, if you want maintenance work done (a meal) then you'd probably call ahead to arrange. If you just want a drink (fuel) then not necessary.

Seriously, if the best arguments for PPR people can come up with are that it's polite to call ahead then I really do despair. It's a flipping airport, not visiting Aunt Ethel in Little Whinging.

You need to know about our circuits and noise abatement = put it in the AIP or on your website.

There's something special going on today = issue a NOTAM or put it on your website.

Someone's stacked it and we've had to close the runway = the visitor will find out when he arrives and can divert as required.

It's polite and 'good airmanship' to call ahead = now you're clutching at straws.

You will benefit from our 'quality briefing' = get real.


Henstridge, our base, is NOTAM'd closed this week for runway repairs. Henstridge Radio took 5 calls from inbound traffic before midday on Monday, and I gather that it has been continuing all week. Seems like a lot of wasted AVGAS to me. No PPR for Henstridge other than for non-radio a/c.
GonzoEGLL liked this
#1698385
Yakovlevs wrote:Henstridge, our base, is NOTAM'd closed this week for runway repairs. Henstridge Radio took 5 calls from inbound traffic before midday on Monday, and I gather that it has been continuing all week. Seems like a lot of wasted AVGAS to me. No PPR for Henstridge other than for non-radio a/c.


Excellent, it needed it!

Good story too though, which shows that people don't look at NOTAMs. Unfortunately I think people seize on this sort of thing as a reason to require PPR by telephone, rather than addressing the root cause which is people not doing the basics.

There's no danger and it's their wasted money. Perhaps they'll look at NOTAMs in future.
#1698388
defcribed wrote:
Yakovlevs wrote:Henstridge, our base, is NOTAM'd closed this week for runway repairs. Henstridge Radio took 5 calls from inbound traffic before midday on Monday, and I gather that it has been continuing all week. Seems like a lot of wasted AVGAS to me. No PPR for Henstridge other than for non-radio a/c.


Excellent, it needed it!

Good story too though, which shows that people don't look at NOTAMs. Unfortunately I think people seize on this sort of thing as a reason to require PPR by telephone, rather than addressing the root cause which is people not doing the basics.

There's no danger and it's their wasted money. Perhaps they'll look at NOTAMs in future.


But how does it get addressed, though?

If you know that, historically, a large proportion of your inbound don't brief properly, what do you, as an airfield owner, do?
#1698390
The big thing is that Light Aviation should be treated differently to large commercial aviation.

It used to be that maintenance of a Condor on a Public Transport CxA was subject to the same regulation as a 747...
Perhaps this is the trouble with CAA EASA regulation today.
Whereas thousands of paying passengers can support the revenue needs of commercial operators, we’re too few to support the complexities of the CAA and their over worked under supply of people with qualifications, experience, and enthusiasm for what we do.

In Canada I was an Authorised Person, and as such I signed off RPP, PPL, Night, and the occasional Multi Engine and Seaplane rating.
Longer at it, and I could sign off a CPL too.
The candidate could use the new qualification straight away.
I was responsible for ensuring the candidate met the regulatory requirements to hold the licence or rating I was issuing.
Transport Canada then had ninety days to issue the official document following their confirmation of the job I’d done.

Admittedly licensing is simple there, the way licensing used to be simple here when I gained my British PPL in 1974.

The ability of FTO’s to carry out licensing functions using people knowledgeable in aviation would go a long way to alleviate the problems with the CAA.

ICAO licences should be recognised as was an intent by that organisation, with FTO’s given the responsibility for assessing pilots using foreign licenses.
The physical assessment of a foreign pilot with a flight in a school/club aircraft is much more valid than a paperwork exercise by unknowledgeable people in the CAA.
Who knows best about flight training than a FTO?

Negative CAA experiences should be replaced with positive ones through schools and clubs being given the opportunity to regulate the activity they are ultimately responsible for the safety of.

Training is safety.
The habits developed here are the ones that make flying safe, enjoyable, and even legal!
No amount of regulation can be as effective as good training.
Put the responsibility for flight safety in the hands of the people in the (air) field. Make them members of an association that checks on it’s members from time to time to ensure quality is maintained.
The LAA is an association, has a pilot coaching scheme, this is the idea!
#1698391
Requirement for PPR is the most regularly annoying thing for me. As others have said, being able to fly around and then decide to where to land or divert on a whim would be nice. But this isn't a regulatory issue at all, of course. Airfield operators can choose what they require of visitors. I assume there are good reasons for requiring it by phone or email, although if it is a case of controlling number of movements, a simple denial of PPR on the radio would suffice. I don't really see why PPR via radio (assuming radio is active) is not the default (with the expectation it may not be granted).
#1698393
Although not relevant to me any longer:

Revert to definition on my original BoT (pre-CAA) PPL: not 'SEP' but 'SE'. Turbines (including turboprops) , and maybe soon electrics, could be instructor-signed 'differences training' like tailwheel, glass cockpit, etc. Oh, and that BoT PPL explicitly included TMG.

For PPLs, 'Type Ratings' to be not mandatory unless over a sensible MTOM or Vne; including all rotary (helo or gyro). For helo/gyro below these limits, 2-year validation cycle like present SEP.

[I assume all this could be done for flights within UK airspace by CAA Derogation for EASA. Some other things would obviously require either EASA agreement or major change in HMG, particularly Treasury, ideology, so may be completely unrealistic. Latter includes 'joined-up airspace' and 'requirement for CAA (and OfCom) to be seen to make a profit'. :roll: ]
Last edited by kanga on Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rogerb liked this
#1698394
GonzoEGLL wrote:
defcribed wrote:
Yakovlevs wrote:Henstridge, our base, is NOTAM'd closed this week for runway repairs. Henstridge Radio took 5 calls from inbound traffic before midday on Monday, and I gather that it has been continuing all week. Seems like a lot of wasted AVGAS to me. No PPR for Henstridge other than for non-radio a/c.


Excellent, it needed it!

Good story too though, which shows that people don't look at NOTAMs. Unfortunately I think people seize on this sort of thing as a reason to require PPR by telephone, rather than addressing the root cause which is people not doing the basics.

There's no danger and it's their wasted money. Perhaps they'll look at NOTAMs in future.


But how does it get addressed, though?

If you know that, historically, a large proportion of your inbound don't brief properly, what do you, as an airfield owner, do?


Well if the runway is closed, send them away again!
#1698405
More fun? Not easier or cheaper, more fun...

Permanently ground all C172s and PA28s, so that we all *have* to fly something more interesting, and manufacturers of designs younger than 40 years old have a fighting chance of selling aeroplanes to ultra-conservative flying schools.

G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer on Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NickA, T67M, Grelly liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9