Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1719193
I fully appreciate that there is a national shortage of ATC staff and of course they are required to have their statutory breaks and rest periods and this does explain the short term closures we are experiencing.


You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread - that if there is no air traffic it should still be possible to use the airfield!
Tropical John2 liked this
#1719196
Kittyhawk wrote:
2Donkeys wrote:Would Duxford or Fowlmere have been an option, rather than cancelling ?


Possibly, yes, but my friends are the other side of Newmarket, so a fair drive both ways.
The 24hr PNR is published in the AIP and in Pooleys.

I fully appreciate that there is a national shortage of ATC staff ...


I think you are conflating two unrelated issues in the case of Cambridge.

Issue 1: ATC Availability. Not really an issue outside weekends. There are incredibly rare occasions where ATC shortage has forced the odd gap in ops during the week, but these are largely a feature of the past now.

Issue 2: 24 hours PPR. Very difficult to imagine a genuine justification for this. PPR is something of a disease in the UK.
By TopCat
#1719204
In the case of Cambridge, what is it that based pilots are expected to know, that visiting pilots aren't, that makes it ok for the former to operate OOH?

What's it actually like at Cambridge at the weekend? Is it mostly deserted, or is there quite a bit of activity with the UAS and based operators? Are there ground crew available or do the based operators have keys to their hangar?
#1719208
2Donkeys wrote:PPR is something of a disease in the UK.


The CAA could, if they chose, do something about this quite quickly and easily.

Many fans of PPR suggest that it is a requirement of the aerodrome licence. For a non-public use licence, they take the part that says the aerodrome may be used by persons/aircraft with permission of the owner/operator and interpret this to mean that each and every movement must be individually approved via a telephone call.

More sensible people interpret this differently, taking the view that somehow saying "all welcome" (website, flight guides, AIP, etc) covers that requirement for users to have permission.

I am not aware of the CAA going after any aerodrome for letting people fly in without phoning first.

The CAA could just publish a memo saying that it is perfectly ok under the regs for an operator to take an all-welcome stance and thus give a blanket permission by default.

It would not solve it completely (since there are plenty out there who genuinely believe it's a good idea) but it would dispel the myth that it's a CAA requirement.
Kittyhawk, 2Donkeys, MichaelP and 1 others liked this
#1719224
At Fairoaks, you simply fill in an OOH indemnity form after you arrive/before you take off; no PPR required but if you haven't visited before, it's best to phone the FISO before 6 pm to confirm you are aware of procedures as Fairoaks ATZ is partly inside the Heathrow CTR (Class D); no need to contact Heathrow unless you wish to take a short cut through the CTR.
Shortage of FISOs doesn't close the airfield; it simply downgrades to AGCS.
So why can't other airfields adopt a similar system?
Kittyhawk, 2Donkeys, Awful Charlie and 3 others liked this
#1719278
To give some context to the insurance aspect - most aircraft policies will include a standard Out of hours clause ;

The coverage provided by this policy shall not be invalidated as a result of the use, by the Insured, of certain airfields and/or airports out of the notified hours, subject to prior permission having been granted by the appropriate owner and/or operator of such airfield and/or airport.

So the aircraft itself is fine ( as long as they have permission of course ! )

I have known of pilots 'blaming' a bumpy runway for damaged gear/ prop strikes etc , but none that have ever got past the verbal blame stage .....

There may also be snappy bit of wording in the aircraft policy ;

Cover hereon extends to indemnify and waive rights of recourse where required against Airport Authorities / Airfield and/or Landing site owners and arising out of agreements entered into by the insured for the use of the aerodromes/ landing sites owned or operated by the above , subject to the policy limit and policy terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions remaining paramount.

This generally is designed to be more around resident aircraft / hangarage arrangements though - but could be applied more widely.

However in real world terms to get to the bottom of this before landing can be tough - hence PPR - then commits the 'contract' between the aircraft and airfield meaning that the pilot (or their insurers) wont try and sue the strip owner for having a big rut or bump on the centreline !
#1719510
2Donkeys wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:And today (Tuesday 10th Sep) there’s no avgas at Cambridge-or more accurately no operative to dispense it...,

Peter :roll:


Not quite. The issue is a broken bowser, not the lack of staff.


Same result: our member had to abandon his training slot.
Perhaps he meant 'no means to dispense it ' in his email to me.

Is it fixed now? I'm flying tomorrow and options for avgas Mon-Thurs in deepest E Angular are limited.

Peter
#1719514
2Donkeys wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:And today (Tuesday 10th Sep) there’s no avgas at Cambridge-or more accurately no operative to dispense it...,

Peter :roll:


Not quite. The issue is a broken bowser, not the lack of staff.

I'm sure they used to have pumps there years ago; have they gone?
Must have underground storage to replenish the bowser.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8