Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
By Ibra
#1860865
PPR is permission to visit? an option to visit? not some mandatory requirement to visit?

There is something called “VFR bimbles” where people rarely crash, at least according to stats (and even if it happens it’s none of anyone else business, if pilot cares that someone should know about his crash better way would be to call for basic service? if he cares people someone should know about exact position a better way is getting a radar squawk & service?), however, sometimes people will randomly fly where the wind is blowing not talking to anyone, change plans in last minute, have delays, slow lunch, it’s called liberty while minding your business, usually going low & slow !
By malcolmfrost
#1860866
In practical terms, why is light aviation treated so differently from normal, earthbound life! I frequently jump on my bike go to a T junction and then turn left or right. I might be gone for 4 hours and could be anywhere within 400 square miles. If I fall off into a ditch and lie there undiscovered for weeks no-one has a clue where I am! My flightplan sometimes consists of a scribbled note next to the kettle saying " gone for a ride".
I certainly haven't rung a cafe to ask if they've got cake and they wouldn't ring my wife to ascertain whether I left home and to initiate overdue action! I've been out and my planned cafe was shut so I found another.
:D :D :D
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1860868
skydriller wrote:
malcolmfrost wrote:What twisted rationale do they give?


Well, Id take a wild guess that the following might have something to do with it:

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=105334&hilit=Infringement+research

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=119209

As someone said on another thread : the law of unintended consequences?

Regards, SD..


Exactly that. "My flying became much more relaxed and fun again" was a comment I got in the pub last week.
By Ibra
#1860875
malcolmfrost wrote:In practical terms, why is light aviation treated so differently from normal, earthbound life! I frequently jump on my bike go to a T junction and then turn left or right. I might be gone for 4 hours and could be anywhere within 400 square miles. If I fall off into a ditch and lie there undiscovered for weeks no-one has a clue where I am! My flightplan sometimes consists of a scribbled note next to the kettle saying " gone for a ride".
I certainly haven't rung a cafe to ask if they've got cake and they wouldn't ring my wife to ascertain whether I left home and to initiate overdue action! I've been out and my planned cafe was shut so I found another.
:D :D :D


While parking at LaRochelle once, I heard someone calling on RT "PC12, 4pob, VFR to LaBaule, no flight plan", ATC asked 2 times to comfirm if he had a flight plan and if he wishes to have one? he said "no thanks, no work just taking friends to have fun", ATC replied "happy life" and gave him taxi instructions, I think they were looking to get lost or just ditch somewhere in that trip :lol:
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860876
Ibra wrote:if pilot cares that someone should know about his crash better way would be to call for basic service?


The ICAO international way to do this is file a flight plan... but of course doing that in the UK wont work. :roll:
Ibra liked this
By pullup
#1860915
skydriller wrote:
Ibra wrote:if pilot cares that someone should know about his crash better way would be to call for basic service?


The ICAO international way to do this is file a flight plan... but of course doing that in the UK wont work. :roll:


Why not?
User avatar
By Rob P
#1860921
Because the onus is on the pilot to appoint a responsible person to notify the authorities, the planned destination is under no obligation to do this, unlike the rest of Europe.

This is why there is no requirement to close a flight plan at a UK destination.

Rob P
By pullup
#1860929
Rob P wrote:Because the onus is on the pilot to appoint a responsible person to notify the authorities, the planned destination is under no obligation to do this, unlike the rest of Europe.

This is why there is no requirement to close a flight plan at a UK destination.

Rob P


We are going round in circles. Please see the other thread on closing flight plans where it is explained (with a reference) that the destination “ATC” are required to take overdue action. That’s part of their remit no matter whether it’s A/G AFISO or ATC.

The nominated person is only required for non manned airfields.


https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... l#ENR-1.10

Para 1.10.2 and 1.9.1
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860931
We are going round in circles.


Yes, you are.

Because you are not talking about Flight Plans.
By pullup
#1860933
skydriller wrote:
We are going round in circles.


Yes, you are.

Because you are not talking about Flight Plans.


Yes I am. Sorry I cannot help you any more.
By JodelDavo
#1860954
pullup wrote:
We are going round in circles. Please see the other thread on closing flight plans where it is explained (with a reference) that the destination “ATC” are required to take overdue action. That’s part of their remit no matter whether it’s A/G AFISO or ATC.

The nominated person is only required for non manned airfields.


https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... l#ENR-1.10

Para 1.10.2 and 1.9.1


Now please tell us all how an A/G aerodrome that chooses not to pay the ridiculous NATS AFPEX charge to receive details of flight plans is going to know when an aircraft has filed a flight plan to the aerodrome and hasn’t called us by phone. We generally find out when they’re coasting in.

PPR Monsieur? Non.
PeteSpencer liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860958
JodelDavo wrote:
pullup wrote:
We are going round in circles. Please see the other thread on closing flight plans where it is explained (with a reference) that the destination “ATC” are required to take overdue action. That’s part of their remit no matter whether it’s A/G AFISO or ATC.

The nominated person is only required for non manned airfields.


https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... l#ENR-1.10

Para 1.10.2 and 1.9.1


Now please tell us all how an A/G aerodrome that chooses not to pay the ridiculous NATS AFPEX charge to receive details of flight plans is going to know when an aircraft has filed a flight plan to the aerodrome and hasn’t called us by phone. We generally find out when they’re coasting in.

PPR Monsieur? Non.


Aerodromes that were unable to or no longer wished to monitor and respond to AFTN traffic addressed to them used to have their ICAO designator deleted.

That’s surely the point isn’t it?

I agree with you about AFPEX charging but there is little point in having an ICAO designator if you can’t discharge basic flight following functions associated with signal traffic addressed to it.

Another area of GA where the U.K. seems to be slipping into third world status.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860962
Cub wrote:Aerodromes that we’re unable to or no longer wished to monitor and respond to AFTN traffic addressed to them used to have their ICAO designator deleted.

That’s surely the point isn’t it?

I agree with you about AFPEX charging but there is little point in having an ICAO designator if you can’t discharge basic flight following functions associated with signal traffic addressed to it.


Or alternatively, there are hundreds of aerodromes around the world with an ICAO designator that probably dont know what AFPEX is, let alone use it. But funnily enough if you dont close your flight plan you filed to such an aerodrome, someone will phone the number you put in the flight plan, then come looking for you... because that is how flight plans are supposed to work.

Some would argue that "flight following" is what should be happening rather than "basic service"... :wink:

(How about that for thread drift :shock: )

Regards, SD..
By JodelDavo
#1860969
Cub wrote:
JodelDavo wrote:
pullup wrote:
We are going round in circles. Please see the other thread on closing flight plans where it is explained (with a reference) that the destination “ATC” are required to take overdue action. That’s part of their remit no matter whether it’s A/G AFISO or ATC.

The nominated person is only required for non manned airfields.


https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... l#ENR-1.10

Para 1.10.2 and 1.9.1


Now please tell us all how an A/G aerodrome that chooses not to pay the ridiculous NATS AFPEX charge to receive details of flight plans is going to know when an aircraft has filed a flight plan to the aerodrome and hasn’t called us by phone. We generally find out when they’re coasting in.

PPR Monsieur? Non.


Aerodromes that were unable to or no longer wished to monitor and respond to AFTN traffic addressed to them used to have their ICAO designator deleted.

That’s surely the point isn’t it?

I agree with you about AFPEX charging but there is little point in having an ICAO designator if you can’t discharge basic flight following functions associated with signal traffic addressed to it.

Another area of GA where the U.K. seems to be slipping into third world status.


Cub, the ICAO code is given out by ICAO when an Aerodrome is licensed. AFTN or AFPEX status isn’t relevant as far as I remember when I were working for the feds. There are also several private aerodromes that are not licensed, never have been but have ICAO Designators. Maypole for example. Go figure that one out! Same with company call signs.

IF NATS weren’t such money grabbers, I’m sure that everyone who could have access would still have access to the AFPEX system, but many small licensed aerodromes refused to do NATS work for them AND be charged a silly amount to please NATS shareholders. It was working very well until they started charging.

Meanwhile, in France…… :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Edited to add that GEN 2.4 is waaaaaay out of date with who’s connected to AFS and who isn’t.) :shock:
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860973
[quote="Cub wrote:Some would argue that "flight following" is what should be happening rather than "basic service"... :wink:


A Flight Information Service contains an Alerting Service. This is a basic ICAO requirement for all states.

A Basic Service is a peculiar U.K. bastardisation of a FIS but still requires incorporation of an Alerting Service.

An A/G operator does not provide any form of ATS service including FIS or a Basic Service so has no obligation or in many cases any understanding of an Alerting Service but MAY be the nominated person at an aerodrome with a responsibility for the monitoring and actioning of signal traffic associated with that location’s AFTN address, in which case they need to be suitably trained and equipped.

Summary: you don’t require ‘flight following’ to generate an alerting service.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13