Mooney_Driver wrote:
This whole discussion shows that once again it has to be stated that European airports are way too often not looking at themselves as public infrastruture but regard their use as a privilege.
Define “Infrastructure”. Have you ever tried to book a stop at a train station with your private train? It is actually possible but normal you have to book 2 days in advance in Germany (not sure the PPR-time in Switzerland). Or are railways also not regarded as “infrastructure”?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
This is totally contraproductive and also imho a massive safety risk.
Not every inconvenience or price tag is a “safety risk”. If you make it to Colmar, you very likely also would make it to Strasbourg or to Basel. Both are international airports where you can land anytime w/o prior notice. Yes, they are a bit more expensive, but not a safety risk. Just because there are pilots who think “I’m willing to take any risk if I can safe a few bucks” it doesn’t mean that any fee is a safety risk…
Inkognito wrote:
I might have had a stupid idea:You must be allowed to ask for these permissions and they must be required to give you an answer. And flight planning doesn’t necessary result in a flight. So couldn’t you beat them with their own weapons?
How about a service provider like Skydemon asks every single PPR aerodome, every single day, in the name of each of his members, if the if it is available as a diversion. Then incorporate that data and make it available in the planning software.
Theoretically viable?
This is theoretically similar to the obvious solution to the PPR ‘problem’ in the UK.
The terms of ordinary aerodrome licences say that the aerodrome may be used by the licence holder and persons authorised by them. Many in airport management interpret this as explicitly requiring PPR for each and every use, thus effectively telling people that PPR is a CAA requirement. I counter (as do others) that the ‘persons authorised by them’ requirement could be met simply by publicising something (e.g. on the airport website) that says any qualified pilot in a suitable aircraft is authorised at any time. Even this is probably unnecessary – authorising something does not have to be an active process.
There are still a few licenced airfields in the UK which don’t require PPR. The CAA is aware of them and has no problem with them operating the way they do, so the PPR-loving airport manager’s argument is bunkum.
There are still a few licenced airfields in the UK which don’t require PPR
Which ones? other than Fenland who decided to ignore AIP (radio call is enough while non radio need PPR) and maybe Biggin Hill (an outlier as they accept FPL as PPR but don’t mandate FPL for PPR though)
AFAIK, for licensed aerodromes, PPR seems to be CAA requirement, see UK AIP guidance in AD1.1, for unlicensed aerodromes, it’s owner requirement, I never saw licensed aerodrome certificate, so I don’t know how much of it is legally binding for the operator?
It will be good if CAA removes AD1.1, 1.3 guidance? there is no legal text behind it, likely written by some tiny someone who is giving his opinions on how AD should be run
AFAIK that text above is BS. There is no UK CAA regulation demanding PPR. At best the text is a commentary on an existing situation.
One former manager also told me there are two classes of “licensed” in the UK: a private license and a public license. The principal difference is that the latter cannot ban a specific operator who is causing trouble. But maybe this has been merged. I could find out, if anybody cares.
It is however a fact that most European runways are on private land, so the landowner has to explicitly allow people to land there. Usually it is a blanket approval, but he is free to choose, just for fun, to make it individual.
In the UK, and probably most other places even though people rarely talk about it, PPR is largely a condition of Planning (UK term; it is a local govt permission) approval, because a cap was placed on the number of movements, or because PPR (“we have to approve each movement in advance”) was used as a bargaining term in getting the approval. Other causes are a local “little hitler” manager; no shortage of those personality types in GA… And a few are where there is a desire to brief new pilots to some specific danger. Or to collect aircraft registrations where unmanned, due to a fear of landing fee avoidance 
Admittedly this discussion merges the notification/permission requirement for the airport, with the one for immigration/customs. But in the end they are the same thing.
In the UK, the latter is discharged via the GAR form, but obviously you can’t file that while airborne. But… you can land anywhere if you have to. The police sort it out with a phone call. I’ve done it lots of times; there is no trouble, and the police would never detain you for the 4hr GAR PN period.
Some operators love to have the most restrictive view on (commentary, guidance, law)
In France, C+I is 24h PN by default unless the operator decides to arrange to write 2h PN himself but most operators write 24h PN (or don’t write anything)
Peter wrote:
There is no UK CAA regulation demanding PPR
Of course, PPR is not a regulation but still in UK AIP like every bit of c**p any pilot with barley 10h in his logbook tend to talk about like it’s a law (e.g. PEC error, single engine over London, IMCR 600ft…)
Peter wrote:
in the UK, and probably most other places even though people rarely talk about it, PPR is largely a condition of Planning
Yes it’s on big reason, rarely mentioned but again as long as you stay within the allocated number of movements, missing PPR on diversion is not an issue to keep the planning permission? there are not that many aircraft that needs to divert and you don’t need to set 7700 to land in a private airport…
Peter wrote:
Yes but it would really p1ss them off
Basically that is what I meant with fighting them with their own weapons. They make every field PPR and you now have the issue that you need to call each and every one enroute if they’re available as a diversion. Now you turn it around and automatedly ask them each day. Maybe they learn to not abuse that PPR thing and simply put up a NOTAM when they’re closed. Or make a rule that PPR isn’t required for diversions.
I’m not talking about aerodomes where you would actually want to fly to, I meant that just to get that guy out of your hair who tries to tell you that you can’t land on that convenient field right beneath you if you feel that it’s the safest course of action, even without wanting to declare an emergency.
2 questions
1) why are you diverting?
2) what makes you think the law is going to treat you badly, wherever you land, if your only engine fails?
Yes if you are forced to land in some farmer’s field your insurance may have to pay for any crops you damage and you do have to inform the local police and get permission to take off again from that field (if possible) once the engine is fixed.
If forced to land at the nearest convenient airfield, you will not even have to contact the police PPR or not, unless you have entered from outside Schengen in which case you will need to inform the police who in turn will either give you a C;+I number to call or will call them themselves and fill out the necessary paperwork. PN in such a case is irrelevant.
As Ibra has already pointed out, if your next port of call is a port of entry or exit, they would probably let you get on your way there.
But if for instance you have arrived at Colmar, claiming an emergency or due to a diversion and then you want to go straight back to the UK without 24hr PN they may not accept this or on the other hand, they might think we’re already dealing with it they might say no problem and give permission. But there is no guarantee of that. The PN period is simply to allow the rostering and locating of personnel In a cost efficient manner. 24 hours has been chosen as a cover all.
In the scheme of things in the allocation of C+I resources for GA from outside the EU, EEA, Schengen area has a very low priority. You may not like it but that’s the way it is.
Inkognito wrote:
Or make a rule that PPR isn’t required for diversions.
That would be totally open to abuse. You could plan for a customs airport (that you really had no intention of going to) and then divert to the one you really wanted to go to but which doesn’t have any customs facilities (because you heard a strange noise or some other made up excuse).
In reality, if you haven’t yet left the country, you have the option of going to an airport with a shorter notice period. It does mean a further stop, but so be it. If you’ve now entered the country without landing at a customs airport, then call the police and explain your situation. They are probably not too interested in calling out unannounced anyway (once they believe your story).
Ibra wrote:
Which ones? other than Fenland who decided to ignore AIP (radio call is enough while non radio need PPR) and maybe Biggin Hill (an outlier as they accept FPL as PPR but don’t mandate FPL for PPR though)
EGNS/Ronaldsway (while not UK, is listed in the UK AIP) doesn’t require PPR. For years, Gloucestershire didn’t require PPR, and only started doing so because of new management.
Nothing in that AIP text precludes an airport operator from giving blanket permission to any arriving aircraft. There is no regulation stating that an airfield licensed or otherwise must give permission for each individual movement on a case-by-case basis by telephone, it’s just many airfields have decided independently that they require this, despite in many instances the whole idea being a bit silly.
