Isn’t this airport specific rather than country? At Avinor airports (nearly all commercial airports), there are take off fees. Some of those are open only a few hours each day, and taking off during opening hours you have to pay the take off fee. The reason they give for the fee, is to pay for ATC and AFIS services (in the air and on the ground). The fee is the same whether it is a controlled airport or an AFIS airport. You can also fly VFR outside opening hours, and then there is no fee. Most people using these airports regularly, pay yearly fee, so it doesn’t matter, but if you don’t, there is no fee outside opening hours.
A non Avinor airport may have a different scheme. They could say you pay to use the runway, in which case you always would have to pay. They could also, in principle, say there are separate fees for the runway and the ATC/AFIS. That starts to sound overly complex, but in principle the owner or operator of the runway can do as he pleases.
The haphazard nature of fees, their costs, lack of transparency etc in Europe IMO is a part of the reason why so many pilots and beginners are looking at the ULM scene in various countries.
They just form another obstacle to using GA airfraft for travelling between countries. And if not making longer journeys why buy the type of aircraft aimed at that sector of the aviation population. Even if you travel long distances within your own country (where you can more easily find out these often hidden fees) is there any reason to own a much more expensive aircraft to either buy or operate, whereas one could just as easily go, if not ULM, experimental or kit built?
To answer my own question I would say yes, IFR, however here too there are so many unnecessary regulatory and cost hurdles that so few pilots (see posts from @Peter) are taking that up with the exception of IMCr and that does nothing for pilots outside the UK.
gallois wrote:
The haphazard nature of fees, their costs, lack of transparency etc in Europe IMO is a part of the reason why so many pilots and beginners are looking at the ULM scene in various countries.
They just form another obstacle to using GA airfraft for travelling between countries. And if not making longer journeys why buy the type of aircraft aimed at that sector of the aviation population.
I agree and think it’s a good observation, also mentioned in another thread about a flight to central Italy. It will never be as easy to travel around Europe by plane as it is by car for just those reasons. It is also why many pilots who do fly internationally tend to limit their travels to a limited number of more GA friendly countries and/or where they have learned (most of) the intricacies. There is however still a (small) number of pilots who treat these issues as a challenge and are prepared for the extra cost and effort.
gallois wrote:
The haphazard nature of fees, their costs, lack of transparency etc in Europe IMO is a part of the reason why so many pilots and beginners are looking at the ULM scene in various countries.
It could be, but not necessarily. I think the word “availability” is a key word. Things have to be perceived as available options. The odd thing is that GA pilots, when given the opportunity, tends to be equally brain dead about this. Pilots flying certified planes would rather go with the bureaucracy on a march “for safety” (read: political correctness), creating layers and layers of pure nonsense in the name of “safety” instead of creating an environment that encourage flying; makes flying available. Safety of GA is created by flying as much as possible, gaining experience, not by restricting flying in the name of “safety”.
Flying a light GA plane is inherently dangerous. This has to be accepted as a fact of life. The only thing you can do about it is to fly more, so that accidents per flight hour goes down, as a result of higher proficiency and more experience. Hence availability is the key, it’s the only thing that matters IMO. Everything detrimental to availability is a safety hazard. This fact (what I have seen through experience to be a fact) is not understood at all, especially not in certified GA.
In UL and experimental/homebuit, there is a kind of common acceptance from the start that this kind of GA is more dangerous than certified GA. Yet, no one in their right mind engage in this hobby because they have an urge to die. I think though that people tend to have a slightly different perception regarding this, and the importance of availability. The UL and experimental communities actively creates environments where availability is a key asset. The certified communities do not, they are too easily “lured” off into more bureaucracy camouflaged as “safety”, with the end result of less flying. Less flying obviously increases safety: less flying – less accidents, in the same manner that fewer brains result in fewer headaches.
