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.
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.
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.
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.
No landing „cards“ in Germany. Very few have annual flat fees for all landings of the same aircraft.
Do any German airfields have annual landing cards? If so, there is going to be a €10 charge on top for each landing?
Graham wrote:
in the UK that depends a lot on where it is
Indeed, some places are very friendly, some are not but also the treatment you get depends if you are based/regular guy or visitor
If it’s marginal weather, any arrivals will get a special reception (assuming someone is around in ATZ tower)
All I am saying is DIY IFR/VFR or scud run VFR/IFR in marginal weather may not go well if goinfg for an ATZ managed by AFIS/AG, this will be just like in Germany with AFIS/Flugleiter/BFL but with one caveat unlike Germany, no one give give a hoot if you are VMC/IMC or VFR/IFR while your wheels are in the air, if you ever get told off one day it’s because you bent something, busted airspace, pissed some noise senstive nighbour or had to deal with some ‘Toytown ATC’ AFIS/AG operator
The FISO/AG operator in theory should not care, what you do in Class G is 100% your own buisness, even “proper ATC” tend to dump you as soon as possible with free call en-route and to go and mind your buisness with zero interest in your case as long as you remain outside controlled airspace (it’s not remain outside clouds), but now if you read the ATZ AIP, it still say “AD VFR only”, that has not changed yet with SERA/NCO, however, in UK with no ATC & ATIS, it’s PIC who decides on his flying rules & flying conditions inside ATZ (if IMC/VMC, if VFR/IFR or fly IFR circle to land, VFR circuit, VFR overhead join, visual IFR approach/circuit, IFR overhead join, PPL VFR bad weather circuit at 500ft, IMCr IFR bad weather circuit bellow OCH/VM(C)H, well you name it…and you have luxury to cancel IFR at 10ft and make it VFR landing without telling anyone, FISO can give you taxi clearances & walking instructions to tower if he wishes, assuming he has enough visibility to see you, he controls ground mouvements after all)
10 extra € on each landing ? That will make training even more expensive.
@Ibra in the UK that depends a lot on where it is.
Barton ran with that interpretation of Rule 11 (and got CAA support for it) as a means of controlling entry to their ATZ because (a) they were being crapped on by nearby Manchester over airspace busts, and (b) they got an ADSB display which showed them just how busy their area actually is. What they really should have done, if they felt things were becoming too busy, was upgrade to full ATC.
I’m not aware of any other AG/FISO aerodromes guarding access to their ATZ like this, nor would most places report you for making an unofficial cloud break. Most probably don’t care even if you go IMC in the ATZ. There are perhaps a handful of busybody places that might report you because they love reporting stuff, but those places are worth staying away from for a myriad of other reasons.
Sensibly-run places keep to their brief when it comes to AG and AFISO, which is to answer questions if asked but for most part leave aeroplanes in the air to sort themselves out. The ‘Toytown ATC’ AG operator saying “roger, report final” to every call correlates highly with high-viz jackets, long ‘PPR briefings’ and condescending lectures from the residents egos when you arrive.
boscomantico wrote:
DIY VFR (i.e. doing IMC straight-ins built upon GPS waypoints) does not really work in Germany, cause the Flugleiter will object to that
Same in UK, it does not work in ATZ with FISO/AG, they can ask you to comply with noise routes, circuits and overhead joins, but nothing prevents you from doing all of that above MSA in IMC before heading again for long straight-in final to land, CAA will not even object to it after receiving an MOR on what you did, but they will surely come after you and fry you alive if you bust any nearby controlled airspace in the making, specially in IMC !
In ATC ATZ,
- IFR ATC, won’t clear you to procedures that are not published
- VFR ATC, won’t let you in/out IFR in ATZ
Also FISO/AG can chose to ignore you RT call when ATZ is in IMC, since 2019 it’s an issue under ATZ Rule11, you need two-way comms and airfield data to enter ATZ, and no point asking them to give you visibility & cloudbase, if you do you probably have no clue what you are doing (first, you should have visbility before you start approach, second, they may not be rated to give that data and third, you could get WX somewhere else, on cloud-break on nearby ILS or some ATIS before going IMC again), long story short, while it’s DIY IAP is legal and some may have some risk apetite for it, they need to go to some grass strips or waypoint outside ATZ or keep DIY VFR on their home airfield (which is sensible after all, as one is familiar with terrain & obstacles around and they may have a fire truck sitting near the runway for them without having to go up to tower to fill up the paperwork on what happened)
