Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Malibuflyer wrote:

simply not allowed in Germany under current regulations.

Not sure if it is allowed and under which conditions in Austria, you are aware that he lives in Graz?

LSZH, Switzerland

Peter wrote:

Most people will not stick their hands in their pocket, prefer to free-ride on the back of somebody else doing the hard work, and when the airfield shuts they hit the internet and generate gigabytes of rants about how unjust the world is. Most airfield owners, having endured decades of whingeing whining pilots moaning that a £15 landing fee

This is because those pockets are virtually empty. It’s easy for those of us who own our own planes comfortably (in other words, we don’t struggle just to keep up with the expected running costs) to forget that for many pilots, they are already stretched, and are facing fees upon fees already.

I can certainly sympathise with the airfields – at least the ones that are well run and aren’t hideously overstaffed – they have high costs but the bulk of their clientele are very cash strapped. They certainly often don’t help themselves, though, with things like very short opening hours and byzantine processes to be allowed to land there when the office is closed.

Andreas IOM

This is because those pockets are virtually empty

As with most markets, the customers range from poor to rich and with everything in between. For some reason GA is an activity which a large number of people are trying to hang in despite being only barely able to afford it. I can’t think of any other activity quite like that. And a lot of airfields pretend to pitch themselves at the bottom end of the market, which is fine but they are losing customers higher up, by poor runways and poor facilities. But regardless of this, people (not referring to anyone here) should stop whingeing about these trivial landing fees. Almost every GA airfield landing fee is a fraction of the cost of a taxi needed to get somewhere useful from there. But while the taxi business doesn’t need our support, the airfield business does.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Brace for more green pressure, I read we only have 7 years left before the end of our time warning becomes unstoppable. They are fighting against 5G now.

Peter wrote:

For some reason GA is an activity which a large number of people are trying to hang in despite being only barely able to afford it

Maybe because they love flying ?

LFPT, LFEH

The end of the world is nigh. Some have been claiming this for decades if not centuries.
The problem is, to the populace at large, how many times can you cry wolf.
Maybe this time it is true but as a mere man, how can I know for sure?

France

Jujupilote wrote:

Maybe because they love flying ?

That is only part of the reason! If it would be just about getting your lower back into the air, there are much cheaper options than what you have to pay those 15MU landing fees for. It obviously depends on country (and where you are in some countries) but in most of Germany you can get quite a lot of hours in a glider on a budget of let’s say 1500 a year.
My personal impression is that the people who rant most about landing fees, carbon taxes, etc. are not the pones that are really on a tight budget, but more the “I’m paying so much taxes anyways that the taxpayers owes me to provide my favorite GA field for free”

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 04 May 10:00
Germany

How could GA reduce its footprint without limiting our freedoms ?

I would say :
- certify and implement Auto-lean systems, if not electronic ignitions. It would reduce any plane’s emissions and bill by maybe 20% ?
- deploy UL fuel to all small fields. For most french fields like LFEH, anything bigger than an O-360 is as rare as a pink elephant. Avgas could be an exception at IFR regional airports.
- coordinate airspace for all traffic (VFR/IFR) to allow the straightest tracks possible, thus the shortest flights.

Any ideas ?

LFPT, LFEH

Maybe because they love flying

Sure, but if they paid just a little bit more, that would translate to a lot more money going to the infrastructure (which is already largely in a pretty poor state) and then GA would be stronger and better able to resist the continued attack from (a) property developer sharks and (b) the climate lobby.

My personal impression is that the people who rant most about landing fees, carbon taxes, etc. are not the pones that are really on a tight budget, but more the “I’m paying so much taxes anyways that the taxpayers owes me to provide my favorite GA field for free”

Very likely, since they burn 100-200 in avgas getting there

How could GA reduce its footprint without limiting our freedoms ?

I reckon, on average, the GA scene could save 20% on fuel just by using the red lever to some extent. Currently, most pilots don’t touch it. That’s at least 30% less MPG than using it optimally.

deploy UL fuel to all small fields

I think the issue there is fragmentation of the market. See the TOTAL 91UL threads. TOTAL tried to break up the market and kill 100LL, by offering free bowsers and everything short of a contribution to the Swiss bank account of the airport manager

The biggest users still need 100LL, and if one fragments the demand into two then volumes go down on both.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Jujupilote wrote:

- certify and implement Auto-lean systems, if not electronic ignitions. It would reduce any plane’s emissions and bill by maybe 20% ?

I seriously doubt that an Auto lean system will get another 20% out of my Conti when I fly it (manually) LOP. As Peter wrote: The key is leaning at all, not Autolean. It is quite telling to look at what happened in automotive engines over the last couple of decades: They have become so much more efficient at partial power and power changes – but full power consumption has not really changed much. And this is where we operate our engines. We often talk badly about our Lycontis – but if operated LOP they are actually not that far away from physical limits.

Jujupilote wrote:

deploy UL fuel to all small fields.

How would that change footprint? It might reduce some lead emissions but in terms of Carbon, a liter of UL does not produce less than a liter of 100ll

Jujupilote wrote:

- coordinate airspace for all traffic (VFR/IFR) to allow the straightest tracks possible, thus the shortest flights.

In “professional GA” I would not think this changes much – at least on my “A to B flights” the actually flown routing overhead is frequently less than 5%. If I further deduct the necessary overhead for the procedures (you simply have to take the “detour” to the FAF and sometimes even on the other side of the airport if wind doesn’t like you) there is only few % to save left
In “hobby GA” most people I know in the end “fly by hour” not “by miles”. They have a certain hour budget per year they fly (or try to fly) and basically do that. If they would “safe” 10% on every flight, they would just do 10% more flights (that might be great from a proficiency POV but doesn’t help in terms of carbon footprint).

Germany

Peter wrote:

For some reason GA is an activity which a large number of people are trying to hang in despite being only barely able to afford it.

Because flying is a way of life. Like most who have got the flying bug, people will always come back to it, no matter how many times they run out of money or even relationships and so forth.

Looking at the people I’ve gotten to know through aviation, not many would ever be able to completely walk away. Comparatively few are pilots in their own right, but they are spotters, flight simmers, cockpit builders or what else not. Some are even a combination of several activities. Many who loose their licenses due to medical or private obligation (like myself if hopefully temporary) drop into depression and deep dissatisfaction.

No, flying for many people, myself included, is not just a hobby. It is a reason for being.

Peter wrote:

I can’t think of any other activity quite like that.

I can. Women and horses for starters.

LSZH, Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top