PPR: If you have rats in your house, do you block up the hole from the sewer, or do you write an app for them?

dublinpilot wrote:

The first seems very country and legal system dependent. If the software in the first post leads to people imposing PPR where it didn’t previously exist (first question), then I’d be against it.

But if PPR already was required (second question) then I’d be very much in favour of being able to get it online, outside airport hours, via an automated system.

Likewise!

Peter wrote:

So, yes, it will work if PPR is just a formality, enabling the owner to say “look we are PPR” to the NIMBYs.

But that’s what PPR usually is. You call up, give your Reg and they tell you about any noise sensitive areas and any unusual joining procedures and say “see you later”.

That can be done very easily though an online (website or app) process. They could even issue a “PPR Number” as evidence that you’d read the info and got your PPR.

Most of the time it’s just a formality.

Maybe you’re thinking more of airfields which routinely restrict the numbers of visiting aircraft, and I’m thinking of most GA airfields in UK & Ireland where they rarely turn anyone way, and when they do it’s usually because the airfield is closed for some event, works or it’s waterlogged.

Emir wrote:

The example of airport we all like LDSB with official parking arrangement with situation that has never and will never happen there: 3 mid-size CAT jets at the same time.

And here’s how it looks in reality at Brac LDSB. The service road in your AIP diagram, @Emir, is on the right of the aircraft shown in the photo.

Emir wrote:

And the opposite example of LDLO that we like more because of relaxed approach to parking issue.

You can say that again @Emir! Even if the official plan is much better than Brac, the reality here is also much much more liberal. If you look closely at the photos, a quick guess is only 1/3-1/2 of the planes are parked in the “official” parking area. The rest are scattered across every available non-paved piece of ground, even in the triangle between the taxiways and runway!

Peter wrote:

Previous attempts to do similar stuff, e.g. Myhandling, have got stuck to the launch country.

It requires huge effort to move from local country project to multi-country project, even within one organization, let alone diverse environment like multiple airports in multiple countries.

Emir wrote:

It requires huge effort to move from local country project to multi-country project, even within one organization, let alone diverse environment like multiple airports in multiple countries.

I think first there needs to be some app+web site in certain country, after that they could agree on data exchange or even merger…

Graham wrote:

All the ‘explanations’ for why PPR is required in the UK, liability issues etc., are total BS.

Absolutely. And IMHO PPR and all it’s “control freak mechanisms” are one of the biggest dangers to the prosperity of GA in existence. Justifying it appears to me a severe case of “Stockholm syndrome”.

Abuse of PPR is rampant, particularly in airports who actively wish to discourage GA.

Using PPR in order to make sure the pilots get the information they are supposed to have anyway simply admits that the system using AIP and NOTAM does not work for the issues many airfields have. While it’s an understandable way to force people to do their homework, it is also a sad reminder that most people simply can’t be bothered to do a proper flight preparation.

NOTAMS however have another problem in the sheer number and flood of them, hence many people decide simply not to read them. It’s a bit like spam and e-mail.

There certainly is nothing wrong with airfields preparing informative websites and to give good information about particularities, noise abatement and other stuff there. To couple this kind of stuff with PPR however is just another way of saying that without forcing people to read the stuff, they will not.

The safety issue I see with PPR is that people will shy away from landing at an airfield they know has PPR for the fear of hassle if they have not applied and try to continue to their destination even though a landing elsewhere may be better. People do get quite irrational in their fears and sometimes would prefer to continue a flight which should be diverted to avoid landing at expensive or PPR restricted airports for the fear of high cost and hassle. IMHO this is a massive safety issue which EASA should address.

Peter wrote:

Still, no comment on what this app can possibly do that’s useful.

I’ve looked through their website. It is more than a PPR management app, it is basically a full airport management app like many others out there, which happen to include PPR management. We have similar apps here, the one I know and use is airmanager, which is a Swiss platform similar to this one, but which also includes flight school and rental management and other stuff.

If you look at the “good old days” you had to fill in forms on the spot on the airport or go to the office to pay your bills. Nowadays, most airfields do not have anyone in attendance to take your money, so they go to solutions like this, either on the airfield or online or both. There are certainly pros and cons to this.

It all looks a bit like an attempt by airfields to use PPR as some sort of slot management tool as well, so they basically force people do register via this platform and get an arrival and departure board out of it. It’s all about control and planning, so more and more they are trying to force GA into regulation like airlines, which have to apply for their slots months before.

While I can understand why airfields are doing this, it counteracts the very reason of being of any individual form of transport.

Peter wrote:

Actually IME those are a tiny minority across Europe. But then the Q is: why have yet another app?

Actually the majority of small airfields in Switzerland have nobody in attendance. They used to have systems whereby you fill in a form and put the money in an envelope, with the obvious risks involved. Today they have a system like this which also includes a QR code to make your payment. Certainly not a bad solution in comparison.

What sets this one apart is the management (and indirect encouragement) of PPR.

Why have another app? Why have 50 brands of beer, chocolate or office packages…. if someone thinks they can make money with it or actually improve something… it’s free enterprise.

Peter wrote:

it looks like the airport will pay a subscription.

Yes.

https://www.smartppr.co.uk/pricing/

It’s movement based. And quite obviously thought for small airfields which might very well have movement restrictions and so on. For such, it might make sense.

I think rather than bashing those who provide software solutions to airfields, the question should be why PPR is becoming the norm rather than the exception and what this general trend does for GA.