C210_Flyer wrote:
…and greed…
Funny to read that from a guy who can afford his private Cessna 210 but is to greedy to fork out 4,80 Euros for getting all the services necessary to provide him with an instrument approach. No, “funny” is not the right word. “Schocked” or “aghasted” (if such a term exists) is more close to my feelings.
what_next wrote:
Funny to read that from a guy who can afford his private Cessna 210 but is to greedy to fork out 4,80 Euros for getting all the services necessary to provide him with an instrument approach. No, “funny” is not the right word. “Schocked” or “aghasted” (if such a term exists) is more close to my feelings.
The point was that he did not need (since he was VFR), or request, an instrument approach but was still forced to pay. I agree with him on principle but I wouldn’t really bother about it for €4.80.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The point was that he did not need (since he was VFR), or request, an instrument approach…
In the case of those 4,80 Euros maybe. But when he did his practice approaches without landing he was flying IFR. Most airports/airfields these days charge the same amount now, no matter if you do a landing, a touch-and-go or a low approach. Because their cost is exactly the same in all cases.
BTW: This summer we will spend our family holiday in the US. I just found out that I have to buy a season pass for entering the national parks which costs 80$. Our national parks charge no entrance fee. Subtle national differences I would call that… Maybe I will rent a plane there and do 10 free instrument approaches to recover my 80$ park fee 
There’s many such examples …
How about paying for all bridges and tunnels in NYC – to go shopping in Manhattan?
The way I see it? Some things are better there, some here. That’s about it. I am an enthusiastic USA traveller, have been there + 40 times, years altogether and in 37 states. I even own a piece of land in WI. But do I think it’s only great? No, I don’t. And there’s more to life than GA.
(Will spend the summer in California with my family!)
For Christ sake let me explain it to those whose mother tongue is not the English language. ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.
What did I just write? Repeat it a few times. Softly and in front of a mirror if you have to then out loud. ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.
Its about principle.If your so hung up on the money amount make it 50 Euros. Now does it become a problem for you?
If every airport decides to get this new computer program then they will all start charging enroute IFR charges to their airport. First its a small fee 5Euros then because they are the ones who decide what to charge it becomes more and more until only the corp guys who get tax breaks anyway will be using the IFR structure. Now do you understand?
Thank you, Airborne Again, for understanding that I did not ask or receive services for which I got charged and that is why Im objecting to them. I would object even if it was a penny.
Here are the numbers for you mathematicians
Landing VFR 19.64 euros
Landing 19.64 Euros + 5 Euros IFR enroute charge + 5 Euros IFR enroute charge outbound =29.64 Euros
This is not a one time fee but whenever I fly into that airport. 90% of the time VFR but with an IFR filed enroute mostly due to weather and secondly airspace.
So if I do use it to do an IFR approach I will gladly pay the fee. Repeat that last sentence to yourself, What_next, and become un-aghast and un-shocked, that a guy who can afford a 210 can also stand up for what is just.
What_next, if in the future you go to a grocery store and buy a piece of steak but the price was mismarked. You wanted Chuck but it was price marked as Filet Mignon are you going to question it? Why? Because you are being charged for something you dont want correct? It makes no difference if you ride a bus or drive a Mercedes. Or only the public transport guy has the right to question the charge? Very difficult to come up with an accurate analogy to what these guys are doing.
what_next wrote:
But when he did his practice approaches without landing he was flying IFR. Most airports/airfields these days charge the same amount now, no matter if you do a landing, a touch-and-go or a low approach. Because their cost is exactly the same in all cases.
First off Your confusing your fruits by comparing an apple to an orange. I DID NOT DO PRACTICE APPROACHES AT EDMS.
YOU ARE CONFUSING THE ISSUE. I AM WRITING IN CAPS BECAUSE IT MIGHT HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IM WRITING. Go back and reread my post you will then hopefully understand I was writing about a different airport and one not even in Germany.
There is no “enroute fee”, you really made that up.
€ 4,20 plus VAT for I and Y flightplans, and unfortunately their system does not distinguish between an IFR flightplan and a cancelled one.
They only treat IFR flightplans and the ones who
cancel IFR when they already got the FP the same. Otherwise everybody on an IFR plan would simply cancel IFR in VMC just to avoid the € 4,20 plus VAT.
If you want to avoid that: Fly VFR.
what_next wrote:
Instrument approaches only make sense if there is night flying capability as well. So they need to maintain their runway lighting
AFAIK, an instrument approach requires runway lighting, even during the daytime. Night flying capability doesn’t change the lighting requirement.
what_next wrote:
Most airports/airfields these days charge the same amount now, no matter if you do a landing, a touch-and-go or a low approach. Because their cost is exactly the same in all cases.
The actual cost for a landing or takeoff is essentially zero as most airfield costs are fixed costs. So the fixed costs has to be distributed over the users in some way. You can divide it evenly as you say most airfields do, or you can divide it according to the amount of facilities that are (potentially) being used. So it does make some sense to charge more for IFR.
Personally, I would generally prefer a flat rate.
But the issue that C210_Flyer has is that the airport has a price structure where the charge is completely unrelated to the actual use of the airport.
I get similarly annoyed when I’m presented with an airport bill with half a dozen minor items (some quite dubious). “Landing fee”, “infrastructure fee”, “noise fee”, “ATC fee”, “administrative fee” etc. Since you have to pay each and every one of these anyway, why not simply lump them all together?
what_next wrote:
Funny to read that from a guy who can afford his private Cessna 210 but is to greedy to fork out 4,80 Euros for getting all the services necessary to provide him with an instrument approach.
Maybe he can afford the C210 because he has been careful about his spending? Overpaying is easy when you have the money to do so. But that’s not how you save up.
