I did a couple of IFR trips in a light single throughout Europe lately using Rocketroute as a planning tool. I have now come across the “handling” problem a couple of times.
For example, going into EDVE or EDDS, Rocketroute tells me that it is mandatory, where in reality it is not.
The next trip will be to Brno LKTB and sources such as RR or www.eddh.de again say mandatory handling. However, on the airport’s website there is no such “must have” rule. I was not able to find it in the Czech AIP either.
My questions is: Is there an official source where I can confirm the “handling mandatory” issue ?
Regards,
FlyPPI
No. Also because handling is not a normed term.
In some places, they call it handling, in others, they don’t. Many shades of grey. Or do you mean "mandatory to appoint a handling agent in advance? Then, the question should rather be:
Is the airport PPR? And the answer to this question is normally in the AIP. The mentioned Rocketroute function really is useless for that purpose.
Yes, I’ve met this with RocketRoute, where they have Salzburg as mandatory handling, but it’s not. I’m not renewing with RR because I think it’s poor value compared with EuroGA and EuroFPL.
As bosco says, the AIP will normally tell you if handling is mandatory.
I see. So I could not find anything in the AIP for LKTB but I guess this does not prevent them from charging me for handling services.
Thanks guys.
RR does that because they are trying to make money from the handling function in the app (charging handlers to be listed). You just ignore it and do the same research yourself.
RR has gone downhill for quite some time time now, to the point where I really hate it to some degree. Their newsletter, which is each time advising about “new functions added” and “new cooperations” is a total turn-off. The yearly subscription fee has almost doubled since the beginning.
At the same time, routing creation is still just as poor in some cases. I am sure they have lost hundreds of “private pilot” customers over the last 12 months or so. The problem is: I guess they don’t care, since at the same time, they have probably won a few dozens of customers from the “bizjet corner” of GA, who have to get (and are happy to pay for) their “premium subscriptions”. It’s clearly the way they’re headed.
Maybe someone can shine a light on this, as I’ve never understood it:
Most airports are public owned, and are funded by tax payers. They serve an infrastructural need.
How is an airport allowed to impose mandatory handling to private users? And why do I have to pay handling at airport A, and not at airport B, which is the same size?
Very good point. In some – mostly southern European – places this is down to corruption, plain and simple. The most egregious example of which used to be Valencia who imposed handling for no reason whatsoever and enforced it by making you park on a remote stand about 2 miles from the GA terminal. Only way to get there was by, you guessed it, the handler’s crew bus. That’ll be EUR 50then, thank you Sir…. Mind you, the apron in front of the GA terminal there can probably handle about three 747s – and is/was always empty. On what legal basis this is done in other countries has always baffled me as much as it baffles you.
That said, a handler does provide a service, but it should be up to YOU to decide wether to avail yourself of it or not. In the US I can typically choose between the public transient ramp or an FBO. The FBO will book my hire car (or even let me have a crew car for free), make hotel & restaurant reservations, fuel the plane, etc. For that you either pay (usually a very nominal amount) or uplift fuel, in which case the charge is mostly waived. Some FBOs only charge larger a/c and just provide the service for free for the little guys (Adam, that won’t include you anymore!). Choice – that’s what it should be.
Most airports are public owned, and are funded by tax payers.
That’s no reason that the users of a particular (public) good or service, cannot be asked to pay a fee for using the good or service, even if the tax payers in general initially funded the public good or service. After all, the tax payers in general will only want to pay taxes for goods and services that are consumed by everybody equally – like defense or the police forces. But if the goods or services are only consumed by a select few, I think it’s entirely fair to charge a fee to those select few. Thus reducing the tax burden on us all.
A couple of examples. The whole infrastructure to issue you with a passport, including the civil servants, their desks and offices, the printing press and everything, is initially paid for by the tax payers. But yet you have to pay if you want to obtain a passport. Similarly, the complete road system is initially paid for by the tax payers. Yet you have to pay road tax.
Furthermore, not all airports are publicly owned. In the Netherlands, the owner of an airport is typically a Ltd. Company (BV or NV) which may or may not be partially or wholly owned by the government. But the government expects the company to at least break even, and hopefully even make a profit.
And why should that be the case for aerodromes, but not for canals, to name just those? Who uses canals? A small minority of society: a handful of commercial shipping and a bit of recreation in the weekend. Do canoers have to pay when they go training?
