tschnell wrote:
I don’t know whether it was in the previous version. But you said “it is not in their fee information” – which is not true.
Since the new version is only 2.5 months old it should be taken in context that their Billing practices predate this updated version by 2 yrs. So forgive me for not checking on them every month considering I did check it already in the past when they should not have charged. Just to put it into a time context.
tschnell wrote:
Obviously this rule is supposed to discourage filing a Y/Z-Plan or cancelling 5 NM from the airport just to evade making a minor contribution to the infrastructure – by someone who does benefit from the procedure being in place, if only because it increases the dispatch reliability of a flight to EDMS.
Its ridiculous to say that because people cancel if the weather is VFR and arrive as a VFR arrival then the airport should penalize the IR pilot for using his rating along any portion of his flight. Not only does an IR make the flight practical because its not always at the destination that you would require to use it but it also adds to safety. Obviously the powers that be at Eurocontrol, figured that out by not charging <2T aircraft for using the system.
EDMS has no right to charge an enroute aircraft on an IFR flight plan, a fee no matter what their financial reasoning is, to maintain their instrument infrastructure.
It would be fairer, more equitable, and perfectly reasonable for the airport to charge all aircraft an arrival fee whether VFR or IFR the same fee once they enter the ATA and land. They have no business or authority reaching out beyond the *A*irport *T*raffic *A*rea. Regarding practice IFR approaches they should be charged as well since it involves activity within the ATA.
Now that we are discussing their finances and why we should be charged. I would like to see just how much money is taken in by the airport from all sources and where it is being spent. Otherwise everything is conjecture of why they need the money. Perhaps they are using some of the funds to paint City Hall.
Dont get me wrong it is nice airport well maintained but I think they are exceeding their authority by charging me for an IFR flight plan which I cancelled 500KM out and arrived VFR. No matter what the fee.
C210_Flyer, we could play this back and forth forever, but as I am still convinced that one can find valid arguments both ways, I am more than happy to let you have the final word on this.
Looking forward to discuss another subject with you! 
Well I do want to thank you for alerting me and others to the fact that now as of 3 months ago they have put this illegal fee structure in writing.
Of course AOPA Germany should be hot onto this overreach (by an airport authority) in its authority not only beyond their ATA but beyond its national borders.
I fear that unless there is push back against this illegal activity other airport authorities will follow suit and that every filed Instrument flight will be subjected
to a fee by the airports (departing and arriving) that they are flying out from and landing at.
What I find really amazing is that their are pilots who actually make excuses for such behavior.
C210_Flyer wrote:
What I find really amazing is that their are pilots who actually make excuses for such behavior.
I think we tried to explain to you 3 times why this fee came into existence and why we benefit from it. It might be futile but I will try once again.
The stakeholders of the airfield have a lot of say what the available funds are spent on and which funds are made available. This happens through the city council and other means. The vast majority of those stakeholders are only interested in VFR because only 15% of German PPL holder hold an IR. Getting and maintaining IFR procedures costs the airport quite a bit of money. To get this through, a political compromise has to be reached. The position of the 85% non IR holders will be “I don’t need this, I’m not going to support it because I don’t want to pay for this”. So the solution was to introduce an extra fee only due when people intend to make use of it. To keep the fee lower, it is not levied when making use but when intending to make use. They need to collect a certain amount per year.
There is nothing illegal or immoral about it. EDMS is a great facility at reasonable cost. The political and regulatory environment in Germany is different from the US — this is something you might realize over time.
And this is what Im trying to get through to you. A new type of fee levied on aircraft where they are charged for services not only outside the bounds
of the airport (as in a route segment which is in a different country) is an overreach of their authority. I dont care what their reasoning is. Do you understand that
a route (IFR Flightplan) charge is and should be outside of any airport’s authority? It is no longer in their airspace.
When I file to get on top in Hungary, then cancel my IFR flightplan while still in Hungary, then proceed VFR to my destination in this case EDMS, it is pure BS that they charge me for it.
It sets a bad precedent and Im sure other airports will follow.
Now Ive asked you this question before, which you have not answered. How many flights a year have you flown into EDMS while on an IFR flight plan to do maintenance?
Out of those IFR flight planned flights, how many were in VFR conditions?
How many flights have you filed an IFR Flightplan to depart EDMS while it was in VFR conditions?
C210_Flyer wrote:
It sets a bad precedent and Im sure other airports will follow.
If other airfields install RNAV procedures and then charge 4 € from people who declare an intention of using them via a flight plan, I think it is a fantastic precedent. Should have it in a lot more airfields all across Europe.
And what if that would be 40 Euros?
It’s not a significant amount, especially for those of us who can afford to fly IFR
And in UK, it will be 60 pounds and a slot, procedure exclusively PPR :)
Robin_253 wrote:
And what if that would be 40 Euros?
It’s not a significant amount, especially for those of us who can afford to fly IFR
And what if that would be 400 Euros?
It’s not a significant amount, especially for those of us who can afford to fly spaceships.
40 euros will get you a lot of traffic flying for a “purpose”. To attract “burger run traffic” (arguably the biggest volume in GA movements) you need to get down to the €4 region. €400 will suppress GA totally, except turboprops and bizjets which are mostly flying on business.
IFR isn’t really anything to do with this, other than that you won’t get a well maintained airfield for €4 let alone one with instrument approaches unless there is a huge cross-subsidy coming from somewhere. The problem with non self sustaining schemes is that they, ahem, don’t sustain themselves…
