Still, for just the ATC service part you pay 4-5 times more if you go missed.
And for using only the ATC service, you pay considerably more than for using both the ATC and airfield services. I’m sure there is a rational behind this, but I don’t see it.
The rationale is presumably to maximise income from a limited resource, and no-one can criticise a manager for wanting to do that.
I am sure that there are few enough light twins around that driving them away to make space which is then immediately filled by singles is no problem.
Still, for just the ATC service part you pay 4-5 times more if you go missed.
You’re not reading it correctly. The navigation charge isn’t a standalone item – it’s added to your landing fee. If you don’t land, there’s nothing to add it to.
If you go missed as part of a proper approach, you are of course not charged extra.
An intentional missed approach (a training approach) is charged at the alternative rate. It is obviously slightly odd that an approach without a landing costs more than one with, but it is what it is.
What it isn’t is 4-5 times more expensive. It’s £6 more.
Steve’s right. The Nav. Service Charge is levied in addition to the landing fee. If you intentionally go around, the Approach fee applies.
I’ve acknowledged that there’s an anomaly insofar as the twin training approach is more expensive than the landing fee (which is, ironically, as Steve suggests, linked to Timothy’s previous lobbying!) and will look into the practicalities and business case to address this when we review the charges. In the interim, it’s cheaper to land (or touch and go) in a light twin and cheaper still if you buy fuel.
We’re averaging about 12-14 approaches a day and peaking at over 30. Midweek demand is exceptionally high but much less so at weekends. Come and see us. We were voted Best GA Airport 2013….fingers crossed for 2014.
You’re not reading it correctly. The navigation charge isn’t a standalone item – it’s added to your landing fee. If you don’t land, there’s nothing to add it to.
Of course I understand that. But if the division between air navigation fees and landing fees is to make any sense, then the ANS fees are for IFR approach services and the landing fees are for using the actual runway and other ground facilities.
In the posting above by @matspart3, he wrote (taking a visiting light twin as an example).
IFR approach: £7.50 + VAT
Intentional go-around: £29.75 + VAT
According to you, the landing charge for a light twin is £20 (not clear if this includes VAT or not, but it doesn’t really matter for the argument).
What am I missing?
Anyway, judging from matspart3’s latest post, we seem to be in agreement that this is an anomaly. 
(Note that I’m not having any opinion on whether the fees are reasonable or not.)
