alioth wrote:
But that doesn’t require an individual permission given for every single aircraft movement.
I’m not arguing any differently. I agree. An airfield owner can easily say “Dublinpilot, there is no need for you to get PPR from me in the future. You’ve a blanket permission to use this field.” They could as you say publish on their website saying the same for everyone.
I suspect most don’t because on the days that they know that the runway is too wet to use, they have no way of informing those people that the runway isn’t suitable, and they POTENTIALLY have a liability for duty of care and as such a POTENTIAL legal liability for any accident. PPR transfers the responsibility onto the pilot to check in first.
But as I’ve said previously on this thread, there are two different arguments being mixed up here.
1. Is PPR a good and necessary thing, and
2. If PPR is required already, would it be better that it could be achieved online rather than having to phone during opening hours.
My argument is only in relation to number 2, where I think this online / app method of getting PPR is way more convenient than the current system of having to call during office hours. I’ve no desire to see PPR expanded to more airports that at present.
I think the term PPR is 90% of the confusion. The problem an airport owner faces is not to allow people to land, but how to prevent them in case something happens (snow, water or whatever).
It’s not a public airport with certain requirements to stay open.
The problem an airport owner faces is not to allow people to land, but how to prevent them in case something happens (snow, water or whatever).
The solution to that is to leave the responsibility for safely of flight where it should be – with the pilot. The impulse to diminish individual responsibility is beyond me, if one is just trying to find a way to operate airports effectively.
I think if I were to ask ten pilots at my base what PPR means, perhaps one would know. Its use in places like the UK is hysterical, in the original meaning of the word, a desperate way for people who feel that control of their lives has been removed to try and regain it by taking it from others. It’s a socio-psychological issue, not a real world safety issue.
LeSving wrote:
I think the term PPR is 90% of the confusion. The problem an airport owner faces is not to allow people to land, but how to prevent them in case something happens (snow, water or whatever).
It’s not the case we’re discussing here. PPR is what it is: Prior Permission Required. And it’s usually related to whether the owner wants you there or not due to different reasons: parking, other traffic, he simply hates you/GA etc.
Runway availability issues are solved with NOTAM.
PPR is what it is: Prior Permission Required. And it’s usually related to whether the owner wants you there or not due to different reasons: parking, other traffic, he simply hates you/GA etc.
Parking availability is nonsense in most cases, an unnecessary issue created by people who falsely think private owner-flown planes are mandatorily parked in marked spots on hard surfaces, met by officialdom when they arrive and otherwise treated like airliners. In any case parking has nothing to do with landing.
Conflict with other traffic is nonsense in almost all cases and can be managed by the pilots. In any case the owner of an airport has no role in managing traffic.
Xs on the runway work well enough to close it to passers by and undesirables if that were the intent. However I think the underlying real intent is to regain a lost sense of individuality by creating conflict and micromanaging others in their every movement.
PPR is worthless to the pilot.
Let’s say you get PPR.
If there is a pothole and you get a prop strike, you pay.
If it is snowed up and (despite seeing this on final) you get stuck, you pay and you sort it out.
If there is any problem and you get damage, you pay and you sort it out.
It doesn’t matter whether it is a farm strip or the biggest airport. You pay. Your insurer may try to go after the airfield but their insurer will fight it.This is an old established principle.
Whenever you fly somewhere, you always fly there and land there at your risk.
So, this app will not do anything of value to anybody, other than return a “semi permanent PPR” enabling the airfield to claim (to whoever cares) that it is “PPR”.
A lot of airfields cannot issue Notams, otherwise I totally agree these should be the primary medium for factors affecting flight.
We don’t tend to have a.lot of PPRs around here.
Maybe one 2 of the Islands during summer months. Mainly because of the parking situation. You may have to park on the grass or the ULM runway might get closed off for the extra parking. This is not something that can be Notamed and you don’t have to PPR just don’t complain if your parking space doesn’t suit you.
There is only limited hard parking on the islands.
“Xs on the runway work well enough to close it to passers by and undesirables.”
Sadly not on a small grass runway in the middle of nowhere and prone to flooding.
You don’t even see the water until it is too late.
And as there is often nobody to put the cross in the signal square or that too is under water or to create a Notam it is all at the pilot’s risk so don’t bother trying to make a claim against the aerdrome owner, you would be wasting your time and theirs.
I have only ever done about 3 PPRs to other than ULM strips. And 2 of them were apparently unnecessary as they had received my flight plan. They told me that.
Sadly not on a small grass runway in the middle of nowhere and prone to flooding. You don’t even see the water until it is too late.
You and others apparently know that’s how that works as a pilot. What more do you need than that knowledge and how would gaining permission be beneficially involved? There is no real world need to further mandate gathering info to assure the safety of a flight – its already the pilot’s responsibility.
I have only ever done about 3 PPRs to other than ULM strips. And 2 of them were apparently unnecessary as they had received my flight plan.
I’ve never needed to ask for prior permission to land at any airport ever and IIRC have filed one flight plan, some time around 2002. I have instead made enquiries about runway condition when needed and if no info was available planned to not go there or to overfly the runway first with an alternate in mind.
It’s nonsense piled upon nonsense, caused by the fragility of human nature when bombarded by nonsense.
We don’t tend to have a.lot of PPRs around here.
France has a huge number of PPRs (called PNs) for customs & immigration, but this “app” won’t do that because they will never get the police (who, in France, tend to have absolutely zero interest in whether the airport lives, or goes bust) to get on board. They want PN, per AIP, by email, or even fax (which has not worked for 5-10 years) and they do not reply.
Then you get ones like Caen which is strictly PPR for all, but the police there are also unlikely to sign up to this.
Most PPR issues are pure CYA or something which got pressed onto the operator by authorities for whatever reasons.
Some are not very limiting, e.g those where it’s “compulsory” to read the website prior to departure to see if there is anything they want you to know. Quite a few airfields here are like this. No active request and no active answer.
Then there are those who have limited movements dictated to them by the local NIMBY/anti noise squad and who need to stay within those numbers not to loose their airfield. This is one of the cases where I do understand why and also have no other solution than to get that restriction lifted, which won’t happen. There are several airports around which have to operate like this, e.g Oberschleissheim in Germany most famously.
There are others like LSZR which are restricted in noise per day movements. That particularly nasty bit of work is again on NIMBYs and the likes. See above.
There are airfields which are for based airplanes only (again for the same reason mostly) and anyone else needs a permission and purpose. Those airfields are mostly unusable by others anyway. (Hausen am Albis comes to mind, Schänis (Glider only despite a nice concrete runway) and some others).
Parking PPR for light GA is 99% bogus or something some officefart has dreamt up while watching airliners. In most cases, airfields and particularly airports which issue parking PPR simply don’t want GA and also have outpricing and handling, others which do have a real problem with space should get more inventive. Most of the time, parking can be sorted somehow.
Slot PPR like LSZH and others are totally bogus and a simple message to GA: We don’t want you. Usually go hand in hand with outpricing, handling, compulsory training and so on.
@Silvaire, that is the bs we are facing in this lovely continent. It’s nice that you don’t. But that does not change our predicament a bit.
At the very least, we should get legislation which outlaws adverse consequences if one lands without PPR in an emergency, applying to all of the above factors. If you have an emergency, you land whereever you need to without the threat of being charged $$$$$$ landing, handling, parking and other fees. That is the minimal safety case I’d expect. Unfortunately it does not really work that way and we shall see people crashing because they fear retributions more than crashing.
dublinpilot wrote:
My argument is only in relation to number 2, where I think this online / app method of getting PPR is way more convenient than the current system of having to call during office hours. I’ve no desire to see PPR expanded to more airports that at present.
I agree. However it might be neat if there was a common system for all of those airfields to work with or something integrated into the flight planning apps rather than different products for every country or even airport. But certainly, online capability is very desirable in such a case.
