The prop only has to last a year for me to be ahead on that count (and with a tailwheel aircraft, we don’t get any nicks or damage anyway, since our prop clearance is so great). Even the Cherokee based there doesn’t really pick up prop damage.
A much bigger issue with what is effectively a compressed stone/gravel runway we have is tailwheel damage. But given the Auster tailwheel is a glorified shopping trolley wheel, it only has to last a month for us to be ahead on that count…
I have been to Andreas (by road, thankfully 
) and against the 3k you have the prop overhaul 
According to rumour somebody with a TBM offered to resurface Andreas but Ronaldsway did some under the table stuff to block it because while they don’t want SEP money they do want ME money and Andreas would take most of that away.
A lot of it is cost. To have our aircraft at Ronaldsway in a hangar, it would cost about £3000+VAT more than it does to keep it at Andreas, which belongs to a farm.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Off topic, I know, but do you know how that is handled in practise for uncontrolled strips? Is there ATC radio coverage on the ground everywhere?
Not in Israel, but here, we had an interesting episode. I can talk about it now because the fellow involved is now dead so is immune from prosecution under the Wireless Telegraphy Act…
He had been operating out of his farm (in controlled airspace) for some time, phoning local ATC for a clearance while on the ground. This was all fine until he got a Cessna 337. If you’ve ever seen one of these, you know how obnoxious they sound, and the neighbours began to complain when he took off at half six in the morning with a load of lobsters or maybe even sheep for Northern Ireland. No one minded the Cherokee 180 he had, but the 337 was beyond the pale.
This got the attention of the planning authorities, it went before the court, the judge ordered him to return the field to agricultural use.
Which he did. He planted an arable crop in it, and started using a farm track to take off and land on. The planners now couldn’t really do much about him as he was just using farm tracks instead, and the field was definitely back to agricultural use, as the judge had ordered. So they told ATC (who here are government employees) not to accept clearances from him over the phone. He complained to the CAA who told him they couldn’t do anything about it if they won’t give a clearance over the phone, but they told him if they didn’t give a clearance over the radio, this was a whole other matter – and report it if they refused to give him a clearance on the radio.
So his next step in the arms race was to get an old truck (of which there were plenty on his farm), put a 50 watt base station in it, a big tall antenna on it, and just blast enough power to get the signal through nearby woodlands so ATC could hear him on the radio on the ground. And he continued operating like that till he died of a brain tumour.
Ultranomad wrote:
Same even in Israel, where ALL the airspace is controlled.
Off topic, I know, but do you know how that is handled in practise for uncontrolled strips? Is there ATC radio coverage on the ground everywhere?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Add Sweden. Consent of the landowner is enough.
Same in Czech Republic. Same even in Israel, where ALL the airspace is controlled.
The only country that I positively know to NOT require an aerodrome to be registered or such is France, and even then only for ultralights. Consent of the land owner is enough, there. Would it need to be in writing?
The UK requires no registration of airstrips, although (entirely independent of any aviation regulation), planning permission is required under some circumstances and it might be tricky without the owners permission. Any private flight can use these strips, regardless of certification regime, weight or otherwise. They can even be used for PPL training.
In theory you could run a jet from your back garden as long as the airstrip met the performance numbers in the POH and the relevant ops legislation. I don’t think anyone does though…
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
The only country that I positively know to NOT require an aerodrome to be registered or such is France, and even then only for ultralights. Consent of the land owner is enough, there. Would it need to be in writing?
Add Sweden. Consent of the landowner is enough. It doesn’t have to be in writing. At least not if you trust the landowner. :-)
Peter wrote:
I think only a few countries really prohibit “DIY runways”. Germany is (de facto) one of them, AIUI. Italy has about 300 ultralight sites, …
Germany has presently 693 microlight flying sites. Maybe not “DIY” in the proper sense of the word, but most of them owned and operated by some flying club. To form a club, 7 persons are required. That can be me, my wife and son, my parents and the landowner and his wife (who will happily join the “club” because this will give him “free” 500 Euros per year for an otherwise unused piece of land). Very close to “DIY” I would say.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Why compare apples to pears?
Apples to pears at first glance maybe… But a microlight which can fly circles around a TB20 must be capable to fly in excess of 150kt. Not many can do that and only very recent models. The TB20 on the other hand has been out of production for a decade. So one still can buy several good TB20s for the price of the cheapest pre-owned 150+kt capable microlight.
It simply never ceases to amaze me why people are prepared to spend the equivalent of a nice family home in the countryside for a microlight aircraft…
