Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Gloucester EGBJ is now PPR by telephone

It may as well have been taken over by Fraport

Not only PPR but PPR by phone. Notam:

AD IS PPR. PLEASE CALL 01452 857700 EXTENSION 223 WITH DETAILS

This is what Duxford did years ago. I was a passenger on a flight and they told us to land at Cambridge and phone them Eventually, the word got around (it gets round fast on the UK sites, especially if it means boycotting some place) and they lost a lot of traffic and eventually abandoned the self evidently absurd policy of demanding a telephone call. But Gloucester might not because – according to their former manager – they make a lot more from bizjets and the occassional AOC flight than from all piston GA activity combined.

Sad to see a very good GA airport probably trashed.

I know a phone call is not difficult but you get issues e.g. no signal, no answer, planning the flight after closing hours and arriving before the staff gets there…

This came out in January but they have still not updated their info PDF on their website – local copy.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Yet another UK/PPR thread?

I don’t think it will really “trash” the place. Just one more unnecesary nuisance. And yes, they will lose some business from the “bimbling crowd”, but that is probably exactly what they want to achieve.

The point however is that the nuisance is not only for the pilots, but also for that PPR telephone operator / reception staff. Briefing on all the same things again and again and again by telephone (despite these things being published in the AIP and/or their webiste) must be one the most stupid and frustrating things to do for a human being. Even if this phonecall takes only three minutes on average, with the number of movements that Gloucester has, you can probably account for one full-time employee doing nothing else than that. Talk about high landing fees in the UK!! How stupid. They must be really terrified of amateur pilots messing up their procedures. I can’t explain how they would otherwise do something like that.

Apart from that, it also causes grief with pilots, because that telephone line will be super-busy most of the time (at least on nice days).

Generally, the UK has very much become a self-service place, where human beings are being replaced by machines / web forms / etc. for many interactions, in order to reduce staff cost. There is just one-exception: bookings. I am seeing this in other parts of life and business as well. They are obsessed with “booking” things in advance (which don’t actually require any such thing) and then they often still like classic telephone interaction.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 26 Apr 10:02
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I believe this is only temporary. Not only does their website not mention it anywhere, the AIP doesn’t mention it and the notam has an expiry of 30th April. This may be due to the radar being U/S and ATC services being reduced at the moment (which is mentioned in another NOTAM).

In any case @boscomantico PPR is more than just a nuisance. It’s necessary at grass airfields which can become waterlogged or airfields with movement limitations, but with a general dearth of traffic in the UK no hard surfaced runway should need PPR by telephone. It destroys one of the few worthwhile things about GA – being able to go somewhere without having to plan days in advance. Nice morning shaping into a beautiful day? Fancy a day out in Cheltenham on the spur of the moment? Nope – have to wait until the airfield opens before you can depart, which if you’re over 2 hours flying time away may not be desirable. Also I don’t think I’ve ever had any kind of briefing on a PPR call, I’ve just given my details, and that was the end of it. At least some airfields that require PPR are now doing it online (e.g. Barton) so you don’t have to do it during the airfield’s opening hours.

Last Edited by alioth at 26 Apr 10:04
Andreas IOM

In any case @boscomantico PPR is more than just a nuisance. It’s necessary at grass airfields which can become waterlogged or airfields with movement limitations, but with a general dearth of traffic in the UK no hard surfaced runway should need PPR by telephone. It destroys one of the few worthwhile things about GA – being able to go somewhere without having to plan days in advance. Nice morning shaping into a beautiful day? Fancy a day out in Cheltenham on the spur of the moment? Nope – have to wait until the airfield opens before you can depart, which if you’re over 2 hours flying time away may not be desirable. Also I don’t think I’ve ever had any kind of briefing on a PPR call, I’ve just given my details, and that was the end of it. At least some airfields that require PPR are now doing it online (e.g. Barton) so you don’t have to do it during the airfield’s opening hours.

Yey, but as you say, in the context of Gloucester, this is mostly not applicable.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 26 Apr 10:35
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I believe this is only temporary.

No. Al always, there has already been a long thread on Flyer on this, where the new manager of EGBJ has been quoted, saying that this new PPR procedure has been introduced in order to give a „quality brief“ (hahaha) to their „customers“…

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

this is mostly not applicable.

Indeed; it is complete bollocks.

I’ve flown there many times.

they will lose some business from the “bimbling crowd”, but that is probably exactly what they want to achieve.

I am not sure… that crowd is already mostly not going there:

What is quite funny is the 1750kg threshold which is set just above the SR22 MTOW, so the based Cirrus dealer doesn’t pay the higher one

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

alioth wrote:

It’s necessary at grass airfields which can become waterlogged

I beg to differ.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

There is a similar discussion going on on PPL/IR about Biggin Hill pricing.

The question is, do we have a “right” to use these privately owned and run facilities at a time and price of our choosing?

Is there a market, in the same way that that if you are going to a town, you book a hotel on the basis of price, facilities, quality, convenience and availability? You don’t complain that there is only one 5* hotel in town and it should therefore be the same price as AirBnB, do you? Nor that it has a booking system.

Or do we say that that the airfield infrastructure is a national asset, like airspace, and should be owned and operated by the State (as it is in many/most countries)?

If that is your belief, the practical difficulty is going to be finding the flavour of government that is both for nationalisation and central planning and for making life better for private and light aviation. Frankly, I cannot see that combination in the manifesto of either of the existing main parties nor of those who might rise at the next election.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I beg to differ.

I don’t really want to divert this from EGBJ but this is really a philosophical debate around who is liable if a pilot lands somewhere and gets stuck / gets a prop strike / etc and can’t get out for 6 months / never / plane gets scrapped by the insurer / etc.

It is always the pilot’s problem, never the airport’s problem, even if the airport said it is OK to fly there. So, PPR achieves nothing in this respect. The exception would be if the airport makes a specific warranty e.g. “zero potholes” but nobody will be dumb enough to do that. Obviously a smart pilot going to a grass strip, and absent “tundra tyres”, will do something (phone up?) to check it first.

But EGBJ has hard runways so this is not an issue.

Why does anybody care? Half the grass strips are “PPR” (for all kinds of reasons, mainly to prevent uninvited visitors). But this just seems so pointless in this case.

This does cut down utility value. I know a good numbers of pilots who have given up on most of France, due to the police PNR…

do we have a “right” to use these privately owned and run facilities at a time and price of our choosing?

We don’t; they are private sites. We have about as much right as you have to park in my garden

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

We don’t; they are private sites. We have about as much right as you have to park in my garden

That’s not the point, though. The question is, should we?

With all respect to your garden, judging by the amount of time you spend on here and in the air, I am guessing that you are not on your hands and knees weeding and planting 24/7. You garden is, with respect, probably not the best place to park my car in a 30 mile radius of your house.

Now, if we were told that there would no longer be access to Kew, Kensington or Hampton Court Gardens, which may be considered more singular destinations, there would be an outcry.

So, should we have rights to a small and shrinking national asset?

Last Edited by Timothy at 26 Apr 11:18
EGKB Biggin Hill
31 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top