Is there any realistic chance that Southampton will remain GA friendly when (if) CAT returns to pre-Covid levels?
No, because they don‘t have the additional parking space available.
No, becuase they will not have the capacity for traning instrument approaches once traffic levels go back to normal.
So, if you can‘t fly there as a destination (no parking) and can‘t train instrument approaches, then it is not good for much. For training VFR landings, smaller airfields are more suitable.
I dont think they will be back to pre-Covid levels of commercial traffic any time soon.
I plan to drop in there asap and make a point of telling them how much we appreciate their renewed welcome.
On your point #2, bosco, actually they used to do IAPs and for free until c. 2013 when they realised they could make £££. I did my initial JAA IR test to EGHI and when I phoned them to pay I got the great news. No price list!
It is purely a matter of corporate will to do IAPs. They have plenty of time, at certain times. You have to book it, sure. But no worse than say Exeter.
The parking is a serious problem but only because they have filled the place with old junk; see pic above. All airports do that. They could park ~20 planes if they cleared up that white box stuff.
With Flybe bust they won’t have normal traffic for years if ever and I think they know this better than anybody else. Only the fat profitmaking Flybe routes will be picked up by others.
Some regionals get quite busy especially at certain times but I bet if you asked a decent major airport controller if he thought there was capacity at the same time others are saying there isn’t the answer may be different.
Sometimes there isn’t capacity but sometimes it’s something to be dealt with by management, if there is a will.
Like Peter points out, capacity on the ground could possibly be increased if there was a genuine will to do so.
UK local GA will often require nothing at all, at a reigonal, other than access to the local area.
No need for security, customs, immigration.
So, no flight plan……..then why not self service through the little side gate nicely cut into the fence next to the terminal. Very little outlay for the management and only a little extra work for ATC.
Benefit to Pilots, the wider GA, and the local economy.
But if I were an airport manager I would be likely to recognise that the whole endeavour would be due my commitment to GA not a tangeable benefit directly to the airport. A week of GA movements probably wouldn’t even pay for the electric bill.
But if I were an airport manager I would be likely to recognise that the whole endeavour would be due my commitment to GA not a tangeable benefit directly to the airport. A week of GA movements probably wouldn’t even pay for the electric bill.
And therein lies the problem. These big regional airports are owned by large companies and would employ the airport manager on the basis of his ability to maintain the airport income and protect it from risk. In the case of income the contribution from GA would be very small. In the case of risk the contribution from GA would be seen to be very high. For example imagine if a Cessna 172 made a runway incursion and forced a 737 full of passengers to go around. The way that such an event would be reported in the press would give the airport owners a real PR headache. Or if it got out that the people using the aforementioned side gate to enter airside were not subject to the same security checks as the CAT passengers would equally be difficult to defend. In these cases the airport owners would look at the £20,000 per year or whatever that they gain from GA and wish they never bothered.
I think this problem is at its worst in the UK but I’m sure other European countries are affected also. Obviously in America this isn’t a problem because, as has been mentioned, people see the ability to use airports by everybody no differently to the ability of everybody to use the roads. In Britain this will never happen due to the ingrained culture of envy of anyone that has £1 more than you do.
Actually you only need to cross the channel to see it done quite differently.
But obviously, maybe not at airfields in private corporate ownership.
Southampton Airport wrote:
During this 30 minute window, we agreed with NATS that an aircraft could complete 2 x approach and 1 x hold, or 1 x approach and 2 x holds.
That is rather telling.
Why do they have to agree something with NATS? Surely NATS are contracted to provide ATC services at the airport and in return for their money they need to deal with whatever traffic the airport operator chooses to accept?
The fact that such things have to be agreed with the ATC contractor tells you quite a bit about how these businesses work and where the power lies.
If I run a pub/restaurant and want to put three extra tables outside on the patio, I do not have to get agreement on this from my potato supplier.
In any case I am hardly likely to use Southampton unless I require an instrument approach. Lee-on-Solent is a much easier and cheaper option, and only just down the road.
Peter wrote:
who are interested in completing IFR training approaches with us
It would be interesting to know whether this applies to any instrument approach or just to training approaches.
On a related note I went to Oxford a couple of times the other week because it was on my route and their fuel was very cheap (£1.20 a litre inc VAT). The first time I did not book a training approach but called to PPR, as is the norm in the UK.
When I called up Oxford Radar about 10 miles south east I asked them (on a whim) for the ILS which they gave me, no issues. Then when I got my invoice for the fuel via email I found I had been charged about £20 for the ILS. I did not make a fuss because there was no landing fee and the whole experience was otherwise excellent, but it did make me wonder whether they considered it training and charged accordingly. Clearly it was not training as I was alone in the aircraft and not under the hood. Perhaps they decided that because it was severe CAVOK all instrument approaches by light aircraft must be training, but I am not really comfortable with that idea.
There is no mention of ILS charges on their website.
If EGHI is a NATS airport, NATS are paying for the ATC, so the airport has to pay NATS for the ATC provision – probably a few M a year. So I can see NATS have control of what their employees are controlling.
Normally one would not pay for an IAP if one lands after flying it once, otherwise everybody possible would be flying visual approaches 
There is no mention of ILS charges on their website.
There is, in their fees and charges document. It’s called “NAV fee” and applies “whether training or not”.
