As long forecast, Biggin has made its first tentative step towards controlled airspace.
From their consultation paper, issued today:
London Biggin Hill Airport should consider the provision of Regulated Airspace to protect traffic using departure and arrival routes.
Aircraft arriving and departing London Biggin Hill Airport will likely be required to follow ‘procedurally deconflicted’ routes as they climb to 7,000ft AMSL in order to join or leave the airspace above. This means that, provided they do not deviate from a prescribed and unique route, they will not come into airborne conflict with any other traffic. This is the basis upon which modernised airspace below 7,000ft will operate in future. In order to assure safe separation of aircraft it is therefore imperative that aircraft do not need to deviate from the prescribed route – for instance in order to avoid another aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. The provision of Controlled Airspace would provide essential protection to climbing and descending aircraft through a known air traffic environment where all safety standards can be maintained.
So, with Farnborough already announced, anyone wishing to operate in the LHR/LGW corridor, including anyone using Redhill or Fairoaks will need to willing and able to pass through regulated airspace. It may be restricted by the CAA to be only an TMZ and/or RMZ, but it more likely it is a bid for Class D.
Obstacles are what minima are about.
There are plenty of LPV approaches to short runways, and more in the pipeline.
Obviously, there will never be a 24 LPV. The difficulty with 06 would be the missed approach, though in reality it could be designed.
As far as the housing estate goes, I trust Grant Shapps completely.
Is it possible to have an LPV approach at Fairoaks, which has a short runway, obstacles on one side, and because of its proximity with Heathrow, no possibility to do a long final on the westerly approach?
Add to that the fact that the owners want to build houses on the airfield, and whatever the CAA does, I seriously doubt we’ll ever get approaches there.
As to using the Visual Approach of the GTN, as you yourself pointed out Timothy, on a short runway it will leave you too high, wouldn’t it?
Timothy
“EASA’s recent announcement of the removal of the R400 take-off restriction”
Would you be kind enough to expand?
Actually, talking of LPV to those airfields, we shouldn’t forget that, in the GTN, Garmin offer Visual approaches to all the runways I just mentioned. These behave exactly like LPV approaches, taking into account obstacles (though limited at present to 3° GPs).
Although Garmin only certify their use in VMC, I have been told by people better informed than me that they still work in IMC, and bring you to 50’ above the threshold at all the airfields I mentioned above.
So, if the CAA continue to obstruct LPV approaches, there could be an alternative for those willing to use the “Except when necessary for take-off or landing” element of the IFRs to what they consider a safe DA. Just sayin’.
Being based at Biggin is very pleasant provided you are willing and able to suck up the prices.
They have made no bones about the fact that they don’t want circuit traffic, so the days of training and club flying are numbered, but those who are able to fit in with the mainstream jet traffic are still welcome.
Avgas is relatively cheap, which, especially in a gas guzzler, offsets the landing fee to a small extent, and is self service, so there is no waiting.
The main disadvantage of Biggin is something the authorities can do nothing about, hill fog. It is not uncommon to have to divert to Fairoaks, which, though VFR, is 500’ lower.
EASA’s recent announcement of the removal of the R400 take-off restriction will be a boon, as Biggin is often subject to morning fog.
What is really needed in the UK is for the CAA to stop reneging on their commitment to CAP1122, so we get LPV to Fairoaks, Rochester, Stapleford, Wycombe and Blackbushe. There is no sign of that at the moment…actually the opposite, as their latest word is that they have been successful in obstructing the process to the point that applicants have pulled out. So long as that is the case, we need Biggin and its approaches.
I think Biggin is trying to squeeze as much as they can from higher-end piston GA, and from diversions, while not bothering if they lose the lower-end piston GA because most of that has not visited Biggin for many years anyway. The aeroclub scene there – big in the 1970s and 1980s – is long gone, with the general decline of GA everywhere. I used to go there a lot (used to rent the old ex- Air Touring hangar for Annuals, etc, until it was bought by the Spitfire builder who immediately threw everyone out) and the place seemed full of old and more or less permanently parked planes, in various stages of corrosion, and I doubt these paid a lot of landing fees.
For ages, Biggin was charging £30 (1400kg TB20; same for a PA28) and that is above the £10 “boycott this airport on all the UK aviation chat sites” threshold 
so they probably feel they have nothing to lose.
Biggin has ILS, hard parking, and decent opening hours so people will pay. I would never fly to Biggin from Shoreham because I can drive there in less time, and there is nothing notable in the area, but it is a diversion airfield for me, costing some £250 each time (including 2x £80 taxi back to Shoreham to retrieve the car parked there).
Does Biggin participate in the Strasser scheme, which zeroes the landing fee (but not parking??) if you divert there? I never made use of that because most landing fees are so trivial against the other hassles, but some might…
Not sure what being based at Biggin is like these days. Very few hangar options last I heard, with the then only available one forcing you to use them for maintenance also (a very very bad idea).
Dropped in to Biggin Hill today to pick up someone.
Last time I was there a month ago the landing fee for my 1.95 tonne aircraft was about £45. The price has now been almost doubled to £92, plus VAT.
I asked to speak to the manager and someone called Sally came out to speak to me. I told her I wished to register a very strong objection to this. How could they possibly justify doubling landing fees overnight in an era of almost no inflation. She promised to take this up with the board, who she tells me had made the decision. I told her I would be alerting the whole GA community on relevant pilot forums, in the hope that the airport would review this. This afternoon I received the following email:
Dear Mr Beckwith,
We are sad to learn of your displeasure of the new fees. While we appreciate the rise this year has been larger than normal, it is one that has been in the planning for some time as we had kept the rates artificially low for a couple of years.
Please let me assure you we have no wish to push out GA, and many like you have been loyal customers for many years and we want this to remain. However we have to balance the needs of the all users of the airport and the costs of running an airport of this size with the demands put on us by the regulator and key businesses using it. While the percentage increase looks big, it still represents very good value for what is provided.
Should you wish to talk further please do call at any time.
Best Wishes
Robert Walters
The new landing fee of £92 applies to aircraft in the band from 1.7 to 3.5 tonnes. Below is now £41 and the band above is £114. So there seems to have been a very deliberate calculation to squeeze larger GA aircraft.
I will be replying to Mr Walters, addressing his contention that “it represents good value for money”. When I think about other places I normally land to access London – Denham and Oxford (£17), their fees are a fraction of the new Biggin price.
Do others have any perspective on the new Biggin fees before I go back to Mr Walter?
Peter wrote:
With Biggin, you basically have to land before 9pm local,
Well, no. Even at £150 it might well be cheaper than staying in a hotel and missing the next morning at work. I consider the 11pm close a blessing.
