If that be sooth, I dare bet one will find pilots from France, and their training, are more akin to those from the USA than to the UK counterparts.
In general all public airports in Germany (Verkehrslandeplatz) are open during their opening hours, and it is a rare exception if there’s a PPR for some reason. I’ve flown to at least 150 of them in 22 years, and there is normally no PPR.
tomjnx wrote:
No but it reinforces the need to communicate additional information that cannot be put into the VFR manual and is not well put into NOTAMs (because of their delay, rigid content structure and text onlyness)
Question to the experts: What is the delay for publishing a NOTAM?
With “VFR manual”, do you mean the VFR charts or just the little booklet with rules from the AIP pertaining to VFR that is published once a year?
In France (and probably all countries that follow ICAO guidance), there are also “SUP AIPs” which contain temporary information (up to one year) that is often accompanied by graphical information. They are referenced by “trigger NOTAMs” so you know about their existence from your NOTAM briefing. This is a system actually designed to convey the information to aeronautical users. Reverting to PPR just doesn’t seem the right way to mount a parallel system to the aeronautical information channels, because it is not internationally standardized. Whilst I may call a local airfield in France or Germany because I speak the languages, I can imagine that having to call someone in Spain, Hungary or Poland in order to get a permission could be a sufficient reason for me to not go, because it wouldn’t be assured that we understand each other. They would try to convey me their very important, not to miss information over the phone, and if I get it wrong they may even claim that I never had PPR? No thanks. Now I am sure the same goes for a Spaniard, Hungarian or Pole who doesn’t speak German but wants to land here, when they see the magical word “PPR”.
One issue is that almost no UK pilot reads the AIP. Most (myself included) fly with a copy of Pooleys and the Ebay copy is not a joke; many fly with old ones from Ebay. I don’t understand that price, however (2.5x normal).
Otherwise, the UK doesn’t have a “VFR Manual” that I know of.
Another possibly revealing factor is that Biggin’s move catches basically only the less experienced UK pilots. Those with the Ipad apps will not bother to go to the website; they will just press a button and toss in a flight plan with a DCT leg and that’s it. The airport will get less info that way than via the website (on which I have just registered). And foreign pilots will definitely not touch the website. I don’t know if this is accidental or deliberate…
Tom,
I think we he have exchanged ideas about NOTAMs sufficiently. You seem to think that AIP (+ bloody “VFR Manual”, which IMHO, is a subpart of the AIP) + NOTAMs are not suitable / sufficient to give all the information required to fly to an airfield. I disagree, at least for the huge majority of airfields, and it seems like many here disagree with you. So be it.
Then you seem to think that their requirement to read that website gives airfields the right to make its use subject to prior “permission” altogether. Again, I do not agree. I do usually read airfield websites before going somewhere, but not always. Experience tells that airfield websites are of such varied quality, and that’s why I don’t like them per se. At least not if they became strictly required reading before going somewhere. The strictly required information should be (and usually is) in the official publications.
Then, it seems that swiss airfields are a particular bread. They like to make it really complicated. Sure, Switzerland is densely inhabited; many airfields have particulaties relating to the lack of space, etc. Still, when they ask visitors to fly to fly around that tree to the left, then that tree to the right, make runup here, taxi here not there, etc. they exaggerate. Speck is a prime example. It’s something that the locals (probably accounting for 80% of all circuit movements) can do, but can’t be asked of visitors.
Re grass runways, I can even agree with you about PPR making some sense. The condition of the runway is too much of a variable, which often can’t be sufficiently disposed of with “no NOTAM out = all is fine, notam out = runway totally closed”. Still, even the information on say the FZGO website is binary (“OPEN”) and wouldn’t make me happy, so I would have to call and speak to somebody beforehand. And even bears the problem (often cited by Peter) that people don’t know aircraft types, pilot skills, etc., so it has be taken with a grain of salt. Much better than just a binary piece of information though.
Anyway, all this (making an airfield PPR because it is so darn complicated, thus requiring a “briefing” process of some sort) does not really relate to Biggin, because Biggin does not give out any useful information to the pilot in the PPR process. This is also true for most other big size airports in the UK. It’s really two different types of PPR, yet they always invariably get mixed up in forum discussions.
What is the delay for publishing a NOTAM?
Rwy20, I will ask my “contact” at the German AIS / NOTAM office for a precise number, and let you know. From my last visit there, I gathered the impression that it is usually quite quick.
I think it is quick quick as well judging from the frequency at which they are published and withdrawn.
boscomantico wrote:
Experience tells that airfield websites are of such varied quality
And how is that different from NOTAMs? Lots of NOTAMs get published, cancelled, published again with fixed information… Recently I came across a french NOTAM I absolutely couldn’t understand, the only way to understand it was to go to Olivia and get the french version of it…
boscomantico wrote:
many airfields have particulaties relating to the lack of space, etc. Still, when they ask visitors to fly to fly around that tree to the left, then that tree to the right, make runup here, taxi here not there, etc. they exaggerate
Many airfields in germany have prescribed in- and outbound tracks as well. Ever heard of the Hangelar precision circuit? Last time I checked, Hangelar wasn’t in switzerland.
boscomantico wrote:
information on say the FZGO website is binary
How can you judge from a single day whether the info is binary?
boscomantico wrote:
I would have to call and speak to somebody beforehand
And how exactly is this a problem given that the phone number of the guy in charge is published on the website?
Bosco, you seem to have double standards.
It’s apparently no problem for you with italian aviosuperficie that they can open/close just how the owner feels like, no dependable info seems to be published, you’ll have to find out the number of the airfield contact somehow, mostly the only way seems to be by asking Bosco.
But you seem to have a huge problem with an airfield having an up to date webpage where all this information is available with one click, just because someone calls this “PPR”?
tomjnx wrote:
And all those back country small airfields you seem to be so fond of publish all relevant information rigorously by NOTAM but have a rotten webpage?
No, they don’t publish anything. If they have a web page it has not been updated ln years. So we have to look at that other semi official -ish page run by one guy in his spare time to find a phone number and other info. It’s really stupid, the only thing these airfields need to publish is if they are closed. There should be no need to call someone to find out. It’s all bad practice caused by mobile phones.
UK airports are not like parks or roads….like in the USA….they are private (semi-private) businesses….just because they are licenced does not imply they have a duty to be open all hours for all comers….get over it.
