The need for licensed aerodromes for light aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard
Sorry, you misunderstand me.
I agree with NS and yourself on the interpretation of Art 101. Hadn't read it before my earlier post - mea culpa.
My suggestion remains though that the rule should be changed. Barry has asked for opinions and my preference would be that the requirement for a licensed a/d to be used should be removed. At the end of the day it should be down to the instructor/training organisation to decide what combination of conditions is suitable for training. Those conditions include the student, the instructor, the aircraft, the aerodrome and the weather. They make these decisions every day.
The current arbitrary distinction between microlights and SEP has been overtaken by technology. The Dyn-Aero MCR-01 microlight has a 75% cruise of 135kt. Compare that with the average training aircraft.
The licensing of an aerodrome is not really relevant to the ab-initio environment, where training takes place only in relatively benign conditions - daytime VMC, good vis, no precipitation, no high winds, strong crosswinds or turbulence.
Mike
Sorry, you misunderstand me.
I agree with NS and yourself on the interpretation of Art 101. Hadn't read it before my earlier post - mea culpa.
My suggestion remains though that the rule should be changed. Barry has asked for opinions and my preference would be that the requirement for a licensed a/d to be used should be removed. At the end of the day it should be down to the instructor/training organisation to decide what combination of conditions is suitable for training. Those conditions include the student, the instructor, the aircraft, the aerodrome and the weather. They make these decisions every day.
The current arbitrary distinction between microlights and SEP has been overtaken by technology. The Dyn-Aero MCR-01 microlight has a 75% cruise of 135kt. Compare that with the average training aircraft.
The licensing of an aerodrome is not really relevant to the ab-initio environment, where training takes place only in relatively benign conditions - daytime VMC, good vis, no precipitation, no high winds, strong crosswinds or turbulence.
Mike
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
No offence Mike, but if you want to make a serious contribution to this debate I'd suggest that knowing what the relevant piece of legislation actually says, and relying on something other than second- or third-hand anecdotes, might be a good starting point.
As to the generalities, what is it that those of you who want to train at unlicensed fields want to get rid of? Is it the fire truck? Or the trained rescue personnel? Or the control of obstacles around the airfield? Or the aerodrome manual? And if you did get rid of some or all of those, and had a regime where people simply relied on the airfield being 'fit for purpose', who would decide what 'fit for purpose' is? And who would check that people are actually applying those standards?
RFF Category Special is already designed specifically for fields where only light a/c instruction happens and the CAP168 obstacle surfaces for a small GA airfield are minimal.
I can't see how not having a crash truck is a good idea when you are sending someone with 10hrs TT off solo for the first time.
As to the generalities, what is it that those of you who want to train at unlicensed fields want to get rid of? Is it the fire truck? Or the trained rescue personnel? Or the control of obstacles around the airfield? Or the aerodrome manual? And if you did get rid of some or all of those, and had a regime where people simply relied on the airfield being 'fit for purpose', who would decide what 'fit for purpose' is? And who would check that people are actually applying those standards?
RFF Category Special is already designed specifically for fields where only light a/c instruction happens and the CAP168 obstacle surfaces for a small GA airfield are minimal.
I can't see how not having a crash truck is a good idea when you are sending someone with 10hrs TT off solo for the first time.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northsouth
Your theory ignores the incredibly succesfull training regime at microlight schools.
No fire truck, no dedicated rescue team, still no obstructions and just 2 or 3 pages in the rules book. You may think that this means people are dying of horrible deaths, on a daily basis, but the reality is somewhat different.
Take away the cost of that lot and the cost of sending someone down to inspect it all and tick all the boxes, every so often, and it starts to make a big difference in the cost of running an airfield.
Your theory ignores the incredibly succesfull training regime at microlight schools.
No fire truck, no dedicated rescue team, still no obstructions and just 2 or 3 pages in the rules book. You may think that this means people are dying of horrible deaths, on a daily basis, but the reality is somewhat different.
Take away the cost of that lot and the cost of sending someone down to inspect it all and tick all the boxes, every so often, and it starts to make a big difference in the cost of running an airfield.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licenced / unlicenced
The statistics do not support a requirement for an aerodrome to be licenced for training. But, to use accident statistics only as a determiner it would follow that Heathrow dosn't need to be licenced. Surely a chicken and egg arguement.
However, it is more complicated than that. The current aerodrome licencing system sets a minimum standard which, for some strange reason, is aligned to fuselarge length and width. In my experience the inspectors do their best to work with you in achieving the minimum. They do not come to shut you down! But, it is not the minimum physical standards that are the problem for most operators, it is the bits in between that are costly. Incidentally i visit, on a regular basis, many private strips that are far superior than some licensed fields.
Throughout the years that this arguement has continued the nit picking requirement of keeping logs. Fire fighter currency, first aid recurrent training, fire tender and equipment inspections, dedicated housing for the fire truck and equipment etc, has mushroomed. It is almost impossible to achieve all this without a number of full time staff at a debilitating cost.
WHY! Well the british desease to have an arse kicking procedure in place. It is almost incidental that an accident takes place - only that there is an arse to kick, later.
A 'Licenced Aerodrome' is also immotive. Try applying for planning permission to open a 700m Licenced Strip. Within weeks there will be a very active opposition group screaming that the next step will be an international airport within a few years. I do not know of any private strip owners who have experienced this phenomenon.
Schools should be required to be registered with the CAA as now and provide details of the teaching facilities, aircraft used and details of the physical characteristics of the strip (aircraft to be used; manual peformance x a safety factor) including the minimum TORA and TODA of each runway. The CFI should have set down minimum experience and be able to demonstrate a relevant knowledge with regard to the minimum standards to be met. An FI(r) with a days experience could be the CFI under the current rules. So, we set out the minimum standards to be met for the training that will take place rather than a minimum aerodrome standard that may not be directly relevant.
The laws of duty of care and professional liaibilty takes care of the rest. Without the need for licencing a flying school/club would need only to apply for planning permission for their business and NOT for an 'Airport'.
However, it is more complicated than that. The current aerodrome licencing system sets a minimum standard which, for some strange reason, is aligned to fuselarge length and width. In my experience the inspectors do their best to work with you in achieving the minimum. They do not come to shut you down! But, it is not the minimum physical standards that are the problem for most operators, it is the bits in between that are costly. Incidentally i visit, on a regular basis, many private strips that are far superior than some licensed fields.
Throughout the years that this arguement has continued the nit picking requirement of keeping logs. Fire fighter currency, first aid recurrent training, fire tender and equipment inspections, dedicated housing for the fire truck and equipment etc, has mushroomed. It is almost impossible to achieve all this without a number of full time staff at a debilitating cost.
WHY! Well the british desease to have an arse kicking procedure in place. It is almost incidental that an accident takes place - only that there is an arse to kick, later.
A 'Licenced Aerodrome' is also immotive. Try applying for planning permission to open a 700m Licenced Strip. Within weeks there will be a very active opposition group screaming that the next step will be an international airport within a few years. I do not know of any private strip owners who have experienced this phenomenon.
Schools should be required to be registered with the CAA as now and provide details of the teaching facilities, aircraft used and details of the physical characteristics of the strip (aircraft to be used; manual peformance x a safety factor) including the minimum TORA and TODA of each runway. The CFI should have set down minimum experience and be able to demonstrate a relevant knowledge with regard to the minimum standards to be met. An FI(r) with a days experience could be the CFI under the current rules. So, we set out the minimum standards to be met for the training that will take place rather than a minimum aerodrome standard that may not be directly relevant.
The laws of duty of care and professional liaibilty takes care of the rest. Without the need for licencing a flying school/club would need only to apply for planning permission for their business and NOT for an 'Airport'.
Last edited by homeguard; 15th Mar 2005 at 12:02.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard, Spot on!
And when this is all in place, I would want to stock the School with a fine variety of factory built RVs (that can fly over built up areas) and are available to hire to the Club members.
MAF
And when this is all in place, I would want to stock the School with a fine variety of factory built RVs (that can fly over built up areas) and are available to hire to the Club members.
MAF
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Homeguard:
I'm open to persuasion but how would the stats show this? You'd have to compare training conducted at a licensed airfield with the same type of training conducted on the same types of aircraft at a comparable unlicensed airfield - i.e. training conducted illegally.
bar shaker:
You can't compare microlights with SEPs. Speeds, fuel capacities and complexity are all different. In any case surely the microlight accident rate is much worse than SEPs?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but given that there are threads not a million miles from here recounting tales of schools and clubs at licensed fields doing illegal trial flights, having physical punch-ups and instructors getting lost, and all that within a regime supposedly policed by the regulator, it seems to me that self-regulation of ab initio GA training, with everything relying on the trustworthiness of a CFI, would open up the possibility of all kind of abuses.
NS
The statistics do not support a requirement for an aerodrome to be licenced for training
bar shaker:
You can't compare microlights with SEPs. Speeds, fuel capacities and complexity are all different. In any case surely the microlight accident rate is much worse than SEPs?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but given that there are threads not a million miles from here recounting tales of schools and clubs at licensed fields doing illegal trial flights, having physical punch-ups and instructors getting lost, and all that within a regime supposedly policed by the regulator, it seems to me that self-regulation of ab initio GA training, with everything relying on the trustworthiness of a CFI, would open up the possibility of all kind of abuses.
NS
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth
You are missing two points:
1) Accidents in training, on any type of aircraft, are incredibly rare. Of those, the number that were landing or take off incidents, at the field, is even rarer. Of those, the number where injuries were reduced by the presence of a fire truck... I think you see what I mean.
I suspect that of those that involved solo pilots, the number that called up for help before crashing would be none. In short the licence required safety crew made no difference to training accidents.
2) When you talk about complication differences, I assume we are comparing the classic solo hack, the Cessna 152 with... with what exactly?
Landing a modern three axis microlight is no different from landing a forty year old 152, except the microlght may require better energy management. But if you have only ever landed both at an 800m runway, how well will you cope when you need to put it into a 400m field of crops? Or a 300m field?
The one thing that the statistics do show, time after time, is that a forced landing away from the field should be survivable every time, but it is exactly this that kills the most pilots.
Pilots should experience everything in their training, including getting into small grass strips. Letting them train at such places can only enhance the quality of pilots.
If the cost difference encourages more people into flying, its a win-win situation.
NorthSouth, do you fly into grass strips, or are they too dangerous for you?
You are missing two points:
1) Accidents in training, on any type of aircraft, are incredibly rare. Of those, the number that were landing or take off incidents, at the field, is even rarer. Of those, the number where injuries were reduced by the presence of a fire truck... I think you see what I mean.
I suspect that of those that involved solo pilots, the number that called up for help before crashing would be none. In short the licence required safety crew made no difference to training accidents.
2) When you talk about complication differences, I assume we are comparing the classic solo hack, the Cessna 152 with... with what exactly?
Landing a modern three axis microlight is no different from landing a forty year old 152, except the microlght may require better energy management. But if you have only ever landed both at an 800m runway, how well will you cope when you need to put it into a 400m field of crops? Or a 300m field?
The one thing that the statistics do show, time after time, is that a forced landing away from the field should be survivable every time, but it is exactly this that kills the most pilots.
Pilots should experience everything in their training, including getting into small grass strips. Letting them train at such places can only enhance the quality of pilots.
If the cost difference encourages more people into flying, its a win-win situation.
NorthSouth, do you fly into grass strips, or are they too dangerous for you?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
bs: I see what you're getting at. But since training at unlicensed fields isn't allowed, how can we know that the rarity of accidents at training airfields isn't something to do with the licensed status e.g. runway dimensions, runway inspections, absence of obstacles? The only way you'd get the stats is by running a trial with SEP training at unlicensed fields. As for whether a fire truck helped, I don't know how you'd find any stats on that.
Re grass strip experience, I absolutely agree that every PPL should have this in their training. We have one licensed grass runway within half an hour's flying and try to give students experience on it. And yes, I do fly into short grass strips for fun too.
There are a number of licensed grass airfields with quite short runways e.g. Derby, so it's not as if the licensing regime is stacked against them per se.
Also agree that one of the big risks in terms of fatal accidents is PPLs doing forced landings. But I don't really see how training at unlicensed fields would improve this. Getting in to a 600m grass strip which you planned to fly to is totally different from finding and reaching a field from 2000ft when your engine quits. Students are taught PFLs and cannot pass their test without demonstrating that they could get into a field safely. The main problem in the past has been PPLs never practising PFLs once they get their licence, but the JAR-FCL and NPPL reval regime has gone some way to addressing that in the 1hr reval flight every 2 years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the cost of training if it can be done safely, I just can't quite see how it would be done and remain to be convinced about the stats.
NS
Re grass strip experience, I absolutely agree that every PPL should have this in their training. We have one licensed grass runway within half an hour's flying and try to give students experience on it. And yes, I do fly into short grass strips for fun too.
There are a number of licensed grass airfields with quite short runways e.g. Derby, so it's not as if the licensing regime is stacked against them per se.
Also agree that one of the big risks in terms of fatal accidents is PPLs doing forced landings. But I don't really see how training at unlicensed fields would improve this. Getting in to a 600m grass strip which you planned to fly to is totally different from finding and reaching a field from 2000ft when your engine quits. Students are taught PFLs and cannot pass their test without demonstrating that they could get into a field safely. The main problem in the past has been PPLs never practising PFLs once they get their licence, but the JAR-FCL and NPPL reval regime has gone some way to addressing that in the 1hr reval flight every 2 years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the cost of training if it can be done safely, I just can't quite see how it would be done and remain to be convinced about the stats.
NS
bs: I see what you're getting at. But since training at unlicensed fields isn't allowed, how can we know that the rarity of accidents at training airfields isn't something to do with the licensed status e.g. runway dimensions, runway inspections, absence of obstacles? The only way you'd get the stats is by running a trial with SEP training at unlicensed fields. As for whether a fire truck helped, I don't know how you'd find any stats on that.
So, go and compare the accident stats for microlight schools on licenced and unlicensed airfields. Since the syllabi, intructors qualifications and aeroplanes should be the same, I'd regard that as a fair comparison.
For a truly unbiassed comparison, pick a few schools with aeroplanes like CT, Eurostar, C42 - which have pretty much light aircraft characteristics.
G
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lies, damm lies and statistics
North south
Every accident is notifiable and the full story is reported, such as the attendance of a fire service (Truck) if any and the place and circumstances leading up to the accident. Reports are required of ALL 'Accidents' and 'Incidents' whether at a licenced strip or not.
The CAA collects this data which is provided to them by the AAIB. There are many sources available, such as Gasil and on the CAA website where you too may read them. You only have to bother. Those involved in promoting the changes have put a lot of unpaid work into the research. Don't patronise them and deny the existence of research simply because you have yet do do any or it hasn't been shown personally to you. I'm, sure that you take my point.
Below is a link where you may start, if you so wish. GASIL is sent automatically to all aircraft owners, operators and flying schools and contains reports of all accident within the previous period. You may also be put on the mailing list by contacting them. The CAA tour the country extensively throughout the year giving safety evening at venues where all are welcome. They are well publisized and worth attending. It saids a lot for our PPL fraternity that these evening are so well attended on all occasions.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP735.PDF[/URL]
The only reasoned opposition to the changes, expressed so clearly at various seminars that i have attended, have been out of a fear of commercial disadvantage.
Every accident is notifiable and the full story is reported, such as the attendance of a fire service (Truck) if any and the place and circumstances leading up to the accident. Reports are required of ALL 'Accidents' and 'Incidents' whether at a licenced strip or not.
The CAA collects this data which is provided to them by the AAIB. There are many sources available, such as Gasil and on the CAA website where you too may read them. You only have to bother. Those involved in promoting the changes have put a lot of unpaid work into the research. Don't patronise them and deny the existence of research simply because you have yet do do any or it hasn't been shown personally to you. I'm, sure that you take my point.
Below is a link where you may start, if you so wish. GASIL is sent automatically to all aircraft owners, operators and flying schools and contains reports of all accident within the previous period. You may also be put on the mailing list by contacting them. The CAA tour the country extensively throughout the year giving safety evening at venues where all are welcome. They are well publisized and worth attending. It saids a lot for our PPL fraternity that these evening are so well attended on all occasions.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP735.PDF[/URL]
The only reasoned opposition to the changes, expressed so clearly at various seminars that i have attended, have been out of a fear of commercial disadvantage.
I argue it's also a fair comparison to compare licenced vs unlicenced with overseas training where training at unlicenced fields is allowed. That gets around the UK unavailability of GA training records at unlicenced fields.
The a/c are the same, the laws of physics are the same, landing & take-off is the same etc etc.
The a/c are the same, the laws of physics are the same, landing & take-off is the same etc etc.
I think that airfields which only currently have a requirement to be licensed due to the training activities on them should be granted a status of their own. As somebody said earlier, as soon as the general public hear the phrase "licensed airfield" they think Heathrow not Popham.
If an airfield owner wants to operate flight training (up to PPL I'd suggest) then the CAA should assess the airfields suitablity for training. This would address potential obstacles, runway width, length etc. whilst removing the more onerous and, as shown by the microlight fraternity, mostly unnecessary restrictions within the current system (fire engine, dedicated medical personnel etc.). Taking Popham as an example of a well run unlicenced airfield, how many times has a fire engine or a medic been required there due over the last five years?
If an airfield owner wants to operate flight training (up to PPL I'd suggest) then the CAA should assess the airfields suitablity for training. This would address potential obstacles, runway width, length etc. whilst removing the more onerous and, as shown by the microlight fraternity, mostly unnecessary restrictions within the current system (fire engine, dedicated medical personnel etc.). Taking Popham as an example of a well run unlicenced airfield, how many times has a fire engine or a medic been required there due over the last five years?
