Ofcom

[John Price]

After much pontification their proposals are here.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consul ... /statement

Some good news but mostly bad especially if you run an airfield with a radio.

John.

[John Brady]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have seen some of the outraged comments on OFCOM sent out this afternoon on other boards but they do not stand up to scrutiny. I would like to give you my view from the LAA standpoint.

Yes it is disappointing that OFCOM did not accept the overwhelming logic of our submissions and leave well alone. However we know that the government has decided that charges will be applied and that is not unsurprising. We now need to analyse the decision.

OFCOM intended to charge aerodromes some £2600 PA for each tower or A/G frequency and £9900 for an approach frequency. This cost would have been passed on to users or the frequencies would have been given up and probably handed back to Europe for reallocation. But following the persuasive arguements put forward by our sector and the LAA in particular, OFCOM have created a special category of Tower, A/G and FIS frequency allocation for small GA aerodromes with coverage of 10nm radius and 3000ft. For this they will charge £650 instead of the current licence fee of £150; so an increase of £500 PA. In addition OFCOM have decided to extend the validity of aircraft radio licences from 1 year to 3 so instead of £20 PA for a fixed radio, owners would pay £20 every 3 years saving £13.33 PA. Looked at overall this is an excellent result as we can see by example. If you fly from an aerodrome with one frequency and 38 based aircraft, the base cost goes up by £500 = £13.15 PA each but each aircraft radio licence fee would go down by £13.33 PA - so break even. Nationally there are about 10,000 radio licences issued to GA aircraft so the overall annual licence saving will be about £133,000. We do not yet know the national cost to aerodromes but there are currently 150 A/G licences and the cost of those would go up by £75,000. Of course the cost to larger aerodromes which offer a wider tower or approach frequency will go up significantly and they will need to look carefully at their business model to decide how to respond.

We will need to review the situation when we have more data and I have asked Radio Licensing at the CAA to help with that but this is undoubtedly a much better outcome than would have resulted if GA organisations had not put up a robust defence and in all probability this will be close to cost neutral overall for the lighter end of the sector. There may even be a small saving at the expense of the heavier end.

I think this a good result that has been worthwhile. It goes into my success box and I commend it to you.

Regards,

John Brady
Vice-Chairman

[G.Dawes]

I would have thought that the CAA/ NATS being a net loser big time over these charges, would have screamed blue merde!! over this. The charges should have nothing to do with OFCOM as they are meant to govern the mobile phone/ radio entertainment/ television etc. They seem to be wanting to become tax collectors for all electromagnetic emissions, I hope that one Quango might have wished to stick another with all the possible force they could, but I suppose that the CAA is more interested in keeping their jobs now. Anyone tried complaining to the relevant government minister? How much does the enroute / approach/ airfield service get charged, for the south east sector when you add all the different frequencies used. TAX TAX.

[Bill Scott]

Increased price for thin air. Bargain!


No offence to John Brady, your efforts are very much appreciated.

[Brian Hope]

I agree with John (Brady), this is a good result for our end of the market, as individual users our costs are reduced by the extension of the radio licence from one to three years for the same cost, and from an airfield level (at least the sort of fields the vast majority of us fly from) the increase in the licence fee has been kept reasonably low at £500. In light of what the 'big boys' will pay, that is not at all bad.
The 'big boys' don't come off anything like as well, but personally I'm happy to let them fight their own corner, they generally have little regard for our kind of flying anyway. It is though unfortunate that some recreational GA friendly airfields such as Gloucester, Biggin etc., the 'in the middle' guys, will have to consider their position and decide whether they can alter their operational practices, or whether they will have to allocate the additional costs in user charges.
I say well done John, the LAA and the other associations that worked hard to keep what could have been a very onerous cost centre down to an almost a non event to the vast majority of users. Remember, only a few months ago we were talking about airfields binning radio altogether, owners not operating their sets etc etc. Let's be content that there are effectively no ill effects for us.

[tnowak]

G. Dawes,

Unfortunately, OFCOM's charter is:
"Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate."

Glad that the outcome wasn't worse. Well done to all at the LAA who worked hard on this.
Tony Nowak

[Steve Brown]

I've read the main document and it indeed looks a reasonable result so well done and thank you to John & for wider LAA team lobbying.

I always thought that the aircraft radio licence was too much money and needed renewing too often so that is a great result.

Incidently so much more professional to read 'the Light Aircraft Association suggested....' in the Ofcom response document rather than (' the Popular Flying Association suggested....').

There are not the same pressure for VORs/Nav /ILS/GS frequency bands (and due to ICAO? - no ability to transfer to other non aviation users) so these allocations appear not likely to benefit from incentive pricing so seems no charges for those at present.

Looks like the option for small fields to perhaps choose to forego their own frequency and use the free of charge SafetyComm frequency instead may be a way out from the charges altogether - providing pilots use it responsibly and follow correct protocol ref correct addressing, brevity etc.

Regards
Steve

[steveneale]

I think LAA should be cautious declaring this as a good result. The 1 to 3 year aircraft licence change is a cynical tactic to silence decent from short sighted aircraft owners. The increases will mean some small airfields will give up their frequencies. Others will add it to their charges so we pay. Those frequencies are there for our safety. This tax will reduce our safety and someone may die as a result. While as always the effort of John and others lobbying is very much appreciated LAA would do well not to declare this "a result".

Ofcom played the soft shoe shuffle over this. Two steps forward, cries of anguish, one step back and people feel relieved for only being ripped of only a bit. Ofcom got the result and GA lost. Let's not forget if you have a VHF radio on a yacht you pay nothing at all.

Steve

[rans6andrew]

I saw, on another aviation BB, the suggestion that airfields could "share a frequency" with their close neighbours and pay only a proportion of the fee. I feel that this is a recipe for chaos. It would be worse than safetycom for giving positional awareness in the circuits. Are they here or somewhere else. Until people start to end ALL calls with the airfield name..........

What would happen if the airfields let their licences lapse and removed their equipment, but everyone carried on making blind calls on the frequencies currently assigned? A few frequency lists could be printed with last years date for giving away with charts rather than this years lists.

When it is busy the chatter in the circuit would provide the info wanted by the new folk joining and everyone would know where the others are without the confusion of adjacent traffic chatter. The airfield would be spared the fee and the aircraft would get the benefit of the reduced fees. Win Win. The frequency, while technically available to be sold to the highest bidder, would not actually be free for them.

The signal square is a good idea but not for all airfields. Those with parachuting or model aircraft operating will not want overhead activity at any time. This will require a bit more thinking about.

Play Ofcom at their own underhanded game!

Rans6....

[G.Dawes]

Ofcom is the device set up by government to collect money ie mobile phone licensing brings in so many billions by being sold off to those companies who know they can get it back from the punters ( US). Perhaps we could use mobiles to phone in for permission to land etc, sic. The status-quo should be left alone and don't think the CAA will not want a cut of radio licensing from us. The approval charges may increase and might even become annual as well.

[John Brady]

To respond to some of the previous posts:

OFCOM is very independent and writes its own legislation and although we could complain to a Minister, OFCOM will show that this change is cost neutral for our part of the sector so we will be shot down.

If we want to challenge OFCOM the route set out in their charter is through Judicial Review but it would cost us around £250k to do.

As Brian said, for our part of aviation this is just rearranging the furniture. For en-route services and commercial airports this is not really an issue because although the charges appear large they are but a tiny part of revenue and anyway can be passed down the chain to the passenger.

Of more concern is the established GA airfield with an IFR procedure and an approach frequency where costs may be unmanageable and will certainly kill business growth at a time when the economy needs to grow. That is almost certainly the reason OFCOM have put in cost phasing over several years in the hope the recession has gone by then - the LAA made a big point of that in its response.

However, OFCOM recognise that the gulf in costs between small and large GA airfields may be untenable and have today offerred to look at a more graduated scale between Turweston and Heathrow so that the likes of Gloucester would pay a lot less. It is interesting that this was put to the LAA who you may think are not strictly involved in that but perhaps OFCOM think we are a pragmatic bunch with whom they can discuss such things. Such is the way to do business (imho)

John

[Graham Clark]

I learned to fly at what was then a busy aerodrome inside the London Zone (Fairoaks) when few light aircraft were equipped with vhf radio. We were taught a non-radio procedure, and it worked. It was safe. There was no FISO: the airfield was roughly circular; the wind sock defined the (shifting) take-off and landing direction, and it all worked a treat, with sometimes half a dozen aircraft in the circuit.
I now operate from an unlicensed grass aerodrome which has a defined frequency. Although the availability of r/t ground-air communication is 'nice' (I have paid for it), it does no more for me than would Safetycom. If the airfield proprietor decided to do away with our own frequency (for years there was not one), I would not shed a tear.
Given the fact that there are two runways, with only three usable directions, I don't think there would be any measurable reduction in safety .
For much of the time, radio is at best a distraction which I can do without. When I need it most, is shooting the gap betwen the Heathrow and Gatwick zones, or the Bath gap & similar. But it is no substitute for eyes. Ever. Heresy. Toys for the boys.

[MikeGodsell]

I am appalled at the complacency expressed here. OFCOM is a protection racket writing its own rules and free to extort money at will. To deal with such a monstrous organisation, run by a CEO who 'earns' nearly £400,000 per year, is degrading at best and cowardly at worst.
We are in the EU now and aviation safety and standardisation are the concern of EASA. No other member state charges for the use of vital safety related aviation radio communications. This is such an aberration for the UK as to be a matter for the European parliament as well as its safety enforcer EASA.
The LAA and all the other Europe wide aviation organisations should be making an official notification to EASA about this outrageous OFCOM proposal.
Over to you John Brady, do you intend to take this up at the highest level with EASA? And do you intend to push AOPA, and EuropeAirsports to do likewise?

[mcfadyeanda]

Divide and rule; it has worked before as a governing strategy.

Duncan McF.

[Bill Scott]

John, WRT their possible view of the LAA as being a pragmatic bunch and so forth; I wouldn't trust them for a moment, they're a revenue generating quango, nowt more! They have no care or interest in aviation and as for them effectively writing their own regs/legislation, it just proves that democracy is a failed experiment. Neither would I look to Europe/EASA for support as that is a totally self serving undemocratic cabal.

We should take a leaf out of the book of our cousins across the water and say no, or should that be non? If we all did that, there wouldn't be enough room in all the prisons for us.

Rant over, another Victor Meldrew moment. I must be getting old.