Red tape: Hi-vis and PPR by telephone

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

User avatar
Chris Martyr
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex

Re: Red tape: Hi-vis and PPR by telephone

Post by Chris Martyr » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:42 pm

This subject ,[both hi-viz & PPR] is an old, old chestnut and should be uncoupled from LA mag's allocation of free landing vouchers and should be pursued as a totally separate issue !
The fact that airfields wish to offer LAA'ers a free landing is a real positive and well done to them.

Their ops policy , along with many other GA airfields though is the area that needs adjustment and this is the real core matter.
If an airfield is absolutely chock a block full, either in the circuit or in the approach, then pilots will probably accept this and make alternative plans. This has nothing to do with obtaining "PPR" or not and is a good yardstick in the debate for getting rid of this idiotic , UK cultivated and irrelevant 'virtual' procedure . I use the word virtual because it actually makes no bloody difference who is on the VHF, PPR or no PPR.
An arrival slot is something completely different, and only necessary in busy times. If one of those is not necessary, then neither is PPR. Arrival from somewhere requiring a flight plan is also a different matter, so if neither of the above are relevant then drop it !

I'm not going into the hi-viz tabard debate again , other than to reiterate Brian's supermarket analogy once more. If Sainsburys required you to tell them your arrival time, charged you a tenner to park and then demanded you were fully compliant with their Health and Safety procedures prior to entering their premises , wouldn't you tell 'em to eff off !
Well that's what were all saying here. [but in the best possible taste]

Happy flying season chaps, wherever you choose to go. It is still a buyers market ! [but only just]
022516

User avatar
Flying John
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 6:40 pm
Location: Farthing Corner and Rochester
Contact:

Re: Red tape: Hi-vis and PPR by telephone

Post by Flying John » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:16 pm

As a previous post says, I also find Goodwood a very pleasant and accomodating airfield. I rarely/never telephone for PPR, but give a call when 10 miles out and ask if they will take ppr by radio. Its not a problem if they say no or are busy, I just take my business to another airfield.

I guess it depends how much you really want to go to a particular place. If its important for you to know that you will be accepted then call them. If not, be flexible and have a plan b.

John
John Luck
028282

User avatar
Chris Martyr
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex

Re: Red tape: Hi-vis and PPR by telephone

Post by Chris Martyr » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:19 am

Quite agree John, Goodwood is an absolutely adorable airfield and there's the added bonus of something interesting being out on the track. A few years back I dropped in mid-week to find a Jaguar Drivers Club test day going on and had the pleasure of meeting Tony Dron. On another occasion they had a Morgan Club track day with a few chaps going round sedately with their picnic hampers in the back and other more serious contenders going at it hell for leather. Paradise or what !

A couple of years back though when Sandown was a bit in the doldrums, I did drop into GWC for a fuel stop. The chap on the radio was clearly having a bad day and reminded me that I should have had PPR ,so since then I've always phoned in for it. Sandown has a great system . If runways and taxyways are all fully serviceable, [indicated in green on their website] then no PPR required . If anything on the website shows a red status then PPR is required. Total common sense for a grass runway airfield. Anyway, I'm off to Sandown today but in light of what John has said ,I will probably keep a listening watch on GWC's frequency , as it's always been one of my 'top venues' and last weeks little hiccup won't deter me.
Their PPR arrangement does need a little more defining though. [IMHO]
022516

Post Reply