My Flight Instructor told me that YYZ charges you per bounce for landing fees. Is this true at YYZ or at other airports?
Is this a General Aviation policy since YYZ hates GA so much or does it happen with jets?


Thanks in advance,
AF340  

Highly doubt it, how the hell would any major airport count the amount of times an aircraft bounces??
Especially if they have more than runway it would almost be an impossible task............

Quoting AF340 (Thread starter): My Flight Instructor told me that YYZ charges you per bounce for landing fees. Is this true at YYZ or at other airports? Is this a General Aviation policy since YYZ hates GA so much or does it happen with jets?

I believe landing fees are based on the weight of the aircraft. I have never heard of that before about the bounces. I am sure he was just joking.

PLEASE tell me your joking right.....????

Ummm - sounds like a teaching aid to get your attention?

Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 2): I am sure he was just joking.

No she actually wasn't! It really surprised me and I didn't really believe her but then I thought that maybe it's true because she is a training ATC there...


AF340  

That's actually a pretty common joke for a flight instructor to make.
Since you're naive enough to believe that one, can you do me a favor? Go to your hanger and bring me back about one hundred feet of flightline.
 

Quoting BE77 (Reply 4): Ummm - sounds like a teaching aid to get your attention?

...otherwise, I owe an awful lot of airports an awful pile of extra money for extra landings over the years...

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): Go to your hanger and bring me back about one hundred feet of flightline.

Ohhh, that would be hard. There deicing my plane as I speak. 


AF340  

[Edited 2007-12-05 20:23:51]

Quoting AF340 (Thread starter): My Flight Instructor told me that YYZ charges you per bounce for landing fees

I believe there are 6 or 7 airports like this.

At JFK they have cameras positioned along the runway, and some kind of automated imaging system counts the bounces and automatically charges the fee. At some of the other airports, like BTV (Burlington, VT), they actually have pressure sensors on the runway that not only count the bounces, but also weigh the aircraft ... making the landing fee billing process very simple. The systems usually have some preset parameters for what constitues a 'bounce' ... for example, 3ft for a MD80, and 6 inches for a C172 .... obviously.

Jimbo

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): Go to your hanger and bring me back about one hundred feet of flightline.

Hint: It's next to the propwash.

Quoting AF340 (Thread starter): My Flight Instructor told me that YYZ charges you per bounce for landing fees.

She was having some fun with you

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9):

        

Quoting AF340 (Thread starter): My Flight Instructor told me that YYZ charges you per bounce for landing fees.

Could she maybe have meant bounces as in touch and goes? Like, we are gonna go out and do some bounces today? I know YYZ would hate that even when it was slow.

If you log the bounces as extra landings they charge you.

Otherwise you're fine.

On the rare occasion that I'm working a flight and we have a bounce on landing, I always add to my landing announcements, "and as you exit the aircraft this morning/afternoon/evening, please have those dollar bills handy as we have added a $1 surcharge for the second landing."

Quoting AF340 (Reply 5): t really surprised me and I didn't really believe her but then I thought that maybe it's true because she is a training ATC there...

It's absolutely true. And watch your airspeed on approach too, because training aircraft are liable for extra Nav Canada charges for airspeed fluctuations of +10 and -5 KIAS. The sequencing of you among the larger commercial traffic can pose difficulties with busy ATC. YYZ (GTAA) will bill a further 0.2x hourly rental rate for each deviation.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9): The systems usually have some preset parameters for what constitues a 'bounce' ... for example, 3ft for a MD80, and 6 inches for a C172 .... obviously.

Not quite correct. As the system is a German-designed invention, it calibrates the bounces in metric measurement. An MD-80, to use your example would need to rebound a distance greater than 90 cm while that 172 would only be allowed a 15 cm buffer to avoid the surcharge. I am of course, using the ICAO-stipulated bounce rates as used in YVR. There may be imperial allowances in BTV.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 15): It's absolutely true. And watch your airspeed on approach too, because training aircraft are liable for extra Nav Canada charges for airspeed fluctuations of +10 and -5 KIAS. The sequencing of you among the larger commercial traffic can pose difficulties with busy ATC. YYZ (GTAA) will bill a further 0.2x hourly rental rate for each deviation.

Only training aircraft?? That doesn't make sense, your think that they would expect trainers to make mistakes where they could charge the airlines for violating those rules.... But then again I guess they have to pay for their free health care somehow!

this thread is full of funny

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 19): AFAIK the German company sold the product to one of the large US firms ... Lockheed Martin perhaps?

Yes, you're quite correct. They completed the transaction in October.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 19): Presumably no refunds for a 'greaser' !

Sadly, no. In an ironic twist, many Flight Ops departments are actually advising pilots to deliberately land so as NOT to 'grease it on' as the pressure systems were failing to register such smooth arrivals. This played havoc with the billing of navigation and en route fees as airlines were being charged as if they were still in the air, when in reality they had already completed their flights. YVR for example has a dedicated ATC staffmember to visually verfiy each aircraft's arrival to ensure the 'greasers' don't escape the landing fees the system fails to detect. The added cost of that position is being absorbed by the carriers, hence their eagerness to render that job redundant.
It's demanding some skill back into flying, to find that fine line between a bounce and the greaser. Operators of aircraft with beefier trailing link landing gear are reporting limited success to date.

On a related note, the airports operating the PMS machines are exploring the calibration of the system's sensitivity in relation to the James Brake Index (CRFI here). Icy or contaminated runways tend to affect the impact forces, which was not sufficiently designed in the original systems.

You've got alot to learn about the art of sarcasm, my friend.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 24): You've got alot to learn about the art of sarcasm, my friend.

Who does?

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 23): On a related note, the airports operating the PMS machines are exploring the calibration of the system's sensitivity in relation to the James Brake Index (CRFI here). Icy or contaminated runways tend to affect the impact forces, which was not sufficiently designed in the original systems.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 24): You've got alot to learn about the art of sarcasm, my friend.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 25): Who does?

LOL. Threepoint got BUSTED. CRFI accounts for things like asphalt vs. concrete runways, which would have NO RELATION to impact forces on a PMS system. Sorry dude, but your sarcastic remark against PMS was poor. It was more like a lie. Even though GE's Tarmac Application for Marking Plane Operations Network (TAMPON) is a much better system, you should still get your facts straight.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 26): Sorry dude, but your sarcastic remark against PMS was poor.

Huh? Whidh remark was that exactly?

Quoting BooDog (Reply 26): CRFI accounts for things like asphalt vs. concrete runways

No it doesn't. The CRFI tables do not take into account the actual composition of the pavement on a runway. http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/projects/air/f/crfi.htm It has to do with the amount of surface contaminant on the runway itself.

That amount of contaminant (snow vs standing water vs ice etc) definitely affects the level of impact an aircraft's wheels make upon the pressure sensors. Why else would all these airports subscribe to this expensive system?
I see you advocate the use of TAMPON, but I myself have only second-hand appreciation of its use and effectiveness.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 26): LOL. Threepoint got BUSTED. CRFI accounts for things like asphalt vs. concrete runways, which would have NO RELATION to impact forces on a PMS system.

LOL ... he ain't busted at all!

CRFI is a braking index, dependent on surface type AND contamination (snow, ice,rain etc.). A layer of powder snow, packed snow, or ice, has a significant effect on the sensitivity of the PMS system.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 26): you should still get your facts straight.

He did ... did you??

Jimbo

Apparently not.   I'm not a pilot and a PMS expert... only an imaging engineer and TAMPON expert.


(EDIT) Definitely not an expert on PMS. I got CRFI and AIP mixed up.

Which is why TAMPON is better. No CRFI crap.

I'll stick to TAMPON conversations from now on.

[Edited 2007-12-06 12:13:19]

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6): Go to your hanger and bring me back about one hundred feet of flightline.

     

Quoting BooDog (Reply 29): But I STILL don't see how runway composition matters. It matters in braking, yes. But it should have NO effect on the pressure applied from the landing gear to the PMS.

No, Threepoint is correct. The CRFI tables measure the amount and composition of surface contaminant for a reason. Less dense runway contaminants (such as fresh, powdery snow) absorb impact forces much differently than, for example, ice.

The idea is to develop a consistent, accurate method of executing Landing And Bounce Information Assessment. As it stands, only two methods have thus far been employed:

Quoting BooDog (Reply 21): purchasing the competing Pressure Management System (PMS)

Quoting BooDog (Reply 21): Right now, GE technicians manually review any landing violations.

In both cases, significant challenges exist. Obviously, staffing Airport Runway System Engineers at every runway around the clock is extremely expensive. Studies conducted by Lockheed-Martin have found it to be cost-prohibitive.

The PMS is also extremely expensive, as it would have to be installed, calibrated, and maintained at virtually every airport with scheduled commercial service. After Lockheed-Martin publishes it's PMS variance data, the ensuing lawsuits are expected to set precedence that requires a method of measurement with similar accuracy.

These challenges have ultimately led to advances in landing gear technology. The problem is, the most recent findings have been highly classified. The most recent information I have found is a bit dated, but is evidence of the first steps taken to address the problem.

The systems present three solutions. First, there is expected to be a weight savings realized by switching from heavy landing gear, wheels, and tires to the much lighter carbon-fiber and Kevlar fabric used in Short-Skirt hover platforms:






In addition to being tested on the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, the system has been in use on a DeHavilland testbed aircraft

Second, because the aircraft never actually touches the runway, runway lifespans are expected to increase tenfold, even in harsh climates.

Accordingly, and finally, airport authorities are expected to waive all landing and bounce fees for aircraft equipped with Short-Skirts.

Presently, the largest obstacle to the Short-Skirt is reportedly the pull-out maneuver, shown here in Figure 6:



As soon as the pull-out maneuver is perfected, the entire process should move forward smoothly, with incredible results.

2H4

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): As it stands, only two methods have thus far been employed:

Errr... did you miss my first post ???

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9): At JFK they have cameras positioned along the runway, and some kind of automated imaging system counts the bounces and automatically charges the fee.

Although some of the bounces may be manually inspected by an operator viewing the landing via monitors (or pre-recorded video), the MAJORITY of the billing is automatic. My understanding is that the image is captured digitally from various vantage points along the runway, and that data is processed by software to 'count bounces' as it were. This data is then correlated with FAA data pertaining to the callsign/flight/type, the weight is read from a database, and the operator automatically billed.


Jimbo

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): Landing And Bounce Information Assessment.

   Known around these parts as LABIA...

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): airport authorities are expected to waive all landing and bounce fees for aircraft equipped with Short-Skirts.

We waive' em when we see 'em   

Tom at MSY

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 32): Errr... did you miss my first post ???

No, I was pointing out that because, in practice, airlines refute the automated imaging system findings for virtually every landing involving a bounce, the systems require at least one Airport Runway System Engineer (ARSE) per runway to review the landings and collaborate the data.

While the systems are automated in theory, ARSEs are required in practice. It all comes down to finances and liability.

2H4

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): The idea is to develop a consistent, accurate method of executing Landing And Bounce Information Assessment. As it stands, only two methods have thus far been employed:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): Short-Skirt hover platforms:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): staffing Airport Runway System Engineers at every runway around the clock is extremely expensive.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): As soon as the pull-out maneuver is perfected,

           

Ahhh I haven't laughed out loud at work like that in a while.

So, to sum up, if the Tarmac Application for Marking Plane Operations Network (TAMPON) is used in conjunction with an Airport Runway System Engineer (ARSE), it shows, in my opinion, that it will cost a lot but not be very effective.

Moreover, I've been told that the Pressure Management System adversely affects a competing technology, the Flight's Unnoticeable Conclusion Knowledge System, of which very little is known yet.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 32): Although some of the bounces may be manually inspected by an operator viewing the landing via monitors (or pre-recorded video), the MAJORITY of the billing is automatic. My understanding is that the image is captured digitally from various vantage points along the runway, and that data is processed by software to 'count bounces' as it were. This data is then correlated with FAA data pertaining to the callsign/flight/type, the weight is read from a database, and the operator automatically billed.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 21): Right now, GE technicians manually review any landing violations. We also randomly pull samples of correct landings to look for any landings that the system missed. So it's not totally automated yet.

Ah yes. Back to TAMPON.

You are 100% correct, Mr. Bond, except for the 'automatic billing' part. We still manually review everything before a bill is submitted. As I said in #21, we hope to be 100% automated by the end of 2008. (Per the JFK contract, we must achieve a 98% accuracy rate before we go 100% automated.)

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31): The idea is to develop a consistent, accurate method of executing Landing And Bounce Information Assessment.

This is complicated by the presence of narrow-body (preferred) vs widebody users. The latter widebodies tend to possess dual sets of main gear trucks, so independent analysis must be considered for both the inner Landing And Bounce Information Assessments and the outer set as well. Narrowbodies tend to possess more compact Landing And Bounce Information Assessments, mainly due their possessing of only one visible set of main gear per side. Most astute observers will corroborate this statement. Not surprisingly, usage fees demanded by those with compact sets are at a premium compared to those charged by the wider sets.
I've been assured that development and understanding of the interaction of the Cumulative Landing Information Tests (Ocular/Recorded Info Submissions) is forthcoming, but is a highly complex undertaking.

[Edited 2007-12-06 13:58:48]

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): Quoting Georgebush (Reply 16): Only training aircraft?? That doesn't make sense, your think that they would expect trainers to make mistakes where they could charge the airlines for violating those rules.... But then again I guess they have to pay for their free health care somehow! It was a joke.

George Bush was never known to be too sharp....

Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 2): I believe landing fees are based on the weight of the aircraft. I have never heard of that before about the bounces. I am sure he was just joking.

I must congratulate you because you came about the closest to the correct answer.

While there is no international standard for calculating landing fees, if you do a Goggle search on "how landing fees are calculated" you will find that in most cases the Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is used to determine the landing fee. Remember the aircraft uses the same runways to takeoff and is much heavier at takeoff weight than landing weight, That is when the most stress will be put on the parking aprons, taxiways and runways.

Quoting BooDog (Reply 37): You are 100% correct, Mr. Bond, except for the 'automatic billing' part. We still manually review everything before a bill is submitted. As I said in #21, we hope to be 100% automated by the end of 2008. (Per the JFK contract, we must achieve a 98% accuracy rate before we go 100% automated.)

Some places are fully automated, however, for example CHO in Virginia, where the system was tested for the first time in the US. The automated billing system kept double-counting landings that were right on the centerline, as (the best explanation I can give lacking technical knowledge) because the sensors were multi-directional and actually would sometimes detect perfectly centered nosegear as being two separate sets of gear. They had to solve this with a work-around camera called the centerline image transmitter which runs a digital shot of the gear through a simple computer and compares it to various types to basically automatically determine through some sort of automatic comparison whether the plane bounced or not. One of my buddies is a consultant who was just down there checking the system out and he said the whole time he was down there, he didn't even notice the CLIT. Guess he didn't know it was at the end of the runway, not embedded in the pavement or something. Moron.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 31):

Probably one of the greatest airliners.net posts I have ever seen. LOL

Quoting IADCA (Reply 41): One of my buddies is a consultant who was just down there checking the system out

Is your friend permitted to test out more than one landing strip, or is he contractually obligated to service just one? He should know how some centerline imaging transmitters are built more prominently than others.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 43): Is your friend permitted to test out more than one landing strip, or is he contractually obligated to service just one? He should know how some centerline imaging transmitters are built more prominently than others.

He's worked on a few since that one. I think the problem with that one (I haven't checked it out) is that the vegetation around the end of runway 21 hasn't been trimmed in a while, which can make things around there a bit hard to find. He's had no trouble finding the transmitter at places where the maintenance is a little better.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 44): (I haven't checked it out)

Rightly so. There is an unwritten code to be observed.
Considering that many term it a third-world country, the Brazilian maintenance methods are unbeatable. They're quickly gaining widespread acceptance here.

Make sure you get the approach gate keys from the tower before you do any instrument work.

Let's not forget the impact of these systems on pilots who like to bounce it in a little rough on landing. Will costs increase for those who would rather land hard on a dry runway than grease it in? My friend frequently visits an outstation because they alow STIFF ops. (Sudden Terrain Impact Forgoeing Flight)

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 45): Considering that many term it a third-world country, the Brazilian maintenance methods are unbeatable. They're quickly gaining widespread acceptance here.

Indeed. Embraer developed the system a few years back at their test facility. It's actually specially adapted as a comprehensive system to maintain all sorts of runway systems, especially at airports that get exposed to a lot of weather conditions. It's called "weather-adjusted maintenence quality assurance system" or something (poorly translated from the Portuguese, probably), but they usually refer to it just as WAX. There is an alternate procedure which has similar effects. It's an older design and a little more maintenance intensive, developed by Douglas and another of the LA builders (North American? Lockheed?) back in the heyday of the LA aircraft industry. The system, "rotation-angle-zone obstruction removal system," is a solid system, but is more labor-intensive. Some airports, however, don't use either system, which causes a lot of problems sometimes with the ILS and other such instruments.

Quoting CWUPilot (Reply 47): Let's not forget the impact of these systems on pilots who like to bounce it in a little rough on landing.

Well, the results can be extreme if care is not taken. If the application of pressure during contact is too great, damage can result:

Quoting CWUPilot (Reply 47): Will costs increase for those who would rather land hard on a dry runway than grease it in?

The consequences of improper preparation for a dry runway can also be severe:



See, in this case, some form of lubrication would have minimized the heat and friction. Proper and liberal application of lubricant will minimize damage to both the aircraft and the runway. In these examples, foam was the preferred lubricant:





2H4

I have this plan for a bridge across the Pacific I would like to sell you sir. Along with that I would also like to know if you would like a bucket of jetwash and perhaps 500 RVR?   Your teacher was pulling your leg.

(What a relief from A vs B wars)

Don't forget the you need quite sensitve Bounce Rate Enchanced Augmented Stress Trackers (BREASTs) to make sure the your STIFF landing can actually be transmitted visually to the pilots. The BREASTs system should be complemented to the narrobody or widebody otherwise the visual stimulus to the pilots landing the craft may result in disorientation resulting in aborted landing.




PS: I vote this to be the 'best thread of the year'!!

I gotta say, I am really surprised this thread hasn't been deleted!



AF340  

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 51): (What a relief from A vs B wars)

remember that time, we all did that thing, and we laughed and laughed. that was a good day