Eurocontrol charges
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bose-x
It does not matter what his departure clearance was! The flight was at 18:13 which is after official sunset and so automatically becomes an IFR flight. As a result of weight the aircraft becomes eligible for enroute charging.
This isn't a thread about whether he is or is not IFR, as patently he is if he is flying at night in the UK
What it is about is enroute charging, and how those charges are (rightly or wrongly) incurred.
The only way he could be charged enroute charges is if "someone" logs his flight IFR, and 99% of the time this information comes from the departure tower records or the destination arrival records and not from any enroute source.
Whether it is an IFR flight because it is night is moot: He was charged for it because he departed Liverpool at night and they logged it as such.
He probably wouldn't have been charged for it had he departed Wellsbourne for a local flight returning to Wellsbourne with no other landings and all at night, nor many other non-ATC airfields, private strips etc.
.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a bit pedantic
Fuji
Err.... Eurocontrol didn't render the charge in the first place - UK NATS did. Eurocontrol just collects it and redistributes the goodies.
Eurocontrol wasn't charging for a service and Eurocontrol wasn't not rendering a service (if you see what I mean) - they are just the debt collectors, pure and simple.
The charges are UK, and the service is UK - Eurocontrol has nothing do to with it.
I know this is pedantic but its this loose phraseology which creates misunderstandings and misquotes by others, less well informed.
GB
BTW can Eurocontrol render a charge if they havent provided a service?
Eurocontrol wasn't charging for a service and Eurocontrol wasn't not rendering a service (if you see what I mean) - they are just the debt collectors, pure and simple.
The charges are UK, and the service is UK - Eurocontrol has nothing do to with it.
I know this is pedantic but its this loose phraseology which creates misunderstandings and misquotes by others, less well informed.
GB
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bose-x
It does not matter what his departure clearance was! The flight was at 18:13 which is after official sunset and so automatically becomes an IFR flight. As a result of weight the aircraft becomes eligible for enroute charging.
Rustle replied ...
Sorry bose, you have missed the point.
This isn't a thread about whether he is or is not IFR, as patently he is if he is flying at night in the UK
What it is about is enroute charging, and how those charges are (rightly or wrongly) incurred.
It does not matter what his departure clearance was! The flight was at 18:13 which is after official sunset and so automatically becomes an IFR flight. As a result of weight the aircraft becomes eligible for enroute charging.
Rustle replied ...
Sorry bose, you have missed the point.
This isn't a thread about whether he is or is not IFR, as patently he is if he is flying at night in the UK
What it is about is enroute charging, and how those charges are (rightly or wrongly) incurred.
You're both absolutely correct, but this isn't what I was getting at. I was really trying to get him to remember the wording of his clearance, because every time I have flown out of Liverpool, their clearance phraseology clearly states if the departure is VFR ("cleared to leave the zone VFR via Kirby not above 1500'" etc etc) - and this goes for (I think) every other class D airport I have flown out of in the UK - as an aside, is there a standard for this stuff ?
My point being, obviously, if he didn't hear those magical letters "VFR", he could expect the flight to be logged as IFR, and to wait for the invoice to hit the carpet ...
FF
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is pedantic but its this loose phraseology which creates misunderstandings and misquotes by others, less well informed.
Is this correct, however?
The lawyer in me suggests that it is Eurocontrol who are raising the charge in the first instance, and, as agents for NATS, in the second instance, it is presumably Eurocontrol who will sue for non payment. They well be acting therefore as a NATS agent, but the contractual liability arises between them as the collection agent and you, the user?
It would be interesting to know whether contractually Eurocontrol can be asked to bill for a service not provided by their service provider as in this case where it would appear NATS has not in fact provided any en route service as the en route part was wholly outside CAS.
BTW How can you charge for something you havent provided?
In fact I am trying to think of another instance where the State requires you pay when nothing has been provided?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle,
I did not miss the point at all, I was making the point that it did not matter what the clearance was, it was a night flight and under the rules IFR so eligible for charging. Just because leaving another airfield that does not have access to the system would probably not have resulted in a charge is a moot point. Liverpool would have logged the departure into the system and as it was night it was IFR.
I thing actually we are probably agreeing violently!
I did not miss the point at all, I was making the point that it did not matter what the clearance was, it was a night flight and under the rules IFR so eligible for charging. Just because leaving another airfield that does not have access to the system would probably not have resulted in a charge is a moot point. Liverpool would have logged the departure into the system and as it was night it was IFR.
I thing actually we are probably agreeing violently!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIUI Eurocontrol charges are levied on the flight planned distance. If no route is filed how do they work out the charge? Do they just draw a straight line between origin and destination?
If so, we can obtain much better "ATC" value by flying a wildly circuitous route!
That'll teach 'em.
If so, we can obtain much better "ATC" value by flying a wildly circuitous route!
That'll teach 'em.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIUI Eurocontrol charges are levied on the flight planned distance. If no route is filed how do they work out the charge? Do they just draw a straight line between origin and destination?
If so, we can obtain much better "ATC" value by flying a wildly circuitous route!
That'll teach 'em.
If so, we can obtain much better "ATC" value by flying a wildly circuitous route!
That'll teach 'em.
So if your "planned and accepted by CFMU" route was through the LTMA and over the top of Heathrow, but ATC actually routed you around (npi
) you'd be charged based on the planned route, not the flown route - despite having spent more time and more miles "in the system"
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullyFlapped
Bose-X and Rustle,
You're both absolutely correct, but this isn't what I was getting at. I was really trying to get him to remember the wording of his clearance, because every time I have flown out of Liverpool, their clearance phraseology clearly states if the departure is VFR ("cleared to leave the zone VFR via Kirby not above 1500'" etc etc) - and this goes for (I think) every other class D airport I have flown out of in the UK - as an aside, is there a standard for this stuff ?
My point being, obviously, if he didn't hear those magical letters "VFR", he could expect the flight to be logged as IFR, and to wait for the invoice to hit the carpet ...
FF
You're both absolutely correct, but this isn't what I was getting at. I was really trying to get him to remember the wording of his clearance, because every time I have flown out of Liverpool, their clearance phraseology clearly states if the departure is VFR ("cleared to leave the zone VFR via Kirby not above 1500'" etc etc) - and this goes for (I think) every other class D airport I have flown out of in the UK - as an aside, is there a standard for this stuff ?
My point being, obviously, if he didn't hear those magical letters "VFR", he could expect the flight to be logged as IFR, and to wait for the invoice to hit the carpet ...
FF
Yes, there is a "standard" for Class D departures, and they will explicitly be either VFR or IFR departure clearances, however at night [in the UK] they should be clearing you IFR or SVFR (if you cannot accept an IFR clearance in D), but the departure will be "logged" as IFR from a charging POV as it is night. (Whether that applies to night circuits remaining wholly within the Class D airspace [and therefore always SVFR if not IFR] I don't know, but circuits wouldn't attract enroute charges anyway so can be ignored in the context of this thread
)A pilot without IMC-R or IR could not, for instance, accept an IFR departure in D and would therefore have to be SVFR at night whilst within the Class D CTR.
Even when departing VFR [during the day] I know of a couple of instances where a bill turns up by mistake (the default seems to be IFR unless the strip says VFR) but that is easily remedied by a conversation with Eurocontrol enroute charges people.
It is actually remarkably simple in practice
Last edited by rustle; 24th Mar 2007 at 10:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the comments. I was obviously flying IFR from Liverpool since it was night but actually received a VFR clearance (a mistake?) - not SVFR or IFR - with no flight plan filed. I understand now why I didn't get charged from Antwerp since I could fly night VFR there. I still don't believe I should pay a charge when no service was provided but I think the answer is to get a twin under 2000!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JohnR, OTOH - If you would receive some service someday above and beyond the call of duty from ATC, for instance in an emergency, are you willing to pay more? Or would you be willing to pay a fixed amount for each radio call? Or do you think the ATC guys will want to have their salaries based on the amount of service they provide to all aircraft combined on any given night? Slow night - less pay, busy night - more pay?
The truth is that the costs that ATC makes are mostly fixed. They need to find a way to transfer this more or less equally and fairly over all the aircraft that make use of their services. So they need to convert fixed cost into variable billing. Preferably in such a way that the process of calculating each bill is fairly easy and thus cheap. Flight plan data, including the route and rules you fly under, and aircraft data such as MTOW is already in the Eurocontrol computers. Easy to generate a bill. If controllers would have to tally the amount of service they have supplied to each flight (and how do you tally service anyway? By seconds of radio comms? By radio calls? By sectors?) the system would become horribly complicated and thus just calculating the invoice would become very costly.
Any system where fixed cost are converted into variable billing will have winners and losers. But if you want to eliminate that by making the system more complicated, it gets more costly overall and everybody loses.
The truth is that the costs that ATC makes are mostly fixed. They need to find a way to transfer this more or less equally and fairly over all the aircraft that make use of their services. So they need to convert fixed cost into variable billing. Preferably in such a way that the process of calculating each bill is fairly easy and thus cheap. Flight plan data, including the route and rules you fly under, and aircraft data such as MTOW is already in the Eurocontrol computers. Easy to generate a bill. If controllers would have to tally the amount of service they have supplied to each flight (and how do you tally service anyway? By seconds of radio comms? By radio calls? By sectors?) the system would become horribly complicated and thus just calculating the invoice would become very costly.
Any system where fixed cost are converted into variable billing will have winners and losers. But if you want to eliminate that by making the system more complicated, it gets more costly overall and everybody loses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current rules are no charges for VFR private flight in UK. ATC does not have to give me a service at all if they don't want to - ie they can refuse me entry into their airspace, refuse me FIS or an upgrade to RIS, it is currently highly unlikely that I would ever get an RAS unless flying IFR. If they are going to charge for services then VFR flights need to have the right to get what ever service they want. I'm sure that ATC do not want to go down that road! You are making a spurious argument regarding charging but I understand the problem of them having to cover their fixed costs - isn't just the airlines wanting to transfer some cost to private flights though?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker's views are valid and so are JRs - but you are talking about different issues. Enroute charges were surely designed to deal with airways flights for which the current charging arrangements would seem sensible. They were not designed to deal with VFR flights outside the system which fortunately are outside the remit of charges and are liekly to remain so unless someone can justify charging without providing a service.
It is an anomaly of the system that in the UK en route charges apply at night for flights outside of CAS simply because the rules only allow such flights to be categorised as IFR. The same VFR flight during the day would not be subject to charges. Personally I wonder if Eurocontrol could up hold its charge if no service was provided en route.
It is an anomaly of the system that in the UK en route charges apply at night for flights outside of CAS simply because the rules only allow such flights to be categorised as IFR. The same VFR flight during the day would not be subject to charges. Personally I wonder if Eurocontrol could up hold its charge if no service was provided en route.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 23rd Mar 2007 at 23:45.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is is really the case that the enroute charges are for some kind of service provided?
If that was so, the charge could not be enforced if the pilot didn't receive a service - simple as that.
I suspect there is no pretence of providing a service. The charge is just a tax on the flight, and can be collected regardless.
The answer, as most twin owners know, is to fly "VFR" This can lead to some ridiculous practices but what does one expect?
If that was so, the charge could not be enforced if the pilot didn't receive a service - simple as that.
I suspect there is no pretence of providing a service. The charge is just a tax on the flight, and can be collected regardless.
The answer, as most twin owners know, is to fly "VFR"
This can lead to some ridiculous practices but what does one expect?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
To answer your previous 2 posts (especially Eurocontrol upholding its charge).
The member states of Eurocontrol, as well as some others, have entered an agreement, whereby the member states recover their service costs by charging the users, and Using Eurocontrol as the recovery means.
Imagine an airline being charged individually by each state of Europe for a flight from EGLL to HECA - a nightmare for airline accounting and the states themselves.
The Central Route Charges Office of Eurocontrol is the means by which these charges are recovered efficiently (for the airlines and for the states), in accordance with rules set by member states - e.g. UK.
The rules set by member states are applied to IFR flights above a certain weight category.
By implication the member states have decided that anyone flying in accordance with these rule (which THEY have set) will be receiving a service (not just airlines).
The member states notify the CRCO of all flights which are to be billed. Eurococontrol makes the calculation based on the route flown and aircraft type (weight), then sends out a bill (and reminders).
Therefore Eurocontrol billed JohnR because the UK told them he made an IFR flight in an aircraft above a certain weight category.
To emphasise it - UK set the rules, UK decided it was an IFR flight and UK asked for the money to be paid, and UK will get the money.
Eurocontrol is just a centralised billing service.
If anyone has to justify their fees, then look to the member states - they set the rules, the calculation methods et al.
Hope this is clear enough
GB
The member states of Eurocontrol, as well as some others, have entered an agreement, whereby the member states recover their service costs by charging the users, and Using Eurocontrol as the recovery means.
Imagine an airline being charged individually by each state of Europe for a flight from EGLL to HECA - a nightmare for airline accounting and the states themselves.
The Central Route Charges Office of Eurocontrol is the means by which these charges are recovered efficiently (for the airlines and for the states), in accordance with rules set by member states - e.g. UK.
The rules set by member states are applied to IFR flights above a certain weight category.
By implication the member states have decided that anyone flying in accordance with these rule (which THEY have set) will be receiving a service (not just airlines).
The member states notify the CRCO of all flights which are to be billed. Eurococontrol makes the calculation based on the route flown and aircraft type (weight), then sends out a bill (and reminders).
Therefore Eurocontrol billed JohnR because the UK told them he made an IFR flight in an aircraft above a certain weight category.
To emphasise it - UK set the rules, UK decided it was an IFR flight and UK asked for the money to be paid, and UK will get the money.
Eurocontrol is just a centralised billing service.
If anyone has to justify their fees, then look to the member states - they set the rules, the calculation methods et al.
Hope this is clear enough
GB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
Thanks for that but we all know how the system works, it is very well rehearsed and even if you were not sure it is quite clear from their web site.
I was neither questioning the system, who gets the money, or who asks for it to be collected. Moreover given the cross border nature it makes very good sense.
I0 has understood exactly what I was getting at.
I was simply interested in:
1. Whether legally a charge can be made without a service being provided. Probably it can, although even with taxes in theory the tax authority can justify you ARE being provided with a service in return for the tax you pay. However, for a sector outside CAS at night you are NOT being provided with a service (even if you want one).
2. If you didnt pay, who will sue you? I reckon it will be Eurocontrol not NATS or whoever they are agents for, because IT IS Eurocontrol who issue the invoice. Could well be wrong of course.
Thanks for that but we all know how the system works, it is very well rehearsed and even if you were not sure it is quite clear from their web site.
I was neither questioning the system, who gets the money, or who asks for it to be collected. Moreover given the cross border nature it makes very good sense.
I0 has understood exactly what I was getting at.
I was simply interested in:
1. Whether legally a charge can be made without a service being provided. Probably it can, although even with taxes in theory the tax authority can justify you ARE being provided with a service in return for the tax you pay. However, for a sector outside CAS at night you are NOT being provided with a service (even if you want one).
2. If you didnt pay, who will sue you? I reckon it will be Eurocontrol not NATS or whoever they are agents for, because IT IS Eurocontrol who issue the invoice. Could well be wrong of course.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Whether legally a charge can be made without a service being provided. Probably it can, although even with taxes in theory the tax authority can justify you ARE being provided with a service in return for the tax you pay. However, for a sector outside CAS at night you are NOT being provided with a service (even if you want one).
2. If you didnt pay, who will sue you? I reckon it will be Eurocontrol not NATS or whoever they are agents for, because IT IS Eurocontrol who issue the invoice. Could well be wrong of course.
2. If you didnt pay, who will sue you? I reckon it will be Eurocontrol not NATS or whoever they are agents for, because IT IS Eurocontrol who issue the invoice. Could well be wrong of course.
If you didn't pay, then they'd probably impound your aircraft any time it landed at a suitable airport where the organisation (i.e. an airport authority or owner) was geared up to do so. You'd be given something called a Mareva Injunction if I remember rightly and moving your aircraft could see you in a whole heap of trouble.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Apologies if I was informing the informed.
My point was about using terminology such as Eurocontrol charges. I hope the lawyer in you appeciates my objection to the incorrectness of such terminology.
Whether a service was provided or not, the rules say you pay when IFR and above a certain weight, not whether you did or did not receive a service. Whether that's fair or not is another issue. Perhaps one might relate it to whether the law is always fair?
As to whether Eurcontrol will sue - well, they do have a legal department dedicated to recovery of cost through the legal channels, and I know they have impounded (very large) aircraft when companies have not come up with the readies.
GB
My point was about using terminology such as Eurocontrol charges. I hope the lawyer in you appeciates my objection to the incorrectness of such terminology.
Whether a service was provided or not, the rules say you pay when IFR and above a certain weight, not whether you did or did not receive a service. Whether that's fair or not is another issue. Perhaps one might relate it to whether the law is always fair?
As to whether Eurcontrol will sue - well, they do have a legal department dedicated to recovery of cost through the legal channels, and I know they have impounded (very large) aircraft when companies have not come up with the readies.
GB
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Have been charged for a 1400 kg aircraft VFR
Hello All
I have a TB20 listed as 1400kg and I have received an invoice for the leg to Northern Holland on the way to Hamburg. It was a VFR flight across the North Sea. The charge is 12.91euro which is neither here nor there, but I will contest it to protect what little freedom we have left in the aviation community.
Steve Parker
G-SPVI
I have a TB20 listed as 1400kg and I have received an invoice for the leg to Northern Holland on the way to Hamburg. It was a VFR flight across the North Sea. The charge is 12.91euro which is neither here nor there, but I will contest it to protect what little freedom we have left in the aviation community.
Steve Parker
G-SPVI
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OBP,
At what airfield did you land (or depart) in NL. Was this EHAM, EHRD, EHBK or EHGG by any chance?
In that case you've not been invoiced for "en-route charges" (for which VFR and IFR below a certain weight is exempt) but you've been invoiced for "terminal charges". Which is really Eurocontrol purely acting as the debt collector for LVNL - the local ATC at these fields.
And I'm not sure, but I think Eurocontrol also acts as the debt collector for the German civil ATC (Bundesluftsomething). So the charge may also be a "terminal charge" for that end of the flight.
At what airfield did you land (or depart) in NL. Was this EHAM, EHRD, EHBK or EHGG by any chance?
In that case you've not been invoiced for "en-route charges" (for which VFR and IFR below a certain weight is exempt) but you've been invoiced for "terminal charges". Which is really Eurocontrol purely acting as the debt collector for LVNL - the local ATC at these fields.
And I'm not sure, but I think Eurocontrol also acts as the debt collector for the German civil ATC (Bundesluftsomething). So the charge may also be a "terminal charge" for that end of the flight.