Firstly, no one (either the gvmt or nats) can claim to have the moral high ground when it comes to management of money....swanick??? :-D Actually. I, Joe Bloggs, bailed out both the gvmt and nats when I did my last tax return.
I agree that the financial burden of ATC should be taken by the commercial operators (and hence funded by the majority of air users - the general public)..however...the large passenger aircraft that serve 'average' people should also always take priority IMO.
Seems crazy to me that just to protect the privilege of a few who can afford to fly for leisure/luxury (assume that is what most VFR folks are up to in the UK) that there might be any (slight) erosion of safety to the majority who fly on commercial transport. If dodging payment could encourage people to fly unannounced then clearly there should be no fee for VFRs. No brainer.
In addition, if folks want to just bimble around, I say go bimble around somewhere less busy. If I am a passenger on a large commercial plane, I don't give a hoot about hobby flights, and nor do the vast majority of the normal public. If you don't want to use the radio, don't fly there, fly someplace else. So the airspace for hobby flight could be getting reduced/restricted - big deal, live with it, or move.
Concerning the rally that was mentioned - one can't say that something is safe becuase no one has yet crashed (see Feynman and the Challenger disaster) - those rally guys choose to fly at a strip with 1500 VFR landings a day. 99.999% choose to fly with the benefits of electronic assistance and ATC - i.e. choose safety at the expense of VFR fun.
And as for small private commerical aircraft that are for the super-privileged, well they should pay ATC and tax on fuel AND come last in the queue. Now THAT is what the war was fought for.
