Workinghard
Controllers are there to provide the best service they can to aircrew, with due consideration given to equipment constraints, workload at any given time, air navigation law, and local orders.
Any controller that does anything than their best for aircrew is not doing their job. If it came across that i did not think this, then that was not the intention. Sometime however, what a pilot thinks is the best for them is impossible for an ATCO to provide due to any of the above factors. I would not expect a pilot to know what these factors were for every unit they may speak to (unrealistic) but suffice to say that what ATCO A at unit a does may differ slightly form ATCO B at unit b. This is especially pertinent when it comes to the bells and whistles of a service (or a gold plated service) - sometimes, although we want to give the very best, we can't.
Soaringhigh650
1. I do not - you are talking rubbish! I classify the lower en-route airspace that is actually Class A, Class A... funnily enough. Just as I class any other airspace by the classification that it has been given by people way above my pay grade. Airspace that is classified in consultation with many groups. Just because the GA community would like more class G, it does not mean that they can have it... similarly, it does not mean that I would not like to see more class G... unfortunately you have not got a clue about my history nor professional experience in aviation on either side of the mic... and because of this, you make assumptions that are complete tosh.
2. VFR, through (not over as you wrongly state - the LTMA airspace is much higher than FL90) the LTMA at FL90? Best do some reading
3. You are pretty ambiguous about the charge. Below a certain weight there are no en-route charges. It seems that the charge you are talking about is a charge that has nothing to do with the airspace provider (because you talk about being charged even when the runway is empty) and all to do with the Airport Authority. For example NATS provides the ATC service and charges the owners of the airport accordingly on a contract basis - a contract that they have to bid for. How the owners of the airport recoup their money is up to them... done in a manner of ways, including navigation charges, landing and hangerage fees, skimming money from the shops in the terminal. Just because the runway is empty, does that mean they should not charge for the use of the facility? The airport owner is running a business. If you want to pay less charges, fly into a smaller airfield!
4. Don't know the charging policy, not interested in my current job as it has no relevance, but are you stating that you get charged for flying OCAS?
5. NATS is a business. Whether you agree that it should be or not is a moot point, though I see you are based in USA. Given the state of US ATC facilities under Government ownership (and remember not far back to Reagan), I think that there are pros and cons for both systems. NATS has invested more money into ATC than HMG could ever hope to, and it provides a service that is amongst the safest and is definitely the most efficient anywhere. Or do you think that the taxpayer should pay for this?
As a business, NATS has shareholders... people will not invest in any company if they do not get some benefits. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way the company is funded in some respects, but the result of the way NATS is funded is one of the most modern ATC companies in the World... one that provides consultancy services to numerous other countries, the USA included.
As for taxes, I pay taxes on my car through Road Fund licence, petrol etc. I'd rather that HMG did not add so much tax to my petrol, but as a basic methd it is actually quite a fair way of doing it... the more petrol you use, the more you must use the road system, therefore the more you contribute to the upkeep... exactly the same idea as AVGAS tax.
If you want more, then I'm afraid you will have to pay more. You obviously don't understand the cost of providing these services if you think that AVGAS tax covers everything!
If you think that HMG should provide all the services, and thus have the burden on the tax-payer, why? If you want to do something that is over and above basic needs for living, for example flying, why should you not pay for it? Plenty other things that people do to enhance their lifestyle that they have to fund over and above normal taxes.
Last edited by anotherthing; 22nd Aug 2012 at 11:25.