Single European Sky is here, now comes the bill

[SR20flyDoc]

The Single European Sky is here - now comes the bill

---------------------------------------------------------
IHMO, 2006 will give us;
- Less flight training in Europe
- Less trained pilots
- More VFR into IMC
- More CFIT
- More Mid-airs
(less planes and pilots)
----------------------------------------------------------

User fees for under 2000 kg :mad:

from PPL/IR (www.pplir.org)

The Single European Sky (SES) was adopted on 20th April this year. Following that, a new way to charge for the use of airspace is now underway and your participation in the consultation process is vital.

The proposals at

http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/

are sure to become reality. Presently, only IFR traffic above 2000kg pays en-route charges. But after early 2006, everybody will pay.

The charging proposals are at

http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/documents/enprm_04_005/enprm_04_005_v1_0_ses_ir_charging_scheme.pdf

The consultation response sheet is at

http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/documents/enprm_04_005/enprm_04_005_v1_0_response_sheet.doc

[map5623]

This looks like the usual political/civil servant twaddle that is meant to confuse the paying public thus re-enforceing the mythe that we need such people to represent us.
For one I would suggest theat the British government before agreeing to any such charges 'ring-fence' the current revenue raised in fuel duty, except in a dire emergency we do not use roads so one would assume that monies raised in this way should go as the GA contribution.
Can anyone suggest practical ways that the 'common man' will have his voice heard in the fiasco that is about to follow.

Mike

(bull**** baffles brains)

[niknak]

Without examining the documents in minute detail, but having read and discussed the basic proposals on a professional basis, I would conclude;

1 - the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west.

2 - the effect upon G/A VFR operations, on a day to day basis, will range from negligble to nothing.

SR20 is being extremely alarmist, and I would venture that perhaps he currently resides in the Hills of Monatana, watching out for them there government controlled spaceships. :p

IFR operators will, as currently happens, continue to subside 'VFR' flights.

[robin]

This one has been running for some time on the Flyer site

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=8127&start=0&sid=6d38d5166fdb3b622a865e3ed4bd96a4

Some interesting comments there

[SR20flyDoc]

NIKNAK

I don't blame you for only looking at you own interests as a 'sport pilot',
but if I lived in Montana there would be no problem, no user fees in the U.S. :ok:

But since I live in the Dutch Mountains, and use my plane as personal transportation in all seasons on a more professional base so IF, the burden will be on me.

First I have to pay for a mode S transponder, € 5000,- that is to no benefit at all to me. This since Eurocontrol forgot to specify Traffic Information Service, TIS, on the radar systems as is used in the U.S. on a voluntary basis.

Second, I have to pay for SAR etc. that is also used for gliders, ultralight, sailboats etc. that don't pay.

Third I already pay a lot of duties an VAT on fuel.


So I am not alarmist, just horified by this low move. :mad: :yuk:

p.s. I also pay 52% progressive income tax.... :{

[Pat Malone]

There are five pages on this topic in last month's issue of the AOPA UK magazine General Aviation. See: BALPA denies airspace grab,' 'As free as the air,' and 'Don't price us out of the sky.' If you want a basic understanding of a massively complex topic, that's a good place to look.
I publish the magazine, so I declare an interest here. But it's a bloody good read.
The most significant problem we currently face is that while the consultation period ends on September 17th, nobody can say what happens to the opinions of those who make them known. The UK DFt has no idea; trying to get answers out of Eurocontrol or the European Commission is frustrating beyond belief.
Eurocontrol has a mandate from the EC to devise the Implementing Rules on charges under the Single European Sky (among other things). AOPA has a seat on the Industry Consultation Body that is reviewing the Implementing Rules and is fighting to have references to VFR traffic removed from the Rule.
It is true to say that under Article 6, States have the option of whether or not to charge VFR traffic for access to the skies, but under Article 15, those who do not will have to satisfy the EC that they did not make up their income by charging IRF traffic extra. That effectively makes charging for VFR a fait accompli. There are many other disturbing aspects to the charging regime. For instance, aviation will be expected to pay for all SAR operations, and for certain Met services that have yet to be specified.
Charging has to be seen in the context of Eurocontrol plans for the harmonisation of airspace, the pressure exerted by low-cost airlines for better routings, and in particular, British Airways' current attack on the Finance Advisory Committee of the CAA, which is one of the few pressure points that GA has in the whole regulatory system.
Not that the airlines and AOPA are in different camps on all of this; they agree with AOPA's position on regulatory impact assessments, which are currently (and bizarrely) carried out long after the regulations have been put forward for aproval, instead of when they are being formulated.
Once decisions have been made at European level it is virtually impossible to change them, and unlike JAA rules, they are binding on States. The UK Parliament debated the Single European Sky and decided it was a Good Thing, and now has no authority whatever over the detail, which as we know is where the devil resides.
AOPA attended meetings in Luxembourg on June 3rd and in Brussels on June 7th on airspace designs and charges, in London on June 24th on UK airspace issues, in Brussels on July 13th on the Single Sky Air Traffic Management System. Apart from one of these meetings, where a representative of PPL/IR was present, AOPA was the only GA body there. Especially at this time, when what we are being told by the EC is often significantly different from what we are being told by the CAA, you have to be there, on the ground, to hear what these people are saying, to work out what they really mean, to form alliances and to make your position known.
On airspace charges, AOPA's attempts to have VFR traffic removed from the Rule is the only real hope for GA. It is working with extremely limited resources, in thankless and frustrating circumstances.

[robin]

Pat

Well said.

There is too much legislation passing through the EC which, on the face of the draft proposal, no-one could argue about.

However, when the detailed proposals hit, then we in PFA-type aircraft get clobbered big time.

It seems beyond the working parties involved to consider that anyone would want to fly recreationally, as so our requirements are almost never considered - as happened with EASA last year.

Like you say, once the great and good - mostly ignorant of the effect of the EC legislation- have passed the bills, then we are stuffed, as there is no effective legislative means of changing it.

The problem is, as with the recent EASA consultation, we have to dig into the dark corners of the draft outline proposals to see if there is anything that could possibly affect us. And given the pathetic wording of such documents, that is next to impossible.

I would like to take the view that the legislators mean well, but experience proves otherwise, and we have to fight every bit of legislation. The BGA are well used to this, but now GA are going to have to organise and protest.

[down&out]

Pat,

Glad to see AOPA responding here - I am member (so baised) but publicly showing your/our involvement here is a good thing.

My question is, having seen more of the "inside" of the process what do you think we can all (as indiviudal pilots, AOPA memebers or not) do to help?

e.g.
1. Is it worth us individually passing back our commets or to go via AOPA.
2. What are the key things that we should focus on in our comments that will have most impact ?

[justinmg]

Individual responses are vital, rather than everything going through one group reply, as total number of responses and a whole host of useless statistics will be counted by a team of statisticians in Euroland.
As for what you want to say, that depends on your circumstances, but most VFR pilots are likely to object for paying for significant amounts for nav / met / and comms services. How we argue against it is going to be tricky as previously it came from general taxes, now converting to "user pays".
I think that everone who flies should read the document (takes 30 mins), and reply if so moved.
The only sensible position is.....read if you want, reply if you want, but if you don`t want, don`t moan about big charges if they happen.
Enjoy the next 6 months of flying, they are likely to be the best value from here on in.
:*

J

[BEagle]

I've responded on behalf of my RF as follows:

Comment:

Although light ac with a MTOM < 2000 kg are currently exempt from en-route navigation charges, it is important to distinguish between the recreational use of many light ac under VFR or IFR and the use of others for purely business or commercial purposes under IFR in Class A airspace.

The current draft makes no such distinction.


Reason for Comment:

Were member states to be responsible for paying ANSPs for the cost of such exemptions for light ac, there is insufficient assurance that, for administrative convenience by national revenue collecting authorities, a blanket levy would not be imposed on users without reasonable regard for the actual level of service being afforded to, or the nature of, such flights.

Proposed Change/Text:

Delete: Article 14 clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Insert: New clause 2 as follows:

'Aircraft with a certified MTOM of 2000 kg or less, fitted with a single power plant and seating for no more than 6 persons including the Commander shall, when operated anywhere within Eurocontrol airspace with the exception of non-SVFR operation in Class A airspace, be exempt from en-route charges'


The idea of this is that, whereas perhaps someone flying a Seneca full along an airway might reasonably be expected to pay en-route charges, someone else flying a Cub from one farm strip to another, or cutting the corner of the London TMA under SVFR, should not. A line should be drawn somewhere and I think that the Cherokee 6, Beech Bonanza, Cessna 207 in Class D, E, F or G airspace is the reasonable limit whether VFR or IFR. I know that others will disagree, but I had to make my response as it would affect my members directly, not as it would affect the GA community as a whole.

[Pat Malone]

Down&Out:

I'm not responding on behalf of AOPA - like you, I'm just a member, although I do publish General Aviation and I wrote a certain amount of the stuff on airspace charges, so I'm up to speed. AOPA officially explains its action and its position to its members through the magazine.

Pat

[QDMQDMQDM]

This will just make us all criminals.

Where I live in rural Devon, flying from farm strips, we'd all just take off, fly low, not switch the bloody mode S transponder on, not talk to anyone and let them all sod off.

It could be quite a fun challenge -- getting from one side of the country to the other without getting caught.

These stupid people should understand that there is no point introducing an unenforceable, nonsensical law.

QDM

[robin]

QDM

Now there's an idea - beats a breakfast patrol - Bodmin to Cambridge in the open FIR without radio or transponder and let's see if they even care or notice.

One thing's for sure, the authorities won't have enough planes to put up to chase us, but then I suppose that's why they started licencing the 'twitchers' to keep an eye on us.

[IO540]

I don't think anybody seriously thinks Mode S is anything to do with airspace charging involving the tracking of transponding aircraft.

The radar coverage doesn't exist and would cost countless millions to implement, be of no benefit to the real players in aviation (the airlines) - just to collect a pittance from the bulk of GA pilots who fly VFR at low level.

En-route charges for VFR will come and almost certainly will be a flat rate charge (quarterly or annual) on every aircraft known to the CAA to be UK based.

What Mode S will do (assuming people don't contravene the coming regulations and leave the transponder switched on) is that it will make it easier to identify aircraft infringing some airspace. But its primary purpose is for more efficient air traffic control, which is there mostly for the airlines.

But this stuff has been done to death already here and elsewhere...

In the end, the plane spotters will ALWAYS get you, and your details WILL appear on some spotter website :O

[robin]

Given that, perhaps we should employ 'twitchers' as ATCOs.

I agree there will probably be a flat rate charge for VFR-types, but is it fair that a Luton Minor operating out of Eggeford flying to Halwell will pay the same as a TB20 whizzing VFR between Exeter and Norwich?

There should be either an exemption for the permit types or a massive reduction

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

robin, probably not. However, if you buy a TV license (which you are legally obliged to do if you have a TV), does the fact that you watch less BBC programmes than your neighbour affect the amount you pay for the priveledge? I suppose the argument then becomes one of 'choice' or having the ability to pick-up BBC TV?

[IO540]

It all depends on the amount. If the qtr charge is say £25 then it won't matter much, on the scale of what it costs to fly a powered plane.

BTW a TB20 isn't that much faster than some Permit types :O

[robin]

IO540

When I see one disappearing over the horizon when the cars on the roads below are overtaking me, I'll remember that comment -

the Luton Minor should pay the same as a VFR high-performance whatsit!!!!!

[rustle]

the Luton Minor should pay the same as a VFR high-performance whatsit!!!!!

What has performance got to do with charges?

If an aircraft is slower it "is in the way"* for longer - therefore should pay more per mile.

*This is the beancounter view, not mine.

[robin]

But we don't go through as many of the flight blocks as the TB20 and certainly don't cover as many kilometres.

I s'pose it depends on the reference type they choose to use for a VFR aircraft - an Arrow/TB20/Mooney perhaps - and the assumptions they use as to standard usage

[rustle]

What about pro-rata based on insured hull value?

[Flyboy-F33]

Pro rata on hull value isnt fair either...just because I have a higher value aircraft, what about about when I fly between two farm strips without talking to anyone, why should I pay more for that priviledge than Jo Blo in his Piper Cub?

[rustle]

...why should I pay more for that priviledge than Jo Blo in his Piper Cub? Because you can afford it, obviously ;)

[robin]

Quite - if it is the case that the user should pay, then quite simpy, if we are not users, we shouldn't pay

The question is defining what it is we are using - for strip/permit flight or gliding, we are users of airspace, in the sense we are sometimes in the air.

This does not mean we are users of airspace services. Just because EASA or Eurocontrol decide that they want to empire-build and employ x more staff for the purpose, it is not right that they can impose their costs across the board without the agreement of users.

An example would be if the bearded wonder wanted to gold-plate the door handles on his trains and put up ticket prices to pay for it. We would have a choice not to travel with his (c**p) trains, but as pilots we would not have such an option if Eurocontrol wanted to take on 10k more staff for no apparent reason.

[bar shaker]

Robin

You have stated the defining argument. Eurocontrol are stating that we are "users". We disagree.

My main concern is that under these proposals, there is no cap on what we may be charged. As IO540 said, Mode S is useless an an aid to invoicing for usage without a barrage of new radar installs and operators. Whilst I am not sure that it was IO's intention, the valid argument from his post is that Mode S is useless in its current form, full stop. This sounds like a cue for £XXXmillion of expenditure on the installs, infrastructure and training. Especially as there is now a bottomless (capless) income stream to pay for it.

If we are told that it will cost us £50 a year, very few us would bother objecting. If we knew that this could rise to £2000 a year within the space of a few years, and there would be nothing we could do once the system was in place, how would we view the plans?

Further, the plans are pan european (SES) with fees being collected and distributed by Eurocontrol, does this mean that we will be paying for Poland's new ATC system?

This must be stopped at all costs.

[map5623]

Other than BEagle has anybody replied to Eurocontrol. After correspondence with other club members I have been told that Eurocontrol are only interested in replies from organisations,. Is this true?
PPL/IR network seems to have other ideas

Mike

http://www.pplir.org/index.cfm/pageid/181/subpageid/200

[robin]

I've made my return as an individual representing a group and had a confirmation memo. Nothing to say we can't have our say, and if we don't they can claim assent

[IO540]

BS

I don't think one can objectively state that Mode S is useless.

It is useless for the purpose of tracking planes and charging them for airspace usage, but that could have never been the intention - not that this has prevented apparently half the GA pilots on the internet thinking it must be.

The #1 purpose of Mode S is that the radar station can selectively interrogate only some classes of transponders, so there is less clutter, in terms of both the radar display and the data being passed (the latter is a data corruption problem caused by every transponder replying on the same frequency). This is self evident technically, and is hard to argue with.

Which brings us to why Mode S is being made mandatory for GA.

The #1 reason for mandatory transponders (not Mode S specifically because Mode C is just as good for this) is to ensure that GA traffic is properly seen on airliner TCAS systems. Some GA pilots believe this is a genuine reason, some don't. The obvious lack of GA/airliner mid-airs doesn't support this argument but one could say it isn't a good idea to wait for some data before doing something about it. I think a single GA/airliner mid-air would do huge damage to UK GA.

The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. I am not qualified to say whether this is a genuine technical requirement but I believe it is.

The more paranoid people think that Mode S, with its unique ID for each plane, is a way to monitor GA traffic (on an ad-hoc basis, of necessity due to lack of radar coverage) and make sure "illegal" traffic can be tracked. I am sure this is true also. But I think the powers would be better off teaching modern navigation (GPS) in the PPL, rather than the present WW1 methods which are absolutely bound to put a lot of pilots inside CAS. Of course this can never happen - there are too many boring old farts in charge of this bit.

Personally, I take care to fly with Mode C always ON. I am completely sure that everybody who technically can should have a Mode C transponder and should always have it ON. They should have been made mandatory 10 years ago and the fuss would have died down by now. I think a lot of the reason we are getting compulsion now is because a lot of people deliberately don't use transponders. I am fed up with the number of RIS contacts which are "unknown level" and then when I see them visually it is an aircraft of a type which almost certainly has a transponder fitted but the pilot hasn't turned it on. Almost nobody gives a damn about GA but no Mode C makes TCAS useless.

I think Mode S, with a £3k one-off outlay (which will certainly fall by the time 2008 comes up) is a much smaller problem than en-route charges.

[rustle]

The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. I am not qualified to say whether this is a genuine technical requirement but I believe it is.They manage to filter 7000+C without too much difficulty today, and unless pilot/ATC in conversation (maybe FIS/RIS/RAS) the squawk will be 7000+C so what's the problem? They don't want to filter folk they're talking to... :confused:

Will NATS radars be Mode-S ready by 2008? :confused:

[skydriller]

Hi all,

let me get this straight, from what IO540 is saying..The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. So....Owners of GA aeroplanes are forking out on a new three grand Transponder just so that ATC can turn it off and not have to see the return??? Am I the only one thinking that is a step backwards... I mean the whole point is to be conspicuous , right???

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I ask because when I asked the advantages of Mode S on a thread aboutTransponders (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=138252&highlight=Mode+S) nobody mentioned this.

There must be more to this....:suspect: :suspect:

Regards, SD

[IO540]

Owners of GA aeroplanes are forking out on a new three grand Transponder just so that ATC can turn it off and not have to see the return???

With Mode S you have has a transponder which permanently functions for the purpose of being seen by airliner TCAS systems (which are active SSR transmitters).

But at the same time that transponder's return can be optionally not triggered by ground based SSR, so it doesn't interfere with the returns from other (currently more important) transponding traffic.

So you get the best of both worlds.

What rustle describes about filtering 7000, that is not the same thing. It is merely the suppression of 7000 returns from being displayed on the radar screen, but the returns themselves are still taking place and are interfering with returns from other transponders that share a similar azimuth.

The above is my understanding. I haven't read the details - have no need to know and will have to pay anyway early in 2005...

One can tell it's lousy weather and the phone at work is quiet :O

[rustle]

...but the returns themselves are still taking place and are interfering with returns from other transponders that share a similar azimuth.Okay, maybe so.

So does this mean the NATS radars will be Mode-S enabled by 2008 (or, as you point out for IFR flyers, 2005)?

We all know that without the selective interrogation of Mode-S the reasons above (similar azimuth) don't hold any water...

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

OK, some questions:

Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?

Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?

Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?

Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?

Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS? If this is the case, what options are there available to ensure the continued, safe integration of VFR traffic?

Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?

Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?

Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.

[IO540]

Rustle

Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.

WBS

Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?

Definitely, and Mode C is just as good for that.

Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?

Is it?

Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?

No idea.
But remember that the much publicised projections for the growth of low cost airlines are bogus - they have to be because the ticket pricing models of e.g. RyanAir cannot work when everybody else is doing it too.

Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?

**IF** TIS was on offer, that would be entirely different. Is it?

Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS?

No, as stated above.

Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?

Gosh. You phrase the Q like "how do you think a human life is worth?". It is like asking "who disagrees with the concept of a Child Support agency". Can you break it down to less emotive elements?

Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?

No.

Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.

Can you offer more detail?

[rustle]

Apologies that this thread, which was about VFR flights being charged for airspace use and is a very important topic in its own right, has been hijacked by Mode-S debate...

WBS

[list=1]
Mode-A+C will do nicely for this.
This could easily be true with the qualifiers you put in the question :rolleyes: "almost unique in the western world"
The 4096 code thing - do you really want to start that argument again? Assuming you do :) as soon as the NATS radars are Mode-S enabled imagine how many codes from the 4096 will be available to GA because the commercial and newly manufactured aircraft don't need them anymore.
NATS have already stated that TIS will not be implemented - when I find the reference I'll post it or retract this comment.
Yeah, right :rolleyes:
This isn't a Mode-S question - this is about whether it is right or wrong to be charged for using airspace for private purposes - and IMO if you are not using any services it should be free, and if you are it should not. Period. How the money is collected is question 2 but is being touted as the only question.
:rolleyes:
Please explain then...
[/list=1]


IO540 -- Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.

About 2 years ago NATS made some changes to the way information was delivered without any consultation but because of the impact to GA specifically and flying generally they have changed that now. :ok:

If we just sit back and accept the "inevitability" of these changes then we cannot complain later ;) That is about as nonsensical as people exercising their 'democratic-right' not to vote then complaining about the election winner :rolleyes:

[Flyboy-F33]

The question of airspace charging seems to be getting confused with compulsary mode S. It is generally accepted that the infrastructure does not/will not exist to enable GA movements to be tracked and charged per flight, so I think we should put that to bed right away.

The issue that links mode S to airspace use is that mode S will (theoretically) allow an 'open skies' policy whereby commercial traffic will be able to choose whichever route is most favourable and least congested for their operation. It is generally accepted that the current airway structure is already overcrowded and this is seen as the way forward.

The most serious implication to all of this is the spread of not only controlled, but also Class A airspace. We can already see the biginings of this with the expansion of CAS around East Mids soon to be followed by the Luton / Stanstead zone and eventually Heathrow.

I have heard rumours from people that know stating we are not far away from blanket Class A above 5000 feet, now that is worrying.

The principle is that if we use it we should pay ( a reasonable cost) and if we dont use it, we dont pay. But that doesnt likely as it will not be enforcable. Maybe the solution is something like a car tax disk, fixed at say £200 per year which is linked to european rpi.

We definately need to let our voices be heard over this one, or it will become a fait accompli

[Bluebeard777]

This thread seems to have drifted off its original topic.

I have been reading the NPRM on the Eurocontrol website, there are many issues, but it will all boil down to money.

The question posted above, which asked whether individuals' comments would be received by the eurocracy, remains unanswered - we should all send comments.

One peculiarity is the proposal to charge based on the square root of the aircraft's MTOW. Arguably this disadvantages smaller aircraft, for example a 4 tonne aircraft would pay three times, roughly, the amount payable by a 400 kg aircraft for the same flight.

Also, the effect of the definitions of airspace "volumes" is unclear. Would the UK be one volume? And what happens to going to LFAT for lunch? Will the French recognise (for example) annual fees paid in the UK?

To add insult to injury the whole lot will be subject to VAT. :yuk:

[Tolka]

It is possible for individuals to make their views on this subject known to Eurocontrol. They actually invite responses but they must be sent before the closing date of September 17th. You must also send your response on the special Consultation Response Sheet. You can access the proposed regulation and the Consultation Response Sheet at www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/ They will accept the response sheets by e-mail.

In my response I said that the charging system should not be introduced for recreational VFR flights in light aircraft because it would give rise to a lack of consistency throughout the Eurocontrol area if governments in some countries exempted such flights and others did not. You should note that, while governments have the right to exempt certain categories of flights from the charges, they can only do so if they are prepared to pick up the tab themselves. Most governments won't think it worth their while to go to the trouble of granting the exemption for such flights so my point was that Eurocontrol itself should do so.

Eurocontrol will e-mail an acknowledgement to you confirming that they have received your Consultation Response Sheet. After the closing date they are obliged to prepare a summary of all the responses they get so the more they receive from GA pilots the better. I suggest that you all should take a little time and send your responses.

Tolka

[PPRuNe Radar]

For those sidetracked by the Mode S issue ... many questions are answered here.

UK CAA Mode S FAQ (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_SSM_Mode_S_SSR_Factsheet.pdf)

[rustle]

I do not believe anyone is sidetracked by Mode-S.

This is probably the first time that UK-GA has been attacked in a pincer movement:

On the left we have the ludicrous high cost but nil benefit Mode-S transponder requirement.

On the right the high cost, nil benefit "usage charges" being mooted-about.

That this thread or similar is not "sticky" in this forum speaks volumes. These two "initiatives" alone could quite easily dwarf the costs most people associate with their hobby.

People whine about the cost of a JAA instrument rating.

Just wait and see how much this lot costs. :yuk:

[PPRuNe Radar]

This thread seems to have drifted off its original topic.
or
For those sidetracked by the Mode S issue

Both saying the same thing I think in different words. :hmm:


No problem with stickying this important topic, the fact that it was not before is because no one made the request ... but you have now.

[BRL]

No problem with stickying this important topic, the fact that it was not before is because no one made the request ... but you have now. ........and also that it was always at the top of the page and had a high hit count.
Didn't need to stick it, it more or less stuck itself as it is a popular thread that kept going to the top of the page.

[dirkdj]

Let's do the only thing we can do, read the papers, send in the official document with our remarks.

Next weekend would be a good time to read the documents as published on Eurocontrol website.

Not doing anything is not going to bring any results.

When I was flying an \'over 2 tonnnes\' aircraft a couple years ago, the Eurocontrol charges for IFR were about equal or greater than the price of fuel, so maybe this will get your attention.

[cubflyer]

Ive had a look at the document, but was unable to download the response document for some reason, I'll try again later. It really looks like they have almost no knowledge of what GA is when they drafted the document, or maybe GA to them is a Gulfstream V. I see the military are in there with concessions- as they fly 10 times less than civil aircraft (well 10 times less than well used airliners I agree, but probably a lot more than the average private aircraft per year!)
I will be sending in my reply this week, I hope everyone else will be too we really do need to fight this now before it is too late.
If they want to charge VFR aircraft for all this, when will they start charging Cyclists for using the roads- they use all the road infrastructure, we do not use most of the ATC/Nav services.

Certainly a fixed charge per year per aircraft would be very unfair, many aircraft are used very infrequently compared to others in use all of the time. There is already a massive fuel tax, why cant the Government use that to pay for a VFR exemption. Why should we pay fuel tax when Airline and Corproate users dont (Jet A1 users)

As for WBS's comments,
Yes there might be a minor increase in safety if everyone had mode S (but mode C would also be sufficient) But then again it would also be safer if no one flew- Its safe enough already thank you.
Uk alone in the western world not requiring transponders??? Where did you get that from?? I have flown GA in France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, USA in the last month, in none of these countries is a transponder mandatory.
4096 codes is not a problem for GA, it only seems to be a problem for airliners, wanting to keep the same code for a long distance- maybe this is why we have to change codes when going into Italy??
I dont see the need for more CAS at all, except in cases of new airports. Surely as we now have very few Boeing 707s or Super Constellations with poor climb performance, we can raise the base of controlled airspace around many airfields by 500ft or maybe more, particularly a long way from airfields. And as more and more Airliners have GPS/FMS, surely there is no longer any requirement for low level procedural approaches, flying miles outbound from some becon at 2000ft etc. The airspace and procedures need to be updated to take into account modern methods.
And with less military aircraft, their airspace should become more available and be made class G.

Lets remember that most VFR GA aircraft can fly where they want without any ATC or any ground based Navaids. We talk to ATC sometimes to get clearance through their zones, but these zones are there to protect the airliners, not for GA's benefit, so its the airlines who should pay for this benefit, it is them who need parts of the airspace to be controlled. We are not using the system because we need to, we are using it because the airlines want us to.
Similarly VFR flight plans, apart from the search and rescue standpoint (which is virtually non existant) they are filed because we are told we have to file them to meet a bureaucratic rule. Thus they are filed for the benefit of the bureaucrats, so it is them who should pay, be it customs, immigration or some other agency. After all I dont have to notify anyone if I drive from Paris to Brussels, so why should I have to notify someone just because my flight goes over a border. (a bit off topic this, but presumably there will be charges for flightplans)

[Pat Malone]

I think Mode-S is a separate issue.
The only way to charge for VFR flight is via a flat rate levy, probably linked to your C of A.
Anyone for a mass exodus to the N-register?

[Hampshire Hog]

It's easy to respond to the eurocontrol consultation. Don't be put off by the form. No need to suggest specific wording changes, just make the case against any action that would 'impose or increase' the costs of recreational light aviation.

Bearing in mind that the people who decide will probably not be aviators, but economists - think about what you say. Target comments at the detrimental effect any new charges would have on the benefits light aviation brings to local economies and on the already hard pressed aviation industry (where are they going to get pilots from if people can't afford to learn).

Might also be worth raising the transaction costs involved in any mechanism for charging recreational VFR flights.

[down&out]

Even the CAA are anti a number of the proposals and urging everyone to provide their feedback
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/DAP_SES_DP6_Charging.pdf
They recognise the need for reform, to proportion costs for IFR traffic appropriately but think the inclusion of 30 smaller airfields in the UK is an unnecessary burden. Unfortunately they don't mention GA.

I have not crafted my response in detail yet, but it will include:

Whilst I broadly agree there could be a case for reform:
1. We are already paying tax through AVGAS when JETA1 is not taxed - this should be redirected and factored in.
2. If an airport benefits by having airspace allocated to it for free (Class D & above) why should we have to pay to go through it under VFR conditions?
3. Regulation should encourage cost effective provision, there is nothing in the proposals that encourages people to reduce their cost base - its back to the old cost+ system!
4. If a country doesn't want the burden of setting up new accounting systems for SAR, MET & AIS why force them?
5. If we are paying for services what representation do we have on their control and availability?
6. If we pay by time in the air, and are held up by ATC, we would then be paying more- again the system would encourage a bad service.
7. What work has been done to ensure the administrative burden proposed is actually justified in leading to improved services, rather than actually costing more than any benefits it may provide.

D&O

[rustle]

Even the CAA are anti a number of the proposals and urging everyone to provide their feedback

Does this not sound wrong to anyone else?

Who tf is advising the government about these proposals if it isn't the CAA?

...and why are they (CAA) reliant on GA and other users making sense of proposed changes from Europe?

WTF do we pay the CAA huge amounts of money for if it isn't to look after UK aviation interests?

a bizarre situation indeed...

Anyone from the CAA got a comment? :hmm:


--------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[robin]

Reading through the CAA document I can see nothing there for GA and recreational flying.

One line - on page 2

"Larger Aircraft have to pay higher charges than small..."

combined with

"larger aircraft are no more difficult to move through most airspace than smaller ones"

could be construed as saying the airliners are being over-charged and a re-balancing of charging is needed so that smaller aircraft pick up more of the bill

I don't suppose that the airlines stake in NATS could possibly be influencing things??

[rustle]

Okay, let's look at the usage fee issue and see where we are then...

Today of the 7 ICAO classes of airspace the UK uses 6 (no "C")

So "Pilot-X" in his C150 decides to go from farmstrip-1 (Class G) to farmstrip-2 (Class G) and he's transiting nothing higher than class E en-route and keeping well clear of the military low flying areas.

He's availed himself of NOTAM and MET from AvBrief where he is a paid-up subscriber.

He's VFR, talks to no-one en-route or at either farmstrip, and he keeps his conspicuity 7000 code plus "C" on from takeoff to touchdown.

Who should he pay, and for what should he pay?

---------------------

Sometime in the future, when airspace is reclassified either "Known" or "Unknown", the same pilot makes the same flight using the same tools talking to no-one, only this time he remains entirely in the "unknown" class of airspace.

Who should he pay, and for what should he pay?

---------------------

If you think he should pay for the use of the airspace whilst not receiving nor requiring any service from any ground-based aids/persons/authorities then sit back and enjoy - this is what will happen by default.

If, however, you think that charging fees in the scenario described above is wrong then you need to do something about it and that means responding to Eurocontrol in their preferred format :rolleyes:, and copying it to the DfT.

They'll charge you for the air you breathe if you let them.

Unfortunately the people "responsible" for looking after Civil Aviation in the UK seem to have dropped the ball.

Again.

[justinmg]

I think down&out makes a good point regarding fuel tax. We pay road tax for the upkeep of our road network and services. AVGAS buyers contribute to a similar level.
I understand that JET A1 is being considered for taxation (as a separate issue to Euro-CONTROL). I imagine that a small contribution from JET fuel tax might make this whole issue disappear. Not sure how EuroCONTOL would take that suggestion though.
That way the industry can make some sort of meagre payback for getting pilots who have trained themselves.

J

[rustle]

I really don't want to shatter anyone's illusions, but if you think arguing with Eurocontrol and/or Dept. for Transportation and/or the CAA will be difficult you may as well forget any hope in hell of arguing with The Treasury about ringfencing any of the Avgas/Avtur taxes for aviation.:{

[Bluebeard777]

Down&out's points above could be the nucleus of a list of considered comments that the busy (or merely lazy) Ppruner could send off to Eurocontrol with his/her "Consultation Response Sheet", or paste into an email, without having to undertake onerous independent research of the issues.

Interesting name, "Eurocontrol", conjuring up neo-orwellian visions of unseen sinister tentacles enveloping every little airfield, every grass strip ....... And I'm not even paranoid!

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

rustle, a couple of points. The CAA (I presume that is who you are implicating) has not dropped the ball. It is the Government who have signed-up to SES and the European Commission has tasked EUROCONTROL with drafting some of the Implementing Rules (Common Requirements, FUA, Interoperability, Airspace Design and Charging) that are already mandated, in EC law, in the Framework Document. Consequently the UK (ie CAA and DfT) has to go into bat against all of these draft rules in an attempt to influence them before they are signed-off, and made legislation under qualified majority voting, by the EC. You imply in another post that it is ironic that the CAA ask to aviation community for ideas and hint that this is somewhat a ludricous state of affairs. What would you prefer, a CAA that follows it's long-standing reputation and makes arbitrary, ill-informed decisions?

If you really wish to have a transparent understanding of the process the UK is being forced to follow, please PM me and I can arrange for you to have a face to face discussion with the very people who are trying to make sense of European legislation. I cannot promise all the answers you wish, but I can tell you that this will help you understand how the regulatory authorities are trying to fight the UK corner.

.....and before anyone starts, I am not a CAA man.

[map5623]

rustle, I think the DfT are interested, if you look in the PPL/IR site there is an article on this subject. It asks for copies of submissions to be sent to someone st the DfT, from this I can only think that they want to get some measure of the response s being made. Have you sent yours off yet.

WBSATCO I think many of us would like a briefing on this subject as it would help to make sure the replies did not contridict each other, or were just cut and paste jobs as this may not help anyone.

Mike

[PH-UKU]

IO540 wrote .....
<What Mode S will do (assuming people don't contravene the coming regulations and leave the transponder switched on) is that it will make it easier to identify aircraft infringing some airspace. But its primary purpose is for more efficient air traffic control, which is there mostly for the airlines.>

<rant on>
It is on topic, as the introduction of Mode S in 2008, will have a £4000 (estimated) cost implication for me (for no gain), and a 3Kg weight penalty (again for no gain). Every Kg is important !

What interests me as an Area Control ATCO is how uttterly clutttered my presently cluttered radar screens will become if EVERYONE who is in the air is displayed on my screen.

At the moment, it is well near impossible to filter out all the low-level GA and military scooting around the Newcastle area. The screens can be VERY cluttered with SSR labels. I may be trying to control aircraft in the FL100-FL245 height band, but I daren't filter out the labels of traffic below that in case it is popping up or climbing out. I shudder to think what our wonderful 15 inch monitors :mad: will look like if all microlights, PFA types, and balloons (that includes the bureacrats :8 ) are inluded as well.

Doubt the accountants :8 in charge have thought of that one. :mad:

Interested too to know how many of the decision makers have recently worked a busy sector or controlled passenger carrying aeroplanes.:*

<rant off>

[rustle]

WBS, check your PMs.

[map5623]

PH-UKU, when have you ever heard of any/many organisation , especially government, finding out the needs.
This Eurocontrol shambles is a good example. I read that they consulted an 'expert group' earlier in the year.
'Ex' as in "has been", 'xpert' as in "drip under pressure".
With modern means of communication there is no excuse for asking for wider views/opinion before progressing down the slippery slope.
And how Tony Blair and the bunch of tossers running the country expound the needs to address modern technologies passing the 'Eurocontrol' issue to the EU without so much as a thought shows how much understanding they have.
If it had been what colour they are going to paint the 'bogs' in Westminster, there would have been questions in the House or even a referendum.

Mike
" A totally p****d off British citizen"

[map5623]

I have just got off the phone to the researcher working with my local MP and he says that you should contact your local MP, although this is a bit late it can be raised to the government.
PLEASE DO THIS
I also contact the euro MP's for my region and have as yet had 1 reply, awaiting some action.

Mike

[5footface]

The originator of this thread was not being alarmist.

In 1999, the German CAA attempted an almost idenitcal charging scheme for Air Navigation Services provided within Germany. Like the SES proposal, the Germans calculated the full cost (just liek the SES, their costing included direct and indirect costs) of the supplied services (VOR, LAR, MET etc) and then decided what would be a "fair" amount for the VFR community to shoulder. They decided around 3% would be OK. Like SES, they decided that a blanket annual charg was the best way to organize the payment. The annual charge was around £2400 per registered aircraft!

A huge outcry from the German GA commmunity (65, 000 responses inside 4 weeks), some skillful political lobbying from the DAeS and a fortunate change of Minister allowed them to overturn the proposed scheme.

The problem we have with EUROCONTROL is that they offer us just a few paltry weeks of consultation and after this it is a done deal. There will be no overturning it (just as they have given no ground with Annex II, Mode S, etc etc).

Our National Aero Clubs and Europe Air Sports are doing their best to represent us, but the only way that the Brussels chaps will really sit up and take notice is if they can smell a future problem of mass complaint from the large (700,000 Europewide) GA community.

We MUST respond individually using the EUROCONTROL pro-forma form with our howls of protest. If we do not do this small thing, then we have no right to complain when we are writing our annual cheque that will cost more than hangaring our planes.

Please write, the deadline is soon (17th Sept). Please copy your objections to your MP and MEP.

[BossEyed]

Time marches on... Sept 17th is a week away. :ouch:

If you want to respond (and you SHOULD), but are not sure what to say as wading through the bureaucratese of the Consultation Document (CD) is a painful chore, then I commend to you the AOPA UK website (http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/aopanews.asp) :

They've identified the main points for us, and even hint at the areas of primary concern for you to prioritise:

Whilst AOPA has attempted to provide answers to each of the articles you may wish to concentrate your replies in respect of only 2/3 articles – numbers 6 & 14 for example.

It'll take 30 minutes of your time to cut, paste, garnish with your own opinions (very important), print, stick in an envelope or on a fax machine and send.

If you want some hints for said garnish, I would suggest asking for a clear and transparent Regulatory Impact Assessment (the RIA as described in the CD is superficial to say the least) and Cost Benefit Analysis. My understanding is the the EU rules require this from our "servants".

Do it today - you know you want to. The alternative is :{

[skydriller]

I have filled in a response sheet and sent it off, as I dont want to be paying for a service I dont recieve. I looked at the AOPA site and I note they only refer to Class F and G airspace (unless Im missing something).....so It appears they approve of VFR traffic paying to fly in Class E (where you dont need a service or have to talk to anyone) or Class D which both surround alot of GA Aerodromes and you dont get a choice about talking to ATC - even though the onus is still on you to avoid other traffic by see & avoid, though you may be under ATC control. I just cant believe so many people appear to have accepted that we will be charged, as if this is normal.....

Also interesting to observe is that no-one at my aeroclub in France knows anything about this proposal or the Mode S issue. Their response is 'Oh, Boff, l'Europe encore!!!' or 'its not for us, just the airlines'. The website for Eurocontrol is in English only as far as I can see, so how are Pilots from other European countries supposed to understand the proposals and have the chance to reply? Anyone seen anything on all this in French or German? I wonder if this is because the French wont have anything to do with the issue, or if when the rules are implemented they will just ignore them, as they do most European legislation they disagree with.

Regards, SD..

[Mak]

After reading the proposed legislation I posted the following reply to Eurocontrol:

Comment:

Currently a/c under 2000Kg MTOW are exempt from airspace charges. From my reading of the proposed legislation, no guarantees are given that such exemption would be maintained for recreation VFR or IFR flights. A blanket levy affecting all airspace users unevenly penalises recreational users of the system, who are already burdened with heavy fuel duties and, shortly, the requirement for model S compliance. It will ultimately result in reduced safety for all airspace users as I explain in greater detail under “Reasons for comment”.

Reasons for comment:

My personal experience as a private pilot suggests that recreational users are very light users of the air traffic control system. I would like to see this situation improved in the direction of greater usage, not reduced usage. However any charging scheme can only result in a reduced usage.

Greater usage of the ATC system on the part of recreation users gives ATCOs improved situation awareness in and around their airspace. It also improves the same situation awareness of the participating pilots reducing the potential for airprox, airspace violations and of all accidents related to continued VFR into IMC conditions, such as CFIT.


Proposed changes:

Delete article 14, clauses 2,3 and 4.

Insert new clause:
“'Aircraft with a certified MTOW of 2000 kg or less and seating for no more than 6 persons including the pilot-in-command shall, when operated anywhere within Eurocontrol airspace, be exempt from en-route charges'


Beagle: thanks for the inspiration.

Someone will be looking at the number of replies as a measure of general feeling and it is important that as many pilots as possible post their comments to the legislation rather than relying on organisations such as AOPA.

[six-sixty]

I am confused, but Article 1, Scope para 3 says something to the effect that:

"this regulation shall not apply to air navigation services made available at aerodromes with less than 10,000 IFR arrivals per year".

Does this not mean that theoretically, flights from small field to small field with no flight information or the like provided or necessary en route would be exempt?

Sorry to look daft - I want to try and send something in the time available, but want to make sure i understand precisely what i am arguing against.

[dirkdj]

This only means that Eurocontrol won't bill the charges for smaller airports, they will be billed by other agencies such as the local provider or airport.

[LowNSlow]

Times a running out people. Get on the AOPA website, download the form and get it sent. You don't have to post it, it can be done by email.

[G-KEST]

Prompted by the NATS staff newspaper I have looked today at the CAA response to the SES chrging proposals. It is a well thought out position paper BUT there is no mention whatsoever of General Aviation and the likely impact of the proposals as posed by EUROCONTROL on our side of aviation.

A side on which the airlines depend for their future supply of pilots but one that has no way of reclaiming the added cost of the charges proposed other than by digging deep into taxed income or by increasing the astronomic hourly charge of hiring a club aircraft.

What a dreadful comment that the CAA cannot even mention the impact on us - merely the airlines who enjoy so many advantages in taxation and the low duty on Avtur.

I would just love to be wrong here but I do not think I am.

If you want to make a resonse then the email address is -
[email protected]
or
[email protected]

I will refrain from any jest on these two, no doubt excellent, ladies who are to field your blitzkreig.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:yuk:

[six-sixty]

"A side on which the airlines depend for their future supply of pilots"

Not if they can help it much longer they won't, hence the new ICAO multi-crew licence which will be with us very shortly, and is mostly sim based. A guaranteed supply of fresh faced first officers who will never have had to suffer the indignity of flying an aeroplane.

The airlines know that GA doesn't feature in their future, the CAA know it, so why on earth would the CAA bother defending it?

[G-KEST]

If you want to read the CAA position paper on the SES charging scheme then it is at-
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/DAP_SES_DP6_Charging.pdf
Responses as above.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad:

[G-KEST]

Well folks, it looks as if all the efforts may have been worthwhile.

There are unconfirmed reports that the Eurocontrol council of ministers have totally rejected the proposal to levy charges for using the SES concept on VFR flights or on IFR flights in aircraft of less than 2MT. In other words the current situation as has been the case since Eurocontrol started charging back in the 1970's.

I am sure all the efforts put into personal responses either direct or through the GA representative bodies have played their part in forming, or even changing, the opinions of those who control Eurocontrol.

The CAA SES seminar in Manchester on Tuesday next, 12 October, may now be a bit of an anticlimax however there is still the matter of ATS approvals and aerodrome approvals and the impact on UK aerodromes and smaller regional airports. I am certain there will be much of interest there.

If the reports are correct then a huge thank you to all who got off their butts and actually DID something to assist GA fight those who would attempt to make our flying more expensive, more complex and less fun.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:D

[BEagle]

I've heard the same thing, Trapper69.

Also that the Eurocontrol people have been accused of attempting to introduce legislation in an 'ungentlemanly way'.....

And again, thank you to all those who gave a hand to rebuff this Eurocratic absurdity.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Having been present at a number of the Eurocontrol workshops, I must agree that there was a fair amount of federalism kicking around. However, it was disappointing to note that the overwhelming number of member states appeared to be quite happy to roll over and have their tummy's tickled.

Furthermore, at the last workshop, it became rather apparant that the EC 'observers' were not completely impressed with many of the Eurocontrol proposals.

I think the phrase is "Contact, wait. Out."

[G-KEST]

Last week I wrote - "Well folks, it looks as if all the efforts may have been worthwhile. There are unconfirmed reports that the Eurocontrol council of ministers have totally rejected the proposal to levy charges for using the SES concept on VFR flights or on IFR flights in aircraft of less than 2MT. In other words the current situation as has been the case since Eurocontrol started charging back in the 1970's."
After attending the CAA seminar at Manchester it rather looks as though those unconfirmed reports were in error. In fact due to the UK governments refusal to pick up the tag of exempting UK aircraft flying VFR and IFR if under 2MT in terms of paying the ANSP for their costs we will ALL be stuck with EUROCONTROL charges for all of our flying. I suppose there may be some letouts to be announced but do not hold your breath if you fly any GA aircraft, powered or otherwise: heavier or lighter than air.
Hope fully when they look at the complexity of any charging scheme they will back off but I really doubt it.
We tried - we really did.
Commiserations,
Trapper 69
:E

[Flying Tooth Driller]

<<After attending the CAA seminar at Manchester it rather looks as though those unconfirmed reports were in error. In fact due to the UK governments refusal to pick up the tag of exempting UK aircraft flying VFR and IFR if under 2MT in terms of paying the ANSP for their costs we will ALL be stuck with EUROCONTROL charges for all of our flying.>> - from: G-KEST

The UK always gold plates any European rule............

However, if the other States really are against charging us, why won't we have to obey their ruling?

[G-KEST]

There are a few things that everyone can do to try to get Eurocontrol to see reason. If all forum readers could write or email their local MP and regional MEP's it could bring pressure on the UK Department for Transport and the Transport Commissioner in the EU in Brussels to revise their stance in terms of levying SES charges from General Aviation. Although there is a small working group now set up by the DfT with representatives from AOPA, PFA, GASCo and the PPL/IR Network to discuss ways by which the SES charges could be applied to GA the DfT has fully committed itself to making sure GA are to pay what they see as facilities provided even if they are not used by GA. What a dreadful state of affairs.
Why not spend a little time enlisting the aid of your democratically elected representatives in Westminster and Brussels? It just might pay off in applying pressure to the bureaucrats within DfT and in Eurocontrol through the EU parliament.
In sorrow.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:sad:

[Chilli Monster]

Before anyone does anything may I suggest a read of the Letters page of Flight international, edition out this week. Interesting letter from someone there at Eurocontrol who clearly states that a) There will still be no charge for IFR flights below 2000kg and b) any charging for VFR flights will be down to national authorities decision - they're not interested.

Shall we find out who the bad guys are first?

[robin]

Chilli Monster

We know that already - it's the wonks at the Treasury who don't want to lash out their (our) cash, the airlines who don't understand why they should pay all this money for Eurocontrol when we don't, and government who have a fear of upsetting business

[High Wing Drifter]

Chilli,

There was a similar post in www.ukga.com a few weeks back.

[bookworm]

Shall we find out who the bad guys are first?

Why should we bother to do that?

Surely it's more fun, when a body with "Euro" in the title says

"We'd like to consider what the rules might look like with a clean sheet of paper in front of us -- we might not need rules at all -- what do you think?"

to rally the troops against any body with "Euro" in the title to fight this "threat".

Surely we're better off trusting our good old British authorities who protect our freedom to fly by retaining 170 Additional Airworthiness Directives (and the like) that no one else thought were necessary, and by prohibiting us from using GPS as a primary means of navigation more than 10 years after the FAA introduced their GPS approach overlay program. The other chaps are foreigners, aren't they? The can't be up to any good! :rolleyes:

[G-KEST]

Chili Monster had it about right six months ago.

The final EU proposals on the charging scheme have just been released and it confirms that aircraft weighing less than 2MT will be exempt any charges and that states will have the chance to exempt VFR flights by aircraft of any weight.

I think this satisfactory result may well be due to the huge amount of lobbying by GA right across the board from associations to individuals.

Cheers,

Trapper 69