Departing VFR in fog
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the Tower
Age: 61
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy.....no one has mentioned the legal requirements, visibility wise, for a departure to occur.....all controlled airfields have a minimum legal visibility for a departure to occur..IFR or VFR...one, two and 3 or more engines.....compare these requirements to your unmanned airfield conditions and if the conditions are better than specified, depart, but if not, you gonna die someday...!!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I am going to die someday. Let's hope it's quietly in my sleep long after my children still need me.
You are the first person to mention uncontrolled airfields. If you read from the top I am talking about an ATC controlled environment with a known traffic environment out to 2.5 miles, then class G. I gave examples of Oxford, Biggin, Filton and Cranfield to make my point. There are many others: Humberside, Exeter, Redhill (well, half
) Plymouth, Warton, Hawarden, Norwich (all this without a map in front of me, so E&OE, do not use this information for navigational purposes 
)
You are the first person to mention uncontrolled airfields. If you read from the top I am talking about an ATC controlled environment with a known traffic environment out to 2.5 miles, then class G. I gave examples of Oxford, Biggin, Filton and Cranfield to make my point. There are many others: Humberside, Exeter, Redhill (well, half
) Plymouth, Warton, Hawarden, Norwich (all this without a map in front of me, so E&OE, do not use this information for navigational purposes )
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli,
How can one plan and execute an IFR trip without using any resourse which is provided even in a small way through the money from navigation charges. Perhaps you think that NATS provide the AIS service at no cost?
If this was ATC saying that they would only provide a LARS service to those who pay then the outcry would be deafening.
Perhaps Timothy should look at the many exemptions from paying nav charges available and make use of them!
regards,
DFC
How can one plan and execute an IFR trip without using any resourse which is provided even in a small way through the money from navigation charges. Perhaps you think that NATS provide the AIS service at no cost?
If this was ATC saying that they would only provide a LARS service to those who pay then the outcry would be deafening.
Perhaps Timothy should look at the many exemptions from paying nav charges available and make use of them!
regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can one plan and execute an IFR trip without using any resourse which is provided even in a small way through the money from navigation charges.
In flight: ATIS En-rte and Arrival airfield.
None of which are supplied by any navigation charges funding - you pay the third party supplier directly.
If this was ATC saying that they would only provide a LARS service to those who pay then the outcry would be deafening.
(Never fight a pig in s**t - after a while you discover the pig enjoys it
)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read here how the system works in "Rip off Britain".
As the Americans normally have a different approach to aviation problems how would an American pilot like Tim fare within his system and at what cost?
I cannot see any American I know sitting still for £320 an hour charges for near zero service.
As the Americans normally have a different approach to aviation problems how would an American pilot like Tim fare within his system and at what cost?
I cannot see any American I know sitting still for £320 an hour charges for near zero service.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who should pay for en route charges then?
No doubt Timothy and many other operators are very happy to take advantage of the LARS or London Mil whilst operating outside CAS, the vast majority of VFR flights to Europe from the UK route via a VOR or two, but for some strange reason they don't want to contribute a single penny to the system.
Funnily enough, almost no commercial airlines use LARS, but they pay far more than G/A do for each flight made in CAS.
Equally, en route G/A pilots are also quite happy to receive a radar service from units like mine, which are not LARS providers, and get a RIS or RAS for a significant portion of their flight, in return we get no payment at all.
I can't think of a single reason why G/A should be exempt for paying some form of en - route charge for flights which either enter any en route CAS or use LARS.
No doubt Timothy and many other operators are very happy to take advantage of the LARS or London Mil whilst operating outside CAS, the vast majority of VFR flights to Europe from the UK route via a VOR or two, but for some strange reason they don't want to contribute a single penny to the system.
Funnily enough, almost no commercial airlines use LARS, but they pay far more than G/A do for each flight made in CAS.
Equally, en route G/A pilots are also quite happy to receive a radar service from units like mine, which are not LARS providers, and get a RIS or RAS for a significant portion of their flight, in return we get no payment at all.
I can't think of a single reason why G/A should be exempt for paying some form of en - route charge for flights which either enter any en route CAS or use LARS.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR or VFR it doesn't matter, all of GA pays the same for service (in the US). You pay through a fuel tax that you pay each and every time you fill your tanks. There are those who never fly IFR who help pay for some of the IFR services that others use. But then again, they use some of the flight services available. All in all, GA here doesn't pay the lions share of fees, that comes from the passengers who fly the aircarriers, but then again, they are the ones who gain the most out of the ATC system.
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niknak
I fear that this could go round and round ad infinitum.
I do not object to paying for services I receive. I am happy to pay a fair tax, regardless of use, as I do for the NHS, and I am happy to pay a fair usage tariff, as I do if I buy a rail ticket.
Have you seen the Council Tax riots on the TV? No? Oh yes, it was the Poll Tax riots. And why was that? Because people considered Poll Tax fundamentally unfair whereas Council Tax is seen as at least sufficiently fairer for people not to bother to riot.
What I object to is the arbritary way in which the the tax is raised and that a private company is allowed to raise taxes, as opposed to charging for services.
Don't get me wrong. Privatising ATC was a dishonest and ill-judged move, and showed Blair for the lying toad that he is. But it has happened and you are now employees of a private company. Private companies get their revenue by persuading customers to buy their products, not by raising arbitrary taxes.
So, I am perfectly happy to pay charges for a guaranteed airways service from point to point.
I would be happy to have the choice of paying an hourly rate for LARS, providing that the service was provided. That means that it has to be available during notified hours, properly manned and equipped, and that outside those hours it is not charged for. (In the current system it is mainly charged for when it is not available, at night!)
The trouble with discretionary pay as you go is that people will avoid the charges by not taking the service, thus reducing the service.
There are two solutions - pay on all Tower Log movements (or on Mode S), or pay an annual subsription.
The former is fairer, but misses a lot of GA arfields, the latter encourages people to switch off their transponders which causes everyone danger.
I would be happy to pay a reasonable subscription. Let's say that a Bronze subscription gave me VFR LARS, Silver IFR LARS and Gold airways. I then know what I am paying for. But the service must be in place.
So, please don't make me the villain of this peice. What is bust is that the system is unfair (I use the same services as a Seneca and pay, where the Seneca doesn't), makes people pay for services which are not provided, or even wanted (principally "Night VFR") and encourages people to use VFR where IFR might be more appropriate, which could be dangerous (though I still hold that it makes no difference in the case of shallow fog.)
One thing that I can assure you is that I am no happy-go-lucky idiot (I fly an Aztec because it is safe) and I am representing views, and behaving in a manner, very common among the >2T community.
Now you guys can tut and roll your eyes and say that I should just pay the charges. Or you could open your eyes a little and see that the system is flawed.
I am sticking my neck out and getting a little stick and disparagement for it, but someone's got to say if the system is wrong. It is good and loyal of you NATS employees to defend the system, but maybe someone somewhere will listen?
I fear that this could go round and round ad infinitum.
I do not object to paying for services I receive. I am happy to pay a fair tax, regardless of use, as I do for the NHS, and I am happy to pay a fair usage tariff, as I do if I buy a rail ticket.
Have you seen the Council Tax riots on the TV? No? Oh yes, it was the Poll Tax riots. And why was that? Because people considered Poll Tax fundamentally unfair whereas Council Tax is seen as at least sufficiently fairer for people not to bother to riot.
What I object to is the arbritary way in which the the tax is raised and that a private company is allowed to raise taxes, as opposed to charging for services.
Don't get me wrong. Privatising ATC was a dishonest and ill-judged move, and showed Blair for the lying toad that he is. But it has happened and you are now employees of a private company. Private companies get their revenue by persuading customers to buy their products, not by raising arbitrary taxes.
So, I am perfectly happy to pay charges for a guaranteed airways service from point to point.
I would be happy to have the choice of paying an hourly rate for LARS, providing that the service was provided. That means that it has to be available during notified hours, properly manned and equipped, and that outside those hours it is not charged for. (In the current system it is mainly charged for when it is not available, at night!)
The trouble with discretionary pay as you go is that people will avoid the charges by not taking the service, thus reducing the service.
There are two solutions - pay on all Tower Log movements (or on Mode S), or pay an annual subsription.
The former is fairer, but misses a lot of GA arfields, the latter encourages people to switch off their transponders which causes everyone danger.
I would be happy to pay a reasonable subscription. Let's say that a Bronze subscription gave me VFR LARS, Silver IFR LARS and Gold airways. I then know what I am paying for. But the service must be in place.
So, please don't make me the villain of this peice. What is bust is that the system is unfair (I use the same services as a Seneca and pay, where the Seneca doesn't), makes people pay for services which are not provided, or even wanted (principally "Night VFR") and encourages people to use VFR where IFR might be more appropriate, which could be dangerous (though I still hold that it makes no difference in the case of shallow fog.)
One thing that I can assure you is that I am no happy-go-lucky idiot (I fly an Aztec because it is safe) and I am representing views, and behaving in a manner, very common among the >2T community.
Now you guys can tut and roll your eyes and say that I should just pay the charges. Or you could open your eyes a little and see that the system is flawed.
I am sticking my neck out and getting a little stick and disparagement for it, but someone's got to say if the system is wrong. It is good and loyal of you NATS employees to defend the system, but maybe someone somewhere will listen?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have great sympathy for Timothy's point of view.
The UK Government should have balls for once and go for something akin to the American system. Taking national ATC services back in to the realms of public provided services and having tax duty on jet fuel might be a good start in the right direction
Unfortunately, there is more chance of NAS never failing again than that happening
The UK Government should have balls for once and go for something akin to the American system. Taking national ATC services back in to the realms of public provided services and having tax duty on jet fuel might be a good start in the right direction
Unfortunately, there is more chance of NAS never failing again than that happening
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that this had been done to death by Timothy and others on many occasions in the past, so I am having difficulty understanding why it is being raised once again. I hope you're not just picking fights Timothy
If you are prepared to accept the 2 tonne MTOW cutoff for Eurocontrol charges in principle (not all are), the rest of the problems that Timothy describes are brought about by the UKs rather odd mangling of the concept of IFR and VFR. This mangling manifests itself in a couple of obvious ways:
1) The IMC rating and the consequent rash of uncontrolled IMC flights that operate outside "the system", often inexpertly flown but under IMC conditions.
2) The lack of VFR at night.
My recipe for a better system:
A) Abandon the IMC rating
B) Strengthen the distinction between VFR flights (essentially uncontrolled) and IFR flights (essentially within "the system") to bring them into line with the rest of the civilised world
C) Enable the concept of VFR at night.
This wouldn't cause Timothy to stop whinging about his Eurocontrol charges but it would ensure that IFR flights received a service which was always worth the money and would provide VFR boys with the FIS they so richly deserve.
All we need then would be to redesign our airspace system away from the historically-based mess that it is at the moment, into something more like the US or Germany.
Don't hold your breath.
2D
If you are prepared to accept the 2 tonne MTOW cutoff for Eurocontrol charges in principle (not all are), the rest of the problems that Timothy describes are brought about by the UKs rather odd mangling of the concept of IFR and VFR. This mangling manifests itself in a couple of obvious ways:
1) The IMC rating and the consequent rash of uncontrolled IMC flights that operate outside "the system", often inexpertly flown but under IMC conditions.
2) The lack of VFR at night.
My recipe for a better system:
A) Abandon the IMC rating
B) Strengthen the distinction between VFR flights (essentially uncontrolled) and IFR flights (essentially within "the system") to bring them into line with the rest of the civilised world
C) Enable the concept of VFR at night.
This wouldn't cause Timothy to stop whinging about his Eurocontrol charges but it would ensure that IFR flights received a service which was always worth the money and would provide VFR boys with the FIS they so richly deserve.
All we need then would be to redesign our airspace system away from the historically-based mess that it is at the moment, into something more like the US or Germany.
Don't hold your breath.
2D
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 8th Jun 2004 at 13:15.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A) Abandon the IMC rating
D) Introduce a realistic PPL/IR to replace the IMC rating
The FAA IR would be a good place to start looking for a definition of realistic
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way perhaps is to file a 'Y' flightplan, switching to VFR say 1nm from BIG. This would then make a 'legal' departure under IFR, and its been said before that Y and Z flightplans fall into the 'too difficult to charge' bucket as far as EC goes.
There are/were similar unfair payment regimes outside of aviation, look at when Railtrack was created, they charged train operators for track access in two bits, a fixed charge and a variable charge. The variable charge depended on how many trains you ran, your tonnage and route mileage, if you only ran part of the way for some reason you still paid the full whack. If you cancelled the train you still paid, so people had jobs deciding who cancelled what and who should pay etc.
The whole business of spreading the costs of ATC provision over the user base does not seem to have been particularly well or fairly thought out. Who chose 2 tonnes as a limit and why ?
There are/were similar unfair payment regimes outside of aviation, look at when Railtrack was created, they charged train operators for track access in two bits, a fixed charge and a variable charge. The variable charge depended on how many trains you ran, your tonnage and route mileage, if you only ran part of the way for some reason you still paid the full whack. If you cancelled the train you still paid, so people had jobs deciding who cancelled what and who should pay etc.
The whole business of spreading the costs of ATC provision over the user base does not seem to have been particularly well or fairly thought out. Who chose 2 tonnes as a limit and why ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try Simjock, but your plan guarantees a route charge.
Y plans are charged as if under IFR for the entire distance of their journey within any country's airspace in which they are under IFR at all.
A Y plan from Biggin to Edinburgh converting to VFR at DETling will be billed as if IFR for the entire journey.
Hard Cheese.
2D
Y plans are charged as if under IFR for the entire distance of their journey within any country's airspace in which they are under IFR at all.
A Y plan from Biggin to Edinburgh converting to VFR at DETling will be billed as if IFR for the entire journey.
Hard Cheese.
2D
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D,
I totally agree with everything you say. The system you describe is pretty much how it works in France, and seems fine (though it is being muddied by the provision of a mongrel FIS/RIS to VFR traffic.)
I do not accept the 2T limit. I would have thought that distinction between AOC and non-AOC might be more reasonable, but frankly I would prefer that charges be raised on everyone. After all, a 90kt C172 is more of a burden to the airways than a 170kt Aztec or 240kt turboprop.
The reason that I raise this issue regularly is that I am simply not prepared to let the ill thought out existing system to pass uncommented. I will stop whingeing as you put it when I feel that I am being dealt with fairly.
I totally agree with everything you say. The system you describe is pretty much how it works in France, and seems fine (though it is being muddied by the provision of a mongrel FIS/RIS to VFR traffic.)
I do not accept the 2T limit. I would have thought that distinction between AOC and non-AOC might be more reasonable, but frankly I would prefer that charges be raised on everyone. After all, a 90kt C172 is more of a burden to the airways than a 170kt Aztec or 240kt turboprop.
The reason that I raise this issue regularly is that I am simply not prepared to let the ill thought out existing system to pass uncommented. I will stop whingeing as you put it when I feel that I am being dealt with fairly.
Last edited by Timothy; 8th Jun 2004 at 21:57.
My recipe for a better system:
A) Abandon the IMC rating
B) Strengthen the distinction between VFR flights (essentially uncontrolled) and IFR flights (essentially within "the system") to bring them into line with the rest of the civilised world
C) Enable the concept of VFR at night.
This wouldn't cause Timothy to stop whinging about his Eurocontrol charges but it would ensure that IFR flights received a service which was always worth the money and would provide VFR boys with the FIS they so richly deserve.
All we need then would be to redesign our airspace system away from the historically-based mess that it is at the moment, into something more like the US or Germany.
A) Abandon the IMC rating
B) Strengthen the distinction between VFR flights (essentially uncontrolled) and IFR flights (essentially within "the system") to bring them into line with the rest of the civilised world
C) Enable the concept of VFR at night.
This wouldn't cause Timothy to stop whinging about his Eurocontrol charges but it would ensure that IFR flights received a service which was always worth the money and would provide VFR boys with the FIS they so richly deserve.
All we need then would be to redesign our airspace system away from the historically-based mess that it is at the moment, into something more like the US or Germany.
D) Create class E airspace everywhere in such a way that all traffic flying IFR is provided with an ATC service.
That's the way it works in the US and Germany. Why doesn't that happen? Because NATS does not have the facilities or the resources to provide that ATC service over the majority of the UK. And if they can't provide the service, they shouldn't get the fee!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm wrote:
I wrote:
I think that is what I was getting at.
2D
I think you're ignoring an important part of the equation.
D) Create class E airspace everywhere in such a way that all traffic flying IFR is provided with an ATC service.
D) Create class E airspace everywhere in such a way that all traffic flying IFR is provided with an ATC service.
All we need then would be to redesign our airspace system away from the historically-based mess that it is at the moment, into something more like the US or Germany.
I think that is what I was getting at.
2D