VFR transition through class C airspace
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the skies belong to the general public...
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
On the other hand, MOST commercial flights fly in controlled airspace almost exclusively.
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.
Its Ok Mr Sandwich, your house is going to be ripped up for a new 100,000 seater stadium for monster trucks. The 100,000 spectators don't give a damn about you, but its OK, as there are more of them. We are moving you for your safety!
The main point here is that there is space in the sky for all of us, be it in a balloon, glider, lighty for fun, lighty for profit, military, training, commercial etc.
Most controllers and commercial pilots do not actually realise hopw little control is needed for a small airfield with slow, light traffic. GA is under threat from all sorts of places and killing it will also have knock on effects for all of us. We need to be sensible about airspace, charges and fairness. There are plenty of bits of airspace that should become unrestricted, and a few that should be more so, its getting the balance right so that we can share the air in the way that we should.
The US have a better way of airspace classification in the "open FIR" than we do - and give a better service to small aircraft at a lower cost - we could do that too.
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies Mr Jetstream, my "99.999%" are not "99.999% of VFR folks" - I meant "99.999% of the general public" - who choose electronic assited flight and ATC. Sorry about that confusion.
If all my neighbours want a 10,000 stadium and I did not, then I would need to move house anyway (wrong area and wrong people around me, possibly wrong country), the compulsory purchase order would save me the trouble of selling....
The commercial operators (boo hiss) provide flights/services/schedules that people want - so it is actually the demand from the general public that is troubling you - not the companies themselves that provide the service. Would you level the same criticism at these commercial operators if they were all small companies (or if they only flew VFR!)? What makes them so evil in your books, please explain further.
BTW - I agree with your sentiments to make VFR cheaper and more accessible. I also quite agree that better carving up of the sky so it can be shared by all is a very good thing. I had to do lots of overtime work to be able to start to fly, and the nearest uncontrolled airstip was too far away so I had to start with hectic RT - but I accepted I was somewhere busy and that was that.
If all my neighbours want a 10,000 stadium and I did not, then I would need to move house anyway (wrong area and wrong people around me, possibly wrong country), the compulsory purchase order would save me the trouble of selling....
The commercial operators (boo hiss) provide flights/services/schedules that people want - so it is actually the demand from the general public that is troubling you - not the companies themselves that provide the service. Would you level the same criticism at these commercial operators if they were all small companies (or if they only flew VFR!)? What makes them so evil in your books, please explain further.
BTW - I agree with your sentiments to make VFR cheaper and more accessible. I also quite agree that better carving up of the sky so it can be shared by all is a very good thing. I had to do lots of overtime work to be able to start to fly, and the nearest uncontrolled airstip was too far away so I had to start with hectic RT - but I accepted I was somewhere busy and that was that.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstream Rider
No, the PPP was refinanced with the Dept for transport and a new investor, BAA, putting in equal amounts. (in order to maintain the public/private ratio).
No, the 'Golden Share' is about the Government having the controlling share in its national (security) assest. And that's why the Govt. had to put in more money when BAA came on board - it would have given private industry the controlling share and effectively ended the PPP. The PPP would also have been ended had the Govt. put in the whole amount.
Can't remember exactly, but didn't the government bail out NATS the year after they were privatised?
The "golden share" thing is all about the Government being able to rescue the situation if NATS is badly managed.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breathtaking "happenings" there (avoiding actions by IFR flights, because they've got a VFR flight head on, 1NM/0ft between IFR flight departing and VFR crossing from right to left
Are you saying that the IFR flight, who by definition was in VMC, acted according to the Rules of the Air and made the appropriate turn while the VFR flight did not?
Also in the second example since the VFR flight and the IFR flight came no closer than over 6000ft, with most small VFR aircraft in the 30 to 40ft wingspan bracket that leaves lots of wing spans space between the two. You could have put a few more in that gap!
I remember when ATC were quite happy for blips from aircraft at the same level to almost touch and there was no general panic with pilots...........so why are ATC in a panic when two aircraft responsible for their own separation knowingly pass some many thousands of feet appart while at the same time ATC put two IFR flights in IMC only 1000ft separation?
Regards,
DFC
Are you saying that the IFR flight, who by definition was in VMC, acted according to the Rules of the Air and made the appropriate turn while the VFR flight did not?
Also in the second example since the VFR flight and the IFR flight came no closer than over 6000ft, with most small VFR aircraft in the 30 to 40ft wingspan bracket that leaves lots of wing spans space between the two. You could have put a few more in that gap!
I remember when ATC were quite happy for blips from aircraft at the same level to almost touch and there was no general panic with pilots...........so why are ATC in a panic when two aircraft responsible for their own separation knowingly pass some many thousands of feet appart while at the same time ATC put two IFR flights in IMC only 1000ft separation?
Regards,
DFC
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also in the second example since the VFR flight and the IFR flight came no closer than over 6000ft
Where did I give this example?
As for the rest of your statement, you obviously don't know what you're talking about...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spuds don't feed the trolls. These pocket protector wearing, Flight Sim loving, ribena drinking, towling hat wearing, VFR types sprout the same rubbish the world over. We do not need to convince them of anything, they need to convince us. Don't waste the time. Their whole argument is based on the most selfish of premises. I am sure they are the types that park in disabled zones because 'The Man' is trying to take their rite to park their car where ever they want.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last, a post that cuts to the heart of the thread. Using all of the intellectual skills available to humankind, to administer the debating coup-de-grace:
"We do not need to convince them of anything"
Well that's that then.
If brains were dynamite etc.
"We do not need to convince them of anything"
Well that's that then.
If brains were dynamite etc.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how busy it can really get
Besides they would be subjected to flow control, whereas VFR flights in controlled airspace are not.
