VFR transition through class C airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR transition through class C airspace
Poland has recently introduced charges for VFR transition through class C airspace. Of course, pilots are moaning about it saying it's unheard of in civilized countries.
Quick poll: is such transition free of charge in your country?
Quick poll: is such transition free of charge in your country?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't have Class 'C' in the UK. However, the Class 'D' we have (the nearest equivalent) no charges are made.
I have flown VFR in class 'C' both in Eire and in the U.S.A - no charges are made there either.
I think you'll find the only country which has any kind of route charging for VFR flights is Italy.
From my own point of view I think charging for this sort of thing is a dangerous road to go down. All you're going to do is prevent traffic talking to yourselves and increase the chance of an unknown penetrating Controlled Airspace.
I have flown VFR in class 'C' both in Eire and in the U.S.A - no charges are made there either.
I think you'll find the only country which has any kind of route charging for VFR flights is Italy.
From my own point of view I think charging for this sort of thing is a dangerous road to go down. All you're going to do is prevent traffic talking to yourselves and increase the chance of an unknown penetrating Controlled Airspace.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is free of charge in Switzerland (airspace C FL100+/FL160+ in the alps).
However, my view is, if you receive ATC service you should pay for it.
However, my view is, if you receive ATC service you should pay for it.
Paying for ATC
OK Spuds ..... Reckon I pay plenty for the ATC services I receive when flying VFR. All the UK tax - fuel tax and VAT on the avgas and income tax - should more than cover it.
DGG
DGG
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Providing ATC service to VFR flights produces costs for the ATC provider.
Who is covering those costs?
As we all know, not the VFR community.
It is the IFR flights through route charges (which could be lowered, if VFR flights paid their share).
You reckon that's fair?
Providing ATC service to VFR flights produces costs for the ATC provider.
Who is covering those costs?
As we all know, not the VFR community.
It is the IFR flights through route charges (which could be lowered, if VFR flights paid their share).
You reckon that's fair?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave,
That arguement would only apply if any of that tax went towards the ATC system, which unfortunately it doesn't.
In the UK the user pays, well most of them anyway
WF.
OK Spuds ..... Reckon I pay plenty for the ATC services I receive when flying VFR. All the UK tax - fuel tax and VAT on the avgas and income tax - should more than cover it.
In the UK the user pays, well most of them anyway
WF.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spuds,
I do not need, nor desire, class C (or indeed any) controlled airspace, and neither does any VFR pilot. The annexation of communal property (airspace), to the benefit of commercial (airline) interests is not "fair".
The very least those that have aquired our rights (at no expense other than the cost of "lobbying") could do, would be to pay for the cost of managing their own separation requirements.
Please explain why I should pay for their needs.
I do not need, nor desire, class C (or indeed any) controlled airspace, and neither does any VFR pilot. The annexation of communal property (airspace), to the benefit of commercial (airline) interests is not "fair".
The very least those that have aquired our rights (at no expense other than the cost of "lobbying") could do, would be to pay for the cost of managing their own separation requirements.
Please explain why I should pay for their needs.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is for YOUR benefit as well (safety)!
"See and avoid" is simply bollox.
If I see what happens in airspace E regarding so called "legal encounters" I must say: Might be legal, but it is NOT safe (although VFRs have to squawk)!
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 and IFR pilot understandably shaken; In all those cases traffic info had been given, but since VFR flights in E are not required to call on a frequency, as an ATCO you don't know anything about their intentions, even the altitude readout is not confirmed).
"See and avoid" is simply bollox.
If I see what happens in airspace E regarding so called "legal encounters" I must say: Might be legal, but it is NOT safe (although VFRs have to squawk)!
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 and IFR pilot understandably shaken; In all those cases traffic info had been given, but since VFR flights in E are not required to call on a frequency, as an ATCO you don't know anything about their intentions, even the altitude readout is not confirmed).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that this is the first time that I have seen the abolition of VFR flight and uncontrolled airspace suggested. In the name of safety, of course.
Notwithstanding the breathtaking arrogance of the mindset that would come up with such an idea, the "happenings" referred to usually occur in the vicinity of terminal airspace, where traffic management and separation is provided by AD ATC. Why does that mean that GA should pay en-route charges?
You have still to make reasoned case as to why an entity, i.e an airline, having aquired exclusive rights to a valuable resource at no cost, i.e. airspace, can expect those who do not require such an environment, i.e general aviation, to pay for its management, i.e en-route ATC.
Notwithstanding the breathtaking arrogance of the mindset that would come up with such an idea, the "happenings" referred to usually occur in the vicinity of terminal airspace, where traffic management and separation is provided by AD ATC. Why does that mean that GA should pay en-route charges?
You have still to make reasoned case as to why an entity, i.e an airline, having aquired exclusive rights to a valuable resource at no cost, i.e. airspace, can expect those who do not require such an environment, i.e general aviation, to pay for its management, i.e en-route ATC.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the f
k do you mean with "breathtaking arrogance" !?
You're a typical exponent of the VFR community apparently.
Anything against your interests is to be damned no matter what, typical lobby attitude!
"Doomsday for VFR flights looming",
"Abolition of VFR flights suggested by Air Traffic Control".
Gimme a F ing break!
And who said that they would have to pay en-route charges?
A fair share, that's all (a flat rate per year for instance).
And finally, if you want to suggest, that I as an ATCO am using safety as an excuse, then I would suggest that you don't have a clue what aviation is about.
k do you mean with "breathtaking arrogance" !?You're a typical exponent of the VFR community apparently.
Anything against your interests is to be damned no matter what, typical lobby attitude!
"Doomsday for VFR flights looming",
"Abolition of VFR flights suggested by Air Traffic Control".
Gimme a F
ing break!And who said that they would have to pay en-route charges?
A fair share, that's all (a flat rate per year for instance).
And finally, if you want to suggest, that I as an ATCO am using safety as an excuse, then I would suggest that you don't have a clue what aviation is about.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger
Yes it is!
Initially FL245+ then changing to FL195+
This Document refers.
UK will have Class C airspace in March 2006. Mind you, it is going to be FL195+. Oh no it's not!!
Initially FL245+ then changing to FL195+
This Document refers.
Last edited by VectorLine; 15th Sep 2005 at 10:48.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mistake, I thought that :
" "See and avoid" is simply bollox."
- meant that you felt VFR to be unsafe. Given your obvious concern for the wellbeing of all those flying within the IFR system, it is not a great leap to conclude that you would not advocate allowing any type of flight that you believe to be a risk to their safety. Additionally, to dismiss the very basis of VFR, struck me as a pretty arrogant statement. After all, VFR flight has been around a long time and has proven to be a reasonably safe way of getting around.
You have still not offered any reasoned argument as to why a VFR flight, which does not need, nor want, an ATC service, should pay any charge, according to your rules of fairness, or otherwise.
Probably not finally, I fly both VFR and IFR, piston and turbine Hi and Lo. My interests are diverse. It may well be that I do not have a clue what aviation is about, but I do have a clue what self serving public servants trying to justify increased taxes are about.
" "See and avoid" is simply bollox."
- meant that you felt VFR to be unsafe. Given your obvious concern for the wellbeing of all those flying within the IFR system, it is not a great leap to conclude that you would not advocate allowing any type of flight that you believe to be a risk to their safety. Additionally, to dismiss the very basis of VFR, struck me as a pretty arrogant statement. After all, VFR flight has been around a long time and has proven to be a reasonably safe way of getting around.
You have still not offered any reasoned argument as to why a VFR flight, which does not need, nor want, an ATC service, should pay any charge, according to your rules of fairness, or otherwise.
Probably not finally, I fly both VFR and IFR, piston and turbine Hi and Lo. My interests are diverse. It may well be that I do not have a clue what aviation is about, but I do have a clue what self serving public servants trying to justify increased taxes are about.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only interest is safety, period.
I'm not justifying anything, taxes the least.
If you think that you can do without ATC, so be it.
I know from experience that mixed traffic (IFR and unknown VFR) can be a dangerous thing (As I've described above).
It is not about restricting VFR flights, but in certain areas, I want to know what they're doing and what their intentions are, to their benefit as well.
BTW "reasonably safe" is not safe enough...
I'm not justifying anything, taxes the least.
If you think that you can do without ATC, so be it.
I know from experience that mixed traffic (IFR and unknown VFR) can be a dangerous thing (As I've described above).
It is not about restricting VFR flights, but in certain areas, I want to know what they're doing and what their intentions are, to their benefit as well.
BTW "reasonably safe" is not safe enough...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spuds - The UK tax payer does pay for ATC. When the government bail out NATS as they are not making enough profit, all of us who pay any form of tax pay for it.
Safe skies, means safe ground as well. To follow your argument, people who have their houses flown over should pay for ATC, to ensure their safety from falling aircraft! That is the crux of it. If ATC makes it safe for all of us, we should all pay and that should come from tax, not from discrete charges that take an awful lot of money to administer in the first place.
I fly commercially and I like the protection of class A. I also fly little aircraft and I like being able to bimble around without having to talk to anyone. The controlled airspace in this country is for the benefit of the commercial traffic and the military. Just go to Newcastle or Leeds where thay make the little aircraft hold on downwind and base all the time while the commercials get away, when in reality they could mix them safely. Why should the little guys pay for the "service"?
The PFA rally reularly sees 1500 aircraft land a day, in VFR, in pretty much radio silence - do we really need controllers all the time? Don't get me wrong, I have a large amount of respect for controllers and thier job, however control is not always appropriate.
Separation of VFR and IFR traffic in less restricted types of airspace would be a lot easier, if the CAA actually printed charts that showed instrument holds, and approaches. At the moment the VFR guys don't know where to look, unless they have IFR training and materials to hand.
Many people died in the world wars to uphold freedom, if it is taken away by commercial needs, then we have lost it.
Commercial types don't pay tax on fuel - but they do pay enroute charges. Little guys pay tax on fuel and no ATC charges. Seems fair to me.
Safe skies, means safe ground as well. To follow your argument, people who have their houses flown over should pay for ATC, to ensure their safety from falling aircraft! That is the crux of it. If ATC makes it safe for all of us, we should all pay and that should come from tax, not from discrete charges that take an awful lot of money to administer in the first place.
I fly commercially and I like the protection of class A. I also fly little aircraft and I like being able to bimble around without having to talk to anyone. The controlled airspace in this country is for the benefit of the commercial traffic and the military. Just go to Newcastle or Leeds where thay make the little aircraft hold on downwind and base all the time while the commercials get away, when in reality they could mix them safely. Why should the little guys pay for the "service"?
The PFA rally reularly sees 1500 aircraft land a day, in VFR, in pretty much radio silence - do we really need controllers all the time? Don't get me wrong, I have a large amount of respect for controllers and thier job, however control is not always appropriate.
Separation of VFR and IFR traffic in less restricted types of airspace would be a lot easier, if the CAA actually printed charts that showed instrument holds, and approaches. At the moment the VFR guys don't know where to look, unless they have IFR training and materials to hand.
Many people died in the world wars to uphold freedom, if it is taken away by commercial needs, then we have lost it.
Commercial types don't pay tax on fuel - but they do pay enroute charges. Little guys pay tax on fuel and no ATC charges. Seems fair to me.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If reasonably safe is not safe enough, what is?
Unreasonably safe?
IMHO you are wrong to feel that way. If safety is the only concern then no aircraft would ever leave the stand. It is all a compromise.
If you don't like "reasonably" safe, how about "acceptably" safe. They seem about the same to me.
The point is not that I can do without ATC. It is that VFR flying can well do without ATC. It is only when IFR traffic enters the picture that ATC becomes necessary.
Controlled airspace is imposed upon those who fly VFR, by our rulers, for the benefit of IFR CAT. Whilst it may be agreed that it is necessary to suffer this imposition in order to gain the benefits given by air travel, it is a bit rich to suggest that those whose freedoms have been expropriated by the airlines for their own commercial gain, should have to pay the costs arising therefrom.
Unreasonably safe?
IMHO you are wrong to feel that way. If safety is the only concern then no aircraft would ever leave the stand. It is all a compromise.
If you don't like "reasonably" safe, how about "acceptably" safe. They seem about the same to me.
The point is not that I can do without ATC. It is that VFR flying can well do without ATC. It is only when IFR traffic enters the picture that ATC becomes necessary.
Controlled airspace is imposed upon those who fly VFR, by our rulers, for the benefit of IFR CAT. Whilst it may be agreed that it is necessary to suffer this imposition in order to gain the benefits given by air travel, it is a bit rich to suggest that those whose freedoms have been expropriated by the airlines for their own commercial gain, should have to pay the costs arising therefrom.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the government bail out NATS as they are not making enough profit, all of us who pay any form of tax pay for it.
The annexation of communal property (airspace), to the benefit of commercial (airline) interests is not "fair".
Controlled airspace is imposed upon those who fly VFR, by our rulers, for the benefit of IFR CAT
...self serving public servants trying to justify increased taxes are about.
Reckon I pay plenty for the ATC services I receive when flying VFR. All the UK tax - fuel tax and VAT on the avgas and income tax - should more than cover it.
The issue of controlled airspace vs. uncontrolled airspace is a controversial and emotive subject for discussion - so it helps to get all the facts right first!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Lets be honest, if it goes bust, the government won't sit there and let the whole infrastructure fail - they will use taxes to pile in and sort it out.
While CAS does give safety to the travelling public and is very nescessary in places - it is highly unnescessary in others (such as around power stations - in this case "control" being "restricted"). It is also unnecessary at some smaller GA airfields and even some regional airports are overcontrolled. The thing is to get the right balance. GA is said to pay less than their fair share by the airlines, but there are some things GA have to pay that the airlines don't and this often isn't taken into account.
I have great respect for my ATC colleagues in places like LHR, LGW and STN. However some control that I have come acrss in light aircraft has left a lot to be desired at various places around the country - I hope it doesn't spread.
While CAS does give safety to the travelling public and is very nescessary in places - it is highly unnescessary in others (such as around power stations - in this case "control" being "restricted"). It is also unnecessary at some smaller GA airfields and even some regional airports are overcontrolled. The thing is to get the right balance. GA is said to pay less than their fair share by the airlines, but there are some things GA have to pay that the airlines don't and this often isn't taken into account.
I have great respect for my ATC colleagues in places like LHR, LGW and STN. However some control that I have come acrss in light aircraft has left a lot to be desired at various places around the country - I hope it doesn't spread.