(UK) Etiquette on service termination
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
From your original post:
Not sure about your experience or qualifications, but the circumstances which caused you to start this thread could well have been the first hole in the Swiss cheese leading to a loss of situational awareness incident. There are some red herring posts on here which get bogged down in the esoteric technicalities of the various types of service, and which don't really address your concerns. When I was controlling I tried not to forget that ATC is a 'service'. In Class G airspace in situations like yours, I would always give the pilot a bit of useful information about the onward situation, with a phrase like 'Shortly leaving my area, no known (or observed) traffic in your vicinity, Squawk 7000 and free-call XXX'. If I knew of, or could see a busy area a little way ahead, but out of my area, I would pass this information and suggest an early call to the next unit. I know that seriously busy units may not have time to add those half dozen extra words, but controllers should also be aware that just dumping a (possibly very inexperienced) private pilot could lead to confusion and possibly panic in the cockpit.
From your original post:
This was a bit of an irritant when already working fairly hard single-pilot IFR in IMC, in fairly crowded airspace, and preceded by no warning.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through this thread and it seems to me that some people are getting confused between IFR and IMC. As far as the ATCO is concerned the general point that is important is IFR or VFR as this sets what level of service you can get. Now as for offering extra if someone is IMC that comes down to duty of care. If the aircraft is in an area of high ground then you give the minimum height to fly and then work out how to get them VMC again but if you want a seamless flight with controller to controller fly inside CAS the whole way otherwise get what you can outside. Possibly harsh but my 2p's worth....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about terrain mate, its about being IFR in marginal visual conditions and for some reason people deciding that to have an IFR Traffic Service you need to have some sort of VISUAL references to see and avoid traffic...
Moderator
Thread Starter
if you want a seamless flight with controller to controller fly inside CAS
Regarding V/IFR, V/IMC, surely the default assumption should be that an aircraft flying IFR *may* be in IMC? The ability to see and avoid is a bonus, and pilots will surely use that where able, but it can't be assumed.
G
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class G = See and Avoid principle, no matter what service you are getting.
Yes the rules say that you can be in thick IMC flying IFR under a Traffic Service or even a Basic Service, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
If you plan a flight OCAS understand that it is ultimately YOU that is responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of any radar service you are in receipt of. If you are uncomfortable with that, either don't fly or file a flight plan inside CAS or at least a Class F route.
Yes the rules say that you can be in thick IMC flying IFR under a Traffic Service or even a Basic Service, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
If you plan a flight OCAS understand that it is ultimately YOU that is responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of any radar service you are in receipt of. If you are uncomfortable with that, either don't fly or file a flight plan inside CAS or at least a Class F route.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
As far as the ATCO is concerned the general point that is important is IFR or VFR as this sets what level of service you can get
NS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Anywhere, literally
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For years I regularly asked pilots who they would like to speak to next and this often led to discussions about handovers or freecalls and closest radar units etc Then when I took off the blue suit I used the same phrase whilst at the college for conversion and was told categorically that there was no place for that and I was the controller and told the pilot who to go to...Seems like the OP would have appreciated an early heads up. I think that controllers are guilty of forgetting that it is a SERVICE we are providing and unless there is absolutely no other course of action we should at least give prior warning. Its my job to help every pilot who calls me to the best of my ability and if that means I use non standard phraseology to achieve it then so be it - I cringe when I hear how curtly some controllers speak to pilots in class g who are clearly not professional aircrew and are looking for a bit of help whilst muddling through...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kharmael
You either fly in very quiet class G, or I'd be worried about that statement. If you are really in full IMC (not intermittent) and you rely on your mental picture and TCAS to show you the way to avoid called traffic, then you are increasing your risk. I accept against one or two contacts you could do it, but anywhere busy and you are, frankly, delusional about your mental ability, and ignorant of how TCAS actually displays... not having a go at you, just worried that you might think that TCAS is a good subsitute, or that you feel you can retain a complete mental picture of called traffic to allow you to weave your way through it.
Genghis,
I appreciate you might have liked an earlier heads up, and notwithstanding what Amexgull says about having a conversation with the pilot (you can do that at some units, others are just too busy), but if you follow ShyTorques advice and add an extra dimension to your flight planning, then an instruction to freecall etc won't come as a surprise.
I assume you plan meticulously for your VFR flight... it is not difficult, nor time consuming, whilst doing that planning to take note on a chart of the units you will be flying near, and then having a comms plan for the flight (i.e. anticipate where you will go from one unit to another for a service). If you then need to fly IMC, then you have the information to hand.
Otherwise, as ShyTorque also states, another option is acceptance that you cannot continue VMC and turn around.
In an ideal world, we would have a joined up LARS service... you maybe would not get handovers from unit to unit, but the next unit would have your details passed by an assistant and you could then be told to "continue with xxx" ('continue with' infers that you are not getting a radar handover, but that the next unit has your details, therefore instead of a freecall with all of your details, you just need to give callsign).
Unfortunately, HMG does not wish to pay for this gold plated level of service, and unless it makes sense for individual units (safety of their IFR traffic for example), then they won't provide it either as it costs money, money that the GA does not pay.
Amexgull is correct, controllers are there to provide a service, amongst other things, but full planning/forethought by 'the customers' makes the job easier for both.
If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS
Genghis,
I appreciate you might have liked an earlier heads up, and notwithstanding what Amexgull says about having a conversation with the pilot (you can do that at some units, others are just too busy), but if you follow ShyTorques advice and add an extra dimension to your flight planning, then an instruction to freecall etc won't come as a surprise.
I assume you plan meticulously for your VFR flight... it is not difficult, nor time consuming, whilst doing that planning to take note on a chart of the units you will be flying near, and then having a comms plan for the flight (i.e. anticipate where you will go from one unit to another for a service). If you then need to fly IMC, then you have the information to hand.
Otherwise, as ShyTorque also states, another option is acceptance that you cannot continue VMC and turn around.
In an ideal world, we would have a joined up LARS service... you maybe would not get handovers from unit to unit, but the next unit would have your details passed by an assistant and you could then be told to "continue with xxx" ('continue with' infers that you are not getting a radar handover, but that the next unit has your details, therefore instead of a freecall with all of your details, you just need to give callsign).
Unfortunately, HMG does not wish to pay for this gold plated level of service, and unless it makes sense for individual units (safety of their IFR traffic for example), then they won't provide it either as it costs money, money that the GA does not pay.
Amexgull is correct, controllers are there to provide a service, amongst other things, but full planning/forethought by 'the customers' makes the job easier for both.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks for those thoughts - but a query: whilst an inexperienced IFR pilot, I'm not a complete beginner and my experience has generally been that I have been given a handover on long trips across the UK, IFR in class G. If ATCers are going well beyond their required standards of service, then I'm grateful and have presumably been lucky.
This experience was so far the exception for me: I generally have been given either a handover or (less commonly) a warning of cancellation and/or request for my intentions. It's worked well, and I felt I was indeed getting a Good Service.
In this particular incident, I also got a Good Service, which I felt enhanced my safety and reduced my workload. I had a VFR plan, and like all good pilots that was down on various bits of paper in front of me, it didn't vary much from doing it IFR really - just a change of altitude and service requested.
Frequency plans however are of marginal usefulness - I'd already abandoned mine as the international airport I'd hoped to get a service from I couldn't get 2-way with, going with the switch to the regional airport I was talking to. From there the obvious next frequency to me was not the one that had just been suggested to me. This is pretty normal flying around the UK; a lot of flexibility is needed, and depending upon their own requirements controllers will often ask you to switch frequency / service and a LARS controller is often not the best provider if you are very close to a particular airport's CAS.
My sole point really was about the method of termination of the Good Service I'd been receiving, which at the time flustered me a little for the couple of minutes it took to adjust.
For the record, I'm really glad I posted in here, the learning points have been, and continue to be, very valuable. Breaking my VFR-touring mindset of avoiding CAS and instead going into it being perhaps the latest.
G
This experience was so far the exception for me: I generally have been given either a handover or (less commonly) a warning of cancellation and/or request for my intentions. It's worked well, and I felt I was indeed getting a Good Service.
In this particular incident, I also got a Good Service, which I felt enhanced my safety and reduced my workload. I had a VFR plan, and like all good pilots that was down on various bits of paper in front of me, it didn't vary much from doing it IFR really - just a change of altitude and service requested.
Frequency plans however are of marginal usefulness - I'd already abandoned mine as the international airport I'd hoped to get a service from I couldn't get 2-way with, going with the switch to the regional airport I was talking to. From there the obvious next frequency to me was not the one that had just been suggested to me. This is pretty normal flying around the UK; a lot of flexibility is needed, and depending upon their own requirements controllers will often ask you to switch frequency / service and a LARS controller is often not the best provider if you are very close to a particular airport's CAS.
My sole point really was about the method of termination of the Good Service I'd been receiving, which at the time flustered me a little for the couple of minutes it took to adjust.
For the record, I'm really glad I posted in here, the learning points have been, and continue to be, very valuable. Breaking my VFR-touring mindset of avoiding CAS and instead going into it being perhaps the latest.
G
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing:
I agree that the sentence which you've highlighted, when removed from everything else I've been saying, would suggest possible reckless flying!
Rest assured that I am fully aware of the untrustworthy nature of the lateral display on TCAS, but it does give a decent distance readout to help one's situational awareness!
However when you couple your cherry-picked phrase with:
things become a bit clearer, no? This coupled with the fact that I would be at an independently calculated safety altitude would reinforce big-sky theory since it's unlikely anything else would be at that level enroute.
My MO is to have the least possible interference with my plan, but not at the expense of the safety of the aircraft and this quick check of TCAS and deciding in my head whether things are a confliction or not means the difference between sticking with the Traffic Service and continuing on my planned route only losing a minute or two versus taking a deconfliction service and potentially losing tens of minutes in vectored manoeuvring.
I agree that the sentence which you've highlighted, when removed from everything else I've been saying, would suggest possible reckless flying!
Rest assured that I am fully aware of the untrustworthy nature of the lateral display on TCAS, but it does give a decent distance readout to help one's situational awareness!
However when you couple your cherry-picked phrase with:
Originally Posted by kharmael
"Because when the controller tells me what traffic is about I would have an idea where everything is relative to me and my routing in my head and whether it's going to be a factor or not. So if the traffic is in my way or poses a confliction I will know what direction to turn or if it all gets too much I can ask for a suggested heading or upgrade to deconfliction service."
My MO is to have the least possible interference with my plan, but not at the expense of the safety of the aircraft and this quick check of TCAS and deciding in my head whether things are a confliction or not means the difference between sticking with the Traffic Service and continuing on my planned route only losing a minute or two versus taking a deconfliction service and potentially losing tens of minutes in vectored manoeuvring.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sometimes difficult to know from what perspective some comments are made on these forums but never the less they may be quite telling and could be a warning to all. For example Amexgull tells us to remember that ATCOs are there to provide a SERVICE which is most often the case in reality. Anotherthing however focuses on a basic radar facility covering the UK as a "gold plated service" and the "GA does not pay" as well as "controllers are there to provide a service, amongst other things".
It seems to me that here we have possibly 2 opposite examples of what being an ATCO is all about. It also seems to me from my experiences that the views seemingly expressed by Anotherthing are very much in the minority. How do ATCOs see the job? Are you there to provide the best service you can for all the aircraft flying in your part of the world?
A comment and a question for Anotherthing - GA does pay and pays greatly for the "priviledge" of flying in the UK whereas the "owners" of CAS pay nothing for the exclusive control of that volume of airspace, and if an ATCO is on duty controlling then to what does "amongst other things" refer please?
Keep up the good work ATCOs.
It seems to me that here we have possibly 2 opposite examples of what being an ATCO is all about. It also seems to me from my experiences that the views seemingly expressed by Anotherthing are very much in the minority. How do ATCOs see the job? Are you there to provide the best service you can for all the aircraft flying in your part of the world?
A comment and a question for Anotherthing - GA does pay and pays greatly for the "priviledge" of flying in the UK whereas the "owners" of CAS pay nothing for the exclusive control of that volume of airspace, and if an ATCO is on duty controlling then to what does "amongst other things" refer please?
Keep up the good work ATCOs.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard:
I sometimes wonder about anotherthing? He appears to be a controlling supervisor who works for a company that:
1. Classifies the majority of lower en-route UK airspace as Class A therefore prohibiting VFR operation, i.e. the majority of GA.
2. Consequently says routing VFR at FL90 over the London TMA is impossible on a clear VMC day, despite exactly the same route conducted IFR as being completely possible.
3. Levies an Air Navigation Service charge of 128.34 + VAT for two-seater light aircraft flying into Stansted, despite their runway being empty a lot of the time.
4. Charges Night or IFR flights for GA non-commercial MTOW > 2T aircraft, even when they are flown OCAS and cannot get receipt of any service.
5. Paid out some £50m in dividends to shareholders in 2012.
He also likes to play the "GA does not pay" card when "non-paying" people discuss about preceived safety improvements, despite money being paid through taxes to prop up LARS, government/council-owned airports, the military, and other aviation-related business initiatives.
The fact remains that joined up radar services exist on practically every other country where GA is developed - if you don't fly too low. The main difference is that the route is not "blocked" by over-classification of controlled airspace.
I sometimes wonder about anotherthing? He appears to be a controlling supervisor who works for a company that:
1. Classifies the majority of lower en-route UK airspace as Class A therefore prohibiting VFR operation, i.e. the majority of GA.
2. Consequently says routing VFR at FL90 over the London TMA is impossible on a clear VMC day, despite exactly the same route conducted IFR as being completely possible.
3. Levies an Air Navigation Service charge of 128.34 + VAT for two-seater light aircraft flying into Stansted, despite their runway being empty a lot of the time.
4. Charges Night or IFR flights for GA non-commercial MTOW > 2T aircraft, even when they are flown OCAS and cannot get receipt of any service.
5. Paid out some £50m in dividends to shareholders in 2012.
He also likes to play the "GA does not pay" card when "non-paying" people discuss about preceived safety improvements, despite money being paid through taxes to prop up LARS, government/council-owned airports, the military, and other aviation-related business initiatives.
The fact remains that joined up radar services exist on practically every other country where GA is developed - if you don't fly too low. The main difference is that the route is not "blocked" by over-classification of controlled airspace.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 22nd Aug 2012 at 11:21.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workinghard
Controllers are there to provide the best service they can to aircrew, with due consideration given to equipment constraints, workload at any given time, air navigation law, and local orders.
Any controller that does anything than their best for aircrew is not doing their job. If it came across that i did not think this, then that was not the intention. Sometime however, what a pilot thinks is the best for them is impossible for an ATCO to provide due to any of the above factors. I would not expect a pilot to know what these factors were for every unit they may speak to (unrealistic) but suffice to say that what ATCO A at unit a does may differ slightly form ATCO B at unit b. This is especially pertinent when it comes to the bells and whistles of a service (or a gold plated service) - sometimes, although we want to give the very best, we can't.
Soaringhigh650
1. I do not - you are talking rubbish! I classify the lower en-route airspace that is actually Class A, Class A... funnily enough. Just as I class any other airspace by the classification that it has been given by people way above my pay grade. Airspace that is classified in consultation with many groups. Just because the GA community would like more class G, it does not mean that they can have it... similarly, it does not mean that I would not like to see more class G... unfortunately you have not got a clue about my history nor professional experience in aviation on either side of the mic... and because of this, you make assumptions that are complete tosh.
2. VFR, through (not over as you wrongly state - the LTMA airspace is much higher than FL90) the LTMA at FL90? Best do some reading
3. You are pretty ambiguous about the charge. Below a certain weight there are no en-route charges. It seems that the charge you are talking about is a charge that has nothing to do with the airspace provider (because you talk about being charged even when the runway is empty) and all to do with the Airport Authority. For example NATS provides the ATC service and charges the owners of the airport accordingly on a contract basis - a contract that they have to bid for. How the owners of the airport recoup their money is up to them... done in a manner of ways, including navigation charges, landing and hangerage fees, skimming money from the shops in the terminal. Just because the runway is empty, does that mean they should not charge for the use of the facility? The airport owner is running a business. If you want to pay less charges, fly into a smaller airfield!
4. Don't know the charging policy, not interested in my current job as it has no relevance, but are you stating that you get charged for flying OCAS?
5. NATS is a business. Whether you agree that it should be or not is a moot point, though I see you are based in USA. Given the state of US ATC facilities under Government ownership (and remember not far back to Reagan), I think that there are pros and cons for both systems. NATS has invested more money into ATC than HMG could ever hope to, and it provides a service that is amongst the safest and is definitely the most efficient anywhere. Or do you think that the taxpayer should pay for this?
As a business, NATS has shareholders... people will not invest in any company if they do not get some benefits. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way the company is funded in some respects, but the result of the way NATS is funded is one of the most modern ATC companies in the World... one that provides consultancy services to numerous other countries, the USA included.
As for taxes, I pay taxes on my car through Road Fund licence, petrol etc. I'd rather that HMG did not add so much tax to my petrol, but as a basic methd it is actually quite a fair way of doing it... the more petrol you use, the more you must use the road system, therefore the more you contribute to the upkeep... exactly the same idea as AVGAS tax.
If you want more, then I'm afraid you will have to pay more. You obviously don't understand the cost of providing these services if you think that AVGAS tax covers everything!
If you think that HMG should provide all the services, and thus have the burden on the tax-payer, why? If you want to do something that is over and above basic needs for living, for example flying, why should you not pay for it? Plenty other things that people do to enhance their lifestyle that they have to fund over and above normal taxes.
Controllers are there to provide the best service they can to aircrew, with due consideration given to equipment constraints, workload at any given time, air navigation law, and local orders.
Any controller that does anything than their best for aircrew is not doing their job. If it came across that i did not think this, then that was not the intention. Sometime however, what a pilot thinks is the best for them is impossible for an ATCO to provide due to any of the above factors. I would not expect a pilot to know what these factors were for every unit they may speak to (unrealistic) but suffice to say that what ATCO A at unit a does may differ slightly form ATCO B at unit b. This is especially pertinent when it comes to the bells and whistles of a service (or a gold plated service) - sometimes, although we want to give the very best, we can't.
Soaringhigh650
1. I do not - you are talking rubbish! I classify the lower en-route airspace that is actually Class A, Class A... funnily enough. Just as I class any other airspace by the classification that it has been given by people way above my pay grade. Airspace that is classified in consultation with many groups. Just because the GA community would like more class G, it does not mean that they can have it... similarly, it does not mean that I would not like to see more class G... unfortunately you have not got a clue about my history nor professional experience in aviation on either side of the mic... and because of this, you make assumptions that are complete tosh.
2. VFR, through (not over as you wrongly state - the LTMA airspace is much higher than FL90) the LTMA at FL90? Best do some reading
3. You are pretty ambiguous about the charge. Below a certain weight there are no en-route charges. It seems that the charge you are talking about is a charge that has nothing to do with the airspace provider (because you talk about being charged even when the runway is empty) and all to do with the Airport Authority. For example NATS provides the ATC service and charges the owners of the airport accordingly on a contract basis - a contract that they have to bid for. How the owners of the airport recoup their money is up to them... done in a manner of ways, including navigation charges, landing and hangerage fees, skimming money from the shops in the terminal. Just because the runway is empty, does that mean they should not charge for the use of the facility? The airport owner is running a business. If you want to pay less charges, fly into a smaller airfield!
4. Don't know the charging policy, not interested in my current job as it has no relevance, but are you stating that you get charged for flying OCAS?
5. NATS is a business. Whether you agree that it should be or not is a moot point, though I see you are based in USA. Given the state of US ATC facilities under Government ownership (and remember not far back to Reagan), I think that there are pros and cons for both systems. NATS has invested more money into ATC than HMG could ever hope to, and it provides a service that is amongst the safest and is definitely the most efficient anywhere. Or do you think that the taxpayer should pay for this?
As a business, NATS has shareholders... people will not invest in any company if they do not get some benefits. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way the company is funded in some respects, but the result of the way NATS is funded is one of the most modern ATC companies in the World... one that provides consultancy services to numerous other countries, the USA included.
As for taxes, I pay taxes on my car through Road Fund licence, petrol etc. I'd rather that HMG did not add so much tax to my petrol, but as a basic methd it is actually quite a fair way of doing it... the more petrol you use, the more you must use the road system, therefore the more you contribute to the upkeep... exactly the same idea as AVGAS tax.
If you want more, then I'm afraid you will have to pay more. You obviously don't understand the cost of providing these services if you think that AVGAS tax covers everything!
If you think that HMG should provide all the services, and thus have the burden on the tax-payer, why? If you want to do something that is over and above basic needs for living, for example flying, why should you not pay for it? Plenty other things that people do to enhance their lifestyle that they have to fund over and above normal taxes.
Last edited by anotherthing; 22nd Aug 2012 at 11:25.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I worked out that the particular round trip, for myself and my wife, would cost near as dammit the same whether I flew (2POB, aircraft + fuel costs + airport charges) or took the train (2 return off-peak tickets); specifically about £320.
I suspect that the flying would as well as being quicker and more fun, attracted less subsidy from other taxation than taking the train, even with a share of anotherthing's pension fund!
G
I suspect that the flying would as well as being quicker and more fun, attracted less subsidy from other taxation than taking the train, even with a share of anotherthing's pension fund!
G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
You've hit the nail on the head!
Flying is a lifestyle choice that you choose. It is a hobby that you are fortunate enough to be able to afford (though maybe not as much as you'd like given the level of charges!).
You can hire an aircraft, pay fuel and charges for the same price as sitting in a train (if you can get a seat) besides all manner of people.
When you put it like that, I can't see how anyone can fail to think that flying is actually a bargain.
We'd all like things to be cheaper, but I think that when you put it into perspective it is decent value. Unfortunately some people want more for less, or for nothing at all!
I suspect that SoaringHigh650 would moan about having to pay for a ticket just to provide the train driver with a wage and to allow the train company to invest in new equipment etc. Heaven forbid if the train company even think about making a profit or paying dividends to it's shareholders! Surely the public transport system should be paid for by HMG and provided free
You've hit the nail on the head!
Flying is a lifestyle choice that you choose. It is a hobby that you are fortunate enough to be able to afford (though maybe not as much as you'd like given the level of charges!).
You can hire an aircraft, pay fuel and charges for the same price as sitting in a train (if you can get a seat) besides all manner of people.
When you put it like that, I can't see how anyone can fail to think that flying is actually a bargain.
We'd all like things to be cheaper, but I think that when you put it into perspective it is decent value. Unfortunately some people want more for less, or for nothing at all!
I suspect that SoaringHigh650 would moan about having to pay for a ticket just to provide the train driver with a wage and to allow the train company to invest in new equipment etc. Heaven forbid if the train company even think about making a profit or paying dividends to it's shareholders! Surely the public transport system should be paid for by HMG and provided free
Moderator
Thread Starter
That's not playing fair! I doubt that any two people or organisations have ever quite agreed on what GA is.
I used to sit on the RAeS GA committee, and even we weren't sure.
G
I used to sit on the RAeS GA committee, and even we weren't sure.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis you may be correct but when Anotherthing states "Flying is a lifestyle choice that you choose. It is a hobby that you are fortunate enough to be able to afford", then this is a serious misrepresentation of a very large part of GA. There are a large number of people using aircraft in their everyday work; instructors, student pilots, pipeline inspections, pilots on their own business etc., who seem to be all lumped together (as hobby pilots?) as is suggested by the remark from Anotherthing. I do wonder why, especially as it should have no importance in providing service (not just ATC) to any aircraft commander.