Yes fair enough. The point I was trying to make is that such a transition would require not just a redesignation of airspace classes, but a fundamental change in the scope of NATS's service, which it is simply not in a poisition to provide. I can now see that's what you meant by redesign of the airspace system.

It would be nice to think that a big opportunity to sort things out will come about as we move towards the 3-code airspace system being finalised as we speak.

2D

It will be interesting if all IFR need a radar service outside controlled airspace. It will of course mean delays for some as IFR would need separating!

Bookworm - not just NATS you know - as per the suggested route earlier of Plymouth to Edinburgh. Wouldn't neccessarily talk to a NATS unit until destination!!

Alan

I think you may miss the point. If NATS takes the fee for that flight between Plymouth and Edinburgh, NATS should provide the service. But it doesn't. It can't.

By contrast, if you want to fly IFR from anywhere in Germany to anywhere else in Germany, you fly pretty much in a straight line and a DFS controller provides you with a radar control service. For this, they charge a fee. Fair enough, I think.

There's a little "sneaky" in there. The US system is funded by the tax on the fuel. Timothy (and I) use Avgas which is taxed like the clappers. NONE of that tax goes towards aviation.

The airlines, who whinge about the cost of LARS, use virtually tax-free fuel.

Hypothecation is, I understand, a word that Gordon Brown does not recognise.

Yes, bring in the US system, and I'll be happy.

Adopt the FAA IR and you can delete the IMC rating, as far as I'm concerned. But NOT while the local PPL/IR requires the level of irrelevant academic effort it does right now.

But I take Timothy's original point, which seems to have got lost in the last 4 pages or so. But it's easy for me - my aeroplane weighs less than the magic number (even with me in it).