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?

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.

UK will have Class C airspace in March 2006. Mind you, it is going to be FL195+.

I don't think there are any plans to charge for VFR transit.

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.

VFR in Class C in Australia are not charged for the ATC service.

Will not change in the near or far future.

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.

:ok: DGG

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?

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.

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.

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).

UK will have Class C airspace in March 2006. Mind you, it is going to be FL195+.


Oh no it's not!!

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.

What the f:mad: 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:mad: 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.

Widger
Yes it is!

Initially FL245+ then changing to FL195+

This Document refers.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Jetstream Rider - NATS reported a pre-tax profit of £1.8m in 2004 and for FY 2004/05 it reported its first significant pre-tax profit of £69m. Sorry, but HMG doesn't "bale out" NATS - the Airports side of the business derives its income from fixed-price contracts with various airports or from direct charging of aircraft operators using the airport(s) whilst the En-route part derives its income from route charges.
. In fact, controlled airspace (CAS) is established to provide enhanced safety for the travelling public. It can also improve the safety of all flights, IFR and VFR. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with commercial (airline) interests or IFR CAT - Brize Norton & Lyneham for example, both have Class 'D' CAS and there are few if any, commercial airline flights operating at these locations.
Sorry, but you're years out-of-date OVC200. The only controllers in the UK who remain 'civil servants' are those working in the CI and the IoM, at Shoreham (where they're still employed directly by the local council) or who are employed directly by the CAA - and it's not the CAA that seeks to establish CAS but rather, the airports and/or ATC companies.
Sorry DGG but like your road fund licence and the VAT on petrol where not much if any gets spent on the road infrastructure, none of the payments to which you refer find their way back to the ATC companies because as you probably know, G Brown and his experts won't countenance the hypothecation of taxes.

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!

:ok:

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.