Single European Sky is here, now comes the bill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single European Sky is here, now comes the bill
The Single European Sky is here - now comes the bill
---------------------------------------------------------
IHMO, 2006 will give us;
- Less flight training in Europe
- Less trained pilots
- More VFR into IMC
- More CFIT
- More Mid-airs
(less planes and pilots)
----------------------------------------------------------
User fees for under 2000 kg
from PPL/IR (www.pplir.org)
The Single European Sky (SES) was adopted on 20th April this year. Following that, a new way to charge for the use of airspace is now underway and your participation in the consultation process is vital.
The proposals at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/
are sure to become reality. Presently, only IFR traffic above 2000kg pays en-route charges. But after early 2006, everybody will pay.
The charging proposals are at
http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/docu...ing_scheme.pdf
The consultation response sheet is at
http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/docu...onse_sheet.doc
---------------------------------------------------------
IHMO, 2006 will give us;
- Less flight training in Europe
- Less trained pilots
- More VFR into IMC
- More CFIT
- More Mid-airs
(less planes and pilots)
----------------------------------------------------------
User fees for under 2000 kg
from PPL/IR (www.pplir.org)
The Single European Sky (SES) was adopted on 20th April this year. Following that, a new way to charge for the use of airspace is now underway and your participation in the consultation process is vital.
The proposals at
http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/
are sure to become reality. Presently, only IFR traffic above 2000kg pays en-route charges. But after early 2006, everybody will pay.
The charging proposals are at
http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/docu...ing_scheme.pdf
The consultation response sheet is at
http://www.eurocontrol.be/enprm/docu...onse_sheet.doc
Last edited by SR20flyDoc; 21st Aug 2004 at 20:21.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This looks like the usual political/civil servant twaddle that is meant to confuse the paying public thus re-enforceing the mythe that we need such people to represent us.
For one I would suggest theat the British government before agreeing to any such charges 'ring-fence' the current revenue raised in fuel duty, except in a dire emergency we do not use roads so one would assume that monies raised in this way should go as the GA contribution.
Can anyone suggest practical ways that the 'common man' will have his voice heard in the fiasco that is about to follow.
Mike
(bull**** baffles brains)
For one I would suggest theat the British government before agreeing to any such charges 'ring-fence' the current revenue raised in fuel duty, except in a dire emergency we do not use roads so one would assume that monies raised in this way should go as the GA contribution.
Can anyone suggest practical ways that the 'common man' will have his voice heard in the fiasco that is about to follow.
Mike
(bull**** baffles brains)
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without examining the documents in minute detail, but having read and discussed the basic proposals on a professional basis, I would conclude;
1 - the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west.
2 - the effect upon G/A VFR operations, on a day to day basis, will range from negligble to nothing.
SR20 is being extremely alarmist, and I would venture that perhaps he currently resides in the Hills of Monatana, watching out for them there government controlled spaceships.
IFR operators will, as currently happens, continue to subside 'VFR' flights.
1 - the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west.
2 - the effect upon G/A VFR operations, on a day to day basis, will range from negligble to nothing.
SR20 is being extremely alarmist, and I would venture that perhaps he currently resides in the Hills of Monatana, watching out for them there government controlled spaceships.
IFR operators will, as currently happens, continue to subside 'VFR' flights.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one has been running for some time on the Flyer site
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic....865e3ed4bd96a4
Some interesting comments there
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic....865e3ed4bd96a4
Some interesting comments there
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NIKNAK
I don't blame you for only looking at you own interests as a 'sport pilot',
but if I lived in Montana there would be no problem, no user fees in the U.S.
But since I live in the Dutch Mountains, and use my plane as personal transportation in all seasons on a more professional base so IF, the burden will be on me.
First I have to pay for a mode S transponder, € 5000,- that is to no benefit at all to me. This since Eurocontrol forgot to specify Traffic Information Service, TIS, on the radar systems as is used in the U.S. on a voluntary basis.
Second, I have to pay for SAR etc. that is also used for gliders, ultralight, sailboats etc. that don't pay.
Third I already pay a lot of duties an VAT on fuel.
So I am not alarmist, just horified by this low move. 
p.s. I also pay 52% progressive income tax....
I don't blame you for only looking at you own interests as a 'sport pilot',
but if I lived in Montana there would be no problem, no user fees in the U.S.
But since I live in the Dutch Mountains, and use my plane as personal transportation in all seasons on a more professional base so IF, the burden will be on me.
First I have to pay for a mode S transponder, € 5000,- that is to no benefit at all to me. This since Eurocontrol forgot to specify Traffic Information Service, TIS, on the radar systems as is used in the U.S. on a voluntary basis.
Second, I have to pay for SAR etc. that is also used for gliders, ultralight, sailboats etc. that don't pay.
Third I already pay a lot of duties an VAT on fuel.
So I am not alarmist, just horified by this low move.
p.s. I also pay 52% progressive income tax....
Last edited by SR20flyDoc; 23rd Aug 2004 at 07:40.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are five pages on this topic in last month's issue of the AOPA UK magazine General Aviation. See: BALPA denies airspace grab,' 'As free as the air,' and 'Don't price us out of the sky.' If you want a basic understanding of a massively complex topic, that's a good place to look.
I publish the magazine, so I declare an interest here. But it's a bloody good read.
The most significant problem we currently face is that while the consultation period ends on September 17th, nobody can say what happens to the opinions of those who make them known. The UK DFt has no idea; trying to get answers out of Eurocontrol or the European Commission is frustrating beyond belief.
Eurocontrol has a mandate from the EC to devise the Implementing Rules on charges under the Single European Sky (among other things). AOPA has a seat on the Industry Consultation Body that is reviewing the Implementing Rules and is fighting to have references to VFR traffic removed from the Rule.
It is true to say that under Article 6, States have the option of whether or not to charge VFR traffic for access to the skies, but under Article 15, those who do not will have to satisfy the EC that they did not make up their income by charging IRF traffic extra. That effectively makes charging for VFR a fait accompli. There are many other disturbing aspects to the charging regime. For instance, aviation will be expected to pay for all SAR operations, and for certain Met services that have yet to be specified.
Charging has to be seen in the context of Eurocontrol plans for the harmonisation of airspace, the pressure exerted by low-cost airlines for better routings, and in particular, British Airways' current attack on the Finance Advisory Committee of the CAA, which is one of the few pressure points that GA has in the whole regulatory system.
Not that the airlines and AOPA are in different camps on all of this; they agree with AOPA's position on regulatory impact assessments, which are currently (and bizarrely) carried out long after the regulations have been put forward for aproval, instead of when they are being formulated.
Once decisions have been made at European level it is virtually impossible to change them, and unlike JAA rules, they are binding on States. The UK Parliament debated the Single European Sky and decided it was a Good Thing, and now has no authority whatever over the detail, which as we know is where the devil resides.
AOPA attended meetings in Luxembourg on June 3rd and in Brussels on June 7th on airspace designs and charges, in London on June 24th on UK airspace issues, in Brussels on July 13th on the Single Sky Air Traffic Management System. Apart from one of these meetings, where a representative of PPL/IR was present, AOPA was the only GA body there. Especially at this time, when what we are being told by the EC is often significantly different from what we are being told by the CAA, you have to be there, on the ground, to hear what these people are saying, to work out what they really mean, to form alliances and to make your position known.
On airspace charges, AOPA's attempts to have VFR traffic removed from the Rule is the only real hope for GA. It is working with extremely limited resources, in thankless and frustrating circumstances.
I publish the magazine, so I declare an interest here. But it's a bloody good read.
The most significant problem we currently face is that while the consultation period ends on September 17th, nobody can say what happens to the opinions of those who make them known. The UK DFt has no idea; trying to get answers out of Eurocontrol or the European Commission is frustrating beyond belief.
Eurocontrol has a mandate from the EC to devise the Implementing Rules on charges under the Single European Sky (among other things). AOPA has a seat on the Industry Consultation Body that is reviewing the Implementing Rules and is fighting to have references to VFR traffic removed from the Rule.
It is true to say that under Article 6, States have the option of whether or not to charge VFR traffic for access to the skies, but under Article 15, those who do not will have to satisfy the EC that they did not make up their income by charging IRF traffic extra. That effectively makes charging for VFR a fait accompli. There are many other disturbing aspects to the charging regime. For instance, aviation will be expected to pay for all SAR operations, and for certain Met services that have yet to be specified.
Charging has to be seen in the context of Eurocontrol plans for the harmonisation of airspace, the pressure exerted by low-cost airlines for better routings, and in particular, British Airways' current attack on the Finance Advisory Committee of the CAA, which is one of the few pressure points that GA has in the whole regulatory system.
Not that the airlines and AOPA are in different camps on all of this; they agree with AOPA's position on regulatory impact assessments, which are currently (and bizarrely) carried out long after the regulations have been put forward for aproval, instead of when they are being formulated.
Once decisions have been made at European level it is virtually impossible to change them, and unlike JAA rules, they are binding on States. The UK Parliament debated the Single European Sky and decided it was a Good Thing, and now has no authority whatever over the detail, which as we know is where the devil resides.
AOPA attended meetings in Luxembourg on June 3rd and in Brussels on June 7th on airspace designs and charges, in London on June 24th on UK airspace issues, in Brussels on July 13th on the Single Sky Air Traffic Management System. Apart from one of these meetings, where a representative of PPL/IR was present, AOPA was the only GA body there. Especially at this time, when what we are being told by the EC is often significantly different from what we are being told by the CAA, you have to be there, on the ground, to hear what these people are saying, to work out what they really mean, to form alliances and to make your position known.
On airspace charges, AOPA's attempts to have VFR traffic removed from the Rule is the only real hope for GA. It is working with extremely limited resources, in thankless and frustrating circumstances.
Last edited by Pat Malone; 23rd Aug 2004 at 12:37.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat
Well said.
There is too much legislation passing through the EC which, on the face of the draft proposal, no-one could argue about.
However, when the detailed proposals hit, then we in PFA-type aircraft get clobbered big time.
It seems beyond the working parties involved to consider that anyone would want to fly recreationally, as so our requirements are almost never considered - as happened with EASA last year.
Like you say, once the great and good - mostly ignorant of the effect of the EC legislation- have passed the bills, then we are stuffed, as there is no effective legislative means of changing it.
The problem is, as with the recent EASA consultation, we have to dig into the dark corners of the draft outline proposals to see if there is anything that could possibly affect us. And given the pathetic wording of such documents, that is next to impossible.
I would like to take the view that the legislators mean well, but experience proves otherwise, and we have to fight every bit of legislation. The BGA are well used to this, but now GA are going to have to organise and protest.
Well said.
There is too much legislation passing through the EC which, on the face of the draft proposal, no-one could argue about.
However, when the detailed proposals hit, then we in PFA-type aircraft get clobbered big time.
It seems beyond the working parties involved to consider that anyone would want to fly recreationally, as so our requirements are almost never considered - as happened with EASA last year.
Like you say, once the great and good - mostly ignorant of the effect of the EC legislation- have passed the bills, then we are stuffed, as there is no effective legislative means of changing it.
The problem is, as with the recent EASA consultation, we have to dig into the dark corners of the draft outline proposals to see if there is anything that could possibly affect us. And given the pathetic wording of such documents, that is next to impossible.
I would like to take the view that the legislators mean well, but experience proves otherwise, and we have to fight every bit of legislation. The BGA are well used to this, but now GA are going to have to organise and protest.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat,
Glad to see AOPA responding here - I am member (so baised) but publicly showing your/our involvement here is a good thing.
My question is, having seen more of the "inside" of the process what do you think we can all (as indiviudal pilots, AOPA memebers or not) do to help?
e.g.
1. Is it worth us individually passing back our commets or to go via AOPA.
2. What are the key things that we should focus on in our comments that will have most impact ?
Glad to see AOPA responding here - I am member (so baised) but publicly showing your/our involvement here is a good thing.
My question is, having seen more of the "inside" of the process what do you think we can all (as indiviudal pilots, AOPA memebers or not) do to help?
e.g.
1. Is it worth us individually passing back our commets or to go via AOPA.
2. What are the key things that we should focus on in our comments that will have most impact ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My house
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Individual responses are vital, rather than everything going through one group reply, as total number of responses and a whole host of useless statistics will be counted by a team of statisticians in Euroland.
As for what you want to say, that depends on your circumstances, but most VFR pilots are likely to object for paying for significant amounts for nav / met / and comms services. How we argue against it is going to be tricky as previously it came from general taxes, now converting to "user pays".
I think that everone who flies should read the document (takes 30 mins), and reply if so moved.
The only sensible position is.....read if you want, reply if you want, but if you don`t want, don`t moan about big charges if they happen.
Enjoy the next 6 months of flying, they are likely to be the best value from here on in.
J
As for what you want to say, that depends on your circumstances, but most VFR pilots are likely to object for paying for significant amounts for nav / met / and comms services. How we argue against it is going to be tricky as previously it came from general taxes, now converting to "user pays".
I think that everone who flies should read the document (takes 30 mins), and reply if so moved.
The only sensible position is.....read if you want, reply if you want, but if you don`t want, don`t moan about big charges if they happen.
Enjoy the next 6 months of flying, they are likely to be the best value from here on in.
J
I've responded on behalf of my RF as follows:
Comment:
Although light ac with a MTOM < 2000 kg are currently exempt from en-route navigation charges, it is important to distinguish between the recreational use of many light ac under VFR or IFR and the use of others for purely business or commercial purposes under IFR in Class A airspace.
The current draft makes no such distinction.
Reason for Comment:
Were member states to be responsible for paying ANSPs for the cost of such exemptions for light ac, there is insufficient assurance that, for administrative convenience by national revenue collecting authorities, a blanket levy would not be imposed on users without reasonable regard for the actual level of service being afforded to, or the nature of, such flights.
Proposed Change/Text:
Delete: Article 14 clauses 2, 3 and 4.
Insert: New clause 2 as follows:
'Aircraft with a certified MTOM of 2000 kg or less, fitted with a single power plant and seating for no more than 6 persons including the Commander shall, when operated anywhere within Eurocontrol airspace with the exception of non-SVFR operation in Class A airspace, be exempt from en-route charges'
The idea of this is that, whereas perhaps someone flying a Seneca full along an airway might reasonably be expected to pay en-route charges, someone else flying a Cub from one farm strip to another, or cutting the corner of the London TMA under SVFR, should not. A line should be drawn somewhere and I think that the Cherokee 6, Beech Bonanza, Cessna 207 in Class D, E, F or G airspace is the reasonable limit whether VFR or IFR. I know that others will disagree, but I had to make my response as it would affect my members directly, not as it would affect the GA community as a whole.
Comment:
Although light ac with a MTOM < 2000 kg are currently exempt from en-route navigation charges, it is important to distinguish between the recreational use of many light ac under VFR or IFR and the use of others for purely business or commercial purposes under IFR in Class A airspace.
The current draft makes no such distinction.
Reason for Comment:
Were member states to be responsible for paying ANSPs for the cost of such exemptions for light ac, there is insufficient assurance that, for administrative convenience by national revenue collecting authorities, a blanket levy would not be imposed on users without reasonable regard for the actual level of service being afforded to, or the nature of, such flights.
Proposed Change/Text:
Delete: Article 14 clauses 2, 3 and 4.
Insert: New clause 2 as follows:
'Aircraft with a certified MTOM of 2000 kg or less, fitted with a single power plant and seating for no more than 6 persons including the Commander shall, when operated anywhere within Eurocontrol airspace with the exception of non-SVFR operation in Class A airspace, be exempt from en-route charges'
The idea of this is that, whereas perhaps someone flying a Seneca full along an airway might reasonably be expected to pay en-route charges, someone else flying a Cub from one farm strip to another, or cutting the corner of the London TMA under SVFR, should not. A line should be drawn somewhere and I think that the Cherokee 6, Beech Bonanza, Cessna 207 in Class D, E, F or G airspace is the reasonable limit whether VFR or IFR. I know that others will disagree, but I had to make my response as it would affect my members directly, not as it would affect the GA community as a whole.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down&Out:
I'm not responding on behalf of AOPA - like you, I'm just a member, although I do publish General Aviation and I wrote a certain amount of the stuff on airspace charges, so I'm up to speed. AOPA officially explains its action and its position to its members through the magazine.
Pat
I'm not responding on behalf of AOPA - like you, I'm just a member, although I do publish General Aviation and I wrote a certain amount of the stuff on airspace charges, so I'm up to speed. AOPA officially explains its action and its position to its members through the magazine.
Pat
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will just make us all criminals.
Where I live in rural Devon, flying from farm strips, we'd all just take off, fly low, not switch the bloody mode S transponder on, not talk to anyone and let them all sod off.
It could be quite a fun challenge -- getting from one side of the country to the other without getting caught.
These stupid people should understand that there is no point introducing an unenforceable, nonsensical law.
QDM
Where I live in rural Devon, flying from farm strips, we'd all just take off, fly low, not switch the bloody mode S transponder on, not talk to anyone and let them all sod off.
It could be quite a fun challenge -- getting from one side of the country to the other without getting caught.
These stupid people should understand that there is no point introducing an unenforceable, nonsensical law.
QDM
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QDM
Now there's an idea - beats a breakfast patrol - Bodmin to Cambridge in the open FIR without radio or transponder and let's see if they even care or notice.
One thing's for sure, the authorities won't have enough planes to put up to chase us, but then I suppose that's why they started licencing the 'twitchers' to keep an eye on us.
Now there's an idea - beats a breakfast patrol - Bodmin to Cambridge in the open FIR without radio or transponder and let's see if they even care or notice.
One thing's for sure, the authorities won't have enough planes to put up to chase us, but then I suppose that's why they started licencing the 'twitchers' to keep an eye on us.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody seriously thinks Mode S is anything to do with airspace charging involving the tracking of transponding aircraft.
The radar coverage doesn't exist and would cost countless millions to implement, be of no benefit to the real players in aviation (the airlines) - just to collect a pittance from the bulk of GA pilots who fly VFR at low level.
En-route charges for VFR will come and almost certainly will be a flat rate charge (quarterly or annual) on every aircraft known to the CAA to be UK based.
What Mode S will do (assuming people don't contravene the coming regulations and leave the transponder switched on) is that it will make it easier to identify aircraft infringing some airspace. But its primary purpose is for more efficient air traffic control, which is there mostly for the airlines.
But this stuff has been done to death already here and elsewhere...
In the end, the plane spotters will ALWAYS get you, and your details WILL appear on some spotter website
The radar coverage doesn't exist and would cost countless millions to implement, be of no benefit to the real players in aviation (the airlines) - just to collect a pittance from the bulk of GA pilots who fly VFR at low level.
En-route charges for VFR will come and almost certainly will be a flat rate charge (quarterly or annual) on every aircraft known to the CAA to be UK based.
What Mode S will do (assuming people don't contravene the coming regulations and leave the transponder switched on) is that it will make it easier to identify aircraft infringing some airspace. But its primary purpose is for more efficient air traffic control, which is there mostly for the airlines.
But this stuff has been done to death already here and elsewhere...
In the end, the plane spotters will ALWAYS get you, and your details WILL appear on some spotter website
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that, perhaps we should employ 'twitchers' as ATCOs.
I agree there will probably be a flat rate charge for VFR-types, but is it fair that a Luton Minor operating out of Eggeford flying to Halwell will pay the same as a TB20 whizzing VFR between Exeter and Norwich?
There should be either an exemption for the permit types or a massive reduction
I agree there will probably be a flat rate charge for VFR-types, but is it fair that a Luton Minor operating out of Eggeford flying to Halwell will pay the same as a TB20 whizzing VFR between Exeter and Norwich?
There should be either an exemption for the permit types or a massive reduction
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
robin, probably not. However, if you buy a TV license (which you are legally obliged to do if you have a TV), does the fact that you watch less BBC programmes than your neighbour affect the amount you pay for the priveledge? I suppose the argument then becomes one of 'choice' or having the ability to pick-up BBC TV?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on the amount. If the qtr charge is say £25 then it won't matter much, on the scale of what it costs to fly a powered plane.
BTW a TB20 isn't that much faster than some Permit types
BTW a TB20 isn't that much faster than some Permit types
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
When I see one disappearing over the horizon when the cars on the roads below are overtaking me, I'll remember that comment -
the Luton Minor should pay the same as a VFR high-performance whatsit!!!!!
When I see one disappearing over the horizon when the cars on the roads below are overtaking me, I'll remember that comment -
the Luton Minor should pay the same as a VFR high-performance whatsit!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Luton Minor should pay the same as a VFR high-performance whatsit!!!!!
If an aircraft is slower it "is in the way"* for longer - therefore should pay more per mile.
*This is the beancounter view, not mine.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we don't go through as many of the flight blocks as the TB20 and certainly don't cover as many kilometres.
I s'pose it depends on the reference type they choose to use for a VFR aircraft - an Arrow/TB20/Mooney perhaps - and the assumptions they use as to standard usage
I s'pose it depends on the reference type they choose to use for a VFR aircraft - an Arrow/TB20/Mooney perhaps - and the assumptions they use as to standard usage