Zone Infringements
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
jezbowman:- last time i checked the word "srcutinized" didn't mean criticised, mearly that the procedures were being examined...i certainly didn't take your comments as criticism sorry if it appeared that way.
There is much not done right at EMA in my opinion but also quite alot that is, and i think the way the VFR tarffic is handled in/out down the lanes is very tidy and seems to work very well.
almost profesional... is it true your colleagues put a local standby on when you work in tower??
And having just re-read that post I must apologise for the awful typo\'s!!!!
There is much not done right at EMA in my opinion but also quite alot that is, and i think the way the VFR tarffic is handled in/out down the lanes is very tidy and seems to work very well.
almost profesional... is it true your colleagues put a local standby on when you work in tower??
And having just re-read that post I must apologise for the awful typo\'s!!!!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Leicestershire
Evil J - no worries, I was in a tetchy mood yesterday! 
Yes, I'd agree the lanes do work rather well. The only fault that strikes me is when you're on 27, the LW departure or LE arrival puts you on the wrong side of the M1 which, as a line feature, should be kept to the left if following it. I appreciate there's not much you can do about this in terms of physical geographical layout. But has anyone ever considered using another form of seperation in that 'danger zone' between Trowell and the boundary (also Markfield and Shepshed for 09 days) like using different height clearences, eg inbound not above 1500ft, outbound not above 2000ft. Do you think that'd make the zone entry / exit any safer? Just curious....
Yes, I'd agree the lanes do work rather well. The only fault that strikes me is when you're on 27, the LW departure or LE arrival puts you on the wrong side of the M1 which, as a line feature, should be kept to the left if following it. I appreciate there's not much you can do about this in terms of physical geographical layout. But has anyone ever considered using another form of seperation in that 'danger zone' between Trowell and the boundary (also Markfield and Shepshed for 09 days) like using different height clearences, eg inbound not above 1500ft, outbound not above 2000ft. Do you think that'd make the zone entry / exit any safer? Just curious....
Last edited by jezbowman; 3rd March 2005 at 13:45.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
Jez: there is no separation requirement, you are VFR, and once clear of the zone at long eaton or shepshed u are in an unknown traffic environment, we may well tell u about known traffic if we have time, but don't bank on it!! Personally I think 1500 feet around MArkfield would be VERY iffy coz of the high ground up to 1100ft, not only that but clear of the zone we do not have the authority to restrict your level up to 2500 underneath the CTA so it could only ever be local agreement between the clubs
On 27 u would get a LW departure, and on 09 a LE departure, the reverse inbound-so not sure i get what u mean? Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??
Either way it is, as i said above ,only a guide line feature for vfr traffic-if u want to leave/ join on another route, alternate lvel u only have to ask and we will if we can.
On 27 u would get a LW departure, and on 09 a LE departure, the reverse inbound-so not sure i get what u mean? Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??
Either way it is, as i said above ,only a guide line feature for vfr traffic-if u want to leave/ join on another route, alternate lvel u only have to ask and we will if we can.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Leicestershire
Oh, I'm aware there's no seperation requirement or that any can be enforced. I'm just thinking of general trends.
Yep.
I guess what I'm getting at is that most SEP aircraft want to be as high as possible at any given point so an aircraft outbound will be overhead Long Eaton at 2000ft, and an inbound one may just have dropped down to 2000ft to get in for his clearance. In that little bit of airspace just north of Long Eaton (and just south of Shepshed) there is opposite direction traffic at the same level (2000ft). Granted one is on the other side of the M1 to the other, but at what point a pilot following the M1 makes his decision to swap to the correct side of the motoway (right hand side rule) is an unknown.
Good point about the 1500ft over Markfield - even at 2000ft it feels like you could nearly reach out and touch those transmission towers. And I got my LW and LE's mixed up in the previous post - will go and correct that.
But then as you say this is VFR and seperation is the responsibility of the eyes in the aircraft!
Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??
I guess what I'm getting at is that most SEP aircraft want to be as high as possible at any given point so an aircraft outbound will be overhead Long Eaton at 2000ft, and an inbound one may just have dropped down to 2000ft to get in for his clearance. In that little bit of airspace just north of Long Eaton (and just south of Shepshed) there is opposite direction traffic at the same level (2000ft). Granted one is on the other side of the M1 to the other, but at what point a pilot following the M1 makes his decision to swap to the correct side of the motoway (right hand side rule) is an unknown.
Good point about the 1500ft over Markfield - even at 2000ft it feels like you could nearly reach out and touch those transmission towers. And I got my LW and LE's mixed up in the previous post - will go and correct that.
But then as you say this is VFR and seperation is the responsibility of the eyes in the aircraft!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
Agreed, and our MATS Pt2 does mention that those departures don't follow the right hand rule...can't really see a way around it though...??
FYI if you wanna come in higher its rarely a problem especially from the south, from the north can be more tricky(on 27) as we drop the inbounds to 3 thousand as they are going north abeam.
Agreed about the Markfield masts too, that is why when I depart southbound, cloud base permitting, I ask for not about 3 thousand, also gives CAS protection for longer!!!
FYI if you wanna come in higher its rarely a problem especially from the south, from the north can be more tricky(on 27) as we drop the inbounds to 3 thousand as they are going north abeam.
Agreed about the Markfield masts too, that is why when I depart southbound, cloud base permitting, I ask for not about 3 thousand, also gives CAS protection for longer!!!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Lobby,
Here are the appropriate parts of the AIP and the Manual of ATC............both CAA documents which detail what pilots and ATC must do.
AIP ENR 1.10
1.2.2 Flight plans fall into three categories:
(a) Full flight plans: the information filed on Form CA48/RAF 2919;
(b) Repetitive Flight Plans (see paragraph 5);
(c) Abbreviated Flight Plans: the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (eg: flying in a Control
Zone, crossing an Airway) filed either by telephone prior to take-off or by RTF when airborne. The destination aerodrome
will be advised of the flight only if the flight plan information covers the whole route of the flight.
---
1.4.2 A flight plan must be filed for the following:
(a) for all flights within Class A Airspace;
(b) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in IMC or at night, except for those operating under SVFR;
(c) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in VMC if the flight is to be conducted in accordance with IFR;
(d) for all flights within Class B - D Controlled Airspace irrespective of weather conditions;
---
1.6 Submission Time Parameters
1.6.1 Normally, flight plans should be filed on the ground at least 60 minutes before clearance to start up or taxi is requested;.....................Exceptionally, in cases where it is impossible to meet this requirement, operators should give as much notice as
possible and never less than thirty minutes. Otherwise, if this is not possible, a flight plan can be filed when airborne with any ATSU,
but normally with the FIR Controller responsible for the area in which the aircraft is flying. If the airborne flight plan contains an intention
to enter Controlled Airspace or certain Control Zones/Control Areas, at least 10 minutes prior warning of entry must be given.
---
ICAO Annex 2 describes when a pilot must tell ATS of changes to a flight plan.
------------
MATS 1
Section 5, Chapter 1;
3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............
---
Section 5, Chapter 3;
Overdue Aircraft;
[I]1 Introduction
.............
Type of Aircraft
Strict adherence to the flight plan cannot always be
expected of a non-radio light aircraft.......
---
2 Aerodrome Procedure
2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.
---
The above clearly show what the requirements are in black and white.
I particuluarly like the one about flight plans being filed 1 hour prior to flight or exceptionally 30 minutes before or if that is not possible (how often would that be in the UK would that be in today's mobile phone world?) filed in the air!
While Vintage ATCO may describe the traditional method used by some units, it is not in compliance with ICAO or UK CAA procedures and requirements.
What seems to have happened is that ATS units have stopped fulfilling the alerting requirements because they fel that they can't trust pilots to keep to the filed flight plan or change the plan as required..........would it not be better to properly educate the pilots of their errors and retain the integrity of the system for those operators who comply with the requirements?
Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?
Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!
Regards,
DFC
Here are the appropriate parts of the AIP and the Manual of ATC............both CAA documents which detail what pilots and ATC must do.
AIP ENR 1.10
1.2.2 Flight plans fall into three categories:
(a) Full flight plans: the information filed on Form CA48/RAF 2919;
(b) Repetitive Flight Plans (see paragraph 5);
(c) Abbreviated Flight Plans: the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (eg: flying in a Control
Zone, crossing an Airway) filed either by telephone prior to take-off or by RTF when airborne. The destination aerodrome
will be advised of the flight only if the flight plan information covers the whole route of the flight.
---
1.4.2 A flight plan must be filed for the following:
(a) for all flights within Class A Airspace;
(b) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in IMC or at night, except for those operating under SVFR;
(c) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in VMC if the flight is to be conducted in accordance with IFR;
(d) for all flights within Class B - D Controlled Airspace irrespective of weather conditions;
---
1.6 Submission Time Parameters
1.6.1 Normally, flight plans should be filed on the ground at least 60 minutes before clearance to start up or taxi is requested;.....................Exceptionally, in cases where it is impossible to meet this requirement, operators should give as much notice as
possible and never less than thirty minutes. Otherwise, if this is not possible, a flight plan can be filed when airborne with any ATSU,
but normally with the FIR Controller responsible for the area in which the aircraft is flying. If the airborne flight plan contains an intention
to enter Controlled Airspace or certain Control Zones/Control Areas, at least 10 minutes prior warning of entry must be given.
---
ICAO Annex 2 describes when a pilot must tell ATS of changes to a flight plan.
------------
MATS 1
Section 5, Chapter 1;
3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............
---
Section 5, Chapter 3;
Overdue Aircraft;
[I]1 Introduction
.............
Type of Aircraft
Strict adherence to the flight plan cannot always be
expected of a non-radio light aircraft.......
---
2 Aerodrome Procedure
2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.
---
The above clearly show what the requirements are in black and white.
I particuluarly like the one about flight plans being filed 1 hour prior to flight or exceptionally 30 minutes before or if that is not possible (how often would that be in the UK would that be in today's mobile phone world?) filed in the air!
While Vintage ATCO may describe the traditional method used by some units, it is not in compliance with ICAO or UK CAA procedures and requirements.
What seems to have happened is that ATS units have stopped fulfilling the alerting requirements because they fel that they can't trust pilots to keep to the filed flight plan or change the plan as required..........would it not be better to properly educate the pilots of their errors and retain the integrity of the system for those operators who comply with the requirements?
Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?
Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Well, it was a long post DFC, but I don't think that it proved your point. Enroute ATC units are under no obligation to do anything with flightplans they might receive (however filed) from aircraft that will primarily be operating outside controlled airspace and may simply call on the offchance for a transit.
It would be a mistake to confuse the general situation with a local arrangement between certain airfields in close proximity with one another.
2D
Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!
2D
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?
And what customer would that be? The one that doesn't pay for the service provided?
And which Controller would you use? The one that's on a legally required break - thereby breaking the law?
As 2D's says - long post, proves nothing. All the above are probably catered for in the real world, just not in such laid down ICAO perfect ways that you seem to think everywhere should be working to. ( I really would love to work in this ideal world that you inhabit - please tell me which nirvana to move to to achieve it
)When you hold an ATC licence then feel feel to comment on the system and how we should be doing the job - until that happens F
k Of
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 4th March 2005 at 17:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When you hold an ATC licence then feel feel to comment on the system and how we should be doing the job - until that happens Fk Of
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Now there's a good example of how to talk to those pesky users, or should I say, customers, since they pay their taxes (e.g. on AVGAS) to the government that franchises the system.
An old chestnut often stated - incorrectly as you can see.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Chilli,
Typical.
You can't counter the requirements that I have clearly copied from the AIP and MATS 1.
This obvously only applies to controllers who work within controlled airspace because You would be quite correct to say that those ATC units with no controlled airspace can not rely on flights bothering to call them.
If anyone thinks that the procedure in the AIP is unworkable or impracticable then rather than simply ignoring the standard would it not be correct to report the situation and try have the CAA change the AIP to reflect actual practice.
And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?
In the UK, 75% of that 90% would not even know how to file a flight plan!. However you seem to justify total ignoring of Alerting requirements and the old "duty of care" to the 10% that actually read the AIP and do what it says.
As for being a customer............we are required to file a flight plan for anything more than a short flight as per the AIP........we don't pay tax on fuel.......but we pay dearly to land at your airport (not very often) even though we have to fly in Class G airspace and have no protection!
Never assume cause as the old saying goes it makes an ass of.........well you know the rest!
Were ATC licences issued by the Board of Trade or whever the name of the week was back then?
----
2 Donkeys,
I never mentioned "Enroute ATC".
I intentionally confined my quotes from the ATC manual to Aerodrome Units and Radio Equipped Aircraft.
The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;
1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.
It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.
As I said....if the AIP procedure is unworkable the answer is to change the procedure. Not to ignore it!
This debate has ensured on thing - if expecting a zone transit from a UK ATC unit, I will;
a) file a full flight plan because that is our standard procedure and complies with the AIP; and (thanks to chilli)
b) ring the ATC unit concerned and either confirm that they have received and will retain my flight plan or if it is already in the bin - pass/fax the details again.
That seems to be the only way that we can get the alerting service that we are entitled to.
Does your unit have lots of ATSAs Chilli?
Talk ta ya,
Regards,
DFC
Typical.
You can't counter the requirements that I have clearly copied from the AIP and MATS 1.
This obvously only applies to controllers who work within controlled airspace because You would be quite correct to say that those ATC units with no controlled airspace can not rely on flights bothering to call them.
If anyone thinks that the procedure in the AIP is unworkable or impracticable then rather than simply ignoring the standard would it not be correct to report the situation and try have the CAA change the AIP to reflect actual practice.
And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?
In the UK, 75% of that 90% would not even know how to file a flight plan!. However you seem to justify total ignoring of Alerting requirements and the old "duty of care" to the 10% that actually read the AIP and do what it says.
As for being a customer............we are required to file a flight plan for anything more than a short flight as per the AIP........we don't pay tax on fuel.......but we pay dearly to land at your airport (not very often) even though we have to fly in Class G airspace and have no protection!
Never assume cause as the old saying goes it makes an ass of.........well you know the rest!
Were ATC licences issued by the Board of Trade or whever the name of the week was back then?
----
2 Donkeys,
I never mentioned "Enroute ATC".
I intentionally confined my quotes from the ATC manual to Aerodrome Units and Radio Equipped Aircraft.
The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;
1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.
It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.
As I said....if the AIP procedure is unworkable the answer is to change the procedure. Not to ignore it!
This debate has ensured on thing - if expecting a zone transit from a UK ATC unit, I will;
a) file a full flight plan because that is our standard procedure and complies with the AIP; and (thanks to chilli)
b) ring the ATC unit concerned and either confirm that they have received and will retain my flight plan or if it is already in the bin - pass/fax the details again.
That seems to be the only way that we can get the alerting service that we are entitled to.
Does your unit have lots of ATSAs Chilli?
Talk ta ya,
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;
1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.
It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.
1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.
It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.
2. Feel free - though I suspect if you're going to do this and you get through to some people you're more likely to be told "Yes - thank you very much" without anything being done about it. You'll have achieved less than option 1 in that case.
3. Yes - you are forced down that avenue. Sorry, it's a fact of life and until we get the same processing and integration as airways flights for flights which transit outside CAS with the occasional zone transit then that's the way it's going to be. It might dent your thoughts on what the relevant ATC units should be doing. However, it's the only sensible way of approaching the problem within the current system.
Yes, the system is at fault. Yes, it does need changing. Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application. People on both sides of the fence may not like it, often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chilli
I didn't say that the tax from AVGAS paid directly for the system, maybe you didn't read my post propoerly before replying
You need to think outside the scope, sorry I mean the box, for a minute.
It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.
If airliners with big round pistons and turbines competed for business, a clever lawyer would challenge this status quo under the EU legislation that makes discriminatory state aid unlawful, but obviously that is not the case.
So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.
Geddit now?
I didn't say that the tax from AVGAS paid directly for the system, maybe you didn't read my post propoerly before replying
You need to think outside the scope, sorry I mean the box, for a minute.
It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.
If airliners with big round pistons and turbines competed for business, a clever lawyer would challenge this status quo under the EU legislation that makes discriminatory state aid unlawful, but obviously that is not the case.
So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.
Geddit now?
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 5th March 2005 at 06:58.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
DFC,
I see in your signature that you live in Euroland. Is that the same resort where my kiddies' esteemed friend M. Mouse lives.
Get real mate.
Your ability to cut and past from the AIP and MATS is second to none.
Your grasp of reality of ATC procedures in the UK is clearly non existent.
Do yourself and us a favour; get your Thomas the Tank Engine set out and go play with that.
It is clear from your postings that you have zilch experience of operating in this part of the real world. To argue with professionals who work in this environment and those of us who fly in it regularly by doing some cut and pasting is pathetic.
Take it you're now going to 'Miss' complaining that we don't take you serious. Or is it going to be an MOR?
Oh dear guys, brace yourself for a telling off.
I see in your signature that you live in Euroland. Is that the same resort where my kiddies' esteemed friend M. Mouse lives.
Get real mate.
Your ability to cut and past from the AIP and MATS is second to none.
Your grasp of reality of ATC procedures in the UK is clearly non existent.
Do yourself and us a favour; get your Thomas the Tank Engine set out and go play with that.
It is clear from your postings that you have zilch experience of operating in this part of the real world. To argue with professionals who work in this environment and those of us who fly in it regularly by doing some cut and pasting is pathetic.
Take it you're now going to 'Miss' complaining that we don't take you serious. Or is it going to be an MOR?
Oh dear guys, brace yourself for a telling off.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
F3G
Sorry, but seeing as the CAA, NATS and all other sides of the aviation industry are self funded (no government assistance / subsidies) and haven't been since NATS was sold off your logic is flawed to put it mildly. My comprehension of your post was, therefore, correct.
If they have no input into government coffers then, by definition, they have no impact on balancing the books (AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).
I'm not Gordon Brown, and I'm no economist. However, common sense dictates you can't include something you don't have in an equation. (Or maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can, hence the prevalence of the debt embracing society)
It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.
So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.
So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.
If they have no input into government coffers then, by definition, they have no impact on balancing the books (AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).
I'm not Gordon Brown, and I'm no economist. However, common sense dictates you can't include something you don't have in an equation. (Or maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can, hence the prevalence of the debt embracing society
)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
CM - the funds paid to some units for the provision of LARS (H/side I think is one such), where does that come from? General taxation, I believe, and as tax and duty from GA in all its forms be it Avgas or anything else goes into general taxation, then GA is paying quite a lot for the "service" it receives. Is this not so?
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Working Hard
Again - another misapprehension.
LARS funding comes directly from IFR en-rte charges, NOT general taxation. So, it's being paid for by everyone who flies IFR and weighs more than 2000kg MTOW, whether they use the service or not.
And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).
Again - another misapprehension.
LARS funding comes directly from IFR en-rte charges, NOT general taxation. So, it's being paid for by everyone who flies IFR and weighs more than 2000kg MTOW, whether they use the service or not.
And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).