Unbelievable!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airpolice wrote:
"As for the a/g going up to £50 a week, that will hit places like Strathaven ...."
Actually, Strathaven is on Safety.com - we have no ground station and no-one authorised to operate an air/ground service.
However, other aircraft on the airfield and in the vicinity may make appropriate transmissions. This might confuse you into thinking we have an air/ground.
I can tell you now, we will not be operating air/ground or paying for an operational frequency.
I suggest we take a leaf out of Scottish TV's book when licence fees were being put up for bids about 10 or 15 years ago.
So people, like Granada, paid tens of millions.
STV felt they were the only bidders for the Scottish licnce, so bid £1 - yes, 100p.
So if we all bid the lowest amount, or just abandon air/ground etc, then the market price will be very very very low.
Then re-apply for an air-ground frequency and then offer the going rate.
Let's show them just what the commercial demand is!
"As for the a/g going up to £50 a week, that will hit places like Strathaven ...."
Actually, Strathaven is on Safety.com - we have no ground station and no-one authorised to operate an air/ground service.
However, other aircraft on the airfield and in the vicinity may make appropriate transmissions. This might confuse you into thinking we have an air/ground.
I can tell you now, we will not be operating air/ground or paying for an operational frequency.
I suggest we take a leaf out of Scottish TV's book when licence fees were being put up for bids about 10 or 15 years ago.
So people, like Granada, paid tens of millions.
STV felt they were the only bidders for the Scottish licnce, so bid £1 - yes, 100p.
So if we all bid the lowest amount, or just abandon air/ground etc, then the market price will be very very very low.
Then re-apply for an air-ground frequency and then offer the going rate.
Let's show them just what the commercial demand is!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the details of the report (Appendix 7, Annex 8, Figure 4.5) their own figures suggest that at small, "low movement" airfields (they use Dunsfold as an example) the fee will equate to almost £5 per movement.
Can small airfields afford to swallow such a cost? Can they afford to put up their landing fees by a fiver or go non-radio (both putting pilots off visiting and hurting them again)?
They don't seem to think so: "This does not in itself imply that the landing charges under AIP would be unaffordable, just that there would be a discernable impact."
Can small airfields afford to swallow such a cost? Can they afford to put up their landing fees by a fiver or go non-radio (both putting pilots off visiting and hurting them again)?
They don't seem to think so: "This does not in itself imply that the landing charges under AIP would be unaffordable, just that there would be a discernable impact."
...Furthermore, the owners of Dunsfold have been attempting to replace the aerodrome with business and private property. Whilst the local council refused the initial application the owners have appealed. The long term future of the airfield must therefore be in doubt.
Please see the note on the LAA website before responding to this.They are making a co ordinated response and ask that people do not respond untill the new year.
Anyway why should I trust organisations to respond on my behalf - look at what Jim thorpe is doing to the IMCR - he is trying to kill it - yet claims to speak for UK PPLs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the thin end of the wedge, the first time ofcom attempted this they took on the whole industry and all aeronautical radio bands.
The first set of proposals would have cost the airlines a lot just for the Rad Alt (£30K per aircraft per year I think) and if that wasnot a tax on safety I don't know what is as the primary use of a Rad Alt in an airliner is GPWS.
As you might have expected the responce from industry was robust to say the least, so what ofcom is up to now is spliting the industry and picking off the radio bands one at a time.
The airlines need to understand that this is just the thin end of the wedge and the whole aviation sector needs to respond in a very robust way before Ofcom get this one past the industry and then start on the next aviation radio band.
The goverment will only understands the harm that this will do to the UK economy when the airlines move the aircraft to another EEC state and dont have to pay this ofcom tax and a lot of other taxes to the UK Goverment.
The bottom line is that if Ofcom get away with this tax it will make the UK aviation sector less compeditive and drive total UK tax income down.
I have writen a very robust responce to this tax, and I urge you all to do the same, as for the LAA I think that they should talk to the airlines to make sure that they understand what Ofcom are up to, The airlines will be very a powerfull force to help us if they know what is good and will help us nip this in the bud.
The first set of proposals would have cost the airlines a lot just for the Rad Alt (£30K per aircraft per year I think) and if that wasnot a tax on safety I don't know what is as the primary use of a Rad Alt in an airliner is GPWS.
As you might have expected the responce from industry was robust to say the least, so what ofcom is up to now is spliting the industry and picking off the radio bands one at a time.
The airlines need to understand that this is just the thin end of the wedge and the whole aviation sector needs to respond in a very robust way before Ofcom get this one past the industry and then start on the next aviation radio band.
The goverment will only understands the harm that this will do to the UK economy when the airlines move the aircraft to another EEC state and dont have to pay this ofcom tax and a lot of other taxes to the UK Goverment.
The bottom line is that if Ofcom get away with this tax it will make the UK aviation sector less compeditive and drive total UK tax income down.
I have writen a very robust responce to this tax, and I urge you all to do the same, as for the LAA I think that they should talk to the airlines to make sure that they understand what Ofcom are up to, The airlines will be very a powerfull force to help us if they know what is good and will help us nip this in the bud.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A & C
I don't think airlines are the issue.
The problem affects the UK-based providers who Ofcom can identify and monitor.
No aircraft operator will lose (directly) but the charges to airfield owners and operators will add to our costs indirectly through raised landing fees.
A particularly nasty and focussed attempt at getting more money from an already over-taxed sector.
This needs to be fought, and hard...
I don't think airlines are the issue.
The problem affects the UK-based providers who Ofcom can identify and monitor.
No aircraft operator will lose (directly) but the charges to airfield owners and operators will add to our costs indirectly through raised landing fees.
A particularly nasty and focussed attempt at getting more money from an already over-taxed sector.
This needs to be fought, and hard...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how to influence Ofcom
A few thoughts...
- Cameron's comments on abolishing Ofcom were aimed at Ofcom's work on broadcasting and not "technical" issues like spectrum pricing. Whether or not one agrees with this, do nbot hold your breath for a conservative govt to "save" GA here...
- I would suggest that all who are concerned should reply - both organisations and individuals. But just saying that Ofcom are wrong or that this will hurt safety will have little impact. Ofcom are "evidenced based" and to have any chance of influencing them then need to show why will hurt safety with logic or evidence.
- Writing to MPs and getting them on board can also not hurt - especially those with an aviation bent I would have thought.
In terms of the substance here - these charges are meant to influence the incentives to use spectrum efficiently. Any arguments need to be linked back to Ofcom duties to encourage efficient spectrum usage. How is a charge going to increase efficient specturm usage in aviation bands? It will only push all radio usage to those airports and users best able to pay - but "efficient" usage should mean maximising safe use of the skies which is achieved by ALL aircraft and airfields using radio efficiently -not just those most able to pay. Am still reading this document and will post further with any more thoughts.
- Cameron's comments on abolishing Ofcom were aimed at Ofcom's work on broadcasting and not "technical" issues like spectrum pricing. Whether or not one agrees with this, do nbot hold your breath for a conservative govt to "save" GA here...
- I would suggest that all who are concerned should reply - both organisations and individuals. But just saying that Ofcom are wrong or that this will hurt safety will have little impact. Ofcom are "evidenced based" and to have any chance of influencing them then need to show why will hurt safety with logic or evidence.
- Writing to MPs and getting them on board can also not hurt - especially those with an aviation bent I would have thought.
In terms of the substance here - these charges are meant to influence the incentives to use spectrum efficiently. Any arguments need to be linked back to Ofcom duties to encourage efficient spectrum usage. How is a charge going to increase efficient specturm usage in aviation bands? It will only push all radio usage to those airports and users best able to pay - but "efficient" usage should mean maximising safe use of the skies which is achieved by ALL aircraft and airfields using radio efficiently -not just those most able to pay. Am still reading this document and will post further with any more thoughts.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't XrayAlpha closest to the RealPolitik? Ofcom simply cannot resell these frequencies, because they are protected by international treaty.
Thus every a/g operator should simply shrug their shoulders, relinquish their frequency, and have Pooleys et al publish what their frequency used to be.
People would then continue to use the frequency, no money would change hands and Status Quo Ante Bellum would prevail.
Thus every a/g operator should simply shrug their shoulders, relinquish their frequency, and have Pooleys et al publish what their frequency used to be.
People would then continue to use the frequency, no money would change hands and Status Quo Ante Bellum would prevail.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
The Airlines are not the issue with VHF comms but the next thing down the line will be the taxation of another radio band, so lets just look at what you could tax.
Weather radar.
DME.
Radio Altimiter.
HF.
Most airliners are now carrying one Weather radar, Two Rad Alts, Five DME's and at least one HF.
All of these could attract the new tax.......... this is why we need to impress on the airlines that they should help us fight this rubbish now and not let OFCOM drive in the thin end of the taxation wedge.
Weather radar.
DME.
Radio Altimiter.
HF.
Most airliners are now carrying one Weather radar, Two Rad Alts, Five DME's and at least one HF.
All of these could attract the new tax.......... this is why we need to impress on the airlines that they should help us fight this rubbish now and not let OFCOM drive in the thin end of the taxation wedge.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was part of the industry working group that saw off OfCom at the last attempt at this. This is the first industry working group I have sat one where every sector of aviation was united and gave the OfCom team a thorough roasting.
The lady giving the presentation and her manager were completely incapable of understanding the safety implications of these measures or willing to acknowledge that they could not resell the frequencies as there are protected for aviation use. She had the arrogance to assert that other countries would follow the example!!
These people are only interested in raising money for there masters at the treasury to help out a crippled and corrupt government.
The lady giving the presentation and her manager were completely incapable of understanding the safety implications of these measures or willing to acknowledge that they could not resell the frequencies as there are protected for aviation use. She had the arrogance to assert that other countries would follow the example!!
These people are only interested in raising money for there masters at the treasury to help out a crippled and corrupt government.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my perspective, as a GA pilot the airlines won't want to have to pay extra for service. The airports will not want to take the hit either, but licenced fields with commercial traffic will have little choice.
Other airfields with a choice will decide to go no-radio or use Safetycom. I flew with a pilot yesterday who could not handle working non-radio and it was scary.
We, as pilots should make sure we make our own responses to this consultation - IN OUR OWN WORDS. Don't rely on our representative bodies who have only around 30% of GA pilots on their books.
Ofcom make it clear that safety is the responsibilty of the CAA. They are only interested in the efficient and cost-effective use of the spectrum. We need to focus on the safety element, in particular the risk to commercial aviation if we lose local GA A/G/ATIS etc.
This is a nasty proposal from Ofcom, but government need to hear from us with reasoned arguments to stop this happening
Other airfields with a choice will decide to go no-radio or use Safetycom. I flew with a pilot yesterday who could not handle working non-radio and it was scary.
We, as pilots should make sure we make our own responses to this consultation - IN OUR OWN WORDS. Don't rely on our representative bodies who have only around 30% of GA pilots on their books.
Ofcom make it clear that safety is the responsibilty of the CAA. They are only interested in the efficient and cost-effective use of the spectrum. We need to focus on the safety element, in particular the risk to commercial aviation if we lose local GA A/G/ATIS etc.
This is a nasty proposal from Ofcom, but government need to hear from us with reasoned arguments to stop this happening
