Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By PaulB
#1672073
Interesting question on Twitter from Mr AOPA UK. I wonder what is happening to cause the question to be asked?

#1672087
I think it depends a lot on the amount, whether it's mandatory, and whether it's everywhere.

If it was £100 just to cut the corner of Doncaster's zone, absolutely not
If it was £5 to get a priority transit through Manchester's airspace rather than squeeze through the LLC, I suppose I would.
cockney steve liked this
#1672092
Absolutely NO. It is perpetuating almost a class system in which those with deep pockets get priority - and get safer flying.

It is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge, which could see the less well off being forced to fly miles further and fly in more crowded (non CAS) airspace whilst the rich tootle around with ATC taking care of their every need.

We might as well introduce paid for lanes on the roads. Rich folks get to cruise in their own lanes, whilst the rest of us compete for the overcrowded space that is left.

I’m not sure what planet Mr Robinson lives on, but certainly not the same one as I do.

Edit (And people tell me I should sign up and pay money to support crazy ideas like this. AOPA Really is disconnected from the average flier)
Last edited by Lefty on Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AlanM, chipmeisterc, Lockhaven and 14 others liked this
#1672093
AlanM wrote:How would paying increase access? (Or indeed safety?)

If we charged a VFR £50 and gave it priority, I would suggest that the delayed Airbus fleets would then up the ante and pay an extra £75 to get priority back.

I could only assume this would work at the limited number of places where the number of controllers is the limiting factor, and it could be feasible to add another position to improve access. Or it funds some sort of EFS system that reduces the effort to handle VFR?
Realistically, even £500 isn't going to buy you a priority transit through EGLL final approach.
#1672107
I struggle to see how an extra few quid (£50 was a random figure to demonstrate my belief that the deeper pockets will always win) would fund any form of investment.

I can only assume that Martin is just asking this for a reason - irrespective of his beliefs.

In 30 years, I cannot think of a time when I have said no to a VFR crossing of a CTR for any other reason than traffic loading.
idlelayabout, GonzoEGLL, ChrisT and 1 others liked this
#1672108
TLRippon wrote:I wouldn't pay for access to CAS while IFR so why pay VFR. This whole question shows a huge lack of understanding regarding the access rights to CAS.

CAS is Controlled Airspace, not Prohibited Airspace.


You pay for access to Controlled Airspace IFR already in the form of Euro Control charges.
#1672109
Lockhaven wrote:
TLRippon wrote:I wouldn't pay for access to CAS while IFR so why pay VFR. This whole question shows a huge lack of understanding regarding the access rights to CAS.

CAS is Controlled Airspace, not Prohibited Airspace.


You pay for access to Controlled Airspace IFR already in the form of Euro Control charges.


Not if you're under 2t

Ian
#1672122
rikur_ wrote:I think it depends a lot on the amount, whether it's mandatory, and whether it's everywhere.

If it was £100 just to cut the corner of Doncaster's zone, absolutely not
If it was £5 to get a priority transit through Manchester's airspace rather than squeeze through the LLC, I suppose I would.


If the persons responsible for the financial side of operating CAS are looking at other ways of funding it, they need to plan on regular use/income, which in the UK is going to be commercial traffic not weather dependant grass roots light GA doing VFR. The heavier end of GA is likely to want to be up high for fuel efficiency and increased TAS, and the crew will be IR rated and presumably wanting to be in CAS most of the time either due to airspace complexity or to keep away from light GA bimblers.

It would not be worth the admin costs for £5, also many GA pilots seem to bleat about a £5 differential in landing fee between Airfield A and Airfield B when choosing a destination, so where those bleating pilots currently can request a CAS transit, any fee will put them off a CAS transit and push them into the choke points between CAS boundaries at the lower cruising altitudes.
#1672128
AlanM wrote:I struggle to see how an extra few quid (£50 was a random figure to demonstrate my belief that the deeper pockets will always win) would fund any form of investment.


Interesting. Perhaps we need to get these wealthier pilots to make voluntary donations of a few quid (perhaps £50) to help out all those airfields and flying schools that are struggling with the economics. Donations by post etc would surely be accepted?

I dont think I have seen a "donations tin" at an airfield before where the beneficiary is the airfield and not some other good cause such as Air Ambulance fund raising.
Perhaps airfields and flying schools could publish there fee structure a little differently.... and have a statement such as voluntary donations above the stated fees much appreciated to keep the place available.
Last edited by GAFlyer4Fun on Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1672132
rikur_ wrote:
AlanM wrote:How would paying increase access? (Or indeed safety?)

If we charged a VFR £50 and gave it priority, I would suggest that the delayed Airbus fleets would then up the ante and pay an extra £75 to get priority back.

I could only assume this would work at the limited number of places where the number of controllers is the limiting factor, and it could be feasible to add another position to improve access. Or it funds some sort of EFS system that reduces the effort to handle VFR?
Realistically, even £500 isn't going to buy you a priority transit through EGLL final approach.


....oh, I don’t know....... :thumright:
G-BLEW, rikur_, Pilot Pete and 2 others liked this
#1672137
In some senses it is analogous to paying to drive into the London congestion zone, or onto toll roads and bridges.
I don't like the idea, as it will just create more admin to collect the fee, and it is not solving a problem (of excessive use) that such as the London congestion charge is solving.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7