Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
"You were in the class D, that'll be £50 please"

"no, I wasn't"

"yes you were, your blip on my screen says FL26!"

"Ahh, but the QNH is 987hPa"
AlanM liked this
No I wouldn't and it's an appalling idea - but a logical one given the insane concept of privatised air traffic control that we have to work with.

If private businesses like airlines and airports are going to be allowed to heavily restrict and control access to airspace, airspace that is owned by no-one, then they can sodding well give something back in return. In fact, given the concession being made to them they can sodding well give quite a lot back. Let's start with free access to that airspace, sufficient controller provision to allow it to happen, and universal LARS provision across the country.

Even then I still think the business interests are getting 'their' chunks of the sky cheap at half the price.
ianfallon, Nick, Shoestring Flyer and 2 others liked this
Would I pay?

I think it depends what it is.

All weights of GA already pays approach navigation service charges to land at aerodromes and some have included it as part of the landing fee. I don’t think it needs to pay more.

But if we’re talking about enroute GA then we should think who are the primary beneficiaries.

More often than not it’s the airlines or the military who have limited lookout who want to know who’s around them. They are the primary beneficiaries. In such case that can be funded from extracting day 10-20p out of passenger tickets (airlines) or out of general taxation (military). GA in such case does/should not have to pay because it won’t need that classification of airspace if the airlines or the military didn’t need it either.

However there is also a third case where enroute GA may want a service I’m places where airlines or the military don’t operate. The primary beneficiaries are clearly 100% GA. In such case it does make sense that GA should contribute, but I’m unsure that alone will be able to fund that en-route separation function. The demand probably isn’t there either. So I don’t think this option will ever come to fruition..
Last edited by James Chan on Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Realistically the only changes I’d see would be if GA wants to shoot new instrument approaches then in some cases it’ll have to be managed by a parent larger ATSU due to the traffic densit in the area. In such case I can’t see any way of avoiding nav fees.
Ownership of the land upon which I want to touchdown is, to me, clear. If they make a charge by accepting the charge I believe a contract has been made. My need/want and their land.

How does that work with CAS I may wish to use in VMC/VFR? Ownership isn't as clear to me and in anywise I don't believe it's the aerodrome controlling authorities. And as a UK (high) tax payer haven't I've already bought a sizeable chunk. :?

In terms of liability, if I decide not to pay for access then prang elsewhere who does my estate sue?

So, no, no.
ianfallon wrote:Surely we already pay for it - just not directly ?

The air traffic service is paid for by user fees, there’s nothing from taxation or such like.

So if you don’t contribute towards the user fee in any way, be that by possibly buying an airline ticket for a specific commercial flight or route charges if caught by those when flying privately, then you as a typical day VFR PPL is likely not paying for it. It being the ATC service and whether you seek to use it or not.

Regarding the question in the original post, I’d want to know what prompted it being asked. What’s the context of it being thrown out there?
There are a few every week/month who pay for entering CAS... how much is that infringement course?
I think we should dig out (up?) one of those emeritus professors so beloved by the Today programme- there must be one out there from some sort of behavioural course who believes infringements will decrease if the pilots who do not enter CAS are paid for staying out !
Last edited by Irv Lee on Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can't find the link right now, but the story was that the Howards that run their former ancestral home as a 'venue' took to identifying light a/c flying overhead the estate, looking the reg up on G-INFO and then writing a letter claiming rights to the air above them.

Someone cleverer ere than me will be along soon to link it.
GrahamB wrote:We already pay for it through the duty levied on Avgas, unlike the zero duty paid on Jet A1.

Not towards any air traffic service you don’t, bar possibly any part of it that comes out of the defence budget.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7