[xtophe]

IFR traffic, of any size, uses much less airspace than VFR because it can be assumed to be able to stick to a height and track. Because VFR traffic must be able to stay clear of cloud, it cannot - hence "not above", "not below", "staying west of", etc.

That's one way to look at it. But the opposite argument is also valid.
IFR needs to be separated from other IFR by 1000ft or 3/5NM (depending ATSU) whereas VFR don't need to be separated. So IFR use much more airspace.
Controller and power VFR pilot should be able to come to a fixed level/track in most case if the weather conditions are not marginal.
Of course for gliders and for all when conditions are iffy we need "not above" and "west of".

[defcribed]

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

Apart from the small detail that NATS is 49% owned by the UK government.

How exactly are these two statements connected, unless there is some suggestion that NATS ATS gets financed by HMG in some way?

As Mike has said, it does not.

It's quite simple. NATS was only partially privatised, so the government (i.e. the taxpayer) still owns 49% of it.

That's 49% of the value of NATS that was never returned to the taxpayer, thus we still have skin in the game.

Your argument is like buying half of someone's business from them and then turning round and telling people that you fund all of it. You may fund the operations going forward, but until you buy the other half you're still effectively operating with a subsidy.

I also understand that the government (taxpayer) had to inject a significant amount of cash into NATS post-9/11.

What I am effectively saying to the private interests within NATS is:

"If you want to get even more commercial in your outlook, then perhaps you need to buy the taxpayer out."

[Human Factor]

I have paid. Mode S and 8.33.

[PeteSpencer]

Interesting question on Twitter from Mr AOPA UK. I wonder what is happening to cause the question to be asked?

I can already access CAS:

But if I did not have an IR I would not vote for this as I am sure it would introduce layers of extra legislation/qualification/certification and the already beleagured CAA who would oversee this would clog up like the fat mountain in the sewers of Paignton.
And the first GA/CAT coming together would get us all shut down.

Peter

[Mike Tango]

HMG will get their share of the dividends that NATS pays so there's the payback for the government's holding.

It is still quite likely that 49% still held by the government will be sold off at some point also, in which case more cash to the taxpayer and a fully private company to deal with as opposed to a PPP'd one. Not that there's likely to be any appreciable difference, except possibly more interest in profit and dividends and less on perceived inconveniences/costs.

If I recall correctly the public money given to NATS in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was a short term loan, not a gift.

It's quite simple. NATS was only partially privatised, so the government (i.e. the taxpayer) still owns 49% of it.

That's 49% of the value of NATS that was never returned to the taxpayer, thus we still have skin in the game.

Your argument is like buying half of someone's business from them and then turning round and telling people that you fund all of it. You may fund the operations going forward, but until you buy the other half you're still effectively operating with a subsidy.

I also understand that the government (taxpayer) had to inject a significant amount of cash into NATS post-9/11.

What I am effectively saying to the private interests within NATS is:

"If you want to get even more commercial in your outlook, then perhaps you need to buy the taxpayer out."

[Paul_Sengupta]

whereas VFR don't need to be separated

That's only a theory in this country. In practice this isn't the case.

[AlanM]

whereas VFR don't need to be separated

That's only a theory in this country. In practice this isn't the case.

Go on then Paul mate - some examples of where VFR are separated.

[PaulB]

whereas VFR don't need to be separated

That's only a theory in this country. In practice this isn't the case.

Why is that the case?

[defcribed]

a fully private company to deal with

So then my angle on this becomes:

"If a private company is being a given a commodity which belongs to everyone and no-one (the sky) to treat as is its own private fiefdom and use it to run a business for profit, then I expect that to come with considerable strings attached - i.e. access without charge and LARS".

It's the same fundamental argument as I use against the Farnborough airspace grab. It does not belong to you, so if you wish to be allowed to treat it as such then you'd better be offering a hell of a lot in return to those inconvenienced by it effectively belonging to you.

It's not even really an aviation matter.

[Mike Tango]

It’s not run as a private fiefdom, as far as NATS/NERL is concerned it’s run in accordance with the terms of its licence.

[defcribed]

And thus my suggestion is that the licence should impose more obligations.

Look, I get it. I understand how the system works. I just don't think it's right or fair. The whole system seems based on the assumed starting point that commercial businesses have a greater right to use the sky than private individuals.

[GonzoEGLL]

Then you need to lever the government’s 49% stake and get your elected representatives to change the framework around which NERL operates, for en-route CAS access.

As for CTR access, then don’t forget NATS are one of around 60 (I think) licenced ANSPs in this country, although admittedly not all would have CAS associated with their units. Again we are a CAS access discussion that is immediately drawn in a NATS-specific direction, when the topic is generic and should the discussion should be about ATC in general.

[cockney steve]

In 1953, Canvey Island was largely open land, with a few houses built mainly by Dutch settlers (they have a bit of form for making low-lying land usable
Londoners would use the land for weekend camping/ holidays. It was public land, nobody owned it. (see where I'm going with this?) After the floods, people began arriving with stakes and fencing and "staking a claim"........only to find ,on their next visit, their fence had been subsumed by a larger claim.
It all rather sounded like the Klondike, during the Gold-rush.
Ultimately, order was restored and local councils raised rates-revenue from the squatters. more roads attracted more houses attracted more rates.

So, public airspace is sequestered by parties who have a vested interest in erecting invisible barriers around "their" staked-out claim. Subject to their rules and conditions, they'll let you in and out of the bits that they aren't using (I concede that it's a good idea to restrict access to the approach and departure "lanes)

If you agree to pay to use what you already "own" It's a small step to start charging for the air the occupants and engines breathe..... Well, it's a carbon tax, innit....just like the iniquitous London Congestion charge)..... serves them right! boycott the place. *smug*


As regards the sale of the 49% Public ownership,- given the total failure of privatisation, to return anything to the taxpayer, why would you sell a revenue-stream in near perpetuity, for a one-off payment, which will be frittered for short term gain or a HS2- like Vanity- project.

[Mike Tango]

Then you need to lever the government’s 49% stake and get your elected representatives to change the framework around which NERL operates, for en-route CAS access.

As for CTR access, then don’t forget NATS are one of around 60 (I think) licenced ANSPs in this country, although admittedly not all would have CAS associated with their units. Again we are a CAS access discussion that is immediately drawn in A NATS-specific direction, when the topic is generic and should the discussion should be about ATC in general.

And the guidance for controllers with respect to VFR/IFR integration in low level CAS, of the type seeking to be accessed by the average pilot here, is readily available to view in the online MATS Pt 1.

[Robin500]

No, Nein, non.