Most GA doesn’t pay, after all.
All weights of GA pays approach navigation service charges at the airport concerned.
Really? I don’t, ever. A useless answer, obviously… but a correct one.
Your home airport probably includes it in the landing fee but most airports (that I have flown into anyway) have “navigation service charges” separately listed on the invoice, unless your handling agent has bundled it into one all-inclusive fee. In such case you should be able to ask for a breakdown of costs.
Yes, and most (all) airports pay none of that money to NATS, for provision of an enroute service.
Sorry I thought we were talking about approach services, not en-route services.
But if we were to talk about en-route funding / modernisation then even a mere 10p levy per airline passenger ticket for all flights into and out of the UK can raise several tens of millions every year.
I think it won’t affect the airline business but even brings some positive benefits to them too.
But it needs the political backing and the available staff to do it.
:-)
The provision of an approach service well outside the ATZ needs to be paid for somehow. ATCOs are much more expensive than A/G or FISO (INFO outside the UK), not just directly but also due to the mandatory breaks etc so you need more of them.
Timothy wrote:
ATS.TR.200
[…]
ATS.TR.210
Could you point me to where you have seen this, please? The Easy Access Rules for ATM-ANS (which includes part-ATS) published in June this year do not include the paragraphs you quote. Have you been reading a draft of new regulations?
It’ll be in the annex to opinion 03/2018 .
Sorry, in my perpetual rush, I have not quoted the most important bit:
ATS.TR.110: “The air traffic services shall be provided by units established as follows: …
(2) Air traffic control units shall be established to provide air traffic control service, flight information service and alerting services with control areas, control zones and at controlled aerodromes”.
As pointed out by my barrister friend!
Thus anything purportedly provided by ATS in Class G cannot be an air traffic service and is not actually ATC by definition.
That is the difficulty when combined with Rule 183
Surely the simple solution is to just allow them to be class E airspace. It’s not rocket science.
