If the government wants to charge a user fee, it is obvious they don’t need ADS-B.
Exactly. This strikes me as a somewhat paranoid view of ADS-B. Its introduction all over the world has nothing to do with user fees. Of course it could be used for that. But so could Mode S radar data.
Of course it could be used for that. But so could Mode S radar data.
Mode S data is not transmitted by most US aircraft – the people who made that so were not entirely stupid. The issue with either Mode S data or ADS-B data is that it eases fee collection, at any time in the future, making the cost of collection smaller. So as a result there is a financial motivation for user fees, not just the European class motivation.
Well yes, it could be used for user fees. However that doesn’t make that the purpose or ADS-B inherently bad…
not just the European class motivation
Class motivation? It’s just a matter of how public services are financed. In Europe it is very common to try to charge the users of a public service. Obviously this creates complexity and collection overhead but it also has advantages. The FAAs budget is huge and it comes directly from the federal tax budget where Mr Buffet’s secretary contributes more to than her boss relatively speaking. ATC in Europe is funded by route charges mostly. Eurocontrol in turn is funded by the member countries, it does not directly receive any money from the route charges, it’s a pure agent doing the collection for its members and other countries (e.g. Egypt).
Obviously I’m happy to not pay route charges out of sheer luck but I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the approach.
One huge drawback of route charges is that it encourages illegal VFR.
Over the 15 years I have been flying there have been numerous crashes where the 2000kg+ aircraft was VFR in PROB99 solid IMC. Sometimes they capitulated the pretence and tried to get an IFR clearance but way too late, and even if he did get it he would not have been able to get VMC on top with it because if you find yourself in IMC and in really rough wx, the chances of things getting better in a climb are slim. Obviously one can never tell what the exact motivation was to fly “VFR” (could have been lack of an oxygen system) but route charges are a very obvious incentive.
If the government wants to charge a user fee, it is obvious they don’t need ADS-B
That’s true… AFAIK in Europe it is done based on flight plans (for international flights) and on tower reports (for domestic flights). Obviously you can spot weaknesses in the domestic side of the system i.e. smaller places don’t report anything anyway. IFR in Class G is completely unenforceable (you just go “VFR”). The UK had a funny system where night flight was IFR and thus chargeable if over 2000kg and various ways were practiced to alleviate that.
I don’t think Mode S or ADS-B were ever tied into the Eurocontrol charge collection system. Anyway almost nobody in GA is radiating ADS-B.
Eurocontrol must have quite an impressive system keeping track of aircraft not registered in their zone but based there (e.g. N-regs) and discovering the address to send the invoice to. From what I hear, they make a lot of mistakes.
It would be “nice” if everybody had a Mode C transponder however because one could see them on TCAS, but even that is too much for the “civil liberties” part of the GA community (they turn them off if they have them).
One huge drawback of route charges is that it encourages illegal VFR.
I believe that is a UK specialty, never really heard of it around here. In the UK there is not much of a difference between VFR and IFR thanks to the IMC rating and non ATC IFR. If I’m instrument rated in the UK and just take off from my grass strip and fly around, there is no way to really determine whether I’m VFR or IFR.
Some EC member countries charge for VFR flights as well, btw.
I thought all of EC charges for VFR if above 5700kg?
never really heard of it around here
Based on numerous conversations with other German pilots I know, “IVFR” is a well practiced flight rule 
Of course, it has to be done with due diligence, otherwise you die, but hey that’s true for a lot of things in life (even sex)…
Yes, IVFR, VIFR is very common in Germany but not to avoid route charges. Never heard about that one. Usually it is because either the pilot or the aircraft is not IFR licensed.
How can you be sure of the motivation?
I guess it could be that people fly officially IFR enroute (so not avoiding route charges) and then do the “IVFR” bit to get into non-IFR airports (Egelsbach being the obvious example). That would be a significant difference to the UK where a DIY IAP into a VFR-only airfield is legal (in a G-reg).
Bizjets can hardly avoid route charges anyway because they cannot usefully fly VFR (poor MPG at low levels).
achimha 31-Mar-15 09:51 #51
One huge drawback of route charges is that it encourages illegal VFR.
I believe that is a UK specialty,
I believe it is a cultural thing. My German girlfriend always follows the rules.
