Peter wrote:
One could frequently argue that ATC should offer much easier clearances to VFR traffic but that’s a whole different argument which in the present climate will always fall on deaf ears. Some countries do it much better than others; for example France has a rather smooth system, but then France has a fraction of the traffic density of the UK, plus a much more joined-up ATC system which the UK will never have.
The model is of course the States.
I have said it before, but what would you expect of an AT service that has been effectively privatised? Of course they are going to give the service to those who pay the bills, and that even includes IFR taffic that they know are not paying en route charges.
Its also been said many times before but the principle of taxation is to get some return on the tax you pay, even if all of the tax isnt directly related to the source (ie fair enough that not all the tax collected from motorists is spent on roads). GA actually gets zero return on the duty on fuel and the VAT on operating costs, so both these taxes are entirely a luxury or enviromental tax at best.
This is bang on the topic, on how this subject should be approached
Great video @Peter, the issue by my observation is that the 5% to 10% increase in compliance personnel has provided power and career advancement based on ‘doing good’, particularly for non creative. Whether it actually works is secondary, I’ve been watching it for about 20 years, those deriving power become relatively uninterested in the underlying factors, and what actually works, if it doesn’t support growth of their organization. Government oversight of contractors (a subset of the broader societal problem) is particularly bad in terms of making the problem worse while adding people.
Re airspace and VFR: the existence of controlled airspace is a burden on VFR traffic and a benefit to money making commercial businesses (the airlines). At the very least, given that VFR has to carry the burden of compliance with ATC, access should be granted and the airlines should pay for whatever services they and few others require.
This thread contains material relevant to this topic, especially this post which describes the Canadian situation.
the issue by my observation is that the 5% to 10% increase in compliance personnel has provided power and career advancement based on ‘doing good’, particularly for non creative
Spot on, as anybody in manufacturing will know. BTW it is more like a 5x to 10x increase, over say the last 20 years. And nobody can roll it back.
How does that change the numbers who are “bust”? Surely a bust is a bust, regardless of whether it causes loss of separation?
I think the rather obvious point that is being made is that there is a distinct suspicion any loss of seperation will result in a penal action as opposed to a warning, which is demonstrably unfair because the pilot has no way of knowing whether his bust resulted in a technical loss of seperation or “just” a bust. It would seemingly even apply when the loss of seperation met the lateral and vertical constraints, but the aircrafts were joing in diametrically opposite directions. Of course we have been over all this before but it is far more convenient to ignore the points that dont suit the argument rather than produce any meaningful and worthwhile clarrification. We have also been through the legal rational, I seem to recall before as well.
I would have to say Timothy since you are involved with the process, unless I am missing something, this is a fundamental point with which you should be to grips, unless of course I am missing something, in which case you have my unreserved apology. It would certainly be well worth you asking the question for some form of definition of the criteria that are used to decide the penalites handed down, or at least confirmation, that the penalty is directly related to the number of vacant places on the GASCo course from one month to the next.
Peter wrote:
The UK “loss of separation add-on”, previously 3000ft, is now 5000ft
This is exactly the opposite of what they should do – infringements will happen, they should mitigate the consequences of an infringement, not make them worse.
What possible safety justification can this increase have? Are they worried about all the infringing military jets?
or at least confirmation, that the penalty is directly related to the number of vacant places on the GASCo course from one month to the next.
I think that has already been confirmed by DfT. or NATS or CAA can’t remember which.
Flybymike – has it, sorry missed that – it gets worse.
