Airborne_Again wrote:
World-wide, actually. The International Rules of the Air does say FL200, but as that is not a VFR cruising altitude it makes no difference in practise from FL195.
Nope. 18.000 ft in the US.
PS: [thread drift/on] starting debate about flight levels vs. altitudes [thread drift/off] 
Peter wrote:
Also there is a strong ethos inside that if you don’t pay you should not get a service and of course GA mostly doesn’t pay.
True, although of course NATS was once owned by you and me, the British taxpayer, and even now you and me have a golden share. You and me and GA pay duty on Avgas, whereas there is no duty on Jet A1 and since we get nothing else for that duty, just maybe we contribute more per mile to funding the whole operation, relative of course to size, but not number of people transported. Of course no one knows any more (or cares) to what specific taxes are allocated, and if we did, the whole scenario would be even more complicated, but safe to say, compared with the US, we have long forgotten joined up en route should be an entitlement for all. Since NATS is a monopoly, and a profit centre, it has no interest in providing any service not directly paid for by its customers, and the Government has no interest in reducing its profits by excercising their powers so we should think we are lucky getting any service at all outside CAS. While I have always found class D transits are readily granted, I guess it would make life easier were they not, so I am cynical of some of the moves to prebook transits lest they become a device to limit access, but I am sure my cynicism is misplaced.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Since NATS is a monopoly
NERL is a monopoly, but NATS isn’t. Many airports and their Class D zones use ANSPs other than NATS.
Isnt NERL part of NATS?
“NERL is the sole provider of civilian en-route air traffic control over the UK and is regulated by the CAA who, for example, determine the charges NERL can make. NERL is funded by charging airlines for the provision of air traffic services.”
Fuji_Abound wrote:
True, although of course NATS was once owned by you and me, the British taxpayer, and even now you and me have a golden share. You and me and GA pay duty on Avgas, whereas there is no duty on Jet A1 and since we get nothing else for that duty, just maybe we contribute more per mile to funding the whole operation, relative of course to size, but not number of people transported.
Duty on Avgas doesn’t go to NATS. NATS is fully funded by its commercial activities including NERL. Over 80% of its revenue comes from airspace charges either enroute, oceanic or terminal.
Duty on Avgas funds the Treasury.
I know, it was slightly tongue in cheek. (and of course I did say the duty does go to NATS).
However in a circular way it does. The duty funds the Treasury and the Treasury owns the golden share. When NATS was owned by the taxpayer, it was funded by the taxpayer. Our Government could dictate NATS provides joined up en route services for all and fund this at least in part from the duty they collect, and in part by subsidy. Of course by selling off these type of businesses our Goverments will declare that they are autonomous and profit centres in their own right (which of course they are) and free of Government interference. I guess it seems a good way of getting more out of them while, not subsidising non profit making services. The end product is we end with a service very different from say the States (or Australia) where nothing is joined up, and to the extent there is a service, is partly funded out of the military budget (LARS), which in turn is funded by the taxpayer, and London Info., which I am guessing is also funded by the taxpayer but is unable to provide radar support. I am also guessing that most of NATS capital assets were originally paid for by the taxpayer and in part are still owned by the taxpayer. I was told that the price NATS charge for providing a radar feed to a provincial airport is so substantial almost no one can afford a feed, and yet NATS can apparently set whatever price they wish because they own pretty much the entire infrastructure, whereas my guess is that the marginal cost of a feed is pretty small.
If drones ever become widespread in lower air space it will be interesting to see how the potential profit is creamed off and how they integrate with GA.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
whereas there is no duty on Jet A1
I wish you were correct, any Jet A1 used on flights within the UK is subject to fuel duty at 0.5795p litre.
The only exception I understand is ‘training flights’.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Isnt NERL part of NATS?“NERL is the sole provider of civilian en-route air traffic control over the UK and is regulated by the CAA who, for example, determine the charges NERL can make. NERL is funded by charging airlines for the provision of air traffic services.”
Yes. NERL is part of NATS and is a monopoly, but the rest of NATS is not a monopoly.
So, the statement “NERL is a monopoly” is true. The statement “NATS is a monopoly” is not true, or is only true for part of its operation, if you like.
I guess that CAA and DfT could decide that NERL should no longer be licensed as the monopoly provider for en-route services, and get in DFS or whoever, so is NERL really a monopoly? I don’t know enough to know.
Timothy wrote:
I don’t know enough to know.
A bit like me he he!
quatrelle wrote:
I wish you were correct, any Jet A1 used on flights within the UK
I was thinking more in terms of CAT, which I assume pays no duty on fuel, as opposed to GA (turbines and diesels) which does.
There is a little interesting article here which talks abouts NATS monopoly and how it came to be. The analysis may not be one you would agree with, but nver the less interesting.
As to ANSPs there is a list here;
It would be interesting to know how many of these provide an independent radar service. The majority it seems to me at best provide a terminal service unsupported by any radar which can barely be described as a navigation service despite its grandiose title. Blackbushe I might just happend to single out, and in terms of an air navigation service I cant say I am that impressed as nice as the people are at the Bush.
