EUROCONTROL Stakeholder Forum on the evolution of the European air navigation charges model

It is tough to find a good argument for sub 2T (or 2.5T) being subsidized by all other users, so the most obvious solution is probably not the one you’re looking to achieve. I think that question could back-fire in a pretty bad way

Is this a question for some sort of forum? I can’t see anything at the above URL.

Very few ATCOs post usefully on social media anywhere, even under nicknames (which I think is a great pity because they can contribute so much to our body of knowledge) but the NATS ones on UK sites are vigorously against even the existing 2T line, and do not hesitate to pull this out whenever anybody mentions the crap services OCAS in the UK and particularly the dreadful IFR setup The NATS social media policy is suspended when it is necessary to beat up a pilot arguing that ATC services to GA could be improved.

But seriously, AIUI, the 2T figure is there for good reasons e.g.

• due to European IR having always been deliberately hard to get (to keep undesirables out of airliners, etc, etc) the IFR population is tiny, perhaps 1% of GA, so money collected would (and is) tiny from this weight area
• the utility value in Europe of GA is low (due to airport network mismanagement, etc, etc) so again little IFR traffic (one can easily fly UK to Prague and not hear another GA on the radio on the 700nm flight)
• route charges would simply drive most traffic to flying VFR, in IMC if necessary, and it is hard to argue this is safe even if it is a lot safer today than say 50 years ago (ATC is supposed to prioritise safety over revenue)
• the cost of aircraft identification and accurate database maintenance is significant relative to the money collected
• there are many ambiguities which can be exploited to avoid billing (e.g. pop-up IFR clearances usually don’t generate an invoice)
• the incentive to operate avoidance practices is high because the charges are quite significant for piston aircraft and for low-end TP stuff too

A 2.5T limit would be interesting but I am not sure it would benefit many, apart from the DA50 with its 5 litre fuel tank which it can’t so anything about without going over 2000kg and that will kill much of the benefit of the diesel engine.

Interesting point about electrics being over 2000kg. Without dramatic improvements in battery capacity which are not even remotely on the horizon (thread here) electric GA is viable only for PPL circuit training, which is done in tiny planes.

I would like to see the 2T limit raised but I am not sure which way to argue it.

Vref wrote:

what I forgot to mention is that one could restrict it to below FL200

Make that FL290 to align with RVSM space?

I was thinking 6000lbs or less and less than FL290 – all the things above those limits are usually much more expensive anyway.
You could also say that it is to be paid the AOC holders on a revenue (non-positioning) flight…
But, as previously mentioned, I think the only outcomes are going to be:
1. Do nothing or
2. Charge everyone (which is especially “fair” in the UK as most of the sub-2T a/c CANNOT even get the service outside the TMA (Dehnam EGTE→Exeter EGLD route, for example) but will have to pay for the full trip anyway.

Peter wrote:

NATS ones on UK sites are vigorously against even the existing 2T line, and do not hesitate to pull this out whenever anybody mentions the crap services OCAS in the UK

There are people with +2T who are billed and get c**p service as well from time to time as they go in/out from places that en-route ATC don’t enjoy very much…

I am happy to pay for my IFR legs and get an excellent radar service from NATS down to MSA with seamless in/out of CAS but the problem is that my 1.5T and 5£ charge is not the one that will make them fat rich

The REAL reason why less than 2T are exempt is that they generate more paperwork and hassle than the actual en-route cash-flows for their weight, I once received 30$ invoice from FAA as I dared to call US ATC for service while outside USA airspace: it was 10$ for service (activate VFR FPL and FIS from Miami Oceanic) and 20$ for the processing fee, you can an FAA form to get exempt or just pay online on some website…

The same reason why charging is simple in terms of filing FPL and GC distance rather than some funky formulas, I think best to offer GA pilots the possibility to offer tips to individual ATC, anytime they are happy with the service

Vref wrote:

18 OCTOBER 2021

I can’t attend, flying back home from Spain/Andorra fly-in.