They tend to give the usual aircraft type on their call sign? 2 PoBs ?
Something like “G-ABCD heavy is a PA28” while ATC replies “stand by” or “remain OCAS” :)
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Well, they are the majority customer, by an awfully long way.
NATS is in a state-created monopoly. Not only they have a monopoly, but the mere fact that you must have permission to enter/cross some piece of public (air)space comes from state regulation. While they operate “commercially” (in the meaning of “user pays and their books have to be balanced / operate at a profit”), they exercise one of the state’s sovereign functions. A bit like e.g. the private operators of highways in France.
As such it is normal that they cannot (as in “the state should not let them”) operate in a way that serves the lion share of their customers (and their operating profit) well, but for no good reason cuts off from the service (or degrades service to) a whole section of the public. Just like private operators of highways are not allowed to let the less profitable sections of their highways go unmaintained, nor are they allowed to give priority access to trucks (because trucks pay more), etc.
airways wrote:
“I think it’s also important to differentiate between Duty (ie customs, import/export stuff) and tax (VAT)“…which goes right into the State’s giant debt hole. ANSPs get nothing of this.
The State hands NATS a monopoly, basically so that doing this part of the state’s job (provide part of the transport infrastructure, a sovereign function of the state) costs “nothing” (no money and less effort) to the state, and as a way to organise a principle of “user pays” for this part of the State’s function. So, if the State taxes some users more heavily (and thus these users operate at negative cost to the State!), it is only fair they don’t suffer “double” from the State’s delegation of its job to NATS. For reasons of non-discrimination (by the State!), either
While GA should have access, GA IFR pays nothing to NATS. As a result it is hardly surprising they don’t feel much of a need to support them. Either the government mandates it, or they are never going to feel much of an obligation towards light GA.
That is why it works in the US. The FAA is required to treat all airspace users fairly.
For some weird reason ATC in the unbelievably crowded US North East manages to integrate VFR and IFR traffic almost seamlessly into an unbelievable volume of commercial traffic. Those are real professionals.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
For some weird reason ATC in the unbelievably crowded US North East manages to integrate VFR and IFR traffic almost seamlessly into an unbelievable volume of commercial traffic. Those are real professionals.
Agreed. Same here in SoCal. I’ve just come back from yet another night above L.A. and it never ceases to amaze me what these guys and gals handle in a totally relaxed manner. UK controllers would sh*t themselves.
One has to distinguish VFR from IFR.
172driver, I belive your flight was a VFR bimble. You can do those here in UK/Europe too, subject to the glide-clear requirements, and OCAS. VFR in CAS as a whole is problematic in Europe (and in most of the world, for various other reasons) because many ATC units have “private policies” on allowing / not allowing GA into their CAS. So you can potentially always be denied access, and this cannot be 100% predicted. France gets perhaps the closest to nearly always granting a CAS transit (although France bans VFR above FL115 in much of France even though the airspace is Class D to FL200, which really destroys the value of VFR touring if VMC on top is used to get above enroute wx) whereas the UK is a lot more variable.
But this thread is about IFR, namely IFR in the Eurocontrol system.
I just don’t think this is an issue at all due to the miniscule amount of this traffic.
Perhaps EASA would better direct its energies to eliminating all the nonsense around the Euro IR, aligning it with the FAA IR procedure. So, totally eliminate the FTO requirement, allowing the whole lot to be done with a freelance IRI, align the theory to be appropriate, etc. This will never happen due to vested interests, Euro politics, the use of the IR as a filter to make sure that all the sheep drop out and that only the most determined men with hairy chests reach an airline cockpit, etc. We’ve had terabytes of hype on every imaginable forum on how much things will change / have changed but actually they have hardly changed. At the very least, the IR should be doable in the same PPL school where the pilot did his/her PPL.
If the above was done, then we might see a natural growth in the IFR community.
There is no current issue with airspace access to GA. If you have an IR, and file an IFR flight plan, you can fly anywhere you want, limited only by aircraft performance. CAS is irrelevant. Well, that’s below FL200 or so. They would not let a TB20 to FL300 even if it could, due to the low speed. A TBM or PC12 doing 250-300kt TAS is doable, FL300.
Peter wrote:
We’ve had terabytes of hype on every imaginable forum on how much things will change / have changed but actually they have hardly changed.
Actually, it did change with the appearance if CB/IR, at least in the UK.
Now after your IR(R) you can fly IFR in the UK and after gaining 50 hrs PIC XC post PPL, of which 30 hrs under IFR, you can go for just 10 hrs for your CB/IR to ATO.
Yes, you have to have an audiogram with both your ears working to certain standard.
And yes it would have been great to do the whole course in your flight school, but it DID change.
Yes; I did say it changed, just not enough.
Actually the audiogram requirement was changed some years ago. There was a back door route before that, via an ICAO CPL/ATPL, but now it is official; you can get the EASA IR with one deaf ear. You have to do an annual check with an FI who fills in a form saying you can hear him, ATC, etc. This is for private flying only, with headsets; you would never be able to function in a multi pilot cockpit like that, because they don’t wear headsets when enroute, and due to the high noise level.
There are just too many other things which limit IR takeup…
arj1 wrote:
Now after your IR(R) you can fly IFR in the UK and after gaining 50 hrs PIC XC post PPL, of which 30 hrs under IFR, you can go for just 10 hrs for your CB/IR to ATO.
But this has been more of a help to CPL/IR wannabes. In my case the ATO requirement still means a 104 mile round trip. And yet my local RTF has 3 IRI’s on staff and an IRE.
