Continuing Battle in the US over FAA ATC Funding and why.

C210_Flyer wrote:

But the whole concept of free flight and ADS-B was to have system where separation was provided inside the cockpit where it belongs. Today this is provided by ATC for IFR traffic to IFR Traffic via radar which means hugh areas of the sky that are buffered. That will be reduced with ADS-B. ATC also provides for IFR Traffic to be separated from VFR traffic using a combination of Radar and eyeballs both for the IFR traffic and the VFR traffic. Since the system of separation and radar coverage is there anyway, in the name of safety VFR flight following is provided workload provided.

So once ADS-B is fully implemented I really see no reason for enroute ATC. In terminal areas they will probably act as traffic guards sequencing airplanes for arrival and departures.

This does not describe the current US ADS-B system, it was not ever intended for Free Flight, it is ADS-B Out only and is a Surveillance system that is intended to provide more accurate surveillance by ATC.

C210_Flyer wrote:

Next question is why should European airports close to GA because the tower is unmanned? They are open 24/7 in the US?

I don’t know about Europe but in UK it’s a cultural thing along the lines of ‘booking out’ and numerous other busybody behaviours, AKA job creation. That’s why at UK airfields which do allow ‘out of hours’ operation you usually have to complete an ‘indemnity form’ or similar, purportedly to protect the operator from risk, but actually to satisfy a ‘These are my toys. Just so you know’ mentality.

Not just in UK. Once in Sweden I was lectured by a heavily uniformed flight school official for preparing a weekend departure, despite having full prior agreement of ATC who even came out specially to unlock the gate. “At the weekend, it’s our airfield” he said, the gold braid standing out on his chest.

In Germany, it is possible to use airports that are unmanned but it requires a special permission from the local aviation administration (in addition to a federal aviation administration, we also have local, one or multiple per state) which comes with some restrictions usually (e.g. only based aircraft, somebody that could alert rescue service must come to the airfield, etc.).

The more rural the area and the more important the airfield to local businesses, the more likely such an off hours permission exists.

In my case, I can always ask one of the AFIS to come off duty and pay him a reasonable amount for his effort (say 50 €). That is accepted by the municipality.

LeSving wrote:

That’s only because it’s there. We have no choice when entering controlled space. The only reason it is controlled in the first pace, is airlines. If there were only GA around, and lots of it, we would have AFIS units, and that’s it.

I take it you have never flown in SoCal airspace…..

172driver wrote:

I take it you have never flown in SoCal airspace…..

Who cares about SoCal airspace? Let them handle things as they see fit. What is your point exactly? That socal airspace proves airlines don’t require ATC?

C210_Flyer wrote:

You are correct but it describes the system as it was envisioned 20 yrs ago when I sat in the Next Gen lecture put on by the FAA and NASA.

Must be in days of the sales pitch for ADS-B. All that ended up being sold was ADS-B Out for Surveillance.

C210_Flyer wrote:

What about ADS-B in, that we now have available?

ADS-B In is a technology, but is not mandated anywhere.

C210_Flyer wrote:

For instance the tower must be manned for the airport to be open.

Not true in the US.