Peter wrote:
due to a lack of surveillance, they cannot be implemented for VFR – unless done as some kind of e.g. annual lump sum “road tax” payment
Germany has higher tax on AVGAS than on other gasoline fuels which was introduced to fund the currently 6m€ that DFS (German ATC) receive from the federal budget to provide FIS service to the pilot community that does not pay route charges (which is the only source of income for ATC besides a few odd things like fees from the Luftwaffe). So yes, there is a charging system in place and as you said for practicability it was levied on AVGAS which is not entirely unfair because there is a correlation between the quantity of AVGAS and the the services used. Of course the equation VFR = AVGAS is not 100% correct.
I believe the US have the same system where a fuel tax contributes to the FAA’s budget?
Same in the UK, except that the aviation gasoline tax/duty goes into the general taxpayer pot and doesn’t find its way to ATC etc. This is the bit which the USA does correctly.
Incidentally the UK system, together with no route charges below 2T, generates a lot of apparent bitterness within NATS, as occassionally seen when some senior NATS people post(ed) on the topic on UK sites – under nicknames of course, and occassionally getting somewhat abusive too 
They DID try to implement charging for VFR flights (including outside of controlled airspace, when talking to no one) a few years ago, IIRC something to do with the Single European Sky. The GA groups exhorted all its members to respond, and the idea quickly disappeared. I think the idea was from a badly proposed way of charging for overflights for foreign airlines and never actually intended to charge people for VFR bimbles, but the way it was originally written you’d have to pay for a half hour joyride in class G airspace whether you used ATC services or not.
That could have never been enforced – due to lack of surveillance.
The Mode S “war” was partly over this – it might have made it possible to do route charges for all flights. But I still doubt that there would have been the energy and funding to put in the software into all UK ATC SSR equipment to monitor and collate all the Mode S returns and then compute the charge. Of course Mode S would have had to have been made mandatory for all flights everywhere… very difficult politically, and impossible to implement against large sections of GA which, in much of Europe, can exist wholly on “farm strips” i.e. outside the system. And large chunks of the “homebuilt” scene fly non-TXP for other reasons.
Eurocontrol IFR charges are based on the filed route, too. There is already a VFR charge here, over 5.7T, which must also be based on a filed route.
Of course, tax money by definition does not have a specific purpose, otherwise it would be called “fee” and not “tax” but in politics there always needs to be a narrative like “increase tax x to fight terrorism” and whatnot.
I regularly see statements from DFS employees like “you don’t pay and yet we provide…” which are quite annoying because first of all we do pay (the AVGAS tax and also approach charges at all German airports with DFS, no matter what your MTOM is) and secondly because we don’t make the agreements under which they are obliged to provide a service. Third and most important: in many cases we don’t really need their service.
Personally I prefer the user fee system over the tax payer system. If public infrastructure only benefits certain people and there is a practical way to make them pay for it, then do it by all means. ATC is a good example, we pay through it as part of airline ticket prices and AVGAS tax, approach fees, etc. Same for highways, train tracks, etc.
Eurocontrol IFR charges are based on the filed route, too.
To a certain degree. The fee calculator always assumes a direct line between sector entry and sector exit so you basically pay for the countries you file through but not the routing overhead. Several other countries that are not members of Eurocontrol use their route charge system as well.
What I meant was that the Eurocontrol charges are not done by monitoring the radar position and calculating the distance actually flown, yet that is what you would have to do if you wanted to do VFR charges – because most VFR does not need a flight plan, or indeed any interaction with the government. Especially as you say, an ATC service is not actually needed for most VFR flight.
Mandatory ADS-B OUT for all airspace would make route charges possible (mainly because ADS-B signals can be picked up over a huge distance) but you would still have to install the software to implement it at the ATC end. I just can’t see this happening in Europe, or in the USA. Far too much hassle.
achimha wrote:
Personally I prefer the user fee system over the tax payer system. If public infrastructure only benefits certain people and there is a practical way to make them pay for it, then do it by all means. ATC is a good example, we pay through it as part of airline ticket prices and AVGAS tax, approach fees, etc. Same for highways, train tracks, etc.
It certainly is the “hot” way of financing (previously tax financed) infrastructure in Europe these days, but does the end result offer anything better than before? Maybe, but I have not yet seen a single example that cannot be fully explained by the growing economy in general.
The problem is essentially that GA has no use for all the ATC. The ATC is made for the airlines, GA is just along for the ride. I’s not fair that GA should pay for something they do not need, something that benefits airlines almost exclusively. The ATC is huge motorways in the sky, of no use for GA. Airports are gigantic docking facilities, of no use for GA. Why should GA pay for this?
essentially that GA has no use for all the ATC.
Are you sure? Several times they have saved my life by aiding with the limitations of the see-and-avoid principle.
My instructor’s instructor died in a mid-air collision with thousands of hours of experience.
Someone needs to look at the big picture and sort out (sequence) all that traffic going into a busier airport and no amount of radio calling and self-arranging is going to optimise the runway / taxiway utilisation, in my personal opinion.
Personally I prefer the user fee system over the tax payer system
Well, at least I’m sure the US taxpayer isn’t ‘subsidiising’ $1000 every time a Cessna 152 lands at JFK for $25.
That is what a ‘busier’ airport like Stansted and their ground handling agents would charge the user in the UK.
My personal opinion is that you raise huge amounts of funds via unnoticeable levies on airline passenger tickets and/or fuel.
For ATC: The airline benefits as their risk of collision with GA is reduced, and GA benefits because of the former.
For airports: The airline benefits as their pilots are trained out of the GA scene, and GA benefits because accessible airports lead to increased movements and opening opportunities to pursue various careers in aviation.
Unfortunately all funding can’t come from GA due to the “average” pilot not having “enough” money.
I don’t understand why so many here think that it is not reasonable to expect that public services and infrastructure are paid for in a country that takes 40 or more (depending on where) of ALL economic away from those who generate it and gives it to somebody else. And well in excess of half of what most above-average earner get.
