Single European Sky is here, now comes the bill
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pro rata on hull value isnt fair either...just because I have a higher value aircraft, what about about when I fly between two farm strips without talking to anyone, why should I pay more for that priviledge than Jo Blo in his Piper Cub?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite - if it is the case that the user should pay, then quite simpy, if we are not users, we shouldn't pay
The question is defining what it is we are using - for strip/permit flight or gliding, we are users of airspace, in the sense we are sometimes in the air.
This does not mean we are users of airspace services. Just because EASA or Eurocontrol decide that they want to empire-build and employ x more staff for the purpose, it is not right that they can impose their costs across the board without the agreement of users.
An example would be if the bearded wonder wanted to gold-plate the door handles on his trains and put up ticket prices to pay for it. We would have a choice not to travel with his (c**p) trains, but as pilots we would not have such an option if Eurocontrol wanted to take on 10k more staff for no apparent reason.
The question is defining what it is we are using - for strip/permit flight or gliding, we are users of airspace, in the sense we are sometimes in the air.
This does not mean we are users of airspace services. Just because EASA or Eurocontrol decide that they want to empire-build and employ x more staff for the purpose, it is not right that they can impose their costs across the board without the agreement of users.
An example would be if the bearded wonder wanted to gold-plate the door handles on his trains and put up ticket prices to pay for it. We would have a choice not to travel with his (c**p) trains, but as pilots we would not have such an option if Eurocontrol wanted to take on 10k more staff for no apparent reason.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
You have stated the defining argument. Eurocontrol are stating that we are "users". We disagree.
My main concern is that under these proposals, there is no cap on what we may be charged. As IO540 said, Mode S is useless an an aid to invoicing for usage without a barrage of new radar installs and operators. Whilst I am not sure that it was IO's intention, the valid argument from his post is that Mode S is useless in its current form, full stop. This sounds like a cue for £XXXmillion of expenditure on the installs, infrastructure and training. Especially as there is now a bottomless (capless) income stream to pay for it.
If we are told that it will cost us £50 a year, very few us would bother objecting. If we knew that this could rise to £2000 a year within the space of a few years, and there would be nothing we could do once the system was in place, how would we view the plans?
Further, the plans are pan european (SES) with fees being collected and distributed by Eurocontrol, does this mean that we will be paying for Poland's new ATC system?
This must be stopped at all costs.
You have stated the defining argument. Eurocontrol are stating that we are "users". We disagree.
My main concern is that under these proposals, there is no cap on what we may be charged. As IO540 said, Mode S is useless an an aid to invoicing for usage without a barrage of new radar installs and operators. Whilst I am not sure that it was IO's intention, the valid argument from his post is that Mode S is useless in its current form, full stop. This sounds like a cue for £XXXmillion of expenditure on the installs, infrastructure and training. Especially as there is now a bottomless (capless) income stream to pay for it.
If we are told that it will cost us £50 a year, very few us would bother objecting. If we knew that this could rise to £2000 a year within the space of a few years, and there would be nothing we could do once the system was in place, how would we view the plans?
Further, the plans are pan european (SES) with fees being collected and distributed by Eurocontrol, does this mean that we will be paying for Poland's new ATC system?
This must be stopped at all costs.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than BEagle has anybody replied to Eurocontrol. After correspondence with other club members I have been told that Eurocontrol are only interested in replies from organisations,. Is this true?
PPL/IR network seems to have other ideas
Mike
http://www.pplir.org/index.cfm/pageid/181/subpageid/200
PPL/IR network seems to have other ideas
Mike
http://www.pplir.org/index.cfm/pageid/181/subpageid/200
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've made my return as an individual representing a group and had a confirmation memo. Nothing to say we can't have our say, and if we don't they can claim assent
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS
I don't think one can objectively state that Mode S is useless.
It is useless for the purpose of tracking planes and charging them for airspace usage, but that could have never been the intention - not that this has prevented apparently half the GA pilots on the internet thinking it must be.
The #1 purpose of Mode S is that the radar station can selectively interrogate only some classes of transponders, so there is less clutter, in terms of both the radar display and the data being passed (the latter is a data corruption problem caused by every transponder replying on the same frequency). This is self evident technically, and is hard to argue with.
Which brings us to why Mode S is being made mandatory for GA.
The #1 reason for mandatory transponders (not Mode S specifically because Mode C is just as good for this) is to ensure that GA traffic is properly seen on airliner TCAS systems. Some GA pilots believe this is a genuine reason, some don't. The obvious lack of GA/airliner mid-airs doesn't support this argument but one could say it isn't a good idea to wait for some data before doing something about it. I think a single GA/airliner mid-air would do huge damage to UK GA.
The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. I am not qualified to say whether this is a genuine technical requirement but I believe it is.
The more paranoid people think that Mode S, with its unique ID for each plane, is a way to monitor GA traffic (on an ad-hoc basis, of necessity due to lack of radar coverage) and make sure "illegal" traffic can be tracked. I am sure this is true also. But I think the powers would be better off teaching modern navigation (GPS) in the PPL, rather than the present WW1 methods which are absolutely bound to put a lot of pilots inside CAS. Of course this can never happen - there are too many boring old farts in charge of this bit.
Personally, I take care to fly with Mode C always ON. I am completely sure that everybody who technically can should have a Mode C transponder and should always have it ON. They should have been made mandatory 10 years ago and the fuss would have died down by now. I think a lot of the reason we are getting compulsion now is because a lot of people deliberately don't use transponders. I am fed up with the number of RIS contacts which are "unknown level" and then when I see them visually it is an aircraft of a type which almost certainly has a transponder fitted but the pilot hasn't turned it on. Almost nobody gives a damn about GA but no Mode C makes TCAS useless.
I think Mode S, with a £3k one-off outlay (which will certainly fall by the time 2008 comes up) is a much smaller problem than en-route charges.
I don't think one can objectively state that Mode S is useless.
It is useless for the purpose of tracking planes and charging them for airspace usage, but that could have never been the intention - not that this has prevented apparently half the GA pilots on the internet thinking it must be.
The #1 purpose of Mode S is that the radar station can selectively interrogate only some classes of transponders, so there is less clutter, in terms of both the radar display and the data being passed (the latter is a data corruption problem caused by every transponder replying on the same frequency). This is self evident technically, and is hard to argue with.
Which brings us to why Mode S is being made mandatory for GA.
The #1 reason for mandatory transponders (not Mode S specifically because Mode C is just as good for this) is to ensure that GA traffic is properly seen on airliner TCAS systems. Some GA pilots believe this is a genuine reason, some don't. The obvious lack of GA/airliner mid-airs doesn't support this argument but one could say it isn't a good idea to wait for some data before doing something about it. I think a single GA/airliner mid-air would do huge damage to UK GA.
The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. I am not qualified to say whether this is a genuine technical requirement but I believe it is.
The more paranoid people think that Mode S, with its unique ID for each plane, is a way to monitor GA traffic (on an ad-hoc basis, of necessity due to lack of radar coverage) and make sure "illegal" traffic can be tracked. I am sure this is true also. But I think the powers would be better off teaching modern navigation (GPS) in the PPL, rather than the present WW1 methods which are absolutely bound to put a lot of pilots inside CAS. Of course this can never happen - there are too many boring old farts in charge of this bit.
Personally, I take care to fly with Mode C always ON. I am completely sure that everybody who technically can should have a Mode C transponder and should always have it ON. They should have been made mandatory 10 years ago and the fuss would have died down by now. I think a lot of the reason we are getting compulsion now is because a lot of people deliberately don't use transponders. I am fed up with the number of RIS contacts which are "unknown level" and then when I see them visually it is an aircraft of a type which almost certainly has a transponder fitted but the pilot hasn't turned it on. Almost nobody gives a damn about GA but no Mode C makes TCAS useless.
I think Mode S, with a £3k one-off outlay (which will certainly fall by the time 2008 comes up) is a much smaller problem than en-route charges.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system. I am not qualified to say whether this is a genuine technical requirement but I believe it is.
Will NATS radars be Mode-S ready by 2008?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
let me get this straight, from what IO540 is saying..
So....Owners of GA aeroplanes are forking out on a new three grand Transponder just so that ATC can turn it off and not have to see the return??? Am I the only one thinking that is a step backwards... I mean the whole point is to be conspicuous , right???
I ask because when I asked the advantages of Mode S on a thread aboutTransponders nobody mentioned this.
There must be more to this....
Regards, SD
let me get this straight, from what IO540 is saying..
The reason why Mode S is being made mandatory, and not Mode C, is because Mode S allows ATC to suppress returns from selected GA traffic if they want to, for better operation of the system.
I ask because when I asked the advantages of Mode S on a thread aboutTransponders nobody mentioned this.
There must be more to this....
Regards, SD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owners of GA aeroplanes are forking out on a new three grand Transponder just so that ATC can turn it off and not have to see the return???
But at the same time that transponder's return can be optionally not triggered by ground based SSR, so it doesn't interfere with the returns from other (currently more important) transponding traffic.
So you get the best of both worlds.
What rustle describes about filtering 7000, that is not the same thing. It is merely the suppression of 7000 returns from being displayed on the radar screen, but the returns themselves are still taking place and are interfering with returns from other transponders that share a similar azimuth.
The above is my understanding. I haven't read the details - have no need to know and will have to pay anyway early in 2005...
One can tell it's lousy weather and the phone at work is quiet
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but the returns themselves are still taking place and are interfering with returns from other transponders that share a similar azimuth.
So does this mean the NATS radars will be Mode-S enabled by 2008 (or, as you point out for IFR flyers, 2005)?
We all know that without the selective interrogation of Mode-S the reasons above (similar azimuth) don't hold any water...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, some questions:
Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?
Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?
Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?
Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?
Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS? If this is the case, what options are there available to ensure the continued, safe integration of VFR traffic?
Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?
Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?
Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.
Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?
Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?
Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?
Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?
Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS? If this is the case, what options are there available to ensure the continued, safe integration of VFR traffic?
Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?
Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?
Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.
WBS
Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?
Definitely, and Mode C is just as good for that.
Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?
Is it?
Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?
No idea.
But remember that the much publicised projections for the growth of low cost airlines are bogus - they have to be because the ticket pricing models of e.g. RyanAir cannot work when everybody else is doing it too.
Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?
**IF** TIS was on offer, that would be entirely different. Is it?
Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS?
No, as stated above.
Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?
Gosh. You phrase the Q like "how do you think a human life is worth?". It is like asking "who disagrees with the concept of a Child Support agency". Can you break it down to less emotive elements?
Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?
No.
Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.
Can you offer more detail?
Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.
WBS
Do we all believe that carriage and operation of transponders with altitude readout may contribute towards the overall enhancement of flight safety?
Definitely, and Mode C is just as good for that.
Do we all recognise that the UK is currently almost unique in the western world by not mandating the carriage and operation of a transponder?
Is it?
Do we agree that the current 4096 code system is no longer capable of supporting the overall growth in air traffic?
No idea.
But remember that the much publicised projections for the growth of low cost airlines are bogus - they have to be because the ticket pricing models of e.g. RyanAir cannot work when everybody else is doing it too.
Can we accept that, in the future, Mode S may answer all these problems and also possibly offer some enhancements (Traffic Information Systems)?
**IF** TIS was on offer, that would be entirely different. Is it?
Is it reasonable to presume that the volume commercial air traffic will continue to expand thus requiring even more CAS?
No, as stated above.
Is it fair to speculate that, as aviators, we should all contribute towards the overall provision of a safe air traffic, flight planning and alerting infrastructure?
Gosh. You phrase the Q like "how do you think a human life is worth?". It is like asking "who disagrees with the concept of a Child Support agency". Can you break it down to less emotive elements?
Does anybody really think that, come the introduction of Mode S, there will be banks of radars whose sole aim in life will be to automatically track aircraft and issue an invoice for "services provided"?
No.
Finally, there are a number of people who comment on this topic who obviously have no idea how ATC actually operates. Can I suggest that those who harp on about ATC "filtering out" 7000 codes go and have a look at what this actually means before putting pen to paper.
Can you offer more detail?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies that this thread, which was about VFR flights being charged for airspace use and is a very important topic in its own right, has been hijacked by Mode-S debate...
WBS
[list=1][*]Mode-A+C will do nicely for this.[*]This could easily be true with the qualifiers you put in the question
"almost unique in the western world" [*]The 4096 code thing - do you really want to start that argument again? Assuming you do 
as soon as the NATS radars are Mode-S enabled imagine how many codes from the 4096 will be available to GA because the commercial and newly manufactured aircraft don't need them anymore.[*]NATS have already stated that TIS will not be implemented - when I find the reference I'll post it or retract this comment.[*]Yeah, right [*]This isn't a Mode-S question - this is about whether it is right or wrong to be charged for using airspace for private purposes - and IMO if you are not using any services it should be free, and if you are it should not. Period. How the money is collected is question 2 but is being touted as the only question.[*][*]Please explain then...[/list=1]
IO540 -- Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.
About 2 years ago NATS made some changes to the way information was delivered without any consultation but because of the impact to GA specifically and flying generally they have changed that now.
If we just sit back and accept the "inevitability" of these changes then we cannot complain later
That is about as nonsensical as people exercising their 'democratic-right' not to vote then complaining about the election winner
WBS
[list=1][*]Mode-A+C will do nicely for this.[*]This could easily be true with the qualifiers you put in the question
"almost unique in the western world" [*]The 4096 code thing - do you really want to start that argument again? Assuming you do as soon as the NATS radars are Mode-S enabled imagine how many codes from the 4096 will be available to GA because the commercial and newly manufactured aircraft don't need them anymore.[*]NATS have already stated that TIS will not be implemented - when I find the reference I'll post it or retract this comment.[*]Yeah, right [*]This isn't a Mode-S question - this is about whether it is right or wrong to be charged for using airspace for private purposes - and IMO if you are not using any services it should be free, and if you are it should not. Period. How the money is collected is question 2 but is being touted as the only question.[*][*]Please explain then...[/list=1]IO540 -- Whether Mode S will exist on the ground is moot - this is a directive from the EU to which the UK signed up some time beforehand, and that's it.
About 2 years ago NATS made some changes to the way information was delivered without any consultation but because of the impact to GA specifically and flying generally they have changed that now.
If we just sit back and accept the "inevitability" of these changes then we cannot complain later
That is about as nonsensical as people exercising their 'democratic-right' not to vote then complaining about the election winner
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question of airspace charging seems to be getting confused with compulsary mode S. It is generally accepted that the infrastructure does not/will not exist to enable GA movements to be tracked and charged per flight, so I think we should put that to bed right away.
The issue that links mode S to airspace use is that mode S will (theoretically) allow an 'open skies' policy whereby commercial traffic will be able to choose whichever route is most favourable and least congested for their operation. It is generally accepted that the current airway structure is already overcrowded and this is seen as the way forward.
The most serious implication to all of this is the spread of not only controlled, but also Class A airspace. We can already see the biginings of this with the expansion of CAS around East Mids soon to be followed by the Luton / Stanstead zone and eventually Heathrow.
I have heard rumours from people that know stating we are not far away from blanket Class A above 5000 feet, now that is worrying.
The principle is that if we use it we should pay ( a reasonable cost) and if we dont use it, we dont pay. But that doesnt likely as it will not be enforcable. Maybe the solution is something like a car tax disk, fixed at say £200 per year which is linked to european rpi.
We definately need to let our voices be heard over this one, or it will become a fait accompli
The issue that links mode S to airspace use is that mode S will (theoretically) allow an 'open skies' policy whereby commercial traffic will be able to choose whichever route is most favourable and least congested for their operation. It is generally accepted that the current airway structure is already overcrowded and this is seen as the way forward.
The most serious implication to all of this is the spread of not only controlled, but also Class A airspace. We can already see the biginings of this with the expansion of CAS around East Mids soon to be followed by the Luton / Stanstead zone and eventually Heathrow.
I have heard rumours from people that know stating we are not far away from blanket Class A above 5000 feet, now that is worrying.
The principle is that if we use it we should pay ( a reasonable cost) and if we dont use it, we dont pay. But that doesnt likely as it will not be enforcable. Maybe the solution is something like a car tax disk, fixed at say £200 per year which is linked to european rpi.
We definately need to let our voices be heard over this one, or it will become a fait accompli
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread seems to have drifted off its original topic.
I have been reading the NPRM on the Eurocontrol website, there are many issues, but it will all boil down to money.
The question posted above, which asked whether individuals' comments would be received by the eurocracy, remains unanswered - we should all send comments.
One peculiarity is the proposal to charge based on the square root of the aircraft's MTOW. Arguably this disadvantages smaller aircraft, for example a 4 tonne aircraft would pay three times, roughly, the amount payable by a 400 kg aircraft for the same flight.
Also, the effect of the definitions of airspace "volumes" is unclear. Would the UK be one volume? And what happens to going to LFAT for lunch? Will the French recognise (for example) annual fees paid in the UK?
To add insult to injury the whole lot will be subject to VAT.
I have been reading the NPRM on the Eurocontrol website, there are many issues, but it will all boil down to money.
The question posted above, which asked whether individuals' comments would be received by the eurocracy, remains unanswered - we should all send comments.
One peculiarity is the proposal to charge based on the square root of the aircraft's MTOW. Arguably this disadvantages smaller aircraft, for example a 4 tonne aircraft would pay three times, roughly, the amount payable by a 400 kg aircraft for the same flight.
Also, the effect of the definitions of airspace "volumes" is unclear. Would the UK be one volume? And what happens to going to LFAT for lunch? Will the French recognise (for example) annual fees paid in the UK?
To add insult to injury the whole lot will be subject to VAT.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible for individuals to make their views on this subject known to Eurocontrol. They actually invite responses but they must be sent before the closing date of September 17th. You must also send your response on the special Consultation Response Sheet. You can access the proposed regulation and the Consultation Response Sheet at www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/ They will accept the response sheets by e-mail.
In my response I said that the charging system should not be introduced for recreational VFR flights in light aircraft because it would give rise to a lack of consistency throughout the Eurocontrol area if governments in some countries exempted such flights and others did not. You should note that, while governments have the right to exempt certain categories of flights from the charges, they can only do so if they are prepared to pick up the tab themselves. Most governments won't think it worth their while to go to the trouble of granting the exemption for such flights so my point was that Eurocontrol itself should do so.
Eurocontrol will e-mail an acknowledgement to you confirming that they have received your Consultation Response Sheet. After the closing date they are obliged to prepare a summary of all the responses they get so the more they receive from GA pilots the better. I suggest that you all should take a little time and send your responses.
Tolka
In my response I said that the charging system should not be introduced for recreational VFR flights in light aircraft because it would give rise to a lack of consistency throughout the Eurocontrol area if governments in some countries exempted such flights and others did not. You should note that, while governments have the right to exempt certain categories of flights from the charges, they can only do so if they are prepared to pick up the tab themselves. Most governments won't think it worth their while to go to the trouble of granting the exemption for such flights so my point was that Eurocontrol itself should do so.
Eurocontrol will e-mail an acknowledgement to you confirming that they have received your Consultation Response Sheet. After the closing date they are obliged to prepare a summary of all the responses they get so the more they receive from GA pilots the better. I suggest that you all should take a little time and send your responses.
Tolka
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe anyone is sidetracked by Mode-S.
This is probably the first time that UK-GA has been attacked in a pincer movement:
On the left we have the ludicrous high cost but nil benefit Mode-S transponder requirement.
On the right the high cost, nil benefit "usage charges" being mooted-about.
That this thread or similar is not "sticky" in this forum speaks volumes. These two "initiatives" alone could quite easily dwarf the costs most people associate with their hobby.
People whine about the cost of a JAA instrument rating.
Just wait and see how much this lot costs.
This is probably the first time that UK-GA has been attacked in a pincer movement:
On the left we have the ludicrous high cost but nil benefit Mode-S transponder requirement.
On the right the high cost, nil benefit "usage charges" being mooted-about.
That this thread or similar is not "sticky" in this forum speaks volumes. These two "initiatives" alone could quite easily dwarf the costs most people associate with their hobby.
People whine about the cost of a JAA instrument rating.
Just wait and see how much this lot costs.