![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Emily wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized ATC that you advocate? Zero. I would fly VFR, without them. How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time? A privatized ATC and GA user fees may not be tied to each other. But let's assume GA fees for ATC services. Very likely many GA pilots, including myself, will reduce or eliminate the use of those services. That brings us to the law of unintended consequences. A lamebrain Congress institutes GA user fees. Where before I get traffic advisories when puttering above my airport to ensure safety and facilitate commercial aircraft arrival/departures, now I blow it off. I have already had one near-miss with a CRJ around 9000' MSL (not high above the ground here). Cases like that are bound to increase. In addition, since the local ATC cannot ask me to change directions commercial aircraft will have to change directions to avoid me at an unverified altitude. One scenario is an economic detriment. The other risks many lives. Ron Lee |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But
let's assume GA fees for ATC services. Very likely many GA pilots, including myself, will reduce or eliminate the use of those services. When that happens, the now privatized ATC will probably petition the FAA for rules mandating ATC contact. They already mandate "weather" briefings. In addition, since the local ATC cannot ask me to change directions commercial aircraft will have to change directions to avoid me at an unverified altitude. This will be used as a reason to require positive control. Likely the floor of the A could be brought down to Great Britan levels. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2006-09-06, Jose wrote:
This will be used as a reason to require positive control. Likely the floor of the A could be brought down to Great Britan levels. The floor of class A in Great Britain (most of the British Isles is class G airspace up to FL245) is only low in a few places. In a light plane (anythign under 2 metric tonnes) you aren't charged any ATC fees. -- Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An ACE goes down in flames. | PoBoy | Naval Aviation | 25 | December 9th 05 01:30 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |