NATCA Going Down in Flames

Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such.

Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking
to the spam cans, no? And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Ok, at least it makes things easier on controllers if they are talking to
the spam cans, no?


Could go either way. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a non-factor then traffic doesn't
have to be issued. If the controller is talking to the spam can and has a
verified altitude that makes the traffic a factor then traffic has to be
issued to both parties.



And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?


Yup.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Big airplanes don't have to be vectored out of the way of little airplanes
due to unverified altitudes and such. They have to be given traffic
advisories of the little airplanes and they may request vectors out of the
way, but that's all.

So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?

Look up 00V, KCOS and the BRK VOR.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

So if I am circling over my airport (00V) at about the same altitude
as a 737 coming into COS, my altitude is unverifed by COS approach,
and the 737 path will intersect mine within a mile or closer, the COS
approach controller will leave it to the pilot to avoid a midair?


Strictly the pilot's responsibility under those conditions. The controller
should issue a traffic advisory, and may suggest a course of action to avoid
the traffic. But that's it.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:35:17 GMT, randall g
wrote in :

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol. How do you feel about that?

I don't have a problem with that.

Is NavCanada turning a profit yet? How much do you think do you think
it will cost you for ATC services to make NavCanada profitable?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol.

not charged...yet....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:47:51 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:35:17 GMT, randall g
wrote in :

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

It is my understanding, that such aircraft are not charged for ATC
services by Eurocontrol. How do you feel about that?

They pay a lot more tax on avgas. All things considered, I'd still
rather live in Canada.


I don't have a problem with that.

Is NavCanada turning a profit yet? How much do you think do you think
it will cost you for ATC services to make NavCanada profitable?

Does the FAA turn a profit? I don't follow NavCanada's finances. I'm
confident they will continue to get the vast majority of their income
from the airlines, or gov't subsidies. Even in a relatively busy
airspace such as around Vancouver, there isn't nearly as much GA as in
many parts of the US.




randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

randall g wrote:

Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
XM weather on-board.

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

I don't have a problem with that.

I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax
on 100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from
fuel taxes.

So for me it may be a fair deal. For someone who rarely flies it is
not. Seems to me that the aviation fuel tax is about as equitable as
you can get. You fly more you pay more. Fly less, pay less.

Ron Lee

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:05:26 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

I may not..in theory. But only if they eliminate the federal fuel tax on
100LL. I estimate that I paid in about $320 USD last year from fuel
taxes.

My town just created a "Sewer Authority" and we started receiving bills
from it. Up until now, this charge was paid through our property taxes.

I hope I don't have to point out that property taxes didn't go down (in
fact, they went up 5%).

- Andrew