NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Mary and I have flown coast to coast, for 12 years and 1500+ hours, all
VFR. It's easy, it's fun, and it's never a problem, as long as you're
flexible.

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.

I also fly VFR only but it is easy where I live (Colorado). I also
use ATC for flight following, going into towered airports, get
clearance into Denver Class B, etc. But impose fees (I already pay
via fuel taxes) then expect all these non-essential ATC contacts to go
away.

Go to Pueblo for breakfast? Not with a fee.

Go to COS to refuel? Not with a fee.

Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.

Talk to COS to minimize impacts to commercial aircraft that fly over
my airport? I would like to BUT.

Flight following? I will take the chance and use my 406 beacon if
needed.

Pre flight briefing? Internet

In some cases that may have negative safety implications.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message

Talk to Denver to help with their traffic flow? Sorry.


This is my biggest worry about the "post user fee response issue" by pvt
aircraft. Here in the greater NYC area ATC welcomes flight following
requests. It allows them to verify target aircraft alt and intensions, and
improves the mixed traffic flow along the various inbound and outbound
corridors. I can envision many VFR targets remaining silent under any user
fee system, resulting in many "traffic unverified" callouts. I've also
noticed a few aircraft outside the mode C vale not showing up on TIS, and I
can only assume they are running xpdr off. This will get worse under user
fees. The resulting FAA backlash will be onerous, no doubt.