NATCA Going Down in Flames

On 6 Sep 2006 06:52:41 -0700, "Jay Honeck" 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.



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

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.

How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
altitudes and such?

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
t...

How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
altitudes and such?


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.

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.

And that makes things safer for the other aircraft?
Yup.

So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
provided.

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
...

So, maybe we should charge for aiding the controllers and the other
aircraft, rather than being charged for the assistance we are being
provided.


Makes sense to me. The ATC system is structured as it is to serve the
airlines primarily, for them to complain that GA is not paying it's fair
share is absurd.

"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?