If user fees go into effect I'm done

Chris writes:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

Europe has always been a leader in bureaucracy and overregulation, aided by a
complacent population that has never known greater freedoms and is unaware of
their existence.

I wonder why weight enters into the calculation. Do controllers carry the
aircraft on their backs from waypoint to waypoint? And since air traffic
control is already (or should be) a service of the state, why is tax added to
the final amount?

And why should people download an unverified application and run it on their
own computers? How do they know that this executable can be trusted? What's
wrong with a Web page that does the same calculation?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

scott moore writes:

Ie., if you want to move to a model of charging
us to use a controller, we will want to move to a model without
controllers.

Unfortunately, just because you don't have controllers doesn't mean that you
cannot be charged fees.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?


Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.

Jose writes:

Actually, I find an advantage to it. If you get NOTAMS, you will (by
yourself) be presented with reams of irrelevant stuff, but you don't
know what's irrelevant until you read through it. Ditto text weather at
fifteen stations near you, near your destination, enroute, etc. A
briefer who has seen all this stuff all day can sift through junk and
pick out the important pieces. That is valuable.

Unfortunately, if he does it wrong, you cannot prove that he made a mistake
later.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "Roy Smith" wrote in message
: ...
:
: About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
: watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
: centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
: difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
: make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
: the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?
:
:
: Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.
:
:

Yea, sure, for a FEE!

"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...

Yea, sure, for a FEE!


Yes. Is that a problem?

Roy Smith wrote:
scott moore wrote:



For the most part, I agree.

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?


The airlines don't use flight watch, nor do the high-end biz jet
operators. So, if the airlines gain control of the system, flight watch
will be really expensive for light aircraft drivers.

scott moore wrote:

Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
of the employees.

The system is useless, redundant with more modern methods, and would
remove an entire line item from the FAA budget, leaving them less
to bitch about. Not to mention letting the FAA know we are serious
about reducing the size of the FAA.

The FSS system should never have been privatized. It should have been
shut down completely.

No doubt about it.

Asd to towers and ATC in general, do you suppose the FAA, or even
Congress, can take on the controllers' union at this point? It is like
the Governator here in California trying to take on the prison guards'
union.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:21:01 -0000, "Chris"
wrote in :


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

RSO Distance Tool

This application, once installed, will allow users to calculate
the EUROCONTROL route charges in order to obtain an estimation of
the charges they will likely incur when operating flights within
the EUROCONTROL charging area. Additional information about the
RSO Distance Tool you may find in the CRCO Customer Guide To
Charges (paragraph 10).

Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
system? What did you do to resist it?

Blueskies wrote:

:

Yea, sure, for a FEE!


Yes, exactly.