Last week”s ON THE SOAPBOX by Roger Wiltshire, general secretary, British Air Transport Association, has provoked a record number of responses, mainly by unhappy general aviation types. ON TOUR was originally designed as the light reading section of ABTN incorporating matters that the editor believes is interest to readers. We don”t have a ”letters to the editor” page but we do think that this response by Nigel Hitchman, GA aircraft owner and also airline pilot, is worth publishing. However, just to put the record straight, the editor, himself a one time private pilot, feels strongly that in this day and age all aircraft should be equipped with a radio and transponder. Read on.
Mr Hitchman challenges some of Roger Wiltshire”s comments.
”The first thing to say is that the CAA charging review was not looked at by a joint industry/CAA team, it was looked at by a team from the airline industry and the CAA. GA was largely ignored and their views not sought, which is why after this review was finished there were so many complaints and the CAA were forced to open it up for public consultation.
The second thing is that CAA charges is all about Government revenue. What is forgotten here is that private aircraft operators or flying club members are paying for the fuel in their aircraft the major proportion of which is tax, whereas the airlines are getting their fuel tax free. Not only this, but the GA pilot is paying for his fuel after paying up to 40% tax plus National insurance to the government on the money he has earned, whereas the airline is paying for fuel from the before tax income. So I have to earn ”1.80 to pay for my litre of Avgas, whereas the airline only had to earn 30p to pay for their tax-free fuel. The difference that I pay all goes to the Government, so who is subsidising who now?
Furthermore, it has been seen that the major beneficiary of the CAA regulations is the passenger, so it should be the passenger who pays, indirectly through the airline or GA aircraft operator. The airlines would like it that one airline is treated the same as one private aircraft operator for charging purposes, thus the owner of a two seater be charged the same as an airline, this is obviously completely unfair and subsidising the airlines. A much fairer apportioning of costs would be per passenger seat, as it is seen that the passenger is the main beneficiary of the regulations.
Many of the regulations imposed on private aircraft operators are also for the benefit of the airlines and perceived safety of their passengers. I do not need there to be any controlled airspace, I don”t need a radio and I don”t need a transponder, I can fly perfectly happily around the country and Europe from A to B without any of this. But the airlines want controlled airspace to ensure their "safety" they want us to be in contact and have permission from ATC before flying through this airspace and they want us to have transponders so their TCAS and ATC radar can see us. Well if they want all of this then why don”t they pay for it? Why do I have to pay for their safety by installing this equipment? There should be a National fund, paid for by the airlines which buys radios and transponders and pays for their installation in GA aircraft. The airlines should also be paying into a GA fund for every cubic meter of controlled airspace that they want to impose on us.
And why if I call up Essex Radar to request a transit of Stansted Zone do I get told to standby while all the airliners get answered immediately, and expeditiously vectored on their way, whereas I get told to avoid controlled airspace. If we are all paying our way, then I expect this to change, and I will get immediate clearance to cross while later airliners that call up will be told to hold!
The CAA also does a lot of work that is of no benefit to either GA or the airlines but is for the Government, does this get charged back to the DfT?
Much of the CAA regulation of GA is based on public transport practices that are clearly not needed for GA, instead of increasing charges, they should be scrapping regulations. The charges in the UK are often far higher than in other countries and totally unjustified. For example the BMAA have already shown that it is safe and efficient to train people to fly from unlicensed airfields on permit to fly aircraft. So why do we need licensed airfields and a public transport C of A to learn on a Cessna?
And back to what Mr Wiltshire thinks is GA's main argument ” supply of pilots, just what percentage of the airline pilots did his airlines pay for all of their training? I think he will find that most of them paid for themselves or were subsidised for him by the Government.
So in conclusion, lets get the CAA house in order, by removing unnecessary regulations, charging based on those who benefit from the regulation (ie passengers), not those who just are forced to use the system. Total Government revenue from aviation to be included in the CAA income particularly the total tax paid to buy fuel. Airlines to pay for equipment they require other aircraft to have fitted and for preferred use of controlled airspace.
I think we will find that GA is heavily subsidising the airlines!”
Nigel Hitchman
GA aircraft owner and also airline pilot