"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford
controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.


One frequently hears the claim that GA is not paying it's fair share. But
what is GA's fair share? I'd submit it is the cost of those things that
would be shut down if GA ceased to exist. FSS is certainly in that
category, and fine by me, I haven't used FSS in years. How many ARTCCs and
TRACONs would be closed? I'd say that answer is very close to zero. What
about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?