"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
S Green wrote:
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me
that the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90
percent of general aviation because recreational flights are exempt
and so are all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace.
Golly gee! That means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop
single less than 1200 feet above the ground over much of the state
of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can
descend even lower to smell the roses without paying! Anyone want
to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?

Bob Gardner

$25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big
deal in the total running costs

Well if you fly out and back every day for month it's $1500/mo.
Pretty healthy cost increase considering you are getting nothing in
return.
Nothing?

Ok, nothing you aren't already getting.

Getting _now_. Were it only that the real world was so static.

Wait a minute! Is this really Matt Barrow standing up for a tax increase?

The _present_ for of funding is primarily taxes; I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making it
self-supporting. Under the present funding/governance, ATC is dead meat in a
just a few years.

Matt
--
“Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding
the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental
advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve
to intimidate the public and even scientists...there is a clear attempt to
establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, (6-26-06)