Trouble ahead over small plane fees

Skylune wrote:

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants.


It is.

Skylune wrote:

You gotta be kidding me.


I'm not.



Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???

Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
airports receive??

Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
tax expenditures for various transportation categories??


I asked first, I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

What is your evidence that thousands of airports without air carrier or
military aircraft operations are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?

Skylune wrote:

You gotta be kidding me.


I'm not.



Do you know how the AIP is funded, by source.
Do you know if your local airport does a project, it is usually 90% funded
by FAA grants, 5% state, and 5% local???

Do you know about the $150k annual operating subsidies that many GA
airports receive??

Do you know about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that determine
tax expenditures for various transportation categories??

I guess not. Just listen to Boyer, and his hyperbole and rhetorical
arguments.

(Why am I starting to see an analogy between the Boyer-types and the
French student protestors?)


I'll answer your questions after you answer mine. That's only fair,
mine were asked first. I'll repeat them for your convenience:

What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports, that is, airports
that have no air carrier or military operations, are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?

"roncachamp" wrote in message
oups.com...

Skylune wrote:



Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.


What remote rural airstrip has a tower?


This one!
http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck...troltower.html

On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

General aviation is in decline. If that happens it's because the
AIRLINES moved in. Noise spewing monster airports are generally not
caused by GA.

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

All they have to do is spend a little time in the neighbourhood and TALK
to the neighbours. I know it's totally unheard of to actually talk to
your neighbours these days - but really, when you're plunking down maybe
100 grand or more on a house you ought to at least meet the neighbours
and ask them what the neighbourhood is like. "Oh, I see there's an
airport on the local map - how noisy is it?". If you see an airport on
the map, spend some time in the street and find out whether the sounds
are annoying. But people don't even do this minor bit of easy research.
It doesn't take being an expert in aviation to ask your potential
neighbours what the traffic is like at the airport you spotted on the
map.

Of course, most people don't even bother buying a map when purchasing a
house to find out what's around. They wouldn't dream of buying a house
without doing a structural survey or checking for liens or other
problems - but when it comes to doing a minor bit of legwork to check
that the rest of the neighbourhood is acceptable to them, they don't
bother.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-04-12, roncachamp wrote:

Skylune wrote:

Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway,

At remote rural airstrips they tend to be rather short.

The remote rural airstrips that I've been to (in the United States) tend
to only be airstrips because someone stuck an airfield symbol on the
chart. All they are is a clearing in the trees and pretty much totally
unmaintained. The maintained ones are only maintained because they have
private owners who provide all the funding.

I've got some video online of three remote rural airstrips. The grass is
probably only short there because aircraft propellers have 'mowed' it
:-) - http://www.alioth.net/Video/BackCountry.mp4 (you may want VideoLAN
Client, which is free - http://www.videolan.org - if you don't have an
MPEG-4 player).

The point is remote rural airstrips tend to be privately funded.

And the state funded ones (such as Lower Loon, which I suspect is state
funded) are only funded because they are primarily there for state use -
so that the forestry guys can get access to remote mountainous areas,
and rescue crews have somewhere to land to pick up hikers/mountain
climbers who have hurt themselves. They'd be there if private GA used
them or not because the state needs them.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

The remote rural airstrips that I've been to (in the United States) tend
to only be airstrips because someone stuck an airfield symbol on the
chart. All they are is a clearing in the trees and pretty much totally
unmaintained. The maintained ones are only maintained because they have
private owners who provide all the funding.


Zackly my point.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

This one!
http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck...troltower.html


That outs the FAA tower at FLD to shame.

by "roncachamp" Apr 12, 2006 at 03:28 PM



I'll answer your questions after you answer mine. That's only fair,
mine were asked first. I'll repeat them for your convenience:

What is your evidence that thousands of GA airports, that is, airports
that have no air carrier or military operations, are being subsidized?

Who advocates subsidies for recreational flying?



For your convenience, I will re-re-re post the United States Bureau of
Transporation Statistics data that shows GA as having massive subsidies.
That is only partial evidence; other data abounds.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...figure_06.html


For your additional edificiation, I suggest you look up how much your
beloved avgas taxes contribute to the entire AIP pot: you will find it to
be under 3%.

Your second question: Boyer, who wants fuel taxes left intact, who
advocates for state tax subsidies, etc.

Happy?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

"Skylune" wrote:

Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee

The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
available from US Govt. sources.


This is also the case for airports. I don't know where "Skyloon" gets
the notion that airports get General Fund money.

Ok, my "subsidized" term was not the best. "Funded" would have been
better but Orval makes a salient point. GA pays its way.

Ron Lee