![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A short story about business vs. private light aviation.
There is a local airport (fairly local) which fits the classic definition of a California uncontrolled airport. It is ex-military, from the many military airfields that were created to counter the threat of invasion from Japan. These left over fields are one of the reasons why California is (ahem) the greatest state in the Union for aviation. Its a large field, out in farmland. It has a varied number of users, from light planes, to sailplanes, to ultralights. Because it is ex-military, it has long runways, and can be used to land jets easily. That, combined with low real estate prices, led to several FBOs established on the field. Its traffic patterns are typical. Almost dead during the week, active on the weekends, but still fairly light traffic, perhaps 5-10 landings per hour. Even on the weekend, it is common to approach and land without having another aircraft in the pattern. The business FBO owner and I have had a few conversations. This comes from their having air conditioning, fueling, and the best coke machine. The FBO owner is on a tear to get a tower on the field. I have listened to him go on about it more than once. Its not really a debate, since he is of the opinion that controlled fields are "right", every field should be controlled. The primary reason he seems to want a tower for a field that does not have the traffic to justify it is that he sees his future as a cross country stop for large business aircraft, including jets. Now I'm sure in his mind, he has a point about how the field should be run. I'm betting that many on the field don't agree, especially the sailplane and ultralight folks. I told him what I thought, which interested him because he didn't understand how anyone could be against having a control tower (I'm guessing he has not had extensive conversations with others on the field). In any case, its not my home field, and I don't know how its going in his efforts to get the field towered. The point here is that yes, business operators and private/GA operators are different, and we want different things. The AOPA "unified" us, I suspect to gain lobby power, and that's great. However, it also occasionally results in an AOPA that isn't totally on the side of the private/GA pilot. I suspect that the EAA is more like our true avocation group. Certainly, the intersection of interests in the EAA and AOPA represent me, which is to say a light airplane owner and weekend flyer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off topic, Gore and the internet (don't read if not interested) | Corky Scott | Home Built | 42 | June 18th 05 04:06 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
US Election (in fact, on topic) | Chris OCallaghan | Soaring | 2 | October 31st 04 01:44 AM |
Off topic: Learning to Be Stupid | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | September 1st 03 10:21 PM |