Pilot's Political Orientation

In order to answer your (rhetorical) question, we need a bit more
information - things like how many miles does the average trucker put on the
highways each year,
and how many miles do you put on your car? how much of the money spent on
highway
maintanance due to damage from trucks, and how much is from damage by cars? You
know,
answers to those trivial little questions that neither side of the issue likes
to talk
about because of the risk that people might understand the issue.



Exactly.

I'm not going to supply the information, because for one, I don't have the
studies in hand, and for two, that's not the point of my post. Rather, your
point is my point.

One trucker hopping a curb ensures the curb needs repair or replacement. It
would take lot of cars to do the same damage. I don't have studies to prove
this, but I think it's self-evident, and I've seen it happen.

A trucker that's not on the road (probably at highway speed) for a good portion
of the workweek is not going to make much money, and won't last long. I don't
know of any passenger cars that are on the road that much.

Trucks weigh more than cars. 18-wheelers weigh LOTS more than cars. I don't
have data to prove this either, but it's self evident to me. (yes, I know that
empty they weigh less than full).

My point is that the bumper sticker is supposed to bypass all those little
questions with the "oh my god, $18,000 - that's so unfair" reaction. The same
is true of the little airplanes in the system question.

Ultimately the question comes down to what is "fair" to user B, in a system
that has tto be constructed anyway for user A. That question is not amenable
to facts and figures, but is philosophical in nature, though once that question
is addressed, the facts and figures will figure into the final bill. It's
similar in nature to the "is flying safer" question.. safer per mile? per
minute? per passenger? per dollar spant? per area endangered? per diem?
persnickety?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"darwin smith" wrote in message
link.net...

how much of the money spent on highway maintanance due
to damage from trucks, and how much is from damage by cars?


How much damage do you think a car is going to do to a highway that was
built to support trucks?

How much damage do you think a car is going to do to a highway that was
built to support trucks?

Actually for ALL practical purposes....heavy trucks DO ALL the damage to a
properly engineered roadway....

The same is true for heavy aircraft vs little light ones on runways...I know
because I worked in a runway/pavement engineering group for a few years....

Another interesting tidbid is the damage done is VERY non-linear.....

A road/runway can take millions and millions of load cycles at say 90 percent
of its design load, virtually an infinite number at say 50 percent or less, and
somelike only a few hundred at 100 percent...and only a few at 105 percent....

So, truckers can bitch all they want about paying all those "taxes" but I
guarantee you they do ALL the damage as well...(same goes for heavy
airplanes)...

And this brings up a few more points....if cheap/stupid politicians would just
make the damn roads a smidgen thicker (and costing a smidgen more) the roads
would last so long the'd generally need no repairs until it was time to tear
them up because they had become outdated and need to be redesigned...

And legal Folks need to be REALLY tough (as in cut your balls off and take the
truck away) for overloaded trucks...because it only takes a few or even one to
exceed the load limit of a road and once that road is "broken", further road
cycles at MUCH less than the design limit will rapidly and continously cause
further degradation...

take care

Blll

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:


The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt


Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
etc., etc.



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt

If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt


If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?



Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.

Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt


If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?



Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.

Matt

Earlier you said "average G/A" pilot, now you're saying "average 182 pilot." So, does that
mean that G/A, overall, needs all those small airport GPS approaches?

wrote in message ...

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna
182's that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with
control towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports
without control towers; all supported by center equipment,
controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
etc., etc.


How many control towers would be shut down if those Cessna 182s did not
exist? How many approaches could be dropped if those Cessna 182s did not
exist? How many centers could be shut down? How many controllers could be
terminated? Etc., etc., etc.

wrote in message ...

Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.


And airlines generate most of the costs.



The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
doesn't begin to pay for the system.


The average G/A who flies a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
burden the system.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.


And airlines generate most of the costs.


The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
doesn't begin to pay for the system.


The average G/A who flies a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
burden the system.

Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been issued for
small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS approach for Green Bay
Interuniversal Skyport.