Dumb, off topic and political

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.

I don't get the connection between business aviation, other GA and one FBO
operator who *thinks* the business would pick up if there were a tower.
Have you asked him exactly what "large business aircraft" stop for fuel in
CA on long distance flights? I can't think of a reason except, perhaps
someone flying from Hawaii to the East Coast. There is only one way to get
meaningfully more fuel sales from cross country traffic that otherwise would
not stop at the airport...lower the price and be under the great circle
route of the airplane.

Mike
MU-2

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
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.