Comments on FAA NPRM urgently needed

Thanx greg. I agree with most of your sentiments entirely. I agree that
GA is important and has a role. I agree that subsidies for remote parts
of the country are in the national interest and s/b subsidized.

But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
cutting it.

My biggest gripe, all along, concerns enforcement of the FARs and
enforcement of noise abatement. Since one of my local airports has given
the community the bum rush, with full collusion of the FAA, I am exposing
their tax subsidies (local and federal), their plans to extract additional
city tax moneys while refusing to raise any airport fees, some of the FBOs
lack of compliance with EPA regulations, water quality issues,
noncompliance with their 20 year old Act 150 study, etc.

I've said many times: I think 90% of GA fliers are responsible. But
there are some idiots that just think they are above any laws or
regulations. No one is responsible, and unless there is a crash or
something, the FAA turns a blind eye to community concerns.

"Skylune" wrote:

But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
cutting it.

Before you assert that avgas taxes are inadequate, tell me how much is
collected yearly and how much of that goes to support aviation. If a
significant amount is siphoned off to fund non-aviation purposes then
you have an obvious solution at ZERO increase in taxes or user fees.

Ron Lee

Been there, done that. Check for yourself. The data and studies are
readily available. I'm not gonna repost the same stuff.

Besides, the pilots are so damned myopic they won't believe anything that
does not conform to their pre-conceived fact set. And its a waste of
time: the user fees are a done deal. Just wait.

Well, I've posted it here often enough, I don't have to tell you I'm in
agreement about some arrogant pilots. If we don't learn how to integrate
better into communities, some hard-headed zealots are in for a rude
awakening as to what their "rights" really are.

Nevertheless, GA is a large and vital industry, full of dedicated people
who have to be goal-oriented to have made it there in the first place. And
it's an industry surrounded by misunderstanding and threatened, sometimes
even scapegoated by special interests, so it's really to the credit of
pilots to have organized to defend something that really needs defending.

I don't think the threat to GA really comes from the Federal government,
because so many legislators are involved one way or another, or have been
exposed to both sides of the equation, and understand the importance of
GA's role in our economy. Many citizens' groups however, in self-serving
endeavors can do great harm, and cheap-thrill journalismis a persistent
threat, filled as it is with air-heads who could not understand anything
about aviation if they tried - and they don't.

So, I agree about a few self-serving pilots, who don't want to know that
some social conditions are changing - but overall, this great industry and
activity is worth preserving and promoting, and needs defending - and
pilots have no greater tool than their substantial numbers and the lobbying
strength these represent to do so. All lobbying efforts require some
simplifications and politically expedient arguments to be effective. That's
how the game is played, and AOPA, overall, isn't doing such a bad job of it
- in my opinion.

G Faris