GA's "fair share"

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:29:52 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


The problem as I see it is thay want to tax ATC and ATC interaction is
safety. People are less likely to use ATC and safety suffers. Taxes
in general are regressive but simple. Even a moron politican can
think their way through them.

The problem is that GA pilots demand for ATC is elastic. They don't
NEED ATC. Commercial operations do. They have schedule and have to
be at places at certain times and they all like to arrive at the same
time. I have the liesure of taking off and landing as I please and
tend to avoid crowded areas.

The obvious tax solution is to increase costs to commercial operators,
but that's not good for the industry. My suggestion.

Reduce costs radically. GPS is here to stay so decommision NDB's and
VOR's. Quickly. Give a tax credit to pilot's to purchase new nav
equipment. It will gave GA a much needed shot in the arm. Hell, they
did it for SUV's. Start steering people into the new technologies.
Wait two years then start charging user fees for VOR/NDB based IFR
interaction and non-WAAS approaches. Charge user fees for support of
legacy technology. This is not regressive.

Accelerate ADS-B and SATS implementation. These are workable
technologies that pay for themseleves by reducing ATC workload and
allowing high aviation traffic densities. Plus they have the ability
to widen the scope of GA, increase participation and futher fuel the
industry.

eh? What do I know. I'm still a student. :P



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

"Jimbob" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:29:52 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


The problem as I see it is thay want to tax ATC and ATC interaction is
safety. People are less likely to use ATC and safety suffers. Taxes
in general are regressive but simple. Even a moron politican can
think their way through them.

The problem is that GA pilots demand for ATC is elastic. They don't
NEED ATC. Commercial operations do. They have schedule and have to
be at places at certain times and they all like to arrive at the same
time. I have the liesure of taking off and landing as I please and
tend to avoid crowded areas.

The obvious tax solution is to increase costs to commercial operators,
but that's not good for the industry. My suggestion.

Reduce costs radically. GPS is here to stay so decommision NDB's and
VOR's. Quickly. Give a tax credit to pilot's to purchase new nav
equipment. It will gave GA a much needed shot in the arm. Hell, they
did it for SUV's. Start steering people into the new technologies.
Wait two years then start charging user fees for VOR/NDB based IFR
interaction and non-WAAS approaches. Charge user fees for support of
legacy technology. This is not regressive.

Accelerate ADS-B and SATS implementation. These are workable
technologies that pay for themseleves by reducing ATC workload and
allowing high aviation traffic densities. Plus they have the ability
to widen the scope of GA, increase participation and futher fuel the
industry.

eh? What do I know. I'm still a student. :P

Ahh, but this would all require our government to actually be competent.

"Ahh, but this would all require our government to actually be competent."

Many elected politicians are AOPA members, as Boyer loves to point out
whenever this fact helps his current argument.


I'm trying to find out how many members of the congress are licensed
private
pilots (I already know it will be disproportionate, relative to the
population).

(this little factoid comes in handy when pilots claim that only a highly
skilled, select, elite subset of the population possesses the necessary
skill set to fly, while at the same time (1) bemoaning the stupidity of
the government and (2)claiming that anyone who proposes tougher
regulations on GA is just jealous. Both statements are of course
ludicrous, and repeated often on this site!)