Trouble ahead over small plane fees

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

You seem to come from the POV that any shared expense system is a
welfare state. This is not so.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" wrote:

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.


Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee

On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield?

I agree that pilots should do everything in their power to reduce the
impact of what they do - that's just Doing The Right Thing and being
neigbourly (regardless of whether the airport was there first or not).
However, to buy a house near an airfield and kvetch about aircraft noise
seems to suggest that the complainer wasn't smart enough to do their due
diligence - and now expects aircraft operators to pay the price for
their own poor research. This is what seems 'silly'.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships.

It works both ways too - townships that get built around existing active
airfields also must co-exist with the airfield. House buyers must accept
some responsibility for doing due diligence and not buying a house near
an active airfield if they find aircraft noise bothersome.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by (Ron Lee) Apr 12, 2006 at 02:47 PM

Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee



The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
available from US Govt. sources.

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 03:29 PM


On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield



In that scenario, of course the new homeowners have no right to bitch.
But there are many other scenarios that are much different.


What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

Lastly, a group that Boyer attacks as radicals, Stop the Noise, is not
located near any airport. Stunt planes have picked this bucolic (Groton,
Mass) area to practice over. The noise is horrific on sunny weekends. I
have heard it. But these homeowners have no rights under existing FARs.
So they sued in State Court, which AOPA tried to have moved to Federal
Court on pre-emption grounds. (AOPA likes FAA regs when it shields the
industry.) Much to the AOPA's dismay, the court in a remand order ruled
that state statutes do apply, and the case is currently awaiting trial.

What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

What about the airport that was there next to a small sympathetic town,
which grows into a condo-maniac mosnter? Was not the airport there
before the expansion?

Typically both things happen at once as population grows.

And to go back to the highway, traffic on the highway increases and more
trucks go by, turning =that= into a noise-spewing monster. Was not the
resident there before the traffic expansion? Why not close the highway?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located?

Stop and listen. Ask the homeowner. You're plunking down a sizable
fraction of a million dollars - do some research.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by (Ron Lee) Apr 12, 2006 at 02:47 PM

Just as the USA highway system is subsidized such that rural highways
still are built and maintained even if the population/traffic flow is
less than in suburban areas.

Ron Lee



The highway system is NOT subsidized. Federal fuel tax collections exceed
federal transporation outlays for roads/bridges/tunnels. The data is
available from US Govt. sources.


This is also the case for airports. I don't know where "Skyloon" gets
the notion that airports get General Fund money.

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article et,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

still waiting for the source of your claim...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Skylune wrote:

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA.


It also includes air carriers.

Skylune wrote:

Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway,


At remote rural airstrips they tend to be rather short.



number of runways,


Remote rural airstrips tend to have one.



equipment, etc.


Remote rural airstrips tend to have little, if any.



Operating costs would depend on towered vs.
nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary.


What remote rural airstrip has a tower?



The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.


The point is remote rural airstrips tend to be privately funded.