Dumb, off topic and political

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21



Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.


Airlines and most turbine business aviation don't use FSS. FSS serves only
GA.

Mike
MU-2

On 28 Aug 2005 17:52:13 -0700, wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:
Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?

I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

We had that in the U.S. for a while during the 1970's. As I recall, a
172-class aircraft paid about $25/year in airspace use taxes, with a
weight-based component above about 2500 pounds GTW. The tax was
dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
than it generated in revenues.

RK Henry

The tax was
dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
than it generated in revenues.

This actually happened?

For real?

Heisenberg was right - anything can happen when you're not looking!

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:
Scott Moore wrote:

Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?


I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

Granted, money is money is money, but this doesn't seem to me like
cause for yelling "Freedom!" and drawing swords. More importantly, I'm
concerned that unflinching opposition to change isn't exactly the best
position for our interests. Yes, GA represents a lot of individuals and
thus votes, but the larger corporate and especially airline interests
swing a much bigger... You get the idea.

Ultimately funding reform is the start of broader FAA reform, and
that's the fight we need to be ready for.

-cwk.


This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.

Rant off.

Scott Moore wrote:
wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:


Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?


I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

Granted, money is money is money, but this doesn't seem to me like
cause for yelling "Freedom!" and drawing swords. More importantly, I'm
concerned that unflinching opposition to change isn't exactly the best
position for our interests. Yes, GA represents a lot of individuals and
thus votes, but the larger corporate and especially airline interests
swing a much bigger... You get the idea.

Ultimately funding reform is the start of broader FAA reform, and
that's the fight we need to be ready for.

-cwk.



This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.

Rant off.


Oh yea, and FSS should have been shot in the head, not privatized.

In short, Scott's FAA cost savings plan (TM):

1. Close the FSS. Now.

2. Close and lock all of the non-b/c, and probally most of D class
towers.

3. FIRE whoever is running TIS, FIS and ADS-B, then hire a contractor
who will get the project moving.

4. (related to 3) STOP STOP STOP STOP (STOP!) selling Nexrad data to ANYONE.
This is SO damm shortsighted that I cannot believe it. The pennies that
Nexrad is making the government compared to the expense of the system,
and the expense of having FSS and controllers pass on weather data to
its ultimate users is criminal. Nexrad was paid for by the damm taxpayers
and should be passed out free to airplanes in any form they can handle it,
including FIS, Garmin, XM satellite, etc. The resulting revolution in
ability to access weather data inflight would render FSS unecessary,
greatly reduce the burden on controllers, and greatly increase flight
safety.

5. Broadcast NOAA plate and map changes via FIS, and the same type of
system that broadcasts WAAS (if not the same system), INCLUDING TFRS
THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH. At one stroke, this would dramatically
increase safety, TFR compliance, reduce controller workload (since
we would all be working on the same, ontime data), and reduce user
costs. The data card update cycle could be reduced, probally dramatically,
down to every 3 months or less, at the same time the entire system would
be realtime for a change.

5. Broadcast TWAS updates via FIS. This would make even temporary
restrictions, such as cranes, etc., work in the system. Again, this
would result in increased safety and reduced controller workload.

6. Require ADS-B. Everwhere, for every vehicle operating greater than
1000' AGL. The damm system won't work if only some people have it.
Stunningly, the FAA AND THE AOPA still are clueless to that fact.
The universal requirement will drive down the prices, provided
that the FAA has as little as possible with delivering the actual
units themselves. Leave that to free market companies.
Yes, I realize that many pilots will scream bloody murder for being
required to equip their airplanes with ADS-B, but ADS-B takes us
to a fully electronic system that allows us to get rid of the most
expensive part of the traffic control system, the CONTROLLER, and
will save us from all the user fee nonsense, while at the same time,
dramatically increasing user safety. AGAIN, THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK
UNLESS EVERYONE HAS IT.

7. Re-unify the working basis for ADS-B under ONE transmition standard.
FIRE the IDIOT who decided that airlines and light airplanes should
work on different standards, then hire him/her and FIRE 'em again.
Having light airplanes and airlines work on DIFFERENT standards
ranks up there with the Magiot line with stunning stupidity. Oh yes,
the FAA envisons that the FAA centers will tie the two systems together.
What a lovely idea. Your collision data with with respect to several
tons of aluminum is going to be routed through the "oh so reliable"
FAA computers and controllers, and of course completey absent outside
radar control areas.

Oh, and one bonus rant: HIRE AN FAA ADMINISTRATOR WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS
SOMETHING ABOUT AVIATION, NOT GIVE IT AWAY AS A POLITICAL PAYBACK.

I agree with virtually every point you make. And, sorry to say (given
my track record), that means none of them stand a chance of actually
happening.

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.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

Oh yea, and FSS should have been shot in the head, not privatized.

In short, Scott's FAA cost savings plan (TM):

1. Close the FSS. Now.

2. Close and lock all of the non-b/c, and probally most of D class
towers.


Closing all of the non-Class B/C towers would mean closing all of the Class
D towers.



3. FIRE whoever is running TIS, FIS and ADS-B, then hire a contractor
who will get the project moving.


What's TIS? What is FIS within the FAA?



4. (related to 3) STOP STOP STOP STOP (STOP!) selling Nexrad data to
ANYONE.
This is SO damm shortsighted that I cannot believe it. The pennies that
Nexrad is making the government compared to the expense of the system,
and the expense of having FSS and controllers pass on weather data to
its ultimate users is criminal. Nexrad was paid for by the damm taxpayers
and should be passed out free to airplanes in any form they can handle it,
including FIS, Garmin, XM satellite, etc. The resulting revolution in
ability to access weather data inflight would render FSS unecessary,
greatly reduce the burden on controllers, and greatly increase flight
safety.


NEXRAD is a NWS system, not FAA. I've never seen NEXRAD products in an ATC
facility so I don't see how controllers can pass on weather data to its
"ultimate users".



5. Broadcast NOAA plate and map changes via FIS, and the same type of
system that broadcasts WAAS (if not the same system), INCLUDING TFRS
THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH. At one stroke, this would dramatically
increase safety, TFR compliance, reduce controller workload (since
we would all be working on the same, ontime data), and reduce user
costs. The data card update cycle could be reduced, probally dramatically,
down to every 3 months or less, at the same time the entire system would
be realtime for a change.


What is this FIS that that you'd broadcast NOAA plate and map changes over?



5. Broadcast TWAS updates via FIS. This would make even temporary
restrictions, such as cranes, etc., work in the system. Again, this
would result in increased safety and reduced controller workload.


What is TWAS?



6. Require ADS-B. Everwhere, for every vehicle operating greater than
1000' AGL. The damm system won't work if only some people have it.
Stunningly, the FAA AND THE AOPA still are clueless to that fact.


How are you going to get it to work in non-electrical aircraft? Or are you
just going to ban them above 1000' AGL?



The universal requirement will drive down the prices, provided
that the FAA has as little as possible with delivering the actual
units themselves. Leave that to free market companies.
Yes, I realize that many pilots will scream bloody murder for being
required to equip their airplanes with ADS-B, but ADS-B takes us
to a fully electronic system that allows us to get rid of the most
expensive part of the traffic control system, the CONTROLLER, and
will save us from all the user fee nonsense, while at the same time,
dramatically increasing user safety. AGAIN, THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK
UNLESS EVERYONE HAS IT.


How does ADS-B sequence traffic?

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford
controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.


One frequently hears the claim that GA is not paying it's fair share. But
what is GA's fair share? I'd submit it is the cost of those things that
would be shut down if GA ceased to exist. FSS is certainly in that
category, and fine by me, I haven't used FSS in years. How many ARTCCs and
TRACONs would be closed? I'd say that answer is very close to zero. What
about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message =
ink.net...
=20
.... What=20
about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?=20


Unrepresentative though it may be, within 20 miles of me, it's 2 of 4.