If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Newps" wrote

They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.

The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing threatens
to break a system that is essentially not broken.

All to better serve the big money at the airlines.

It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out of
the post 9-11 period.

One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think for
themselves, and not allow the package to go through.
--
Jim in NC

Blueskies wrote:
"scott moore" wrote in message ...
::
:
: And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
: satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
: reads web pages to you.
:
: The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
: weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.
:
: By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
: expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
: the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
: (without commercial help)
:
: Scott

Exactly my point, we (the US govment) have captured and disseminated the data using tax payer dollars. That data is
given to a private company and then sold back us (the US tax payer) in a different form. That is not right. The
non-responsiveness of the govment is not right either, but just because they are slow to the 'market' does not mean we
should throw out the baby with the bathwater...



The US government invented and deployed Nexrad, the most advanced
weather radar system on the planet, so that ma and pa could find
out if it is going to rain on the monday morning commute.

The Nexrad data gets beamed up to a satellite, bounced to NOAA
for interpretation, beamed to the networks, bounced off a distribution
satellite, and presented on a digital television.

For ma and pa.

For pilots, the government has managed to distribute it to briefers
who give you an interpretation by voice radio, via AM (aptitude
modulation), a technology that was invented by an Italian in the late
1800s, more than a century ago.

Now, you can, for a fee, to a private company, get your nexrad pictures,
within 5-10 minutes old, off a satellite, direct to your airplane. Why?
Because ma and pa wanted to listen to Howard Stern asking some stripper
if he can put his hand down her pants. Live. Via digital radio.

Now tell me about how the government is doing a good job for pilots.

Scott

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.


GA is a gnat on the publics rear end. We use a resource nobody else
cares about or wants, that is, the airspace between 1000 and 18000 feet
AGL. The only part of that anyone else cares about is the circle around
large airports that big metal uses to climb up and down to their
accustomed flight altitudes. We use 3000 feet of pavement when the
general public uses countless miles of it. We use fields out of town
and give them up when the town grows out to the "useless" land the
airports were built on and want it "back". We use a tiny fraction of
the fuel, have virtually no environmental impact compared to cars
and ATVs. Our accident rate, for whatever the danger to pilots per
hour is, is to the general public a fraction of carnage done yearly
by portable power saws, much less anything more dangerous like a
car or truck. We are accused of noise pollution even though our
total impact is less than a years production of Harley Davidson.
We are accused of air pollution even though our total output is likely
less than the lawn mowers in LA.

And despite the fact that we use a resource that is virtually free and
has unlimited capacity (airspace) there is always someone who thinks
that we shouldn't have it, because they can't have it.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get your way someday.

Scott

scott moore writes:

And despite the fact that we use a resource that is virtually free and
has unlimited capacity (airspace) there is always someone who thinks
that we shouldn't have it, because they can't have it.

In the case of GA, it's more a matter of people who think you shouldn't have
it because they don't see any reason for it--they don't want it. If the loss
of GA is nothing to them, they figure it's nothing to you, and if they
outnumber you, you lose.

If you cannot understand the viewpoint of the public at large, you can only
damage your own interests by making a fuss.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get your way someday.

To whom are you addressing this?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
scott moore wrote:

GA is a gnat on the publics rear end.

except in part of the US, like Alaska.

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

ktbr wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
Not quite. Most of it _is_ commercial, but it's not scheduled
airline service, so it's GA. LOTS of GA is commercial in nature. G

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Glad I could help!

Heck, even flight training is commercial in nature, yet is still GA.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.


They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.


As has JAL in Napa, California. I was thinking in terms of U.S. carriers.

Morgans wrote:


"Newps" wrote

They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at
GFK in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over
zero time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as
first officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air,
China Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They
started their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved
into Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.


The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing
threatens to break a system that is essentially not broken.

All to better serve the big money at the airlines.

It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out
of the post 9-11 period.

One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think
for themselves, and not allow the package to go through.

The way the Democrats in Congress who now control this stuff are
talking, user fees may die. The airline stooge group, the Air Transport
Association, is now focusing on big increases in fuel taxes.

"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.


Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to
the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.


Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

It is however, precisely as correct as making the same claim about GA for
personal transportation.

Peter

The biggest shame about the whole thing, is that this whole thing
threatens
to break a system that is essentially not broken.

All to better serve the big money at the airlines.

It makes me sick to think that I, at the time, supported their bail-out of
the post 9-11 period.

You are not alone. :-(

One can hope that this blows over until after the next presidential
election. It would be nice to think that our representatives can think
for
themselves, and not allow the package to go through.
--
We can only hope.