Dumb, off topic and political

"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.

"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

Scott Moore wrote:


Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?



No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT share
interest with the bizjet crowd.

You are correct. AOPA = light aircraft G/A

NBAA = turbine business operations

NBAA understands the distinction far better than does the FAA. The FAA actually
does understand it but it (the FAA senior management) is totally dominated by the
air carriers who strongly resist any distinction between a Cessna 182 and a Cessna
Citation X.

Mike Rapoport wrote:



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

Mike
MU-2

Correct. The only places turbine operations use FSS is where the FAA forces
them to because the FSS is the only RCO to obtain an IFR clearance on the ground
or close an IFR flight plan on arrival. Those RCOs could easily be reconfigured
to the controlling ARTCC.

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...

.... What
about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?


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

Within 60 miles of my residence in SoCal there have to be some 10 Class D airports that have zero Part 121 operations.

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?

I don't get the connection between business aviation, other GA and one FBO
operator who *thinks* the business would pick up if there were a tower.
Have you asked him exactly what "large business aircraft" stop for fuel in
CA on long distance flights? I can't think of a reason except, perhaps
someone flying from Hawaii to the East Coast. There is only one way to get
meaningfully more fuel sales from cross country traffic that otherwise would
not stop at the airport...lower the price and be under the great circle
route of the airplane.

Mike
MU-2

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
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.