Govt Plates

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...


Just you wait until health care is free!!!

I am assuming your trying to say that health care will get worse if it
becomes free. Well, in that case you are arguing against your own
point.

NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
deteriorate.

An example would be...?

"Mitty" wrote in message
...
You know, the thread was about plates. Maybe you could consider moving to
someplace like alt.peoplewithoutlives or rec.politicalcrap with your
postings? It would really improve the atmosphere around here.

The best way to improve the atmosphere is for you to commit suicide, you
clueless puke.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
deteriorate.


Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in
countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax
structures...

Matt

Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are free.
In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies his
airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using charts
paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.

Sam Spade wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
deteriorate.



Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general revenue
from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare in
countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their tax
structures...

Matt


Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are free.
In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies his
airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using charts
paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.

I have no idea if that is true or not. I believe that AOPA has made
some credible arguments in the past that GA pays its way pretty well
with the fuel taxes we pay, but I can't find anything at the moment one
way or the other on this front.

Matt

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "Andrew Sarangan" said:
And, if/when users fees take root, those NACO charts will no longer be free.

That's a good point I never thought about. The biggest difference
between the Canadian user fee-based system and the U.S. is the free
availablility of charts. This has made possible a number of aviation
technologies, such as laptop/PDA based charts and moving maps, Airnav
etc and a huge number of online services. As far as I know, such things

At one time, you could order Canadian digital data from Energy Mines and
Resources Canada much like you can from the FAA. That went away when
NavCanada took over.

don't exist in Canada. Charts are very expensive and not readily
available. A U.S. pilot who is used to online products will find it
very difficult to fly in Canada (I did).

On the other hand, when I forgot to bring my low altitude en-route chart
on a trip to Ottawa, I just walked into a map store in downtown Ottawa and
bought a new one. Try doing *that* in most US cities.

I fly to Canada often enough that I subscribe to the charts from
NavCanada. A year's worth of Canada Flight Supplements costs about as
much as two would cost you in Canada, or about what one would cost you
from Sporties.


I don't fly to Canada enough to justify a subscription. Heck, I don't
even have a U.S subscription. I normally don't think about the flight
until a couple of days before, and in many cases the night before. As a
result I had to fly many times in Canada with expired charts. If I
don't have the U.S. charts, all I need is an internet access, even if
it is 1am on a Sunday morning. Try that in downtown Ottawa. I know
because I lived in Ottawa for several years as a graduate student.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

NACO charts are free. It is like free medical care. It is a great
system and works wonderfully. It has inspired many products and
services that don't exist in countries that have user fees. User fees
will wipe all of them except the big ones (like Jepp) and service will
deteriorate.




Nothing is free. NACO charts are simply paid for from general
revenue from taxes rather than a separate fee. Same with healthcare
in countries where it isn't a fee-based system. Just look at their
tax structures...

Matt



Nonetheless, a lot of people in this country think such things are
free. In some sense the charts are "free," because the pilot flies
his airplane (which probably cost more than most folks cars) using
charts paid for mostly by taxpayers who don't pilot aircraft.


I have no idea if that is true or not. I believe that AOPA has made
some credible arguments in the past that GA pays its way pretty well
with the fuel taxes we pay, but I can't find anything at the moment one
way or the other on this front.

Matt

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.

My cursory view is that no one in aviation is paying the full costs of
the FAA, including ATC and all the other activities of the FAA. The
place is really, really burdened with lots of high salaries, lots of
bloated, inefficent contracts, and not very good productivity.

Sam Spade wrote:

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.


Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?

wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in terms of ATC
and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have even considered
NACO chart services.



Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones? Doesn't that mean
that there is some sharing of money and manpower between FAA and DOD?


No, they are similar because both NACO and the DOD are bound by very
formal interagency charting specifications, which go to the detail of
font size and type, method of portraying graphics, what is to be in the
plan and profile views, and so forth.

Also, the military does its own procedures design so it is all a
standalone operation and quite seperate from both the FAA procedures
design function and the subsequent design of charts.

The last I knew the DOD charting function was in St. Louis. NACO is in
Maryland.

The FAA does get involved with a very small number of military
procedures, typically at joint use airports.

The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.


wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Sam Spade wrote:
|
| When Phil Boyer makes those statements he is speaking in
terms of ATC
| and FSS services. I doubt AOPA's bean counters have
even considered
| NACO chart services.
|
|
| Aren't the DOD charts damn similar to the NACO ones?
Doesn't that mean
| that there is some sharing of money and manpower between
FAA and DOD?
|

In article ,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

The FAA and ATC exist to serve the military. The airlines
are a justification on the budget. GA is forced to use ATC
because in the past 50-60 years the FAA expanded the scope
of controlled airspace to be everywhere. 25 years ago there
were large areas that were uncontrolled below 14.500 feet.

where do you come up with this?

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