HOUSE BILL COULD KILL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 07:44:24 -0700, wrote in
.com::

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
shows just how ridiculous the gap is.

If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.

The issue you raise, whether or not FSS' are necessary, is not the
issue I mentioned, user fees.

Sorry, I thought you asked, "If there were no Flight Service Stations,
how would you get briefed about all the pop-up TFRs and military
activity?"



As for user fees, they seem pretty much inevitable, and it's been my
position that GA might be better off to play ball on the concept and
make our fight on the magnitude. IIRC a Canadian 172 owner would pay
something like $120 annually, which seems to me like, well, chump
change considering the costs of aviation overall.

But I would agree that FSS could be pretty much replaced by DUATS.
However, I still prefer the luxury of a live preflight briefing.

Then we could have a 1-900 number. Press 1 for redhead, press 2 for
Asian, press 3 to talk to a preflight briefer....

Best,
-cwk.

George Patterson wrote:
.Blueskies. wrote:
It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...

Well, the current system already does that pretty well and the cost of
collection is a lot less than any other method anyone has managed to think of.
Maybe we ought to stick with it?


IIRC there are about $740m in taxes collected on aviation fuels
annually, of which $60m are 100LL. I think it's arguable whether that
actually covers the cost of services we consume, but we're certainly
not subsidizing other parts of the system.

As for collections, it's arguable whether a fuel tax is more
"efficient" to collect than a user fee. Fuel taxes have to be collected
from many thousands of fuel sellers. A usage fee could be computed
based on flight plans, and there are what, 5 primary computers that
process those? We have tail numbers and addresses already so sending
the bill doesn't require that much. It's so simple even Lockmar could
figure out how to do it.

The Cub-vs-747 debate is missing another detail which is traffic
management. An enroute airspace block at FL350 is worth a lot more than
one at 7000'. Piston GA also tends to use reliever and tertiary fields
with comparatively low traffic loads. So there is a sense in which the
747 places a higher burden on the system. However, much of this
argument disappears when we consider the VLJs like the Eclipse. They're
the ones that really need to worry about a cost-based accounting. That
alone could kill the personal air-taxi system, perhaps rightly so.

-cwk.

wrote:


As for user fees, they seem pretty much inevitable, and it's been my
position that GA might be better off to play ball on the concept and
make our fight on the magnitude. IIRC a Canadian 172 owner would pay
something like $120 annually, which seems to me like, well, chump
change considering the costs of aviation overall.

As of two years ago the owner I know of a Cherokee 235 in Canada paid
about $35 US for his yearly ATC fee. They charged by weight.

wrote in message ups.com...

George Patterson wrote:
.Blueskies. wrote:
It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...

Well, the current system already does that pretty well and the cost of
collection is a lot less than any other method anyone has managed to think of.
Maybe we ought to stick with it?


IIRC there are about $740m in taxes collected on aviation fuels
annually, of which $60m are 100LL. I think it's arguable whether that
actually covers the cost of services we consume, but we're certainly
not subsidizing other parts of the system.

As for collections, it's arguable whether a fuel tax is more
"efficient" to collect than a user fee. Fuel taxes have to be collected
from many thousands of fuel sellers. A usage fee could be computed
based on flight plans, and there are what, 5 primary computers that
process those? We have tail numbers and addresses already so sending
the bill doesn't require that much. It's so simple even Lockmar could
figure out how to do it.

The Cub-vs-747 debate is missing another detail which is traffic
management. An enroute airspace block at FL350 is worth a lot more than
one at 7000'. Piston GA also tends to use reliever and tertiary fields
with comparatively low traffic loads. So there is a sense in which the
747 places a higher burden on the system. However, much of this
argument disappears when we consider the VLJs like the Eclipse. They're
the ones that really need to worry about a cost-based accounting. That
alone could kill the personal air-taxi system, perhaps rightly so.

-cwk.


User fees for flight plans and briefings will make GA less safe. A typical pilot may choose to not file a flight plan
because of the cost and go it without a briefing. We all know where that can lead.

The fuel tax is a good system that should be kept. It is a well thought out funding mechanism. The way it feeds the
airway trust fund is right on. One of the keys is to keep the trust fund clean and don't let the rest of gov't get their
hands on it. It should be kept separate from any DHS grabs.

Maybe the aircraft registration fees need to be based on two things, maybe more. MGTOW plus a calculation for speed, and
maybe service ceiling too.