If user fees go into effect I'm done

scott moore writes:

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

At least someone understands how it works. But most people won't.

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

Judah writes:

Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

In what ways?

Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
Charter.

Maybe. Why do you keep mentioning "threats"? Are pilots dangerous people?
Does the population have to be protected from aviation?

Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
probably can handle the difference.

That same argument can be used against any pilot of any aircraft.

I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
illusions I may have had.

The United States doesn't necessarily ape Europe in every respect, but it is
true that anything that leads towards increased costs is difficult to avoid.

In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
alone.

That's why, in many matters concerning general aviation, it's better to play
down publicity rather than seek it out. You never know which way the opinion
of the general public might go, and you can't afford to have it go against
you.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.

Pilots are outsiders in the eyes of the average Joe. Which means that if
someone proposes taxing them but not "normal Americans," he'll almost
certainly get his way.

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

Mxsmanic,

p

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

scott moore writes:

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 has also given you GPS, LORAN, VORs, and ILS, along with
thousands of free or dirt-cheap sources of data.

Don't confuse the individual failings of organizations (private or public)
with the general advisability of public or private ownership or operation.

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

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:


What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.


I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

Man you are clueless.

Matt

Thomas Borchert writes:

When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.

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

Judah wrote:
In today's world, an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system could replace
the briefers, and you could still call for weather from your car. Instead
of talking to a briefer, you could dial or talk to the voice response
system and get appropriate responses.

Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
..


The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what the
people want?

No, it is not.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


p

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?



When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.


Freedom of speach is misunderstood my most Americans, just like most
misunderstand the presumption of innocence for a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.


There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.