User Fees are coming closer to being very real

On 2006-03-07, Jay Honeck wrote:
Despite the more liberal US flight environment regarding safety
regulation, GA in the United States has a better safety record. (Trying
to get the CAA to accept this is an impossibility of course).

Wow -- that's an amazing little tid-bit.

What's your take on that, Dylan? What's going on here?

More regulation does not equate to more safety - when you get beyond a
certain point in GA regulation, more regulation tends to have the
unintended consequence of making things *less* safe. More regulation
tends to make things more expensive. So instead of, say, fitting a
second AI in your plane, you don't because of the stupendous amount of
paperwork you'd have to fill out (and pay handsomely for). Or instead of
replacing an old component, a bunch of pointless paperwork has used up
that money so you have to soldier on with a lashed-up repair instead.
The FAA does the same thing, the CAA is worse.

The good news is that EASA (the new EU-wide authority) is making
encouraging noises like saying "we need to reduce regulatory burden" and
"we need GA to be more vibrant", so hopefully they will kick the CAA
into touch (the CAA's nickname in these parts is the Campaign Against
Aviation).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-03-07, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:38:46 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
H1gPf.116115$QW2.31983@dukeread08::

Rich people fly, so make them pay is the war cry of the user
fee faction.

Actually, the Reason Foundation, who have been the most vocal
proponent for converting Air Traffic Control to becoming a Profit
Based Organization, originally proposed to exempt light-GA.

Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
excluded.

Of course the airlines want this changed. They whine how they are
essentially cross-subsidising LARS (lower airspace radar service),
commonly used by GA (think flight following, except we call it RIS -
Radar Information Service, or RAS when the vis is bad, Radar Advisory
Service). Of course, they conveniently omit that LARS is run by the
military who would have to run LARS whether GA existed or not! (And they
conveniently forget that ATC is almost entirely for the airlines benefit
- the rest of us could quite happily survive if all the ATC in the
country was abolished).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:00:13 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
::

(And they conveniently forget that ATC is almost entirely for the
airlines benefit - the rest of us could quite happily survive if
all the ATC in the country was abolished).

Survive perhaps, but IMC operations and separation would suffer. :-)

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:00:13 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
::

Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
excluded.

I wonder if that is also true in Canada and Australia, and other
fee-based ATC countries.

In article ,
says...

Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
excluded.

I wonder if that is also true in Canada and Australia, and other
fee-based ATC countries.


In most of Europe, even "light GA" has to pay user fees if an IFR flight
plan is filed and flown. No fees for VFR and information services. Many
(by no means all) airfields have landing fees. In France, these tend to
be in the 8 - 12 EUR range for a 182 (2 Ton) aircraft. In Italy they can
be ridiculously low (I have seen fees of under a dollar - though
admittedly not recently - they are trying to bring them in line with
other countries). Add $10 to the total cost of your trip, and is that
really going to make you cancel out and sell your plane?

GF

On 2006-03-07, Larry Dighera wrote:
Survive perhaps, but IMC operations and separation would suffer. :-)

IMC flying in class G airspace is _routine_ here...

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

The good news is that EASA (the new EU-wide authority) is making
encouraging noises like saying "we need to reduce regulatory burden" and
"we need GA to be more vibrant", so hopefully they will kick the CAA
into touch (the CAA's nickname in these parts is the Campaign Against
Aviation).

Glad to hear that change may be on the horizon. Good luck with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"