If user fees go into effect I'm done

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.


It would seem there is another option, garner support from other
like-minded groups of voters:

ELECTORS GROUP OPPOSES USER FEES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194438)
Well you never know who your friends are, and the aviation
alphabet groups can add the League of Rural Voters to the growing
list of organizations opposed to the Bush administration's plans
for reorganizing the FAA. In a statement issued last week, League
President Neil Ritchie described GA as the "lifeline to rural
communities" and says the mix of user fees and tax increases
contained in the package will force many operators to ground their
light aircraft, reminding the government of just how useful that
fleet can be in times of trouble. "General aviation played a
crucial role in efforts to evacuate Hurricane Katrina survivors
and continues to play an important role in our preparedness for
future disasters," Ritchie noted. The group is even more irritated
about what the plans might do to airline service in the
hinterlands.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194438

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It
does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to
resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries
ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

People power.

On 2007-02-13, Chris wrote:
A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

The US constitution begins: "We the people..."

The proposed EU constitution begins: "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE
BELGIANS..."

I think that tells you all you need to know about why it was
resoundingly rejected by 'we the people', despite the good bits (yes,
the EU constitution actually has some good bits).

In principle, I think that the EU is a good idea.
I like the idea of free movement of *PEOPLE* and goods. I like the fact
that I can move to, say, the Czech republic and work there with no
restrictions. However, the other political baggage of the EU is not so
welcome. While I would in principle like to see European countries be in
a close alliance, I strongly object to the way the EU is run now - it's
an undemocratic, unaccountable bureaucrat's gravy train. The
constitution starting with "His Majesty the King of the Belgians" just
goes on to rub this in - the EU is not being run by the people for the
people, it's just a bureaucrat's charter.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2007-02-12, Sam Spade wrote:
Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

Of course it isn't because it affects *them*. People are quite willing
to tell other people how to behave and telling other people to pay extra
money, but they aren't so keen when it happens to *them*.

For instance, witness the flap about commercial air travel and global
warming in Britain. The British government and press are banging on
almost non-stop about how terrible commercial air travel is on the
environment - and the government indeed increased taxes on commercial
air travel as a "green tax". It's nothing of the sort though.

Commercial air travel is responsible for something like 8% of the UK's
CO2 emissions. Domestic use is responsible for 30% of the UK's CO2
emissions. Completely *banning* commercial air travel will have less of
an effect (especially considering the travel will still have to happen
somehow, and will just move to some other form of transport) than simply
reducing domestic use of energy by half.

So why is the government targeting commercial air travel with such
vigour, but not going after domestic use, when even a complete ban on
commercial air travel will have less than half of the CO2 reduction of
reducing domestic energy use by half?

Because that way, people don't have to do anything. They feel good
because big, evil airline are being attacked - yet they aren't prepared
to do their own bit which would have demonstrably a far larger effect.
When it comes to the reduction of energy usage, everyone wants *other*
people to reduce their energy usage.

So in effect, the new 'green tax' imposed on airlines recently is
nothing of the sort - it's just more revenue for the government pot
(because it won't reduce air travel, and even if it did, the effect
would be too small to measure).

As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:


As far as the FAA et al. - they exist solely for the benefit of
airlines. GA would continue just fine (probably better, in fact) if the
FAA and all its services disappeared tomorrow. The airlines would be
paralyzed. Since the FAA exists solely for the benefit of airlines, then
the airlines can pay for the FAA.


A bit over the top. Nonetheless, you are about 90% on target!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:13:54 -0000, "Chris"
wrote in :


A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

People power.


It would appear that US Airmen have an opportunity to address their
questions and recommendations on the subject of the proposed Next
Generation Air Transportation System:


NEXT-GENERATION ATC SYMPOSIUM SET
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194461)
The RTCA will host a two-day symposium on the Next Generation Air
Transportation System and how its evolution will be integrated
into everyday flight operations next month in Washington, D.C. The
symposium -- "Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP): The Bridge
to NextGen," -- is scheduled for March 13 and 14 in the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Center in downtown D.C.
The event is designed to bring together officials from the FAA,
DOD, private industry, airlines, the European Air Traffic Alliance
and other members of the aviation community to examine the
restructured Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and the
OEP's inter-relationship with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). The symposium will focus on
operational concepts, requirements, policies and procedures, not
on labor and cost issues. The RTCA, formerly the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics, is a private, not-for-profit
corporation functioning as a Federal Advisory Committee for the
FAA.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194461


The symposium schedule is available he
http://www.rtca.org/symposium/symposium2007.asp

Cost of registration is ~$500.00.

To enhance the value of the Symposium, each attendee is asked to
identify THE most important question or issue on which he or she
would like community senior executives to comment. The question
form is included as part of your registration. These questions
will provide the basis for the March 14th senior executive panel
discussion.

It seems that AOPA president Phil Boyer will be moderator of that hour
and a half session. Perhaps we could submit our questions to him for
consideration by the panelists.

Personally, I'd like to know:

1. what measures are being planned to insure solar disturbances
will not render the proposed satellite based system inoperable?

2. How will Mode S spoofing be prevented?

3. What new equipment will likely be imposed on GA airspace users
as a result of NextGen implementation?

4. Will the 'broken' Military Training Route policy be addressed.

5. What personnel will be employed to man the NextGen system
while it is running in parallel with the currently understaffed
ATC system?

6. Why must congressional oversight of FAA expenditures be
relinquished for NextGen to be implemented?

7. What is the current strategy for integrating UAV technology
into the NextGen plan?

8. What will be the plight of Certified NORDO aircraft in the
NextGen system?

....

The answers may be contained in these documents:
http://www.rtca.org/downloads/Listof...EB_dec2006.htm
but who can afford the cost to purchase the documents in order to do
the research?



http://www.rtca.org/
RTCA, Inc.

RTCA, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops
consensus-based recommendations regarding communications,
navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM)
system issues. RTCA functions as a Federal Advisory Committee. Its
recommendations are used by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) as the basis for policy, program, and regulatory decisions
and by the private sector as the basis for development, investment
and other business decisions.

Organized in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics, RTCA today includes roughly 335 government, industry
and academic organizations from the United States and around the
world. Member organizations represent all facets of the aviation
community, including government organizations, airlines, airspace
users and airport associations, labor unions, plus aviation
service and equipment suppliers. A sampling of our domestic
membership includes the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Line
Pilots Association, Air Transport Association of America, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, ARINC Incorporated, Avwrite, The
Boeing Company, Department of Defense, GARMIN International,
Rockwell International, Stanford University, Lockheed Martin, MIT
Lincoln Laboratory, MITRE/CAASD, Harris Corporation, NASA,
National Business Aviation Association, and Raytheon.

Because RTCA interests are international in scope, many non-U.S.
government and business organizations also belong to RTCA. We
currently are supported by over 100 International Associates such
as Airservices Australia, Airways Corporation of New Zealand,
Airbus, the Chinese Aeronautical Radio Electronics Research
Institute (CARERI), EUROCONTROL, NAV Canada, Bombardier Aerospace,
Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies, Thales Avionics Limited,
Centre for Airborne Systems-Bangalore, the United Kingdom Civil
Aviation Authority and many more.

RTCA has proven to be an excellent means for developing government
/ industry consensus on contemporary CNS/ATM issues.


Task Forces
Occasionally, RTCA is asked by the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to develop industry consensus on a broad
gauged strategic issue. Examples of completed Task Force issues
include Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Transition and
Implementation Strategy, Transition to Digital Communications,
Free Flight Implementation and Certification.


Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee
The Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee's (ATMAC) purpose is
to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with
consensus-based, recommended investment priorities that will
improve the safety, capacity and/or efficiency of the United
States air transportation system.

Public and private sector operational requirements, coupled with
the current and expected availability of public and private sector
funding, are the fundamental criteria upon which ATMAC
deliberations and recommendations are based. International
interoperability is also a major consideration. System life cycle
costs development, acquisition, facility and equipment
modification, training, operation and maintenance and removal from
service serve as the basis for the economic aspects of the
committee's deliberations.

The timing and inter-relationship of government and industry
actions are considered while developing recommendations.


Program Management Committee
Our most frequent requests are for RTCA to establish a new,
special committee to recommend Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) or appropriate technical guidance documents. MOPS
are developed by RTCA and become the basis for certification. When
these requests are received, RTCA's Program Management Committee
(PMC) discusses the topic and, based on consensus, initiates
Special Committee action.


Special Committees
Essentially all RTCA products are developed by issue-oriented
Special Committees staffed by volunteers. As with all Federal
Advisory Committee activities, Special Committee meetings are
publicly announced and open to participation by anyone with an
interest in the topic under consideration. During Special
Committee meetings, volunteers from government and industry
explore the operational and technical ramifications of the
selected topic and develop consensus-based recommendations. These
recommendations are then presented to the RTCA Program Management
Committee, which either approves the Special Committee report or
directs additional Special Committee work. Approved
recommendations are published and made available for sale to
members and to the public.

Easy access to updates on committee activities and related
subjects is available on the RTCA web site and in the Digest,
which is published every two months.

Through the years, RTCA has received several awards for its
service to the aviation community. The organization was awarded
the 1949 Collier Trophy for "A guide plan for the development of a
system of air navigation and traffic control for safe and
unlimited aircraft operations under all weather conditions."
Additionally, in 1994, the FAA named RTCA, Inc. as the U.S.
recipient of the ICAO 50th anniversary Medal of Honour. This
unique recognition identified RTCA as the single most important
U.S. contributor organization to the advancement and support of
civil aviation since the creation of ICAO by the Chicago
Convention in 1944.

RTCA, Inc.
1828 L Street, NW
Suite 805
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-833-9339
Fax: 202-833-9434

In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.

Ron Lee

You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
considering the hours and hard use they have endured.

Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
sheet design.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message . net...
: You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
: the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
: considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
:
: Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
: airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
: be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
: sheet design.
:
:

The 777 is being considered now...

Blueskies wrote:
"Viperdoc" wrote in message . net...
: You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
: the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
: considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
:
: Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
: airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
: be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
: sheet design.
:
:

The 777 is being considered now...


Which is a much, much better airframe and systems platform than the 767.