Dumb, off topic and political

wrote:
Scott Moore wrote:

Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?


I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

Granted, money is money is money, but this doesn't seem to me like
cause for yelling "Freedom!" and drawing swords. More importantly, I'm
concerned that unflinching opposition to change isn't exactly the best
position for our interests. Yes, GA represents a lot of individuals and
thus votes, but the larger corporate and especially airline interests
swing a much bigger... You get the idea.

Ultimately funding reform is the start of broader FAA reform, and
that's the fight we need to be ready for.

-cwk.


This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.

Rant off.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
news
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

In the United States, this would be ON TOP OF the taxes we already pay on
avgas. Well, where is THAT money going? And where will THIS money go
when, on top of the annual assessment, they decide that one should pull
out the MasterCard for a weather briefing?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.

Mike
MU-21



Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.


Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?

Scott Moore wrote:
wrote:

Scott Moore wrote:


Ok, I admit to making all three of these mistakes, but:

On "meet the press" one of the guests suggested that
Senator McCain was considered the most likely candidate
for Republican Nominee for 2008.

Would McCain, the presdent be able to carry out his
"final solution" of user fees for general aviation that
Senator McCain could not ?


I'm still not convinced that this would be such an awful thing for us.
As I understand, in Canada aircraft under a certain weight (say
12.5k#?) pay an annual assessment rather than a per-flight charge. IIRC
it's like $120/year for a 172-class plane.

Granted, money is money is money, but this doesn't seem to me like
cause for yelling "Freedom!" and drawing swords. More importantly, I'm
concerned that unflinching opposition to change isn't exactly the best
position for our interests. Yes, GA represents a lot of individuals and
thus votes, but the larger corporate and especially airline interests
swing a much bigger... You get the idea.

Ultimately funding reform is the start of broader FAA reform, and
that's the fight we need to be ready for.

-cwk.



This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.

Rant off.


Oh yea, and FSS should have been shot in the head, not privatized.

In short, Scott's FAA cost savings plan (TM):

1. Close the FSS. Now.

2. Close and lock all of the non-b/c, and probally most of D class
towers.

3. FIRE whoever is running TIS, FIS and ADS-B, then hire a contractor
who will get the project moving.

4. (related to 3) STOP STOP STOP STOP (STOP!) selling Nexrad data to ANYONE.
This is SO damm shortsighted that I cannot believe it. The pennies that
Nexrad is making the government compared to the expense of the system,
and the expense of having FSS and controllers pass on weather data to
its ultimate users is criminal. Nexrad was paid for by the damm taxpayers
and should be passed out free to airplanes in any form they can handle it,
including FIS, Garmin, XM satellite, etc. The resulting revolution in
ability to access weather data inflight would render FSS unecessary,
greatly reduce the burden on controllers, and greatly increase flight
safety.

5. Broadcast NOAA plate and map changes via FIS, and the same type of
system that broadcasts WAAS (if not the same system), INCLUDING TFRS
THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH. At one stroke, this would dramatically
increase safety, TFR compliance, reduce controller workload (since
we would all be working on the same, ontime data), and reduce user
costs. The data card update cycle could be reduced, probally dramatically,
down to every 3 months or less, at the same time the entire system would
be realtime for a change.

5. Broadcast TWAS updates via FIS. This would make even temporary
restrictions, such as cranes, etc., work in the system. Again, this
would result in increased safety and reduced controller workload.

6. Require ADS-B. Everwhere, for every vehicle operating greater than
1000' AGL. The damm system won't work if only some people have it.
Stunningly, the FAA AND THE AOPA still are clueless to that fact.
The universal requirement will drive down the prices, provided
that the FAA has as little as possible with delivering the actual
units themselves. Leave that to free market companies.
Yes, I realize that many pilots will scream bloody murder for being
required to equip their airplanes with ADS-B, but ADS-B takes us
to a fully electronic system that allows us to get rid of the most
expensive part of the traffic control system, the CONTROLLER, and
will save us from all the user fee nonsense, while at the same time,
dramatically increasing user safety. AGAIN, THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK
UNLESS EVERYONE HAS IT.

7. Re-unify the working basis for ADS-B under ONE transmition standard.
FIRE the IDIOT who decided that airlines and light airplanes should
work on different standards, then hire him/her and FIRE 'em again.
Having light airplanes and airlines work on DIFFERENT standards
ranks up there with the Magiot line with stunning stupidity. Oh yes,
the FAA envisons that the FAA centers will tie the two systems together.
What a lovely idea. Your collision data with with respect to several
tons of aluminum is going to be routed through the "oh so reliable"
FAA computers and controllers, and of course completey absent outside
radar control areas.

Oh, and one bonus rant: HIRE AN FAA ADMINISTRATOR WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS
SOMETHING ABOUT AVIATION, NOT GIVE IT AWAY AS A POLITICAL PAYBACK.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

The tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr.


Nonsense. That is lumping us together with airlines and buiness craft.



Who are "us"? Are business aircraft not GA? How much avgas is sold to
non-GA aircraft?



No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT share
interest with the bizjet crowd.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't
share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet
types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT
share
interest with the bizjet crowd.


So presumably the avgas crowd is "us" then?

I don't understand your response to Mike Rapoport's message. He said; "the
tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr." You responded; "Nonsense. That is lumping us
together with airlines and buiness craft." It appears to be just the
opposite.

"Peter" wrote in message
...

We have a similar debate running here in the UK.

The outfit that runs privatised ATC (NATS) reckons they spend some
millions providing ATS services outside CAS, and they want to charge
GA for it.

There is a lot of resistance, unsuprisingly since GA in the UK is very
small and is in a poor financial state. Also there is no obligation to
use any service when OCAS. To top it, when one asks for a service, it
is often not provided, or the one that is provided is Flight Info
which is of almost zero value (no radar). Occassionally one can get
radar, but much of the time it is refused. If NATS charged for ATS
OCAS, they would then (it has been argued) be contractually bound to
provide it, and they really hate that prospect.

So the cost of provision ATS OCAS falls onto the airlines, and they
don't like it (even though it is only a few million, about 1% of
British Airways profit).

Recently, a proposal for en route charges was abandoned. There was
going to be a VFR and IFR charge, possibly. Currently only IFR over
2000kg MTOW pays, and that remains. The only way to collect or enforce
a VFR flying charge would be an annual/quarterly lump sum.

A lot of people thought Mode S (mandatory for IFR 2007, VFR 2009) will
be used to spy on people for collecting en-route charges - but the
required radar coverage doesn't exist by a very long way.

It's all a bit silly since one can fly VFR anytime except at night, so
2000kg+ private operators can fly OCAS (even non-radio), or VFR
anywhere if at all possible, to avoid paying. In Class G nobody cares
what you do so you can be in IMC (which is always IFR) but if you
don't tell anybody nobody will know - just as long as you can land
"VFR". Not a good safety incentive...

One UK CAA proposal was to stick the VFR (or sub-2000kg IFR) en route
charge on the annual Radio License fee.


That doesn't seem all that similar. In the US FSS primarily provides
weather briefings, updates, and relays some ATC communications. Things that
are either available now from private companies or could easily be
automated.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

No, guys flying Cessna jets and turbine powered airplanes are not us. AOPA
believes that keeping these two groups together, light airplanes and heavy
business operators is the way to keep GA togther. But 172s and CJs don't
share
ANY concerns with each other. I have argued about this with the bisjet
types,
they want BIGGER BETTER control towers, and more involvement for the FAA
in the traffic system, not less. We, the 172 to Bonanza drivers do NOT
share
interest with the bizjet crowd.



So presumably the avgas crowd is "us" then?

I don't understand your response to Mike Rapoport's message. He said; "the
tax on avgas only raises ~$60 million per year according to AOPA. It
doesn't begin to pay for the services that GA uses. Flight Service alone
costs about 600MM/yr." You responded; "Nonsense. That is lumping us
together with airlines and buiness craft." It appears to be just the
opposite.



Are you saying that the cost above for flight services separates out airlines?

I don't think it does.

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

This is supposed to be "taking the controller services private". But note
that in any other case where a monopoly without any user choice exists
the service goes downhill and stays mired in the technology of the day.

If we are going to be charged to use the system, then we need to be able
to op out of it, yes, opt out.

If, for example, the controllers start charging landing and takeoff, as
is the practice in many other countries, then the next obvious step is
to close many towers that exist in airports. We don't ultimately need
them, and I, for one, don't feel like paying for them.

Next, if the FAA is going to charge for IFR services, then ultimately
I want do it yourself IFR. With ADS-B, TWAS and other services, going
IFR without a controller can be no more dangerous than driving in
fog (perhaps less so).

People are expensive. If the FAA is telling us they can't afford
controllers,
then let us opt out of the system. Controllers in their present state
pander disproportionately to the airline industry, which can afford to pay
for them. We fly, for the most part, in a separate world that does not
need the same kind of services, and we can and should get a divorce in
the long run. Then the airlines can stop blaming us for their problems.


One frequently hears the claim that GA is not paying it's fair share. But
what is GA's fair share? I'd submit it is the cost of those things that
would be shut down if GA ceased to exist. FSS is certainly in that
category, and fine by me, I haven't used FSS in years. How many ARTCCs and
TRACONs would be closed? I'd say that answer is very close to zero. What
about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that the cost above for flight services separates out
airlines?

I don't think it does.


What portion of FSS services is provided to the airlines? How much of the
avgas tax is paid by airlines?