If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Except that there are no present conversions that deal with ethanol.
mike "scott moore" wrote in message . .. Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions. Which will increase the pressure for user fees. And on and on and on. Scott |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program was for the C-135. The tanker came later. The KC-135A preceded the C-135A by four years. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote in
: I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity; general aviation is not. Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. The only difference is that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers who drive privately. But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for United to a hangar. More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of interest. So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories... |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Judah writes:
Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. No, it's not even remotely close to that. The only difference is that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers who drive privately. That difference is huge: there are about 400 licensed drivers for every licensed pilot, and while licensed drivers tend to drive fairly regularly, licensed pilots do not (it's just too expensive, usually). In fact, private pilots spend more time in a car driving to and from the airfield than they spend in the air, in many cases. Many people drive cars because they have to. They can't hold a job without a car. It's hard to find any situations in which this is true for general aviation and private pilots. But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for United to a hangar. A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no longer serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them. More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of interest. Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small aircraft are only used because current regulations require it, but regulations can be changed. So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories... No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private pilots could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no effect at all on society at large. It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape public policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population cares nothing about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone; so if you want to persuade that population, you need a method that doesn't depend on the subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which doesn't exist for most people). Indeed, if you concentrate too much on this aspect, you may alienate the majority, and you definitely don't want to do that. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Judah writes: Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. No, it's not even remotely close to that. I think it is exactly the same, except replace the word "land" with "air". A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no longer serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them. Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial. Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small aircraft are only used because current regulations require it, but regulations can be changed. I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to learn to fly safely in a simulator? The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim without any actual flight time. This is safe? No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private pilots could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no effect at all on society at large. Your goggles are equally as colored as mine, if not moreso. It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape public policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population cares nothing about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone; so if you want to persuade that population, you need a method that doesn't depend on the subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which doesn't exist for most people). Indeed, if you concentrate too much on this aspect, you may alienate the majority, and you definitely don't want to do that. I'm not shaping public policy. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Judah writes:
Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial. Call it commercial and non-commercial, then. I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to learn to fly safely in a simulator? Fewer than the number required in a real aircraft, mainly because a simulator can simulate all sorts of things that are impractical, expensive, or truly dangerous in a real aircraft. The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim without any actual flight time. Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft. This is safe? Absolutely. And much cheaper than using real aircraft. That's why it is so attractive for training. Only regulatory barriers prevent it from being done in the U.S. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"Newps" wrote in message ... The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision in what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the current system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per passenger fees may get adjusted slightly. The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent. The Low costs airlines put less into the taxes whilst having more activity which does not make sense. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote in
: The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim without any actual flight time. Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft. You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim. Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Judah writes:
You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim. What did I misunderstand about trim? Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight. Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for piloting a supertanker. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
In rec.aviation.student Chris wrote:
The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent. Or maybe per passenger-mile? .... Alan -- Alan Gerber PP-ASEL gerber AT panix DOT com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If user fees go into effect I'm done | [email protected] | Piloting | 286 | February 20th 07 02:02 AM |
Trouble ahead over small plane fees | AJ | Piloting | 90 | April 15th 06 01:19 PM |
What will user fees do to small towered airports | Steve Foley | Piloting | 10 | March 8th 06 03:13 PM |
GA User fees | Jose | Piloting | 48 | December 24th 05 02:12 AM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |