If user fees go into effect I'm done

"B A R R Y" wrote in message t...
: Steve Foley wrote:
: I won't call for flight
: following, and I'll avoid airports with towers.
:
: I wonder what it'll be like for ATC if all of the VFR aircraft that
: currently use flight following become 1200 blips on the radar?



A whole new meaning to the word "targets!"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
: On 9 Feb 2007 19:02:51 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan"
: wrote in . com:
:
: I don't like user fees either, but in the grand scheme of things a
: $300 medical is not going to stop anyone from flying.
:
: Have you considered the cost of payback for the expense of the years
: of development, implementation, and testing of the new ATC system all
: occurring while the current ATC system must continue to operate?
: There's little wonder the corporations want wrest fiscal oversight
: from congress to fund their new revenue stream.
:

"Chris" wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that.

I haven't used Flight Watch in 3-4 years, since I got XM Wx in my airplane.
So it is automated that way. However, if that equipment breaks.....

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html
It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roy Smith wrote in
:

With DUATS, I know how to ask for exactly what I want, and how to filter
it. With a human briefer, I have to rely on the judgement of somebody
I've never met to pick and choose, and sometimes I have to play 20
questions with him. I'll take the computer any day.

Why briefers think I care about an unlit crane 240 feet AGL 4 miles from
the runway, on a day VFR flight, I have no idea.

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. A small amount of additional
categorization of things like NOTAMS would also improve this issue and
wouldn't really take much.

For example, if they know my aircraft type is a BE35/R and I'm planned for
7000', why do they give me NOTAMS about STARs and DPs that are only
authorized for Jets or for flights planned for FL180 or higher? The answer,
obviously, is that these criteria are listed as "notes" printed on the
page, instead of in fields in the system. If they were fields in the
system, NOTAMs could be filtered better automatically, and the human factor
in weather briefing would be less critical...

But if they password protect it, I won't do it.
"Big Boy." "BIG BOY!"

Ps. While I am offending everyone, if user fees begin, a good
start would be to close down the FSS system COMPLETELY, and fire all
of the employees.

Whoo-wee, Scott -- and I thought *I* was the "King of Anti-Government
Rants" here.

You've really stepped in it now.

;-)

(And you are right on, BTW. Between my home PC, my office PC, and my
Garmin 496, I've got 500-times more -- and better -- weather at my
fingertips than any FSS briefer had until just a few years ago.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Chris writes:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

Europe has always been a leader in bureaucracy and overregulation, aided by a
complacent population that has never known greater freedoms and is unaware of
their existence.

I wonder why weight enters into the calculation. Do controllers carry the
aircraft on their backs from waypoint to waypoint? And since air traffic
control is already (or should be) a service of the state, why is tax added to
the final amount?

And why should people download an unverified application and run it on their
own computers? How do they know that this executable can be trusted? What's
wrong with a Web page that does the same calculation?

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

scott moore writes:

Ie., if you want to move to a model of charging
us to use a controller, we will want to move to a model without
controllers.

Unfortunately, just because you don't have controllers doesn't mean that you
cannot be charged fees.

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

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

About the only function of FSS that I use on a regular basis is flight
watch. I don't see any way to automate that. But, it certainly could be
centralized. I'm already talking to a person 100s of miles away; what
difference does it make where he's sitting? And what difference does it
make if he's sitting at a radio console in a building that says "FSS" on
the door or one that says "ATC" on the door?


Even in-flight weather is now available from sources other than FSS.