In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

But the AOPA continues to simultaneously argue that (1) GA uses very
little of the FAA infrastructure and (2) user fees for GA would adversely
harm recreational pilots interests. How can both be true???

I am only home schooled, so these nuances escape me.... ;-)


The fun part is that a subsquent AOPA article


Simple: Most of the airways system is designed for airline/military use;
GA is an incidental user and is required to use the services in some
airspace (Class B & Class C), even though the service adds little
benefit to GA operations.

User fees for those services would be a bit like charging "Skyloon" the
full charges for using a waterway or harbor that was dredged for
supertankers whenever he takes his boat (yacht?) out for a cruise.

The experience of GA in other countries (Canada, Germany, Australia, New
Zealand, the UK) has been far less than positive, as the bureaucracies
there have taken it upon themselves to charge for every radio callup, to
charge landing fees and to require a tower at any field that has flight
training.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.