Pilot's Political Orientation

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Am I? The last figures I saw had user fees covering about 85% of these

costs. Am I wrong?

Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.

wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Am I? The last figures I saw had user fees covering about 85% of these


costs. Am I wrong?


Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
etc., etc.

In article , wrote:

But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported
by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight
inspections,
etc., etc.

All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:

But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported
by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight
inspections,
etc., etc.

All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't necessarily
true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general aviation
airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many, many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.

wrote in message ...

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
necessarily true where an approach control serves what is
primarily a general aviation airport.


What's a primarily general aviation airport? One where the majority of the
traffic is general aviation? Yup, there are plenty of airports with
approach control facilities that have more general aviation traffic than air
carrier traffic, but there aren't very many that would have approach control
facilities if the airlines weren't there.



And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is
many, many more instrument approach procedures than those
established for airports with mostly, or some, commercial
operations.


Yup. But a lot of those airports that have no commercial traffic today are
airports that formerly had commercial traffic and exist only because they
were built for the purpose of commercial traffic.

In article , wrote:


All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
necessarily
true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general
aviation
airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many,
many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports
with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.


How many? have you counted them?

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:


All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
necessarily
true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general
aviation
airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many,
many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports
with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.


How many? have you counted them?

--
Bob Noel

All you have to do is flip through the NACO books and it becomes quite
apparent. The facts are self-evident. If you want a precise count, I'll let
you do that.

The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
infrequent Part 135 arrival.

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:


The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt


Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
etc., etc.



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt

If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?