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 ?

In article >,
Scott Moore > wrote:

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

Possibly, but I would think it wouldn't be high on the priority list.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

>Bob Noel
>no one likes an educated mule

Speaking of OT and political, your sig wouldn't be a veiled comment on
someone in the White House, would it? (:-))

vince norris

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> >Bob Noel
> >no one likes an educated mule
>
> Speaking of OT and political, your sig wouldn't be a veiled comment on
> someone in the White House, would it? (:-))

nope.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

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.

> 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.

On 28 Aug 2005 17:52:13 -0700, 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.

We had that in the U.S. for a while during the 1970's. As I recall, a
172-class aircraft paid about $25/year in airspace use taxes, with a
weight-based component above about 2500 pounds GTW. The tax was
dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
than it generated in revenues.

RK Henry

> The tax was
> dropped because it was determined that the tax cost more to collect
> than it generated in revenues.

This actually happened?

For real?

Heisenberg was right - anything can happen when you're not looking!

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.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> 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

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> 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.
>

I'm all for eliminating FSS to save money.

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
> . ..
>
>>>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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
> .... What=20
> about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?=20
>

Unrepresentative though it may be, within 20 miles of me, it's 2 of 4.

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>>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.
>

Airlines and most turbine business aviation don't use FSS. FSS serves only
GA.

Mike
MU-2

Scott Moore wrote:

>
> > 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.

You are correct. AOPA = light aircraft G/A

NBAA = turbine business operations

NBAA understands the distinction far better than does the FAA. The FAA actually
does understand it but it (the FAA senior management) is totally dominated by the
air carriers who strongly resist any distinction between a Cessna 182 and a Cessna
Citation X.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

>
>
> Airlines and most turbine business aviation don't use FSS. FSS serves only
> GA.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Correct. The only places turbine operations use FSS is where the FAA forces
them to because the FSS is the only RCO to obtain an IFR clearance on the ground
or close an IFR flight plan on arrival. Those RCOs could easily be reconfigured
to the controlling ARTCC.

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> > .... What
> > about control towers? How many serve strictly GA airports?
> >
>
> Unrepresentative though it may be, within 20 miles of me, it's 2 of 4.

Within 60 miles of my residence in SoCal there have to be some 10 Class D airports that have zero Part 121 operations.

I agree with virtually every point you make. And, sorry to say (given
my track record), that means none of them stand a chance of actually
happening.

A short story about business vs. private light aviation.

There is a local airport (fairly local) which fits the classic
definition of a California uncontrolled airport. It is ex-military,
from the many military airfields that were created to counter
the threat of invasion from Japan. These left over fields are
one of the reasons why California is (ahem) the greatest state
in the Union for aviation.

Its a large field, out in farmland. It has a varied number of
users, from light planes, to sailplanes, to ultralights. Because
it is ex-military, it has long runways, and can be used to land
jets easily. That, combined with low real estate prices, led to
several FBOs established on the field.

Its traffic patterns are typical. Almost dead during the week,
active on the weekends, but still fairly light traffic, perhaps
5-10 landings per hour. Even on the weekend, it is common to
approach and land without having another aircraft in the pattern.

The business FBO owner and I have had a few conversations. This
comes from their having air conditioning, fueling, and the best
coke machine.

The FBO owner is on a tear to get a tower on the field. I have
listened to him go on about it more than once. Its not really
a debate, since he is of the opinion that controlled fields
are "right", every field should be controlled.

The primary reason he seems to want a tower for a field that
does not have the traffic to justify it is that he sees his
future as a cross country stop for large business aircraft,
including jets.

Now I'm sure in his mind, he has a point about how the field
should be run. I'm betting that many on the field don't agree,
especially the sailplane and ultralight folks. I told him
what I thought, which interested him because he didn't
understand how anyone could be against having a control
tower (I'm guessing he has not had extensive conversations
with others on the field). In any case, its not my home
field, and I don't know how its going in his efforts to
get the field towered.

The point here is that yes, business operators and private/GA
operators are different, and we want different things.
The AOPA "unified" us, I suspect to gain lobby power, and
that's great. However, it also occasionally results in an
AOPA that isn't totally on the side of the private/GA
pilot.

I suspect that the EAA is more like our true avocation group.
Certainly, the intersection of interests in the EAA and AOPA
represent me, which is to say a light airplane owner and
weekend flyer.

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

Closing all of the non-Class B/C towers would mean closing all of the Class
D towers.


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

What's TIS? What is FIS within the FAA?


>
> 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.
>

NEXRAD is a NWS system, not FAA. I've never seen NEXRAD products in an ATC
facility so I don't see how controllers can pass on weather data to its
"ultimate users".


>
> 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.
>

What is this FIS that that you'd broadcast NOAA plate and map changes over?


>
> 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.
>

What is TWAS?


>
> 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.
>

How are you going to get it to work in non-electrical aircraft? Or are you
just going to ban them above 1000' AGL?


>
> 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.
>

How does ADS-B sequence traffic?

I don't get the connection between business aviation, other GA and one FBO
operator who *thinks* the business would pick up if there were a tower.
Have you asked him exactly what "large business aircraft" stop for fuel in
CA on long distance flights? I can't think of a reason except, perhaps
someone flying from Hawaii to the East Coast. There is only one way to get
meaningfully more fuel sales from cross country traffic that otherwise would
not stop at the airport...lower the price and be under the great circle
route of the airplane.

Mike
MU-2

"Scott Moore" > wrote in message
...
>A short story about business vs. private light aviation.
>
> There is a local airport (fairly local) which fits the classic
> definition of a California uncontrolled airport. It is ex-military,
> from the many military airfields that were created to counter
> the threat of invasion from Japan. These left over fields are
> one of the reasons why California is (ahem) the greatest state
> in the Union for aviation.
>
> Its a large field, out in farmland. It has a varied number of
> users, from light planes, to sailplanes, to ultralights. Because
> it is ex-military, it has long runways, and can be used to land
> jets easily. That, combined with low real estate prices, led to
> several FBOs established on the field.
>
> Its traffic patterns are typical. Almost dead during the week,
> active on the weekends, but still fairly light traffic, perhaps
> 5-10 landings per hour. Even on the weekend, it is common to
> approach and land without having another aircraft in the pattern.
>
> The business FBO owner and I have had a few conversations. This
> comes from their having air conditioning, fueling, and the best
> coke machine.
>
> The FBO owner is on a tear to get a tower on the field. I have
> listened to him go on about it more than once. Its not really
> a debate, since he is of the opinion that controlled fields
> are "right", every field should be controlled.
>
> The primary reason he seems to want a tower for a field that
> does not have the traffic to justify it is that he sees his
> future as a cross country stop for large business aircraft,
> including jets.
>
> Now I'm sure in his mind, he has a point about how the field
> should be run. I'm betting that many on the field don't agree,
> especially the sailplane and ultralight folks. I told him
> what I thought, which interested him because he didn't
> understand how anyone could be against having a control
> tower (I'm guessing he has not had extensive conversations
> with others on the field). In any case, its not my home
> field, and I don't know how its going in his efforts to
> get the field towered.
>
> The point here is that yes, business operators and private/GA
> operators are different, and we want different things.
> The AOPA "unified" us, I suspect to gain lobby power, and
> that's great. However, it also occasionally results in an
> AOPA that isn't totally on the side of the private/GA
> pilot.
>
> I suspect that the EAA is more like our true avocation group.
> Certainly, the intersection of interests in the EAA and AOPA
> represent me, which is to say a light airplane owner and
> weekend flyer.
>