Comments on FAA NPRM urgently needed

[[email protected]]

As you are probably aware, the FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed
Rules Making seeking to make the temporary ADIZ around Washington, DC
permanent. This action is so dangerous that AOPA has sent out a rare
National Pilot Alert to all members, asking us to submit comments
before the Nov 2 deadline, opposing the NPRM, with copies to our
Congressional representatives and a copy to so they can
monitor the flow. I imagine many of you have or are planning to send
the FAA such comments and thought you might find the following helpful.
(It took more time than I thought it would to research the numbers.
Hoping this can save you time if you find them helpful.) I also sent
the comments in the following type of email to my two Senators and my
Representative.

You can view the NPRM at

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=341297&docketid=17005

and the AOPA call to action at

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051005adiz.html

Hoping you find this helpful.

Martin
====begin letter to Congress ====
Dear ---:

I am a constituent of yours and just sent the following comment to the
FAA in response to one of their Notice of Proposed Rules Making which
is open to public comment until November 2. I am sending this copy to
you in the hope that you can take action to help prevent this major
mistake from happening. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Martin Hellman

730 Alvarado Court
Stanford, CA 94305
=== begin comment to FAA===
I am writing to strongly oppose the FAA's Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, Docket Number FAA-2004-17005, which would make the Washington,
DC ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) permanent. The current,
temporary restrictions are cumbersome, imposing a heavy burden on
pilots and air traffic controllers with little or no increase in
security for the reasons detailed below.

As background, I am a private pilot who flies approximately 200 hours
per year, with a total of over 2,200 hours logged flight time. My home
base is at Hayward, CA, approximately 15 nm from San Francisco
International airport and, if this NPRM is approved, I fear similar air
space restrictions will be proposed in the future for this area.

We all must pay a price in the fight against terrorism and I am willing
to do my part. But I am confident that if a cost-benefit analysis had
been performed, this NPRM would be seen to be an extremely poor use of
resources. If national security is viewed in a broader sense than just
preventing terrorist attacks, the unnecessary, increased burden that
this NPRM imposes on air traffic controllers may actually decrease
security by increasing the probability of mid-air and other major
aircraft disasters. As the response to the recent hurricanes shows, we
must not let terrorism blind us to other threats to our security.

It is generally accepted that the collapse of the Twin Towers was
caused by the extreme heat caused by huge quantities of burning fuel.
Each aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks had a fuel capacity of
approximately 80 tons, with energy equivalent to 800 tons of TNT since
jet-A has 10 times the energy content of TNT. Taking into account that
the 9/11 aircraft were carrying only about 40% of their maximum fuel
capacity at the time of impact, this still is comparable to the energy
in a small tactical nuclear weapon. In contrast, my plane's fuel
capacity is 200 pounds, 800 times smaller than each jet's.

While general aviation aircraft could cause damage in other ways than
by fuel induced fires, the potential damage is determined by the
payload. A large jet has a payload of approximately 60 tons. My plane
has a payload of approximately 400 pounds, 300 times smaller than a
large jet.

In summary, one would need a fleet of at least 300 planes like mine to
make a coordinated attack that has the same level of devastation as
hijacking one large jet. Such a scenario is ludicrous and helps explain
why no general aviation aircraft has ever been used in a terrorist
attack.

Attacks by truck, as in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, are much
more likely and potentially much more devastating than anything a
terrorist could do with a small general aviation aircraft. Yet we do
not see any call for each truck entering Washington, DC to wait for
permission to enter and then be in constant radio contact with a
"ground traffic controller." To compare with my earlier figures, a
tractor-trailer truck can have a payload in the vicinity of 50 tons and
carry explosives or fuel comparable a large jet. Again, it would take a
fleet of hundreds of planes comparable to mine to inflict comparable
devastation.

I hope that the FAA will reconsider the thinking that led to this
ill-advised NPRM and withdraw it. Thank you very much for considering
my comments.

[PokerGTA.com]

hmmm....

www.myaltitude.blogspot.com

[Jay Beckman]

"PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> hmmm....
>
> www.myaltitude.blogspot.com


Why "hmmm....?"

It happens to be a legitimate and very real issue.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[PokerGTA.com]

You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

How?

[Capt.Doug]

>"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message
> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

Hmm.... Do you think that ADIZ is neccessary?

What happens when all class B and C airspace is an ADIZ? Think it can't
happen?

D.

[PokerGTA.com]

Cap, we are talking about the airspace in the DC area. You are
referring to all of the airspace class B and C. A little
extreme....no?


By the way what are you Capt. of?

[Peter Duniho]

"PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Cap, we are talking about the airspace in the DC area. You are
> referring to all of the airspace class B and C. A little
> extreme....no?

Even if the only airspace affected was that currently affected, this would
be a bad rule change. Especially when one considers that Congress is
*still* waiting to hear back from the DHS and FAA with respect to their
explanation for why the ADIZ is necessary in the first place.

The ADIZ does nothing to protect DC from terrorists, but it does provide a
lot of wasteful make-work for law enforcement, as well as is a fairly
onerous trap for pilots (unwary or otherwise).

However, it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that if the FAA is
successful in making permanent the DC area ADIZ, they would be pressured to
create similar ADIZ's elsewhere. Just because the current NPRM is only
proposing to make the DC ADIZ permanent, that doesn't mean it's not relevant
to airspace elsewhere.

If you are truly interested in the finer details of the issue, there has
been MORE than ample discussion right here in this newsgroup, time and time
again. Google Groups will show you everything that anyone could post in
response to your naive question.

> By the way what are you Capt. of?

Why does it matter what he's a Captain of?

Pete

[George Patterson]

PokerGTA.com wrote:

> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

I certainly do. It should be abolished. It's not needed and it doesn't work.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[J. Severyn]

"PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Cap, we are talking about the airspace in the DC area. You are
> referring to all of the airspace class B and C. A little
> extreme....no?
>
>
> By the way what are you Capt. of?

Not extreme at all. You are too trusting of the govt bureaucracy. If the DC
area is made permanent you can bet that they will attempt to do the same
with Class B and maybe Class C. Just look at Chicago. The mayor has
repeatedly asked the govt to "protect" the area with airspace
connfigurations like D.C.

It will spread like a plague.

My 2 cents.

John Severyn
KLVK
>

[Jay Beckman]

"PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?
>
> How?

You're kidding right?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:05:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>However, it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that if the FAA is
>successful in making permanent the DC area ADIZ, they would be pressured to
>create similar ADIZ's elsewhere.

Oh, you mean like the 'permanent Temporary Flight Restriction over
Disneyland that does nothing to enhance security:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/TFR.cfm?list=all
3/2123 - FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ANAHEIM, CA. EFFECTIVE 0303182000
UTC (MARCH 18 AT 1200 LOCAL) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO
RESTRICTIONS DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7, AND 14
CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. AIRCRAFT FLIGHT
OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL, WITHIN A 3
NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF THE DISNEYLAND THEME PARK
(334805N/1175517W OR THE SEAL BEACH /SLI/ 067 DEGREE RADIAL AT 6.7
NAUTICAL MILES. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO (A) THOSE
AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES,
INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING
STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT
WITH ATC. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY APPLY
FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES
OF THE VENUE INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT OR
OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY; (B) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY
PURPOSES OF THE VENUE. INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT
HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER, OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322. 18
MAR 20:00 UNTIL UFN

Locate on Map Printable WAC/Sectional Printable GNC [No Labels]

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, you mean like the 'permanent Temporary Flight Restriction over
> Disneyland that does nothing to enhance security: [...]

No, of course not. And I also don't mean like the new Prohibited Area that
was placed over the Bangor Navy sub base here in Washington State. Nor do I
mean like the proposed Prohibited Area over another Navy installation on the
East Coast (St. Mary's? sorry...I forget the exact name).

Oh, wait...you're right, I DO mean exactly like those. :)

By the way, those airspace restrictions should give some insight into just
how likely it is any comments at this point in the rule-making will change
the direction the FAA is headed. For example, the response to the NPRM for
the Bangor Prohibited Area was well over 90% against any restrictions there
at all, most comments including a number of well-reasoned and clearly-stated
objections.

Those still with enough energy to put up the good fight, feel free to
comment. But I hope no one thinks it's going to change anything at this
point. The FAA has demonstrated quite clearly what they think of the NPRM
process: it's just some procedural hand-waving they are required by law to
go through, and they need not actually pay any attention whatsoever to the
feedback they receive through it.

Pete

[kontiki]

It's ridiculous. This is the United States of America for God's sake,
not the Soviet Union... or North Korea. What is it going to take to
make people realize that unless we take a stand for something we will
fall for anything.

This ADIZ (or any ADIZ for that matter) will not prevent anything it
will only increase the workload of ATC and FCC around Washington.
If we were serious about increasing security we would tigten the
borders and spend the effort on checking out some non-US citizens
already in this country and what they are up to.

Adding useless burdens to pilots will not increase national security
except in the minds of bueruecrats and those ignorant of aviation.


PokerGTA.com wrote:

> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?
>
> How?
>

[Cecil Chapman]

Oh GET REAL! <wink> Ya know the terrorists are really looking to knock-off,
Mickey! :)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Cecil Chapman]

Good post! I already have, submitted mine (including letters to our Reps &
Senators in our area)... Gotta try at least!

Though I got to say I was more than a little bit let-down to see that
provisions of the 'un'-Patriot Act were made permanent (the lady in the
harbor must be hanging her head down a little lower after that one :0( ).
So, I'm hoping for the best on the Wash DC ADIZ situation.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Mark T. Dame]

Cecil Chapman wrote:
> Oh GET REAL! <wink> Ya know the terrorists are really looking to knock-off,
> Mickey! :)

Wait. I thought Mickey *was* the terrorist... I'm so confused...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
-- Brian Kernigan

[Mark T. Dame]

J. Severyn wrote:

> "PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Cap, we are talking about the airspace in the DC area. You are
>>referring to all of the airspace class B and C. A little
>>extreme....no?
>>
>>
>>By the way what are you Capt. of?
>
>
> Not extreme at all. You are too trusting of the govt bureaucracy. If the DC
> area is made permanent you can bet that they will attempt to do the same
> with Class B and maybe Class C. Just look at Chicago. The mayor has
> repeatedly asked the govt to "protect" the area with airspace
> connfigurations like D.C.
>
> It will spread like a plague.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin

This country is slowly becoming a military state. At the current pace,
by this time next century, the Bill of Rights will have been repealed.
(Rather, the rest of the Bill of Rights will have been repealed.)

This is just one more example of it. It only seems to be an "aviation
only" issue on the surface. The ramifications run much deeper. It
won't be long before you will need to stop and show your papers to enter DC.

If the ADIZ over Northern Virginia, Maryland, and DC is made permanent,
a precedent will have been set that will allow other cities to do the
same. The most frustrating part about it is that it does absolutely
nothing to improve security. Like the majority of the airport security
checks, it's just to make the average person feel safer. If someone
wanted to hijack a plane and fly it into the White House, they could do
it just as easily today as they could have five years ago. Anyone who
thinks that the airport security checks and ADIZ do anything to prevent
that is a blind fool.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"When you find yourself saying ``There's no way this can
happen,'' . . . I call this an Alice-in-Wonderland bug."
-- Daniel Mocsny

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:33:02 -0400, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote in >::

>
>"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
>deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>This country is slowly becoming a military state. At the current pace,
>by this time next century, the Bill of Rights will have been repealed.
>(Rather, the rest of the Bill of Rights will have been repealed.)

If the GOP continues to occupy the Executive branch, have the majority
in both houses of Congress, and GOP Justices dominate the Judicial
branch, it won't take but a few more years for the Bill Of Rights to
be supplanted by mandatory church attendance with the priests publicly
molesting our children under the guise of a Faith Based Initiative.
:-(

[Mark T. Dame]

kontiki wrote:

> It's ridiculous. This is the United States of America for God's sake,
> not the Soviet Union... or North Korea. What is it going to take to
> make people realize that unless we take a stand for something we will
> fall for anything.

The problem is that our liberties are being eroded away so slowly that
most people don't notice it. It's being done on a generational scale.
Each generation takes away a few more liberties. The change is so small
and incremental that no particular generation gets worked up enough to
stop it.

Or, put a better way, each generation grows up with certain
restrictions. They add a few more, but not enough to hurt. The next
generation grows up with the new restrictions, but never knew anything
different, so they aren't bothered by it. And the cycle repeats.

It's not a conspiracy, just a gradual complacency that grows over
generations. Reasonable sounding people propose new laws that sound
perfectly reasonable to the average person. (Of course we need to
outlaw assault rifles! No one could possibly need one of those for any
legal purpose. They're just instruments of murder! Outlawing them will
make you safer and it doesn't infringe on your rights at all because
you're a reasonable law abiding citizen. You would never need an
assault rifle!)

The whole ADIZ issue is exactly like the assault rifle ban. It's
something the sounds reasonable to people who don't take the time to
think about it. The assault rifle ban doesn't make anyone safer. Joe
Sixpack walking to his car from the baseball stadium isn't going to be
mugged and killed by an assault rifle: his attacker will use a knife or
cheap .22 or .38 caliber pistol. Likewise, the ADIZ isn't going to
prevent anyone from hijacking an airliner. It's not going to prevent
the hijacked plane from flying into the a building in downtown DC. At
best, it provides a false sense of security for a few people at the
inconvenience and expense of many more people. At worst, it's downright
dangerous as it is a large increase in the ATC load for the area. If
I'm flying from Leesburg to Gaithersburg on a severe clear day, why
should I have to bother Dulles Approach? They've got more important
things to do, like the thousands of passengers flying into and out of
Dulles.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Perl is designed to make the easy jobs easy and the hard jobs
possible."
-- Larry Wall

[Mark T. Dame]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> If the GOP continues to occupy the Executive branch, have the majority
> in both houses of Congress, and GOP Justices dominate the Judicial
> branch, it won't take but a few more years for the Bill Of Rights to
> be supplanted by mandatory church attendance with the priests publicly
> molesting our children under the guise of a Faith Based Initiative.
> :-(

Be careful. It's not the GOP by itself. The Republicans erode your
liberties from one side and Democrats from the other. They are both guilty.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I don't know if this will work under MS-Windows, but anyone who runs
Windows without a mouse deserves to be flogged with noodles."
-- Daniel Mocsny

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:13:38 -0400, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> If the GOP continues to occupy the Executive branch, have the majority
>> in both houses of Congress, and GOP Justices dominate the Judicial
>> branch, it won't take but a few more years for the Bill Of Rights to
>> be supplanted by mandatory church attendance with the priests publicly
>> molesting our children under the guise of a Faith Based Initiative.
>> :-(
>
>Be careful. It's not the GOP by itself. The Republicans erode your
>liberties from one side and Democrats from the other. They are both guilty.
>

Currently, the Democrats have no power.

[PokerGTA.com]

chill pal! Just curious.

[Leffy Gold]

Take a pil Jay!

[Skylune]

Very true. As a kid growing up on eastern Long Island, we would think
nothing of a kid riding down the street on his bike with a shotgun across
the handle bars to do a little hunting in the woods. Now, after
suburbanization, a kid doing that would probably result in a take-down by
a SWAT team.

Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH, I see the
same thing here, although the pro-gun ownership culture (which includes
Skylune, btw) up here is much stronger, thank goodness.

Of course, our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It says
nothing about the right to fly low over peoples homes at all hours. That
crap came from the nefarious FAA.

[W P Dixon]

The Constitution does not mention anything about you having a right to be
hooked up to monitors and recieve treatment when you have a heart attack
either does it?
Where in The Constitution does it give you the right to drive up my
street at 1am and wake up my household? Get the point?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Very true. As a kid growing up on eastern Long Island, we would think
> nothing of a kid riding down the street on his bike with a shotgun across
> the handle bars to do a little hunting in the woods. Now, after
> suburbanization, a kid doing that would probably result in a take-down by
> a SWAT team.
>
> Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH, I see the
> same thing here, although the pro-gun ownership culture (which includes
> Skylune, btw) up here is much stronger, thank goodness.
>
> Of course, our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It says
> nothing about the right to fly low over peoples homes at all hours. That
> crap came from the nefarious FAA.
>
>

[Chris]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message
>> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?
>
> Hmm.... Do you think that ADIZ is neccessary?
>
> What happens when all class B and C airspace is an ADIZ? Think it can't
> happen?

Just turn it into Class A airspace

[Peter Duniho]

"Leffy Gold" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Take a pil Jay!

That's the second time you've told someone to take a pill, rather than
answer the question posed to you.

Maybe you ought to be turned in to the DEA...these pills you're peddling
sound pretty potent, if they can accomplish actual question-and-answer
without any effort on your part.

[kontiki]

Mark T. Dame wrote:
> Or, put a better way, each generation grows up with certain
> restrictions. They add a few more, but not enough to hurt. The next
> generation grows up with the new restrictions, but never knew anything
> different, so they aren't bothered by it. And the cycle repeats.

Well stated Sir. And as you stated later, obnoxious gun laws have done
nothing to prevent crime (albeit they may provide more counts to an
indictment) since criminals by definition do not obey laws. Neither do
terrorists care about an ADIZ... they'll just go on to other methods
and targets.

The ADIZ around Washington reminds me of my very forst experience living
in a big city... Houston, Tx. Previous I was only familiar with smaller
towns in Virginia. There I saw entire neighborhoods filled with houses
with bars on all of the windows and doors. At that point I realized that
the law-abiding people had become prisoners in their own homes... living
behind bars while the criminals roamed freely.

[kontiki]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> If the GOP continues to occupy the Executive branch, have the majority
> in both houses of Congress, and GOP Justices dominate the Judicial
> branch, it won't take but a few more years for the Bill Of Rights to
> be supplanted by mandatory church attendance with the priests publicly
> molesting our children under the guise of a Faith Based Initiative.
> :-(

Puhleeze... this is NOT a partisan issue, and certainly not confined to
the GOP. It is that the politicians that live inside the beltway are
so far removed from the realities of the rest of the United States
that they make dangerous and stupid laws and have no clue that they
are doing.

If anything, this illustrates the need for term limits. The founding
fathers never intended these people to make careers out of serving
in congress. Its a total joke now... as evidence I submit Ted Kennedy.

[texasflyer]

kontiki wrote
>
> The ADIZ around Washington reminds me of my very forst experience living
> in a big city... Houston, Tx. Previous I was only familiar with smaller
> towns in Virginia. There I saw entire neighborhoods filled with houses
> with bars on all of the windows and doors. At that point I realized that
> the law-abiding people had become prisoners in their own homes... living
> behind bars while the criminals roamed freely.

As a former pris... erm, I mean native of Houston, I can tell you that
you can get practically anything you want in the big city... except
out. There's not enough money in all of Texas to get me to ever move
back there

[me]

Why does PokerGTA bait us with this question on this important subject ?

" You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

How? "

Yet in another thread he asks for pictures for his aviation website..

So PokerGTA are you a G.A. proponent or an opponent ?


"PokerGTA.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?
>
> How?
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message > A little extreme....no?

Creating a permanent ADIZ around DC to prevent tiny planes from scaring
idiot politicians who think their lives are more important than the lives of
their constituents is extreme.

> By the way what are you Capt. of?

A 10' rowboat. What does it matter? In a condescending mood?

D.

[Greg Farris]

In article
utaviation.com>,
says...

>
>Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH



Well, you seem to consider yourself to be an objective,
stare-the-facts-in-the-face kind of guy. Now that you're moving to a rural
place like New Hampshire, if you are going to be honest with yourself, this
should give you ample opportunity to reflect and reconsider your stance on
GA subsidies and the usefulness of GA.

The biggest users of GA are UPS, FEDEX, USPS etc. Their business models are
completely predicated on GA - without it, they don't work. In turn, the
entire economic viability of businesses in places like NH is dependent on
these services. Believe me - I grew up in neighboring Vermont, and there at
that time, if you needed anything more exotic than a 10-32 machine screw,
the word was "we can order it" - "in a few months . . ." New Hampshire's
substantial export business is also completely dependent on transport
services, in other words - General Aviation.

The GA industry, and the government's support of it, is not the "nefarious"
plot you seem to believe - instead it is a lucid recognition of the
economic tissue of the USA. This differs somewhat from Europe, where GA is
still important, but not as vital. The compactness of the European
continent and its climate allow trains to develop and take up much of the
slack. Over-regulation of GA in Europe is causing huge economic losses, but
nowhere near the calamity that a similar stance would engender in the US.
As Asian markets develop, they will face a situation more comparable to
that of the US, and GA will have to develop to support the growth of the
economy there.

Only a few generations ago, business in the US was only really viable in
one of the large metropolitan centers. To move from there was to be
condemned to a life of poverty and deprivation. Communication and
transportation are the infrastructures that have allowed that situation to
turn around, and GA is an absolutely vital link in that prodigious
development. Yes, you can find and elect, even in the US, people with a
European socialist view, who feel we would all be better off riding buses.
Such a mentality would really sting in the "live free or die" state, which
is entirely dependent on modern infrastructure for its survival.

GF

[John T]

kontiki wrote:
>
> If anything, this illustrates the need for term limits. The founding
> fathers never intended these people to make careers out of serving
> in congress. Its a total joke now... as evidence I submit Ted Kennedy.

....as well as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[kontiki]

John T wrote:
> kontiki wrote:
>
>>If anything, this illustrates the need for term limits. The founding
>>fathers never intended these people to make careers out of serving
>>in congress. Its a total joke now... as evidence I submit Ted Kennedy.
>
>
> ...as well as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.
>

Agreed.

[Skylune]

Thanx greg. I agree with most of your sentiments entirely. I agree that
GA is important and has a role. I agree that subsidies for remote parts
of the country are in the national interest and s/b subsidized.

But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
cutting it.

My biggest gripe, all along, concerns enforcement of the FARs and
enforcement of noise abatement. Since one of my local airports has given
the community the bum rush, with full collusion of the FAA, I am exposing
their tax subsidies (local and federal), their plans to extract additional
city tax moneys while refusing to raise any airport fees, some of the FBOs
lack of compliance with EPA regulations, water quality issues,
noncompliance with their 20 year old Act 150 study, etc.

I've said many times: I think 90% of GA fliers are responsible. But
there are some idiots that just think they are above any laws or
regulations. No one is responsible, and unless there is a crash or
something, the FAA turns a blind eye to community concerns.

[Ron Lee]

"Skylune" > wrote:
>
>But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
>especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
>primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
>cutting it.

Before you assert that avgas taxes are inadequate, tell me how much is
collected yearly and how much of that goes to support aviation. If a
significant amount is siphoned off to fund non-aviation purposes then
you have an obvious solution at ZERO increase in taxes or user fees.

Ron Lee

[Skylune]

Been there, done that. Check for yourself. The data and studies are
readily available. I'm not gonna repost the same stuff.

Besides, the pilots are so damned myopic they won't believe anything that
does not conform to their pre-conceived fact set. And its a waste of
time: the user fees are a done deal. Just wait.

[Greg Farris]

Well, I've posted it here often enough, I don't have to tell you I'm in
agreement about some arrogant pilots. If we don't learn how to integrate
better into communities, some hard-headed zealots are in for a rude
awakening as to what their "rights" really are.

Nevertheless, GA is a large and vital industry, full of dedicated people
who have to be goal-oriented to have made it there in the first place. And
it's an industry surrounded by misunderstanding and threatened, sometimes
even scapegoated by special interests, so it's really to the credit of
pilots to have organized to defend something that really needs defending.

I don't think the threat to GA really comes from the Federal government,
because so many legislators are involved one way or another, or have been
exposed to both sides of the equation, and understand the importance of
GA's role in our economy. Many citizens' groups however, in self-serving
endeavors can do great harm, and cheap-thrill journalismis a persistent
threat, filled as it is with air-heads who could not understand anything
about aviation if they tried - and they don't.

So, I agree about a few self-serving pilots, who don't want to know that
some social conditions are changing - but overall, this great industry and
activity is worth preserving and promoting, and needs defending - and
pilots have no greater tool than their substantial numbers and the lobbying
strength these represent to do so. All lobbying efforts require some
simplifications and politically expedient arguments to be effective. That's
how the game is played, and AOPA, overall, isn't doing such a bad job of it
- in my opinion.

G Faris

[Ice blonde]

>Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH, I see the
>same thing here, although the pro-gun ownership culture (which includes
>Skylune, btw) up here is much stronger, thank goodness.

>Of course, our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It says
>nothing about the right to fly low over peoples homes at all hours. That
>crap came from the nefarious FAA.

Skylune pro-gun ownership, why am I not surprised, after all far more
people are killed by the lethally incompetent GA pilots than guns,
right?