AOPA melodrama

[Skylune]

The president, though long retired from the TV biz, has not lost his flair
for drama:

After flying back from Hawaii for a meeting he attended "on his own time"
(I assume this aside is supposed to make people not question how their dues
are being spent...), Phil arrived in DC to "implore" decision makers not to
make the ADIZ permanent.

And then, the melodrama, a Personal Moment, not previously revealed
publicly: Phil's wife was mistakenly (according to the story) flagged for
violating the ADIZ. Upon landing, she was instructed by someone at the FBO
to call the FAA. According to Phil, she "went thru hell for 15 minutes"
and they were "very rude" despite the fact that Phil was "standing by her
side."

Hillarious! (You can see the full video on the website.) But it gets
better: His wife was apparently so traumatized by this experience that
she won't fly much anymore as a result: apparently she has flown only 10
hours since then. (Not exactly the image of the cool-as-a-cucumber, self
assured, highly trained, GA pilot that comes across in all the promotional
materials.)

Next episode: "The Decision"

To be followed by: "The Reaction" (should be either glee and self
congratulations, or, outrage)

[Skylune]

A side episode is now airing, while viewers anxiously await the second
installment of the ADIZ drama series. The new episode is called Stop the
TFRs.

AOPA in recent days is opposing:

TFRs along the Mexico/Texas border for UAVs (national security must take a
back seat to cessnas)

TFRs over Washington during the State of the Union Address (similar to
ADIZ: dismissed as unnecessary by a bumper sticker that says "Fear Me, I
fly a C-152")

TFRs over the Superbowl. This one is good, because it shows the absurdity
of AOPA rationale: they are praising Canada for its "common sense" in not
instituting an ADIZ on their side of the border.

Since the Canadians have such good sense, according to AOPA, perhaps the
FAA should emulate other aspects of the Canadian system, i.e. their
funding system??

[Skylune]

I apologize for forgetting to post the link to Nav Canada's user fee
handbook. Here it is:

http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Services\ChargesAnd Admin\default.xml

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>I apologize for forgetting to post the link to Nav Canada's user fee
> handbook. Here it is:
>
> http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Services\ChargesAnd Admin\default.xml
>

Thanks Lune I'd never looked at the Nav Canada fee schdule before. It looks
to me like the aircraft that most annoy you aren't charged by $75 per year
unless they are at a few very large airports.

My question is, do our neighbors to the North have an aviation tax on fuel
as well or is this the entire funding method cost?

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Jan 25, 2006 at 01:34 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>I apologize for forgetting to post the link to Nav Canada's user fee
> handbook. Here it is:
>
>
http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Services\ChargesAnd Admin\default.xml
>

Thanks Lune I'd never looked at the Nav Canada fee schdule before. It
looks
to me like the aircraft that most annoy you aren't charged by $75 per
year

unless they are at a few very large airports.

My question is, do our neighbors to the North have an aviation tax on
fuel

as well or is this the entire funding method cost?<<

I think that's just the annual fee component. Additional fees apply for
tower services, etc.

But, I won't claim to be expert in the Nav Canada system, or that I'm
willing to read the 45 page user fee guide (hyperlink avaiable on the link
I attached) and try and make comparisons.

Do you think the AOPA has done these types of comparisions before going
hysterical over the prospect of user fees? Or are they just shooting from
the hip, as usual?

I happen to think that Boyer's crew has (correctly, IMO) surmised that the
FAA is going after GA for additional $$. That's what Poole of the Reason
Foundation has been saying for years, and what was just quantified by the
BTS (the subsidy comparison per 100,000 miles travelled which showed GA as
the second most subsidized form of travel behind only AMTRAK).

If it is only $75/year for the little guys, wouldn't the AOPA look pretty
silly.....

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> If it is only $75/year for the little guys, wouldn't the AOPA look pretty
> silly.....

Lune you should really get it through your head we have user fees now in the
form of taxes on avgas. Yes there are some people that use Mogas an I think
there should be someway to tax them equally but the cost of collection of
such a fee would probably cost more than it collected.

I doubt that the US government could collect a $75/year fee for less than
$75.

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Jan 25, 2006 at 03:19 PM



Lune you should really get it through your head we have user fees now in
the
form of taxes on avgas. Yes there are some people that use Mogas an I
think
there should be someway to tax them equally but the cost of collection of

such a fee would probably cost more than it collected.<<

I agree that the AV gas tax is a user fee. In fact, Gig, I recently
corrected someone who said that the tax was something like 93 cents per
gallon, when in fact its only about 19.4 cents per gallon.

I guess instead of calling them "user fees," "new user fees" or
"additional user fees" would be more accurate. But I'm just using the
same terminology that the AOPA uses, e.g. "No to user fees."

The whole point is that the existing fee structure is woefully short of
covering costs, per BTS. I think raising the AVgas tax to cover the costs
is the most efficient way to go, rather than introducing a new fee and
bureaucratic structure to collect these fees. I guess we agree on that.
Maybe....

Skylune out. I'm flying down to Austin Texas for a few days -- Can't
wait to get a little sun/warmth and have a Margarita at the Iron Cactus --
so I'll have to do an AOPA update some time next week.

[Skylune]

by "Skylune" <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 25, 2006 at 12:10 PM


A side episode is now airing, while viewers anxiously await the second
installment of the ADIZ drama series. The new episode is called Stop the
TFRs.

AOPA in recent days is opposing:

TFRs along the Mexico/Texas border for UAVs (national security must take
a
back seat to cessnas)

TFRs over Washington during the State of the Union Address (similar to
ADIZ: dismissed as unnecessary by a bumper sticker that says "Fear Me, I
fly a C-152")

TFRs over the Superbowl. This one is good, because it shows the
absurdity
of AOPA rationale: they are praising Canada for its "common sense" in
not
instituting an ADIZ on their side of the border.

Since the Canadians have such good sense, according to AOPA, perhaps the
FAA should emulate other aspects of the Canadian system, i.e. their
funding system??<<

The twists and turns in the TFR series is what makes for excellent drama.
The producers of The Sopranos have nothing on AOPA.

Right after praising Canada for its "common sense" approach in not
implementing an ADIZ type TFR over the Superbowl, Canada has announced it
will be implementing a TFR's after all!

AOPA response was fast and decisive: an about face. Lickedy split, they
removed the prior story praising Canada and replaced it with a new story
complaing about "excessive restricitions." I guess the previous praise
for Canada's "common sense" approach was premature.

Stay tuned for subsequent episodes, which promise to have more unexpected
plot twists and melodrama.

Thanks Phil.