If user fees go into effect I'm done

[scott moore]

Ron Lee wrote:
> In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
> increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
> If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.
>
> Ron Lee

Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.

Which will increase the pressure for user fees.

And on and on and on.

Scott

[Ray Andraka]

scott moore wrote:


>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
>

Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

[Newps]

scott moore wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>> In todays AvWebFlash they state that the FAA proposal recommends
>> increasing the av gas tax from around 19-21 cents to 70 cents (US).
>> If their goal is to kill GA this is a step in the right direction.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
> Which will increase the pressure for user fees.
>


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.

[Newps]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> scott moore wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>>
>
> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>
>

I would agree that is the case for a few years.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>
>>
>
> I would agree that is the case for a few years.



It goes in 10 year increments.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would agree that is the case for a few years.
>
>
>
>
> It goes in 10 year increments.

I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
years?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Viperdoc wrote:
> > You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
> > the current ones are based on 707's.
>
> I thought they had a bunch of KC-10's?

Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would agree that is the case for a few years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It goes in 10 year increments.
>
>
> I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
> years?

The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision
in what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the
current system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per
passenger fees may get adjusted slightly.

[John R. Copeland]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
>
> Ray Andraka wrote:
>> scott moore wrote:
>>
>>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
>> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.
>
> All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
> would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
> HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.

I won't argue percentages, but I keep hoping technology will rescue us
before I need to replace my matched pair of TSIO520NBRs again.
I doubt that turbodiesels are in my future, but it's hard to know for sure.

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> scott moore wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>>
>>
>
> Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
> performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

Rather like the old 80/20 syndrome - 80% of the flying is done by 20% of the
aircraft, which is the high performance stock that needs 100LL.

Whatever happened to GAMI's PRISM ignition STC? The simple (relatively)
conversion would ostensibly allow even rotgut gas in the most touchy turbo
piston engines.

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

>
>
> Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
> the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).
>

You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
was for the C-135. The tanker came later.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
> are still active in commercial service?

I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
>> are still active in commercial service?
>
> I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
the DC-10. Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
refuel tankers?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF1quSyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsvJAKCtt1x1330ow4B/wCDp7OOgenr4QgCgsheF
wXF/a3QrNjsB8JA531hOvks=
=m9Yf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
> the DC-10.

correct.

> Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
> refuel tankers?

yes.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[mike regish]

I would say that it's because they will have to move the planes they are
talking to, since they won't be able to move the ones they're NOT talking
to.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> However, the pilots of airliners an biz jets may get a lot more to do.
>>
>
> Is that because the pilots of airliners and biz jets don't look for
> traffic unless it's called by ATC?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I would say that it's because they will have to move the planes they are
> talking to, since they won't be able to move the ones they're NOT talking
> to.
>

They don't have to move them, and they shouldn't move them. A traffic
advisory is all that's needed.

[mike regish]

Except that there are no present conversions that deal with ethanol.

mike

"scott moore" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
> Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.
>
> Which will increase the pressure for user fees.
>
> And on and on and on.
>
> Scott

[mike regish]

Only assuming no conflict...

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> They don't have to move them, and they shouldn't move them. A traffic
> advisory is all that's needed.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
> the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
> was for the C-135. The tanker came later.
>

The KC-135A preceded the C-135A by four years.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Only assuming no conflict...
>

Negative. Assuming the controller follows proper procedure, he will issue a
traffic advisory and possibly suggest a heading. He will not require the
airplane to move.

[mike regish]

OK. I was wondering how you would justify yourself.

But of course you're right. You always are, as you've often pointed out.
I always ignore advisorys. I'm sure everybody else must, too.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Only assuming no conflict...
>>
>
> Negative. Assuming the controller follows proper procedure, he will issue
> a traffic advisory and possibly suggest a heading. He will not require
> the airplane to move.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> OK. I was wondering how you would justify yourself.
>
> But of course you're right. You always are, as you've often pointed out.
>

Often pointed out that I'm right? Can you provide even one example?


>
> I always ignore advisorys. I'm sure everybody else must, too.
>

Really? Then why do you request them?

[mike regish]

So I can ignore them. It makes me feel powerful.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>>
>> I always ignore advisorys. I'm sure everybody else must, too.
>>
>
> Really? Then why do you request them?
>

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
> population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
> general aviation is not.
>

Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars
& trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. The only difference is
that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers who drive privately.

But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the
infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small
airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without
the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At
my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred
dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these
aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the

They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share
clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline
jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on
the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for
United to a hangar.

More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited
opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe
commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of
interest.

So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have
made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories...

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars
> & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not.

No, it's not even remotely close to that.

> The only difference is that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers
> who drive privately.

That difference is huge: there are about 400 licensed drivers for every
licensed pilot, and while licensed drivers tend to drive fairly regularly,
licensed pilots do not (it's just too expensive, usually). In fact, private
pilots spend more time in a car driving to and from the airfield than they
spend in the air, in many cases.

Many people drive cars because they have to. They can't hold a job without a
car. It's hard to find any situations in which this is true for general
aviation and private pilots.

> But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the
> infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small
> airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without
> the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At
> my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred
> dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these
> aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the
>
> They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share
> clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline
> jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on
> the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for
> United to a hangar.

A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no longer
serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them.

> More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited
> opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe
> commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of
> interest.

Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small aircraft
are only used because current regulations require it, but regulations can be
changed.

> So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have
> made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories...

No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored
goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private pilots
could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no effect at
all on society at large.

It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape public
policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population cares nothing
about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone; so if you want to
persuade that population, you need a method that doesn't depend on the
subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which doesn't exist for most people).
Indeed, if you concentrate too much on this aspect, you may alienate the
majority, and you definitely don't want to do that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles
>> (cars & trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not.
>
> No, it's not even remotely close to that.

I think it is exactly the same, except replace the word "land" with "air".

> A lot of airports would simply disappear without GA, as they would no
> longer serve any purpose. The airlines don't need them.

Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but
airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial.

> Commercial aviators can be trained from scratch in simulators; small
> aircraft are only used because current regulations require it, but
> regulations can be changed.

I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to
learn to fly safely in a simulator? The pilot wouldn't even understand the
behavior or proper use of Trim without any actual flight time. This is
safe?

> No, I've seen the picture objectively, and not through the rose-colored
> goggles worn by many pilots. The fact is, general aviation by private
> pilots could disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, and it would have no
> effect at all on society at large.

Your goggles are equally as colored as mine, if not moreso.

> It's important to keep this in mind when trying to influence or shape
> public policy with respect to GA. The vast majority of the population
> cares nothing about your flying, and would not miss it if it were gone;
> so if you want to persuade that population, you need a method that
> doesn't depend on the subjective appeal of flying an aircraft (which
> doesn't exist for most people). Indeed, if you concentrate too much on
> this aspect, you may alienate the majority, and you definitely don't
> want to do that.

I'm not shaping public policy.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Your definition of GA is inconsistent. Here you say GA is anything but
> airlines. Before you said GA is anything that is not commercial.

Call it commercial and non-commercial, then.

> I don't think that is practical. How many hours of training are required to
> learn to fly safely in a simulator?

Fewer than the number required in a real aircraft, mainly because a simulator
can simulate all sorts of things that are impractical, expensive, or truly
dangerous in a real aircraft.

> The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim
> without any actual flight time.

Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft.

> This is safe?

Absolutely. And much cheaper than using real aircraft. That's why it is so
attractive for training. Only regulatory barriers prevent it from being done
in the U.S.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Chris]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
> to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision in
> what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the current
> system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per passenger fees
> may get adjusted slightly.

The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.
The Low costs airlines put less into the taxes whilst having more activity
which does not make sense.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> The pilot wouldn't even understand the behavior or proper use of Trim
>> without any actual flight time.
>
> Sure he would. The simulator works just like the real aircraft.

You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.

Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.

What did I misunderstand about trim?

> Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.

Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
piloting a supertanker.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Chris > wrote:
> The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
> ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.

Or maybe per passenger-mile?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>
>>You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.
>
>
> What did I misunderstand about trim?
>
>
>>Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.
>
>
> Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
> U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
> flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
> flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
> piloting a supertanker.
>

No one in any country is even near doing it that way.

[Sam Spade]

Chris wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
>>to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision in
>>what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the current
>>system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per passenger fees
>>may get adjusted slightly.
>
>
> The best way to tax is per ticket or passenger not on the value of the
> ticket. That way the tax is not revenue dependent but movement dependent.
> The Low costs airlines put less into the taxes whilst having more activity
> which does not make sense.
>
>
Ah, the heart of the user fee battle. How do the common carriers
properly allocate the costs amongst themselves when, push comes to
shove, they cannot agree on much of anything?

[Larry Dighera]

WATCHDOG WORRIES ABOUT NGATS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/811-full.html#194481)
The FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is making
progress toward the lofty goal of reinventing the National Airspace
System, but there's a minefield of coordination, budget and
implementation issues ahead, according to a report
(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av2007031.pdf)
from the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General.
OIG said the creation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NGATS) is "an extraordinarily complex and high-risk effort given the
potential multibillion-dollar investments by FAA and airspace users."
While there seems to be an overall plan to coordinate a bunch of
agencies toward the goal of accommodating three times the air traffic
of today by 2025, the OIG worries that there's a lack of specific
direction within those agencies to make sure the work actually gets
done. The OIG is naturally interested in just how the FAA is going to
invest all those billions of dollars in NGATS equipment and
facilities, but it's also concerned about the financial impact on
those who will use the system.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/811-full.html#194481

[Tony]

Haven't you by now learned to never let reality interfere with
simulation? :-)

On Feb 18, 9:13 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Judah writes:
>
> >>You yourself expressed a lack of understanding of trim.
>
> > What did I misunderstand about trim?
>
> >>Simulator time alone is not sufficient for safe flight.
>
> > Actually it is. And in the future you will see airline pilots even in the
> > U.S. who have trained exclusively on simulators prior to their first revenue
> > flight with passengers. As technology evolves, training in a tin can for
> > flying an airliner is becoming as irrelevant as training in a rowboat for
> > piloting a supertanker.
>
> No one in any country is even near doing it that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -