What an annual....

[The Visitor]

this has got to be it. Both props off for overhaul, it's time, now I am
looking at two new props with deice boots, 15k times two. can get some
new blades and use the old hubs but I am thinking it's best just to be
rid of them. I thought this annual would hurt when I got three new gear
actuators rather than overhauled. Last year it was a new, rather than
repaired, engine mount.

What a hobby!

[Peter R.]

On 2/15/2007 2:51:30 PM, The Visitor wrote:

> this has got to be it. Both props off for overhaul, it's time, now I am
> looking at two new props with deice boots, 15k times two. can get some
> new blades and use the old hubs but I am thinking it's best just to be
> rid of them. I thought this annual would hurt when I got three new gear
> actuators rather than overhauled. Last year it was a new, rather than
> repaired, engine mount.
>
> What a hobby!

Sorrta makes those $50/year user fees being proposed a non-issue, eh? :)

--
Peter

[Marco Leon]

On Feb 15, 3:18 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> Sorrta makes those $50/year user fees being proposed a non-issue, eh? :)

Unfortunately, that seems to me to be one of the big things going
against us. There will be very little public sympathy because of the
general belief that people who own and/or fly GA aircraft are super
rich and paying $30 for a weather briefing or $50 to fly an ILS is
nothing to them. While it may be true for a part of the group, the
pilots flying the simpler aircraft (and in this group I include any
pilot that needs to watch their flying budget closely) will really be
the ones that are affected by the user-fees and change the way they
fly--even give it up altogether.

Times like these make me appreciate the existence of AOPA.

Marco

[Paul kgyy]

In the words of a recent U.S. president that we'll call, um, "randy",
ah share yer pain.

My nose gear had to come off because some line guy turned it to far
with the tug. The engine frame went sproiing when they did that,
which revealed a bent frame, now sent off to be rebuilt. Then the
drag brace turned out to be warped, $1500 for a new one from Piper.

I retired last year but may need to go back to work just to support
the plane.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Marco Leon" > said:
>On Feb 15, 3:18 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>>
>> Sorrta makes those $50/year user fees being proposed a non-issue, eh? :)
>
>Unfortunately, that seems to me to be one of the big things going
>against us. There will be very little public sympathy because of the
>general belief that people who own and/or fly GA aircraft are super
>rich and paying $30 for a weather briefing or $50 to fly an ILS is
>nothing to them. While it may be true for a part of the group, the

Which part of "$50/year" are you having trouble understanding?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"This was, apparently, beyond her ken. So far beyond her ken that she was
well into barbie territory." - J.D. Baldwin

[Steve Foley]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...


> Which part of "$50/year" are you having trouble understanding?
>

Where are you getting $50/year. I read $0.70/gallon additional tax. $50/year
means I can only fly seven yours a year.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/

[Allen[_1_]]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> this has got to be it. Both props off for overhaul, it's time, now I am
> looking at two new props with deice boots, 15k times two. can get some
> new blades and use the old hubs but I am thinking it's best just to be rid
> of them. I thought this annual would hurt when I got three new gear
> actuators rather than overhauled. Last year it was a new, rather than
> repaired, engine mount.
>
> What a hobby!

What kind of airplane that the props are 15 grand each?

Allen

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steve Foley" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Which part of "$50/year" are you having trouble understanding?
>>
>
>Where are you getting $50/year.

From the post that the person I was responding to was responding to. I
confess I didn't verify his figure, and now that I've looked at the FAA
site I see it's wrong.

>I read $0.70/gallon additional tax. $50/year
>means I can only fly seven yours a year.

Read it again. That's 70 cents per gallon TOTAL, not additional.

Sec 901. Modifications to Tax on Aviation Fuel. Subsection (a)(1) sets the
tax rate for aviation gasoline to be 70.0 cents per gallon starting on the
transition date.

What is is now, about 20 cents? So yeah, it will be more expensive than
it has been. What isn't?

There is certainly nothing in there about this "$30 per weather briefing
and $50 per ILS" bull****. On the contrary, it says

Sec. 201. Fees.
...
"General avaition aircraft will continue to pay a fuel tax and will
not be subject ot a fee for services, except if the operation is
through terminal airpace for a large hub airport, in which case the
operation may be subject to the fee established for services provided
in such airspace."

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/media/NextGen_Bill_Analysis.pdf


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I would like to shake the hand of the man who first decided that e-mail
clients should run arbitrary programs. Then I'd like to stir, blend and
puree his hand. -- J. D. Baldwin

[Peter R.]

On 2/15/2007 4:24:40 PM, "Steve Foley" wrote:

> Where are you getting $50/year. I read $0.70/gallon additional tax. $50/year
> means I can only fly seven yours a year.

He was getting it from me and I was just joking around. Although what you
quoted was what has been proposed, no one really knows what the real fee is
going to be, if at all. I simply pulled that bogus figure out of my rear
because I recall reading something like that was in place for light aircraft
up in Canada now. I could be wrong there, too, but my intent was not to focus
on user fees; rather it was to make light of the OP's major annual expense.





--
Peter

[Marco Leon]

On Feb 15, 4:46 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
[snip]
> There is certainly nothing in there about this "$30 per weather briefing
> and $50 per ILS" bull****. On the contrary, it says

Now, now Paul. Take a deep breath, no need to get testy. I fully
realize that there is nothing in the current FAA proposal with these
fees. If you must know, I am referring to the potential as described
by AOPA where they used a sample set of various fees from a user-fee-
based European system.

A bit dramatic? Maybe. Bull****? Maybe not but we shall see.

Marco

[dave]

A 250% increase in the tax is substantial. The increase per gallon
would be around 15% - also significant.

I suppose you have the means to not worry about these increases and
that's a good thing but many pilots don't. Those kind of costs will
definitely put a damper on how many hours pilots can fly. Would taxes
at those levels also impact autofuel users?

Dave


Paul Tomblin wrote:
> Read it again. That's 70 cents per gallon TOTAL, not additional.
>
> Sec 901. Modifications to Tax on Aviation Fuel. Subsection (a)(1) sets the
> tax rate for aviation gasoline to be 70.0 cents per gallon starting on the
> transition date.
>
> What is is now, about 20 cents? So yeah, it will be more expensive than
> it has been. What isn't?

[kontiki]

You can't take it with you.

[Ray Andraka]

Paul Tomblin wrote:


> There is certainly nothing in there about this "$30 per weather briefing
> and $50 per ILS" bull****. On the contrary, it says
>
> Sec. 201. Fees.
> ...
> "General avaition aircraft will continue to pay a fuel tax and will
> not be subject ot a fee for services, except if the operation is
> through terminal airpace for a large hub airport, in which case the
> operation may be subject to the fee established for services provided
> in such airspace."
>
> http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/media/NextGen_Bill_Analysis.pdf
>
>
Not yet anyway. Of course those of us who fly in the Northeast or I
suppose southern California are going to get nailed with the "except if
the operation is through terminal airpace for a large hub airport, in
which case the operation may be subject to the fee established for
services provided in such airspace." just about any time we fly. I hate
to think what this will do to organizations like Angelflight. Some 90%
of the Angelflights I've flown have been into or out of Boston Logan.

[Ray Andraka]

kontiki wrote:

> You can't take it with you.

No, but you also can't spend what you don't have. If I set aside say
$500 per quarter for flying, a 15% increase in the price of fuel means I
do %15 percent less flying, whether it be for Angelflight, training,
business or pleasure. Most people I know that fly already sacrifice in
other areas of their life in order to afford to fly: No vacation homes
or boats, driving older vehicles, smaller house than their peers etc.

[Peter R.]

On 2/15/2007 7:57:12 PM, Ray Andraka wrote:

> Some 90%
> of the Angelflights I've flown have been into or out of Boston Logan.

I would sincerely hope that if a user fee model is put in place that Angel
Flights would be exempt. I, too, do the majority of my AF flights into and
out of Logan.

--
Peter

[Ray Andraka]

Peter R. wrote:

> On 2/15/2007 7:57:12 PM, Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>
>>Some 90%
>>of the Angelflights I've flown have been into or out of Boston Logan.
>
>
> I would sincerely hope that if a user fee model is put in place that Angel
> Flights would be exempt. I, too, do the majority of my AF flights into and
> out of Logan.
>

If they are exempt, I bet it will be a rebate that you need to do a
bunch of paperwork to recover, not a waiver of the fee in the first place.

[The Visitor]

Allen wrote:

> What kind of airplane that the props are 15 grand each?

Seneca III, three blade props 15k CDN. (with boots) labour and shipping,
extra.

[Jay Honeck]

> > You can't take it with you.
>
> No, but you also can't spend what you don't have. If I set aside say
> $500 per quarter for flying, a 15% increase in the price of fuel means I
> do %15 percent less flying, whether it be for Angelflight, training,
> business or pleasure. Most people I know that fly already sacrifice in
> other areas of their life in order to afford to fly: No vacation homes
> or boats, driving older vehicles, smaller house than their peers etc.

Amen, brother.

If this lunacy comes to pass, GA -- which is already staggering like a
drunk old man in huge parts of America -- is doomed. Our only hope
is that AOPA can stop it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

On Feb 15, 2:51 pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
> this has got to be it. Both props off for overhaul, it's time, now I am
> looking at two new props with deice boots, 15k times two. can get some
> new blades and use the old hubs but I am thinking it's best just to be
> rid of them. I thought this annual would hurt when I got three new gear
> actuators rather than overhauled. Last year it was a new, rather than
> repaired, engine mount.
>
> What a hobby!

The annual two years ago came up to 1/3 the purchase price of the
plane because I chose to make a bunch of recurring AD's go away...
This annual will include a new set of teflon hoses for the right
engine...
Next year will be new hydraulic hoses and some gear bushings...
The year after that we will begin looking for new engines which will
exceed the value of the airplane...
Fun, eh wot!

denny

[Mike Spera]

>
> My nose gear had to come off because some line guy turned it to far
> with the tug.
> .stuff snipped.

Who paid for the damage?

Thanks,
Mike

[Roger[_4_]]

On 16 Feb 2007 07:38:09 -0800, "Denny" > wrote:

>On Feb 15, 2:51 pm, The Visitor >
>wrote:
>> this has got to be it. Both props off for overhaul, it's time, now I am
>> looking at two new props with deice boots, 15k times two. can get some
>> new blades and use the old hubs but I am thinking it's best just to be
>> rid of them. I thought this annual would hurt when I got three new gear
>> actuators rather than overhauled. Last year it was a new, rather than
>> repaired, engine mount.
>>
>> What a hobby!
>
>The annual two years ago came up to 1/3 the purchase price of the
>plane because I chose to make a bunch of recurring AD's go away...
>This annual will include a new set of teflon hoses for the right
>engine...
>Next year will be new hydraulic hoses and some gear bushings...
>The year after that we will begin looking for new engines which will
>exceed the value of the airplane...
>Fun, eh wot!

Ah, you big high rollers. I'm coming up on a major or more likely
replacement do to core hours and I can probably hit the cost of the
airplane with one engine and a fuel cell or two. Which BTW it needs
new tip tanks<sigh>


>
>denny
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com