AOPA talking rubbish

[Chris]

Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
the editor in chief.

"General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."

If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
this being written by so called intelligent people.

European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is expensive
(gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
family.

As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.

Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars from
the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
here in Europe.

To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
wrong, it is silly.

Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?

Do you guys believe it?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, "Chris" > wrote:
> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
> the editor in chief.
>
> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>
> If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
> this being written by so called intelligent people.
>
> European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is expensive
> (gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
> some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
> family.
>
> As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
> Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.
>
> Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars from
> the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
> here in Europe.
>
> To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
> wrong, it is silly.
>
> Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
> propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>
> Do you guys believe it?

I have never flown in Europe, so I can't challenge what you are
saying. However, I do occasionally fly with pilots visiting the U.S.
from Europe. They were all very wealthy businessmen, and every one of
them expressed amazement at the low cost of flying here. I took one
pilot into a Class C airport and did several touch and goes, and he
could not stop talking about it for days about how those landing would
have cost him hundreds of dollars in Germany.

Even in the U.S. the cost of flying has been going up faster than
inflation. Most pilots here are from an above-average income. Once I
had a student who worked at a fast food restaurant and walked to the
airport because he did not own a car, but those are exceptions.

If flying is not so bad in Europe, why do we have so many schools in
the U.S. that cater to European pilots, and even European airlines run
their training programs in the U.S?

[Kev]

On Feb 18, 7:24 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> Even in the U.S. the cost of flying has been going up faster than
> inflation. Most pilots here are from an above-average income. [...]

Well, unless they're CFI's ;-]

Kev

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Andrew Sarangan" > said:
>If flying is not so bad in Europe, why do we have so many schools in
>the U.S. that cater to European pilots, and even European airlines run
>their training programs in the U.S?

Because they haven't finished moving all their training programs to
Canada, where flying is almost as cheap and they don't have to deal with
insane TSA regulations.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....I've discovered the one thing worse than people who open attachments
from people they don't know. People who delete files when instructed
by people they don't know. -- Michael

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
> the editor in chief.
>
> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>
> If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
> this being written by so called intelligent people.
>
> European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is expensive
> (gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
> some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
> family.
>
> As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
> Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.
>
> Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars from
> the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
> here in Europe.
>
> To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
> wrong, it is silly.
>
> Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
> propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>
> Do you guys believe it?

What is the percentage of pilots in major European countries? How does
that compare to the US? Do you have any data to refute the AOPA comments?

I lived in England for several months back in the mid 80s and it didn't
appear to me that GA hardly existed compared to the US. And the folks I
worked with in the plant thought I must be pretty wealthy when I told
them I was a pilot.

Matt

[wrxpilot]

On Feb 18, 5:00 pm, "Chris" > wrote:
> Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
> propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>
> Do you guys believe it?

Well, let's see here...

Fuel at $9/hr with about 8 gph fuel burn = $72
On top of the crazy taxes, landing fees, weather briefing fees,
testing fees, and whatever else they have - I'd say AOPA has a pretty
strong argument.

My Mom lives in Holland. When she tells people her son is a pilot,
they tell her I must be rich (I wish).

[Blueskies]

"Chris" > wrote in message ...
: Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
: the editor in chief.
:
:snip

: Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
: propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
:
: Do you guys believe it?
:
:

Sure I believe it, not lies. I have a C-172A in the hanger on my property at our airpark. I don't have to talk to anyone
or even pay any av-gas taxes because the plane flies using auto gas. If I want to travel to California I can file a
flight plan and go anytime and just about anyplace. This is definitely one of the amazing freedoms in the good ol' USA.

Car gas costs 2.25 right now, and I burn about 9 gallons / hour. My annuals cost maybe 1 amu per year (knock wood!). Do
the math, it is really not too bad...

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris > writes:

Chris> To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy
Chris> is not only wrong, it is silly.

A few years ago I was able to fly in France for a bit from a club in a
small town. At that time I estimated the hourly cost to be about
double what I would pay in the US. So certainly more expensive, but
not so only the ultra wealthy can fly.
--
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell
him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky
feeling.
- Jack Handey

[C J Campbell]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:00:42 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article >):

> Chris wrote:
>> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas
>> Haines
>> the editor in chief.
>>
>> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
>> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
>> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
>> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>>
>> If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
>> this being written by so called intelligent people.
>>
>> European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is
>> expensive
>> (gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
>> some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
>> family.
>>
>> As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
>> Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.
>>
>> Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars
>> from
>> the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
>> here in Europe.
>>
>> To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
>> wrong, it is silly.
>>
>> Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
>> propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>>
>> Do you guys believe it?
>
> What is the percentage of pilots in major European countries? How does
> that compare to the US? Do you have any data to refute the AOPA comments?
>
> I lived in England for several months back in the mid 80s and it didn't
> appear to me that GA hardly existed compared to the US. And the folks I
> worked with in the plant thought I must be pretty wealthy when I told
> them I was a pilot.
>
> Matt

I remember reading somewhere that there were more active pilots in Orange
County in California than in all of Europe. But I can't remember where it
was. Anyone remember that article?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:00:39 -0800, Chris wrote
(in article >):

> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
> the editor in chief.
>
> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."

Near as I can tell it is true. Training European pilots is a major industry
in this country because it is too expensive to learn in Europe. So you have
to go to the US to build enough time to get hired, or you go to Lufthansa,
which trains pilots from the ground up.

As you said, gasoline alone is $9 a gallon. That would price a lot of
American pilots right out of the market. So would European user fees. So I do
not understand where you say that user fees would not make it too expensive
to fly. I don't know about Europeans, but one should not have to sacrifice
everything else just so some greedy government officials can grab more of
your money, whether it is for flying or not. Your suggestion that people
should just sacrifice more is heartless and wrong-headed. We would like to
see government officials sacrifice a little.

The infrastructure is a lot more than FSS -- and by the way, try flying in
Mexico if you want to see what it is like to fly where weather reporting is
inadequate, airports are not maintained, and other services are nil. Or go to
Argentina and try paying $300 landing fees every time you fly.




--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:54:37 -0800, Bob Fry wrote
(in article >):

>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris > writes:
>
> Chris> To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy
> Chris> is not only wrong, it is silly.
>
> A few years ago I was able to fly in France for a bit from a club in a
> small town. At that time I estimated the hourly cost to be about
> double what I would pay in the US. So certainly more expensive, but
> not so only the ultra wealthy can fly.
>

I guess it all depends on who you call the ultra wealthy. Sure, ordinary
people can afford luxury yachts, too, if they sacrifice everything else. But
such yachts tend to belong to the ultra-wealthy, do they not?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[john smith]

In article om>,
"wrxpilot" > wrote:

> Fuel at $9/hr with about 8 gph fuel burn = $72

But with the exchange rate the way it is now, it costs 25% less in Euros!

[Denny]

I don't have to talk to anyone
> or even pay any av-gas taxes because the plane flies using auto gas. If I want to travel to California I can file a
> flight plan and go anytime and just about anyplace. This is definitely one of the amazing freedoms in the good ol' USA.

Certainly, if you choose to file that is your choice, but I do not
feel it is any of the governments business where I am or where I am
going... I usually pick uncontrolled airports for our stops so all I
do is make the expected Unicom position reports in the airport traffic
area.... I normally fly from Michigan to Florida without filing a
flight plan and without talking to ATC on the radio - unless I
choose to enter a class B for some reason, etc... So, I putz along
about five hundred to a thousand feet above the ground and sightsee
all the way (not much to see in Florida though, boring, so I normally
fly a bit higher)...
I agree, this is the best country in the world... Now if we can only
stop the scum bag politicians from screwing it up any worse than they
have with the so called, Patriot Act...

denny

[Travis Marlatte]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I don't have to talk to anyone
>> or even pay any av-gas taxes because the plane flies using auto gas. If I
>> want to travel to California I can file a
>> flight plan and go anytime and just about anyplace. This is definitely
>> one of the amazing freedoms in the good ol' USA.
>
> Certainly, if you choose to file that is your choice, but I do not
> feel it is any of the governments business where I am or where I am
> going... I usually pick uncontrolled airports for our stops so all I
> do is make the expected Unicom position reports in the airport traffic
> area.... I normally fly from Michigan to Florida without filing a
> flight plan and without talking to ATC on the radio - unless I
> choose to enter a class B for some reason, etc... So, I putz along
> about five hundred to a thousand feet above the ground and sightsee
> all the way (not much to see in Florida though, boring, so I normally
> fly a bit higher)...
> I agree, this is the best country in the world... Now if we can only
> stop the scum bag politicians from screwing it up any worse than they
> have with the so called, Patriot Act...
>
> denny
>
>

I have begun to soften in my old age. I used to think that the politicians
were such complete idiots. Now, I'm much more inclined to believe that the
scum bag politicians are just reacting to what they believe their
constituancy wants. Worse, the focus is on the loudest, not necessarily the
biggest.

Have you ever noticed how when people don't know what they are talking about
that they talk non-stop. "Wouldn't you agree that GA is an uncontrolled
danger to the American population? After all, practically anyone can fly one
of these expensive toys into a populated area and kill tens of people. This
clearly needs some legislation that will cost the tax payers billions to
control. More after this break."

The time is past to be a passive pilot. We can no longer just sit back and
enjoy the ride. We must be vocal for the positive side with our neighbors
and the politicians if we are going to survive.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-19, C J Campbell > wrote:
> I guess it all depends on who you call the ultra wealthy. Sure, ordinary
> people can afford luxury yachts, too, if they sacrifice everything else. But
> such yachts tend to belong to the ultra-wealthy, do they not?

Flying in the US is a lot cheaper than in Europe (but Europe, being
quite a varied place - the costs vary massively across the area. I can
only speak for the area I fly in - northern Ireland, northern England
and the Isle of Man).

I'm not ultra wealthy. I certainly couldn't even dream of affording a
quarter share in a luxury yacht, yet I own a quarter share of an
airplane (an Auster powered by an O-320).

I very very rarely pay a user fee either. No user fees apply to my
aircraft for anything in flight. I don't have to pay for weather
briefings (and here we get to talk to a real meteorologist). There are
landing fees - but all the airfields I fly to are privately owned, and
the owner has to pay his running costs somehow. Large airfields are a
particular bug-bear (some of them charge 'handling fees' for essentially
no service whatsoever). So I don't go to large airfields, and yes - I do
find this annoying and the US approach is *much* better. It is
thankfully mitigated by the fact that small airfields are generally much
closer to where I actually want to be.

I'll stress that flying is much cheaper and better in the US, but there
is affordable GA flying to be had here too. AOPA is right to stir its
members to resist extra charges for US GA (especially as most of the
infrastructure is only needed because of the airlines, and GA would
continue quite happily without it), however, their editorial is a bit
exaggerated. AOPA rails against the popular press for distorting facts -
they ought to practise what they preach!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Blueskies]

"Denny" > wrote in message ups.com...
:I don't have to talk to anyone
: > or even pay any av-gas taxes because the plane flies using auto gas. If I want to travel to California I can file a
: > flight plan and go anytime and just about anyplace. This is definitely one of the amazing freedoms in the good ol'
USA.
:
: Certainly, if you choose to file that is your choice, but I do not
: feel it is any of the governments business where I am or where I am
: going... I usually pick uncontrolled airports for our stops so all I
: do is make the expected Unicom position reports in the airport traffic
: area.... I normally fly from Michigan to Florida without filing a
: flight plan and without talking to ATC on the radio - unless I
: choose to enter a class B for some reason, etc... So, I putz along
: about five hundred to a thousand feet above the ground and sightsee
: all the way (not much to see in Florida though, boring, so I normally
: fly a bit higher)...
: I agree, this is the best country in the world... Now if we can only
: stop the scum bag politicians from screwing it up any worse than they
: have with the so called, Patriot Act...
:
: denny
:

You know, I thought about that, and could have posted without the 'file a flight plan' comment. It is true, I could fly
to CA without ever even talking to anyone, save checking the weather forecasts. Three or four days of leisurely flying
along - freedom at its best!

[Jim Logajan]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote:
> I have begun to soften in my old age. I used to think that the
> politicians were such complete idiots. Now, I'm much more inclined to
> believe that the scum bag politicians are just reacting to what they
> believe their constituancy wants. Worse, the focus is on the loudest,
> not necessarily the biggest.

The government is composed of politicians that the majority wanted. Ergo,
putting the blame for government failures on the majority of voters is
appropriate. Improving the quality of the constituency is ultimately the
only reasonable long term solution.

> The time is past to be a passive pilot. We can no longer just sit back
> and enjoy the ride. We must be vocal for the positive side with our
> neighbors and the politicians if we are going to survive.

It is long recognized that it is a mistake to be passive and "enjoy the
ride" of liberty as evidenced by the famous quote:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (Proper attribution isn't
clear.)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:00:39 -0000, "Chris" > wrote:

>Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
>the editor in chief.
>
> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
>where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
>anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
>infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>
>If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
>this being written by so called intelligent people.
>
>European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is expensive
>(gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
>some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
>family.
>
>As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
>Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.
>
>Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars from
>the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
>here in Europe.
>
>To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
>wrong, it is silly.
>
>Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
>propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>
>Do you guys believe it?
>

I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
--ron

[Denny]

however, their editorial is a bit
> exaggerated. AOPA rails against the popular press for distorting facts -
> they ought to practise what they preach!


Well, I do not feel the AOPA is distorting... We have forces afoot in
this government that believe big government should make all
decisions.. The Patriot Act (which isn't) was rammed through in a
moment of crises by these forces and we are paying the price for that
as I type...


Nope, AOPA is not distorting even a bit and is thinking clearly...
denny

[Chris]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:00:39 -0000, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>>Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas
>>Haines
>>the editor in chief.
>>
>> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
>>where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
>>anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
>>infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>>
>>If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
>>this being written by so called intelligent people.
>>
>>European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is
>>expensive
>>(gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
>>some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
>>family.
>>
>>As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need
>>it.
>>Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.
>>
>>Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars
>>from
>>the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
>>here in Europe.
>>
>>To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
>>wrong, it is silly.
>>
>>Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
>>propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?
>>
>>Do you guys believe it?
>>
>
> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.

It depends what you think GA is for. The US has one ATC system, Europe has
nearly 40. Imagine if every state in the US had its own system.

As far as transportation goes mainland Europe has a really good railroad
network. So GA in the form of light aircraft is more for recreation.

Perhaps those in Europe have better things to do than play with airplanes.
For those who do want to do so, it can be affordable.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote in >:

>The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.

Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.
>
>
> Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
> Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?



That helps but you are always dealing with different political systems
and cultures.
Lots of little regional differences, plus the fact that the French
controllers are always going out on one or two day strikes.

[Stefan]

Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:

>> Is there a need to tell such lies?
>> Do you guys believe it?

> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.

Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this rubbish.

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:
>
>>> Is there a need to tell such lies?
>>> Do you guys believe it?
>
>
>> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
>> and
>> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
>
>
> Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this rubbish.

I've yet to see any proof that it is rubbish.

Matt

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.
>
> Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
> Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?
>
Not at all. They may all be in compliance with ICAO but that does not stop
the airspace systems being different,

Take Class E airspace - basically none existent in the UK but as soon as you
cross the FIR into French airspace it is class E.

Our class D is treated like the US class B and we have class down to the
surface - in fact a lot of our airspace below 19000 ft is class A.

In Sweden there is no class A or B airspace.

In the UK there is no night VFR, its either SVFR in CAS or IFR. You can fly
IFR without an instrument rating as long as the conditions are VMC. This is
not allowed in France.

You only have to go through the respective AIPs to see the differences
posted by each country from the ICAO norm.

The some countries are in a customs union and some are not so travelling
from UK to France requires a stop at a customs airfield but going from
France to Germany does not. And so it goes on.

In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.

The of course there are the aeronautical charts - all different.

And all this for a trip no further than say Albany to Boston.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 19, 2:24 pm, "Chris" > wrote:

>
> It depends what you think GA is for. The US has one ATC system, Europe has
> nearly 40. Imagine if every state in the US had its own system.
>
> As far as transportation goes mainland Europe has a really good railroad
> network. So GA in the form of light aircraft is more for recreation.
>
> Perhaps those in Europe have better things to do than play with airplanes.
> For those who do want to do so, it can be affordable.- Hide quoted text -
>

I think it is exactly this type of argument that holds back free-
spirited civilian inventiions and ultimately a nation's progress. It
is not by coincidence that the U.S. leads the world in aviation and
space technology. If and when the first civilian space transportation
is realized, it won't be a coincidence if it first launch takes place
in the U.S. No, I am not a flag waving fanatic. There are many things
wrong with this country, but there are a few things we do right here,
and general aviation is one of them. It is unfortunate to be
witnessing its decline.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" > wrote:

>

>>>
>>
>> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
>> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
>
>It depends what you think GA is for. The US has one ATC system, Europe has
>nearly 40. Imagine if every state in the US had its own system.
>
>As far as transportation goes mainland Europe has a really good railroad
>network. So GA in the form of light aircraft is more for recreation.
>
>Perhaps those in Europe have better things to do than play with airplanes.
>For those who do want to do so, it can be affordable.
>

What I think GA is for has little to do with how it is defined in the
statistics. It includes more than light aircraft use for recreation.

Thanks for adding a few more reasons why GA activity is so much less in
Europe. It's not only more expensive, but also less convenient and there
is more and varied bureaucracy to deal with in the form of 40 ATC systems.

And if you limit your flying, it can be affordable!

You've given me even more reasons to support the fight against adopting the
"European system" over here.
--ron

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
>
> > Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:
> >
> >>> Is there a need to tell such lies?
> >>> Do you guys believe it?
> >
> >
> >> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
> >> and
> >> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
> >
> >
> > Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this rubbish.
>
> I've yet to see any proof that it is rubbish.
>
> Matt

I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."

Is it the AOPA alarms?
Is it the European socialist attitude towards GA?
Is it the idea that some people are not paying their "fair share" (as
defined by those making the claims)?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-19, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
> --ron

Europe isn't nearly as homogenous as the United States in terms of
wealth. Europe (just the European Union) includes countries like Romania
and Bulgaria where just owning a *car* is a struggle - these countries
are still recovering from decades of Soviet rule and have economies
which are in a desperate condition even compared to France (let alone
the United States). If you look at Europe in a wider context than just
the EU, you end up with countries like Albania with a GDP per capita of
$5600 (compared with the GDP per capita of the United States which is
$43500 - almost 10 times higher).

You can't really think of Europe in the same terms as the fifty states
of the US. Europe is pretty disparate in both wealth and culture. It's
not like an equivalent of the US where they speak funny languages.

Even if GA in Europe had no regulation whatsoever, there would be a lot
less GA activity in Europe than in the United States.

There is some good news though - the head of EASA has said he wants to
reduce the regulatory burden on GA and see it as 'healthy as it is in
the United States'. It remains to be seen whether they will actually
implement it, but over the last 18 months they have been making the
right noises. They even listened to and accepted the responses from GA
pilots over the Single European Sky which shocked the hell out of me.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-19, Chris > wrote:
> Perhaps those in Europe have better things to do than play with airplanes.
> For those who do want to do so, it can be affordable.

There are better things to do than play with aeroplanes?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."

The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
standard to themselves too!

Other than that, AOPA is quite right to lobby against insane user fees.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Stefan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is there a need to tell such lies?
>>>>>Do you guys believe it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
>>>>and
>>>>half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this rubbish.
>>
>>I've yet to see any proof that it is rubbish.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."
>
> Is it the AOPA alarms?
> Is it the European socialist attitude towards GA?
> Is it the idea that some people are not paying their "fair share" (as
> defined by those making the claims)?

I haven't read the a AOPA comments, but I think the gist of it is that
they claimed that GA was much less accessible in Europe than in the USA.
I personally believe this to be true, but admittedly haven't seen
anything even approximating data on this topic. I'd like to see the
percentages of the population in a few European countries that are GA
pilots and aircraft owners vs. the US. I haven't had time to search
much yet, but thought some of the folks who live in Europe and who were
claiming that the AOPA assertion was rubbish would step up with some data.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."
>
>
> The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
> AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
> want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
> for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
> standard to themselves too!

One data point invalidates the general assertion? Really??


Matt

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:11:29 -0000, Dylan Smith >
wrote:

>On 2007-02-19, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
>> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
>> --ron
>
>Europe isn't nearly as homogenous as the United States in terms of
>wealth. Europe (just the European Union) includes countries like Romania
>and Bulgaria where just owning a *car* is a struggle - these countries
>are still recovering from decades of Soviet rule and have economies
>which are in a desperate condition even compared to France (let alone
>the United States). If you look at Europe in a wider context than just
>the EU, you end up with countries like Albania with a GDP per capita of
>$5600 (compared with the GDP per capita of the United States which is
>$43500 - almost 10 times higher).

That's very true. There are certainly areas of the US with similar
disadvantages. The inner cities and some rural areas come to mind.
Probably not as poor as Romania, though.
>
>You can't really think of Europe in the same terms as the fifty states
>of the US. Europe is pretty disparate in both wealth and culture. It's
>not like an equivalent of the US where they speak funny languages.
>
>Even if GA in Europe had no regulation whatsoever, there would be a lot
>less GA activity in Europe than in the United States.
>
>There is some good news though - the head of EASA has said he wants to
>reduce the regulatory burden on GA and see it as 'healthy as it is in
>the United States'. It remains to be seen whether they will actually
>implement it, but over the last 18 months they have been making the
>right noises. They even listened to and accepted the responses from GA
>pilots over the Single European Sky which shocked the hell out of me.

That's good. My only experience with European flying is a bit of flying in
the Azores, in a Portugese registered a/c. It seemed it was more difficult
and expensive to obtain a temporary license. The flying privileges were
significantly more limited to what I have in the US. There was a lot more
control, but some of that was due to the flying club being based at Lajes
field, which is a large airport with shared military and commercial
control.
--ron

[CriticalMass]

Blueskies wrote:
>> My annuals cost maybe 1 amu per year (knock wood!).

Whazzat? What currency is an "amu"?

[Jose]

> Whazzat? What currency is an "amu"?

"Aviation monetary unit". It's equal to ten C-notes.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:55:49 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote in
>:

>
>And if you limit your flying, it can be affordable!

At the expense of reduced safety provided by recent practice.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:44:24 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:

>I haven't read the a AOPA comments, but I think the gist of it is that
>they claimed that GA was much less accessible in Europe than in the USA.
> I personally believe this to be true, but admittedly haven't seen
>anything even approximating data on this topic. I'd like to see the
>percentages of the population in a few European countries that are GA
>pilots and aircraft owners vs. the US. I haven't had time to search
>much yet, but thought some of the folks who live in Europe and who were
>claiming that the AOPA assertion was rubbish would step up with some data.

That's because the percentage of population that are pilots in the European
countries is much less than in the US.


--ron

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:25:25 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.
>>
>> Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
>> Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?
>>
>Not at all. They may all be in compliance with ICAO but that does not stop
>the airspace systems being different,
>
>Take Class E airspace - basically none existent in the UK but as soon as you
>cross the FIR into French airspace it is class E.
>
>Our class D is treated like the US class B and we have class down to the
>surface - in fact a lot of our airspace below 19000 ft is class A.
>
>In Sweden there is no class A or B airspace.
>
> In the UK there is no night VFR, its either SVFR in CAS or IFR. You can fly
>IFR without an instrument rating as long as the conditions are VMC. This is
>not allowed in France.
>
>You only have to go through the respective AIPs to see the differences
>posted by each country from the ICAO norm.
>
>The some countries are in a customs union and some are not so travelling
>from UK to France requires a stop at a customs airfield but going from
>France to Germany does not. And so it goes on.
>
>In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
>0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.
>
>The of course there are the aeronautical charts - all different.
>
>And all this for a trip no further than say Albany to Boston.
>

I had no idea. Thanks.

[Tobias Schnell]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:25:25 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
>0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.

Germany is going to replace 0021/0022 with 7000 on March 15th.

Regards
Tobias

[John Godwin]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> That's because the percentage of population that are pilots in the
> European countries is much less than in the US.

Hmmm, why is that?

--

[Blueskies]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message ...
: On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
: > I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."
:
: The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
: AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
: want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
: for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
: standard to themselves too!
:
: Other than that, AOPA is quite right to lobby against insane user fees.
:
: --
: Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
: Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de



How does your situation provide proof that the AOPA article is a gross exaggeration?

[[email protected]]

On 19 Feb., 00:00, "Chris" > wrote:
> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas Haines
> the editor in chief.
>
> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>
OK, to add my 2 cents here,
I'm a German PPL-Holder. I have talked to people who went to the US to
build time, have a nice pilot-trip or whatever. They all agreed that
its considerably cheaper in the US and comperatively less buerocratic
(sp?).
It really semms to be cheaper and easier to get access to GA in the
US, and the place is a lot more GA-friendly.
Still it is only that it is more expensive here not completely out of
reach for almost everyone. There are clubs, you can join, get the
license and fly. But because it is more expensive, you have to be
enough of a geek to really do it. Owning planes seems to be a lot more
expensive to, because you see a lot of N-registered planes here
(relatively), and there are really few who go all the way and own a
plane or a share.
I am a software developer and I'm not exactly poor, but certainly not
overly wealthy. If I had a job with less pay, I would still have gone
ahead and obtained my PPL because I really wanted to. When I talk to
people who earn about what I do, most of them tell me its too
expensive, too much hassle, they stick to riding a motor bike. Or
whatever.

The problem is, you can hardly compare the pay between the US and
Germany e.g. and much less between the US and all of Europe.
In the club where I learned to fly and still fly, there are quite a
few people who are not wealthy, even some who are considerably less
wealthy than me. You know, you can always fly gliders or something,
which is cheaper.

So, the bottom line is: no, its not only for the overly wealthy in
Europe. Anyone getting paid for his job should be able to go for a
license. But because its much more expensive and to some extend more
complicated, a whole lot of people just dont do it.
But it is true that you (the US GA pilot community) should stand up
against these fees, because if you dont, your GA will end up just like
ours is today. Maybe even worse.

It is nice to hear that the head of EASA tries to shape the european
GA ike the US one. But from my experience, the buerocrats and
politicians will screw this up. Just as always. I mean, I'm supporting
groups that are trying to make GA more accessible here, but as you all
know, our community is small, getting older and is in the end all but
unheard.

OK, my 2 cents.

Regards,

Peer

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:25:25 -0000, "Chris" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris" >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.
>>>
>>> Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
>>> Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?
>>>
>>Not at all. They may all be in compliance with ICAO but that does not stop
>>the airspace systems being different,
>>
>>Take Class E airspace - basically none existent in the UK but as soon as
>>you
>>cross the FIR into French airspace it is class E.
>>
>>Our class D is treated like the US class B and we have class down to the
>>surface - in fact a lot of our airspace below 19000 ft is class A.
>>
>>In Sweden there is no class A or B airspace.
>>
>> In the UK there is no night VFR, its either SVFR in CAS or IFR. You can
>> fly
>>IFR without an instrument rating as long as the conditions are VMC. This
>>is
>>not allowed in France.
>>
>>You only have to go through the respective AIPs to see the differences
>>posted by each country from the ICAO norm.
>>
>>The some countries are in a customs union and some are not so travelling
>>from UK to France requires a stop at a customs airfield but going from
>>France to Germany does not. And so it goes on.
>>
>>In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
>>0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.
>>
>>The of course there are the aeronautical charts - all different.
>>
>>And all this for a trip no further than say Albany to Boston.
>>
>
> I had no idea. Thanks.

My pleasure

Now then back to the point, fancy going through all of that in the US with
each state doing its own thing. Would it be any surprise that people don't
both flying.

On the point of European airspace harmonisation, whose standards are they
going to use? The reality is that it will be a compromise so everyone will
have to learn a new system, but the French will have their opt outs, the
Germans theirs etc.

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stefan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Is there a need to tell such lies?
>>>>>>Do you guys believe it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
>>>>>and
>>>>>half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA
>>>>>activity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this
>>>>rubbish.
>>>
>>>I've yet to see any proof that it is rubbish.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."
>>
>> Is it the AOPA alarms? Is it the European socialist attitude towards GA?
>> Is it the idea that some people are not paying their "fair share" (as
>> defined by those making the claims)?
>
> I haven't read the a AOPA comments, but I think the gist of it is that
> they claimed that GA was much less accessible in Europe than in the USA. I
> personally believe this to be true, but admittedly haven't seen anything
> even approximating data on this topic. I'd like to see the percentages of
> the population in a few European countries that are GA pilots and aircraft
> owners vs. the US. I haven't had time to search much yet, but thought
> some of the folks who live in Europe and who were claiming that the AOPA
> assertion was rubbish would step up with some data.

The AOPA claim was that only the ultrawealthy fly anything and the wealthy
only fly microlights. That is what's being said is rubbish. Such a sweeping
generalisation is simply not true.

Its on the same scale as saying all Americans are rednecks.

[Chris]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:11:29 -0000, Dylan Smith >
> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-02-19, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>>> I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
>>> and
>>> half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
>>> --ron
>>
>>Europe isn't nearly as homogenous as the United States in terms of
>>wealth. Europe (just the European Union) includes countries like Romania
>>and Bulgaria where just owning a *car* is a struggle - these countries
>>are still recovering from decades of Soviet rule and have economies
>>which are in a desperate condition even compared to France (let alone
>>the United States). If you look at Europe in a wider context than just
>>the EU, you end up with countries like Albania with a GDP per capita of
>>$5600 (compared with the GDP per capita of the United States which is
>>$43500 - almost 10 times higher).
>
> That's very true. There are certainly areas of the US with similar
> disadvantages. The inner cities and some rural areas come to mind.
> Probably not as poor as Romania, though.
>>
>>You can't really think of Europe in the same terms as the fifty states
>>of the US. Europe is pretty disparate in both wealth and culture. It's
>>not like an equivalent of the US where they speak funny languages.
>>
>>Even if GA in Europe had no regulation whatsoever, there would be a lot
>>less GA activity in Europe than in the United States.
>>
>>There is some good news though - the head of EASA has said he wants to
>>reduce the regulatory burden on GA and see it as 'healthy as it is in
>>the United States'. It remains to be seen whether they will actually
>>implement it, but over the last 18 months they have been making the
>>right noises. They even listened to and accepted the responses from GA
>>pilots over the Single European Sky which shocked the hell out of me.
>
> That's good. My only experience with European flying is a bit of flying
> in
> the Azores, in a Portugese registered a/c. It seemed it was more
> difficult
> and expensive to obtain a temporary license. The flying privileges were
> significantly more limited to what I have in the US.

Well if you can to the UK you could use your FAA certificate and not worry
about a temporary certificate at all because its not needed. However in a G
reg you would be limited to day VFR only but in an N reg you would have full
privileges.

Now how easy is that.

[Chris]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 19 Feb., 00:00, "Chris" > wrote:
>> Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas
>> Haines
>> the editor in chief.
>>
>> "General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
>> where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
>> anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
>> infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."
>>
> OK, to add my 2 cents here,
> I'm a German PPL-Holder. I have talked to people who went to the US to
> build time, have a nice pilot-trip or whatever. They all agreed that
> its considerably cheaper in the US and comperatively less buerocratic
> (sp?).
> It really semms to be cheaper and easier to get access to GA in the
> US, and the place is a lot more GA-friendly.
> Still it is only that it is more expensive here not completely out of
> reach for almost everyone. There are clubs, you can join, get the
> license and fly. But because it is more expensive, you have to be
> enough of a geek to really do it. Owning planes seems to be a lot more
> expensive to, because you see a lot of N-registered planes here
> (relatively), and there are really few who go all the way and own a
> plane or a share.
> I am a software developer and I'm not exactly poor, but certainly not
> overly wealthy. If I had a job with less pay, I would still have gone
> ahead and obtained my PPL because I really wanted to. When I talk to
> people who earn about what I do, most of them tell me its too
> expensive, too much hassle, they stick to riding a motor bike. Or
> whatever.
>
> The problem is, you can hardly compare the pay between the US and
> Germany e.g. and much less between the US and all of Europe.
> In the club where I learned to fly and still fly, there are quite a
> few people who are not wealthy, even some who are considerably less
> wealthy than me. You know, you can always fly gliders or something,
> which is cheaper.
>
> So, the bottom line is: no, its not only for the overly wealthy in
> Europe. Anyone getting paid for his job should be able to go for a
> license. But because its much more expensive and to some extend more
> complicated, a whole lot of people just dont do it.
> But it is true that you (the US GA pilot community) should stand up
> against these fees, because if you dont, your GA will end up just like
> ours is today. Maybe even worse.
>
> It is nice to hear that the head of EASA tries to shape the european
> GA ike the US one. But from my experience, the buerocrats and
> politicians will screw this up. Just as always. I mean, I'm supporting
> groups that are trying to make GA more accessible here, but as you all
> know, our community is small, getting older and is in the end all but
> unheard.
>
> OK, my 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peer

Spot on, perhaps European flyers are more dedicated to their passion as it
is tougher and you need to be more flexible and resilient to keep going in
the face of what to you Americans seems impossible odds.

I hope as well you win the battle to avoid user fees for purely selfish
reasons.

I still have a lot of the US to explore by light aircraft which I hope to
get out of my system over the next 10 years.

I have already done E coast to W coast, RI, to Ca and back and now I want to
doing NW to SE and SW to NE and then finish off NE to SE.

The next great adventure in will be to fly a light aircraft to and then
across China which I think will be possible in 10 years time. Now that would
be the ultimate experience.

[Skylune]

On Feb 20, 8:42 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in ...
>
> : On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> : > I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."
> :
> : The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
> : AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
> : want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
> : for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
> : standard to themselves too!
> :
> : Other than that, AOPA is quite right to lobby against insane user fees.
> :
> : --
> : Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> : Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
>
> How does your situation provide proof that the AOPA article is a gross exaggeration?

A more honest argument would be that eliminating the massive tax
subsidies that go to the thousands of GA airports (for capital as well
as operating purposes), would increase the costs to GA. The FACT is
that GA AV gas taxes, at 19.3 cents per gallon, contribute roughly 5%
to the Aviation Trust Fund. Boyer cannot change this, and therefore
never refers to this critical fact. You think that only 5% or so of
the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA? Well, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics thinks otherwise, as do influential think
tanks such as the Reason Foundation.
The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners and by
the general taxpaying public (due to the General Fund contribution
that the Destroyer is trying so desperately to keep).

As Boyer has said (absurdly), commercial ticket taxes don't hurt the
commercial carriers because they pass it on to the passengers. OK, if
this is true, maybe rather than user fees the FBOs should be charged a
separate tax to cover the full cost of operating and equipping the
airport at which they are based. It won't hurt them: they can simply
pass it on to the users, just like the commercial carriers do.

Oh, yeah, commercial carriers (which transport millions of people
every year) are "special interests" according to the AOPA, which is
apparently not a special interest, but instead is concerned with good
public policy.

[Jose]

> You think that only 5% or so of
> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?

As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
provides the benefit.

> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...

....who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
at the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
> the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.

Not to mention that the chances are pretty good that the person in the front
of their airliner doing the driving, was probably trained in one of those
small planes, at one of those small airports.
--
Jim in NC

[Chris]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> You think that only 5% or so of
>> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
>
> As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
> provides the benefit.
>
>> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
>> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
>
> ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
> the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
>
> Jose

Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
smells of pork bellies:-)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:22:45 -0000, "Chris" > wrote:

>Well if you can to the UK you could use your FAA certificate and not worry
>about a temporary certificate at all because its not needed. However in a G
>reg you would be limited to day VFR only but in an N reg you would have full
>privileges.
>
>Now how easy is that.

Not very easy.

I have no reason to go to England. I have good reason to go to the Azores,
and do so frequently. There are no N-registered a/c available to me there
-- only Portugese registered.
--ron

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> A more honest argument would be that eliminating the massive tax
> subsidies that go to the thousands of GA airports (for capital as well
> as operating purposes), would increase the costs to GA.

There are 14,501 airports (73% of all airports) in the U.S. that are
private-use airports with no FAA involvement and getting no FAA tax
subsidies.

If you had an honest argument you'd have presented numbers. Well, there are
the numbers and they don't support your assertion.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Chris" > wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You think that only 5% or so of
> >> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
> >
> > As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
> > provides the benefit.
> >
> >> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
> >> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
> >
> > ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
> > the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
> >
> > Jose
>
> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
> GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
> growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
> smells of pork bellies:-)

Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

[[email protected]]

I do not believe it.

I own a C150 and here are the costs I'm looking at, you can decide if
one has to be wealty or not.
BTW, numbers are in euro, euro/dollar exchange about 1.31.

Annual +100 hrs + comm and x-ponder check 900,-
Insurance 880,-/year
Fuel burn 40,-/hr
Hangar 148,-/month
Medical 140,-/2 year
Licence renewal 80,-/ 2 year
Licence for comm/nav/x-ponder 113,-/year

My mechanic 55,-/hr
For parts use the price in dollar and convert to euro 1:1 this because
of shipping and VAT.

Landing fees ranging from nothing to 15,- mostly 10,-
At my home field I pay 2,50/landing
No user fees.
Wx briefing from nothing to 80ct/min if I've to make a phone call,
40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.

-Kees(not wealty)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-21, Chris > wrote:
> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
> GA pay less.

A typical GA aircraft does no damage to the runway. A Boeing 747 makes a
serious and measurable amount of wear with each landing. A typical GA
aircraft can make a very short approach, and not occupy much of ATC's
time or the runway during the takeoff/landing.

Those big hard surfaced runways are there entirely for the benefit of
the airlines - GA doesn't need them at all, so why should GA be paying
for them (particularly thinking of Skylune's example here - he goes on
about the airport improvement fund and GA's contribution, when GA
doesn't actually need any of that stuff but the airlines absolutely
require it).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-22, > wrote:
> 40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.
>

By the way, if your phone does GPRS, you can get TAF/METARs for free
over the internet with no frills (so they fit on your phone's screen
with no decorations that websites normally add).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Ash Wyllie]

Chris opined

>"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>> You think that only 5% or so of
>>> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
>>
>> As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
>> provides the benefit.
>>
>>> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
>>> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
>>
>> ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of at
>> the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
>>
>> Jose

>Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to take
>off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
>airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why should
>GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
>growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is involved -
>smells of pork bellies:-)

$400 makes sense, for an IFR slot. On a VMC day a VFR aircraft is not using
a scarce resource. The marginal cost of a VFR aircraft is nearly $0.

Unless you want to try to run a scheduled airline that only flies VFR...


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 3:52 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-02-22, > wrote:
>
> > 40ct/SMS if I use that for TAF and/or Metar.
>
> By the way, if your phone does GPRS, you can get TAF/METARs for free
> over the internet with no frills (so they fit on your phone's screen
> with no decorations that websites normally add).
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'm too cheap to buy a decent phone ;-)

Thanks for the tip, I'll try to remeber that one next time I go
shopping for a phone.

-Kees

[Chris]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Chris" > wrote:
>
>> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> You think that only 5% or so of
>> >> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
>> >
>> > As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
>> > provides the benefit.
>> >
>> >> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
>> >> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
>> >
>> > ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
>> > at
>> > the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
>> >
>> > Jose
>>
>> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
>> take
>> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
>> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
>> should
>> GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
>> growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
>> involved -
>> smells of pork bellies:-)
>
> Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
> Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
> military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
> Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
> Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).

GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

[Blueskies]

"Chris" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
:
: Its on the same scale as saying all Americans are rednecks.
:
:


But that is true, too!

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>"Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>You think that only 5% or so of
>>>>>the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
>>>>
>>>>As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
>>>>provides the benefit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
>>>>>airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
>>>>
>>>>...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
>>>>at
>>>>the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
>>>>
>>>>Jose
>>>
>>>Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
>>>take
>>>off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
>>>airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
>>>should
>>>GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
>>>growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
>>>involved -
>>>smells of pork bellies:-)
>>
>>Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
>>Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
>>military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
>>Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
>>Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).
>
>
> GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
transit gets in the cities.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
> matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
> transit gets in the cities.

Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
> million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.

I don't know how it is in Iowa City, but if everyone who was riding the
busses in NYC took to their cars, the present drivers would be quite
unhappy. I'd say that it is in the driver's best interest to subsidize
the busses, that is, if they want to go anywhere.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Chris" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jose" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> You think that only 5% or so of
> >> >> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
> >> >
> >> > As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
> >> > provides the benefit.
> >> >
> >> >> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of GA
> >> >> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
> >> >
> >> > ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead of
> >> > at
> >> > the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
> >> >
> >> > Jose
> >>
> >> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting to
> >> take
> >> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
> >> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
> >> should
> >> GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the economic
> >> growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
> >> involved -
> >> smells of pork bellies:-)
> >
> > Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
> > Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
> > military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
> > Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
> > Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).
>
> GA on welfare from the taxpayer again

GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
otherwise destroy!

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Very few things related to transportation or most anything else for that
>> matter are any different than GA. Look at the subsidies that mass
>> transit gets in the cities.
>
> Look indeed. Iowa City's bus system gets enough tax subsidies -- $2
> million annually -- to buy each rider a used car, EVERY YEAR.

Look at Portland's multi $$$billion fiasco
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4908

[Chris]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Chris" > wrote:
>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Chris" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> You think that only 5% or so of
>> >> >> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
>> >> >
>> >> > As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
>> >> > provides the benefit.
>> >> >
>> >> >> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of
>> >> >> GA
>> >> >> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
>> >> >
>> >> > ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead
>> >> > of
>> >> > at
>> >> > the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jose
>> >>
>> >> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting
>> >> to
>> >> take
>> >> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
>> >> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
>> >> should
>> >> GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the
>> >> economic
>> >> growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
>> >> involved -
>> >> smells of pork bellies:-)
>> >
>> > Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
>> > Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
>> > military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
>> > Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
>> > Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).
>>
>> GA on welfare from the taxpayer again
>
> GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
> otherwise destroy!
Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
services would flourish.

Is this not free enterprise?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Chris" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Chris" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jose" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> You think that only 5% or so of
> >> >> >> the entire FAA budget gets allocated to GA?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As you know, where money is spent isn't the same as where that money
> >> >> > provides the benefit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The fact is that capital and operating grants to the thousands of
> >> >> >> GA
> >> >> >> airports are paid mostly by passengers on commercial airliners...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...who benefit by having us spam cans land at those airports instead
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > the ones with long lines of jets waiting to take off.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jose
> >> >>
> >> >> Land by all means at the airports with the long line of jets waiting
> >> >> to
> >> >> take
> >> >> off but pay $400 for the privilege or the equivalent contribution an
> >> >> airliner makes. A take off or landing slot has an economic value why
> >> >> should
> >> >> GA pay less. Its the law of the market, the principle behind the
> >> >> economic
> >> >> growth of the US, or does the principle get suspended when GA is
> >> >> involved -
> >> >> smells of pork bellies:-)
> >> >
> >> > Then make good, friendly GA airports available in urban areas.
> >> > Federalize the airport system, if necessary. Convert all surplus
> >> > military airfields to GA use, instead of restricting their use (a la
> >> > Moffett "Federal Airfield"), or letting developers butcher them up (El
> >> > Toro, Hamilton, South Weymouth, Glenview, to name a few).
> >>
> >> GA on welfare from the taxpayer again
> >
> > GA making use of costly facilities that Philistine like "Chris" would
> > otherwise destroy!
> Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
> providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
> services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
> services would flourish.
>
> Is this not free enterprise?

Then, let's stop funding bicycle lanes (in the SF Bay area they get far
more than small airports), parks, golf courses, marinas, sports stadia,
etc. Put them all on the same level and create a vast, dull,
inhospitable place to live.

[Blueskies]

"Chris" > wrote in message ...
snip

: Not destroy, put them to the market. If the airports can make money
: providing services to pilots them let them do so. If pilots want the
: services they would use the airports. Poor services would dies and good
: services would flourish.
:
: Is this not free enterprise?
:
:

Actually, not in my opinion. This is on the level of basic government services, like roads, water, emergency services.
Sure, if someone wants to build an airport water park destination vacation spot, so be it. But if you are flying out
over Iowa and the engine sputters you want to land right now. There should be an airport somewhere close...

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> Is this not free enterprise?
>
> Then, let's stop funding bicycle lanes (in the SF Bay area they get far
> more than small airports), parks, golf courses, marinas, sports stadia,
> etc. Put them all on the same level and create a vast, dull,
> inhospitable place to live.


Yes, only government can provide those simple "necessities"

Geezlouise!!!
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...

> :
> : Is this not free enterprise?
> :
> :
>
> Actually, not in my opinion. This is on the level of basic government
> services, like roads, water,
> emergency services.

By what logic does that fit in? Live, liberty and the pursuit of
convenience?

BTW- roads, water and emergency services: road deteriorating, water
becomming scarce, and if you call 9-1-1, it's entirely possible you'll die
(remember, government's first priority is protecting itself).

> Sure, if someone wants to build an airport water park destination vacation
> spot, so be it.
> But if you are flying out over Iowa and the engine sputters you want to
> land right now. \
> There should be an airport somewhere close...

And if you're hungry, you might look for a government restaurant.

(Boy, have the sheeple been sheared)