AOPA Mag This Month [Archive]

Brian[_1_]

April 3rd 07, 10:08 PM

On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 1:29 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> >> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> >> conclusions were the same as ours.
>
> >> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> >> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> >> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
> >> We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
> >> and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
> >> Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!
>
> >> :-)
>
> > Maybe Anthony can submit an article on MS Flight Simulator. :-)
>
> Please no.
>
> ---------------------------------
> DW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh why not, he could have the following topics....

Aircraft engines that don't leak oil

or

747 Cat III approaches in 3 easy steps...

or

Taxi lines painted by minimum wage programmers.

I am sure there or more topics I have missed or forgotten.

Brian

Blueskies

April 3rd 07, 11:06 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message oups.com...
: On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
: > "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
: >
: > oups.com...
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > > Maybe Anthony can submit an article on MS Flight Simulator. :-)
: >
: > Please no.
: >
: > ---------------------------------
: > DW- Hide quoted text -
: >
: > - Show quoted text -
:
: Oh why not, he could have the following topics....
:
: Aircraft engines that don't leak oil
:
: or
:
: 747 Cat III approaches in 3 easy steps...
:
: or
:
: Taxi lines painted by minimum wage programmers.
:
:
: I am sure there or more topics I have missed or forgotten.
:
: Brian
:

Do you folks always have to divert a thread with this banter?

Bob Noel

April 3rd 07, 11:30 PM

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> Do you folks always have to divert a thread with this banter?

No. Sometimes it happens without someone trying...

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Borat

April 3rd 07, 11:57 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> conclusions were the same as ours.
>
> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Some
of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Heathrow is really a shopping centre with an airport attached and their
business model relies on passengers spending in the vast array of shops and
food outlets.

A 747 with 350 people on board will generate far more income for the airport
than a donk in his A36 hence why if you want to take a A36 into Heathrow it
is expensive. There are many cheaper places are nearby. So those who can
afford the private jets can afford to fly into LHR. As LHR is at almost
full capacity slotwise, then slow aircraft are not wanted at all. Turboprop
aircraft have almost all gone from Heathrow, it seems like jets only.

As has been covered before, the top end of GA, with the jets, fractional
ownership, have customers who can afford it. So the costs are of little
consequence. For the average private pilot, flying is a recreation, a hobby
and not a serious mode of transport for the masses.

I am faced with going to Glasgow this month. $130 by scheduled carrier, $600
if I fly myself, roughly $100/ hour with $20 landing and overnight parking.
With the guarantee of getting there and back from the scheduled carrier, it
is a no brainer, I will be home mid morning and have the rest of the weekend
with the family.

Going to Europe is the same - for serious travel go by car, train or
scheduled carrier. The trains in Europe are seriously fast and if you have
work to do better than the planes.

EuroTrips I have done by light aircraft have been, the Normandy Beaches (a
perfect little trip and best done by air and foot), the WWI trenches, the
Somme etc.

Trips planned include retracing the steps of the Dambusters and a couple of
other wartime aviation exploits.

Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.

All will require some flexibility re time so a strict schedule is impossible
to follow. "If you have time to spare go by air".

Matt Whiting

April 4th 07, 12:24 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> conclusions were the same as ours.
>
> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
> We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
> and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
> Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!

And altimeters that indicate the altitude at the level of the
instrument! :-)

Matt

cjcampbell

April 4th 07, 01:03 AM

On Apr 3, 3:30 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
> > Do you folks always have to divert a thread with this banter?
>
> No. Sometimes it happens without someone trying...
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Truly. You try to do a little one-liner funny, and it blows up on you.

john smith[_2_]

April 4th 07, 04:20 AM

In article >,
"Borat" > wrote:

> Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
> flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
> sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.

So long as you do not file as the original mission number and callsign,
IP and altitiude, they will not figure it out. Oh... and do not file
aircraft type as AVRO Lancaster.

Travis Marlatte

April 4th 07, 04:40 AM

That seems to happen quite regularly with AOPA and with Flying. I have
always thought that people were just getting their magazines well in advance
of me. It kind of ruins the magazines for me. By the time I read them, I
have already seen a much more animated discussion here. On the other hand,
AvWeb always seems to lead the discussions here so I presume people are
asking follow up questions - even though they are very rarely stated as
such.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> conclusions were the same as ours.
>
> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
> We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
> and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
> Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!
>
> :-)
> ---
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Matt Whiting

April 4th 07, 12:00 PM

Borat wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
>> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
>> conclusions were the same as ours.
>>
>> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
>> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
>> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>>
> Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
> great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
> and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Some
> of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is if
> you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
> that is less important to stay flying.

What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?

Matt

Matt Barrow[_4_]

April 4th 07, 03:12 PM

Jay Honeck

April 4th 07, 03:46 PM

> if
> you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
> that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

> Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
> airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
> for a profit.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dylan Smith

April 4th 07, 04:20 PM

On 2007-04-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
> airports?

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

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

john smith[_2_]

April 4th 07, 06:23 PM

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
> U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
> entities?

I know! I know!
Because the socialized systems didn't work and the government entities
were so far into the red and inept, they accepted buyouts to appease the
public outcry.

Unlike the US-style of outsourcing, of giving up the goods to profiteers
who charge high prices, reduce service, and pay the chief executives
high salaries and benefits.

The backlash to the outsourcing of government functions is about to come
to a head. The US people are going to punish the politicians as soon as
they learn that the US military is so cripled that it cannot operate
without independently of private contractors. The first reports of
contractors abandoning their dead employees in the Middle East are
starting to make it into the mainstream press.

I am not normally one to rant about the government, but when the
military cannot feed itself in the field, things have gone to far. The
aborted no-bid tanker leasing program with Boeing is another example of
how bad things have gotten. The corruption of the US government is
depressing. An not one candidate for state or federal office has what it
takes to put a stop to it.

Rant off.

Borat

April 4th 07, 07:22 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> if
>> you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
>> that is less important to stay flying.
>
> That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.
>
>> Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
>> airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
>> for a profit.
>
> Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
> U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
> entities?
>
> Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
> airports?

with the exception of the London Underground most is privately owned.The
railways are owned by a variety of companies including Virgin, Stagecoach
(who own a lot of the US school bus operators and have just bought out
Greyhound)

all the bus companies are also privately operated too as are the airlines.

One motorway (interstate) is also privately owned and has a government
franchise for the next 50 years and charges a toll.

I suspect that this notion of socialist leaning depends on your viewpoint.
My view would be that GA in the US is a real socialist leaning enterprise
with public ownership and federal subsidy at the level it is.

I am not aware of any UK aviation related activity which receives public
money as a subsidy (other than the Air Force) except perhaps in the far
reaches of the Scottish Isles.

As to why airports developed into non municipal entities - well many
municipalities ran their airports as full commercial ventures anyway and
when the value of the venture grew they sold them off to finance other
municipal activities already guaranteeing that the jobs and businesses
created would stay. They had no further need to be running an airport. Even
those still owned by the local authorities, like Manchester are run as
independent businesses with the stockholders getting a dividend.

Generally if you base an aircraft at an airfield fees cover tie downs and
all landings. At my field I don't pay for landings and I can do as many as I
want. So that stuff about landings was sheer garbage. I pay to land when I
fly away.

Borat

April 4th 07, 07:26 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Borat wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
>>> soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
>>> conclusions were the same as ours.
>>>
>>> Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
>>> GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
>>> bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>>>
>> Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
>> great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
>> and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
>> Some
>> of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is
>> if
>> you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
>> that is less important to stay flying.
>
> What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?
>
> Matt

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill

Back to the original thread.....

I could take the author to task about his comments regarding his departure
from Biggin.

I am assuming this was the flight I have recorded on the 8th December 2006
which arrived from Germany then departed back there some 6 hours later. I do
not know where he got his $150 landing and nav service charge from as we do
not have a separate nav charge and the landing fee for a Twin Crunchie is
not $150.

During his 6 hour stop over did he did not walk into Flight Op's and make
use of the WSI Pilot Brief web service we provide for all weather and route
briefing, or obtain a briefing from the staff? We have a WiFi link so if he
wanted to 'do his own thing' using a laptop then that was also possible free
of charge.

Whilst I agree that GA in Europe has a raw deal compared to the USA
'flowery' writing like this can only be for the purpose of making a bad
situation look even worse.

Borat

April 4th 07, 07:27 PM

Gig 601XL Builder

April 4th 07, 08:32 PM

Borat wrote:

> So GA is not for the working class then?

I can not stand that phrase. Just because someone doesn't spend 8 hours in a
factory doesn't mean they don't work. At my airport every single one of the
people that fly or own airplanes there works or did until they retired at
70+ years of age. And even some of those 70+ guys still work everyday.

There really aren't that many idle rich in the US. I live in a town with
quite a bit of oil money dating back to the 1920's. I know of exactly one
adult male that one would consider idle rich. Now, there are a lot of them
that the only time their hands get dirty is when they have to pick up their
golf ball out of the mud but they do work and often way more hours than the
people that work for them.

If you change your question to "So GA is not for the poor then?" I'd have to
agree with you. But there are lots of things that the poor can't afford to
do. As for the middle class as any sane person would describe it then, in
the US, if they want to do it they could probably find a way. Will they have
their own Bonanza, probably not. Could they have a pretty could chance of
owning their own C-150 or Cherokee 140, sure. They might have to not buy the
newest SUV every few years but they could do it.

Thomas Borchert

April 4th 07, 09:34 PM

Borat,

> Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
> Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill
>

I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Borat

April 4th 07, 09:44 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Borat wrote:
>
>> So GA is not for the working class then?
>
> I can not stand that phrase.
It was Jay who suggested that the middle classes would bale out of GA if it
got more expensive.

Gig 601XL Builder

April 4th 07, 09:54 PM

Borat wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Borat wrote:
>>
>>> So GA is not for the working class then?
>>
>> I can not stand that phrase.
> It was Jay who suggested that the middle classes would bale out of GA
> if it got more expensive.

It was you that used the phrase "Working Class." And of course it is simple
economics that as the price of a good or service rises, as compared to
income, that demand will be reduced.

Morgans[_2_]

April 4th 07, 10:16 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
> companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
> they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
> privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
> owned.
>
> A picture of a privately run train:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was there
in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
of ventures.
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting

April 4th 07, 11:00 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Borat,
>
>> Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
>> Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill
>>
>
> I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
> for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.
>

Style is one thing, but misrepresentation is another. Are you saying
that this author regularly lies in print?

Matt

Thomas Borchert

April 5th 07, 07:33 AM

Matt,

> Style is one thing, but misrepresentation is another. Are you saying
> that this author regularly lies in print?
>

No. I'm saying that he looks at the facts in the most sensationalistic
way. For example, I'm convinced the fees quoted for services at that
British airport exist. I'm also convinced there are ways around those
fees, as, for example, the free weather service terminal at the field
that someone mentioned. If the situation is like that, you can tally up
the maximum of fees you could incur by behaving in the most expensive
way - or you can say: yeah, but most pilots walk a hundred yards to that
free terminal and save whatever percentage of those high fees.

The fact remains that flying in Europe is way more expensive through
(among other things) ridiculous fees here and there. But if you want to
put numbers to that, often there are ways to save if you make the
effort.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[email protected]

April 5th 07, 12:48 PM

On Apr 4, 12:03 pm, "cjcampbell" >
wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:30 pm, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
>
> > "Blueskies" > wrote:
> > > Do you folks always have to divert a thread with this banter?
>
> > No. Sometimes it happens without someone trying...
>
> > --
> > Bob Noel
> > (gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)
>
> Truly. You try to do a little one-liner funny, and it blows up on you.

That's an inflation!

Cheers MC

Skylune

April 5th 07, 03:41 PM

On Apr 3, 6:57 pm, "Borat" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...> It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> > soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> > conclusions were the same as ours.
>
> > Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> > GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> > bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
> Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
> great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
> and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Some
> of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is if
> you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
> that is less important to stay flying.
>
> Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
> airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
> for a profit.
>
> Heathrow is really a shopping centre with an airport attached and their
> business model relies on passengers spending in the vast array of shops and
> food outlets.
>
> A 747 with 350 people on board will generate far more income for the airport
> than a donk in his A36 hence why if you want to take a A36 into Heathrow it
> is expensive. There are many cheaper places are nearby. So those who can
> afford the private jets can afford to fly into LHR. As LHR is at almost
> full capacity slotwise, then slow aircraft are not wanted at all. Turboprop
> aircraft have almost all gone from Heathrow, it seems like jets only.
>
> As has been covered before, the top end of GA, with the jets, fractional
> ownership, have customers who can afford it. So the costs are of little
> consequence. For the average private pilot, flying is a recreation, a hobby
> and not a serious mode of transport for the masses.
>
> I am faced with going to Glasgow this month. $130 by scheduled carrier, $600
> if I fly myself, roughly $100/ hour with $20 landing and overnight parking.
> With the guarantee of getting there and back from the scheduled carrier, it
> is a no brainer, I will be home mid morning and have the rest of the weekend
> with the family.
>
> Going to Europe is the same - for serious travel go by car, train or
> scheduled carrier. The trains in Europe are seriously fast and if you have
> work to do better than the planes.
>
> EuroTrips I have done by light aircraft have been, the Normandy Beaches (a
> perfect little trip and best done by air and foot), the WWI trenches, the
> Somme etc.
>
> Trips planned include retracing the steps of the Dambusters and a couple of
> other wartime aviation exploits.
>
> Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
> flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
> sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.
>
> All will require some flexibility re time so a strict schedule is impossible
> to follow. "If you have time to spare go by air".

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
around for campaign efforts).

To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
group like the AOPA.

Orval Fairbairn

April 5th 07, 05:16 PM

In article om>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> On Apr 3, 6:57 pm, "Borat" > wrote:
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >
> > oups.com...> It's
> > interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
> > > soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
> > > conclusions were the same as ours.
> >
> > > Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
> > > GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
> > > bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
> >
> > Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
> > great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
> > and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
> > Some
> > of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is
> > if
> > you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
> > that is less important to stay flying.
> >
> > Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
> > airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
> > for a profit.
> >
> > Heathrow is really a shopping centre with an airport attached and their
> > business model relies on passengers spending in the vast array of shops and
> > food outlets.
> >
> > A 747 with 350 people on board will generate far more income for the
> > airport
> > than a donk in his A36 hence why if you want to take a A36 into Heathrow it
> > is expensive. There are many cheaper places are nearby. So those who can
> > afford the private jets can afford to fly into LHR. As LHR is at almost
> > full capacity slotwise, then slow aircraft are not wanted at all. Turboprop
> > aircraft have almost all gone from Heathrow, it seems like jets only.
> >
> > As has been covered before, the top end of GA, with the jets, fractional
> > ownership, have customers who can afford it. So the costs are of little
> > consequence. For the average private pilot, flying is a recreation, a hobby
> > and not a serious mode of transport for the masses.
> >
> > I am faced with going to Glasgow this month. $130 by scheduled carrier,
> > $600
> > if I fly myself, roughly $100/ hour with $20 landing and overnight parking.
> > With the guarantee of getting there and back from the scheduled carrier, it
> > is a no brainer, I will be home mid morning and have the rest of the
> > weekend
> > with the family.
> >
> > Going to Europe is the same - for serious travel go by car, train or
> > scheduled carrier. The trains in Europe are seriously fast and if you have
> > work to do better than the planes.
> >
> > EuroTrips I have done by light aircraft have been, the Normandy Beaches (a
> > perfect little trip and best done by air and foot), the WWI trenches, the
> > Somme etc.
> >
> > Trips planned include retracing the steps of the Dambusters and a couple of
> > other wartime aviation exploits.
> >
> > Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
> > flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
> > sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.
> >
> > All will require some flexibility re time so a strict schedule is
> > impossible
> > to follow. "If you have time to spare go by air".
>
> The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
> massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
> enforcement.
>
> The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
> contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
> nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
> particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
> around for campaign efforts).
>
> To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
> around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
> but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
> group like the AOPA.

OK, LOON:

How about removing all subsidies from: Mass transit, railroads, bicycle
lanes, waterways, etc.?

Only then can we talk about the "massive subsidies" of GA.

Borat

April 5th 07, 05:48 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Borat wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Borat wrote:
>>>
>>>> So GA is not for the working class then?
>>>
>>> I can not stand that phrase.
>> It was Jay who suggested that the middle classes would bale out of GA
>> if it got more expensive.
>
> It was you that used the phrase "Working Class." And of course it is
> simple

a middle class must have its working class so if the middle class drop out
of GA what happens to the working class or are they already excluded?

Borat

April 5th 07, 05:55 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote
>
>> Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
>> companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
>> they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
>> privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
>> owned.
>>
>> A picture of a privately run train:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains
>
> I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was
> there in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
> detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
> of ventures.
> --
> Jim in NC

Thanks for your informed comment. Unfortunately the railways were not
privatised until 1994 so your experience was definitely not on a privatised
service.

As it is now, there are record numbers of people using newer and faster
trains than ever before.

Borat

April 5th 07, 05:58 PM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>>
>> The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
>> massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
>> enforcement.
>>
>> The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
>> contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
>> nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
>> particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
>> around for campaign efforts).
>>
>> To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
>> around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
>> but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
>> group like the AOPA.
>
> OK, LOON:
>
> How about removing all subsidies from: Mass transit, railroads, bicycle
> lanes, waterways, etc.?
>
> Only then can we talk about the "massive subsidies" of GA.

Work it out on a per person movement,

Morgans[_2_]

April 6th 07, 01:44 AM

"Borat" > wrote

> Thanks for your informed comment. Unfortunately the railways were not
> privatised until 1994 so your experience was definitely not on a
> privatised service.
>
> As it is now, there are record numbers of people using newer and faster
> trains than ever before.

I was replying to the fact that people in this group have commented that
trains in England are not as easy to use, or as good as they were in the
past.
--
Jim in NC

Dylan Smith

April 6th 07, 09:17 PM

On 2007-04-05, Skylune > wrote:
> The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
> massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
> enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

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

Jay Honeck

April 6th 07, 11:43 PM

> All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
> solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
> continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
> probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
> services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
> for-profit business aviation.

One need only look at the explosion of experimental types (5000+ RVs
alone!) to see what *could* happen to GA if the FAA would get the hell
out of the way.

On 90% of my flights, I need ATC like I need an enema. On 5% of my
flights, I need them only because some silly rule *says* I do (when,
in fact, it would probably work better without them). On the
remaining 5%, I absolutely, positively need ATC.

So, I say reduce their budget by 95%. It won't affect me -- or tens
of thousands of pilots like me -- in the least.

Funny thing is, back in the good old days (when ATC and pilots were on
the same side), local controllers used to practically BEG us to use
flight following, because it helped their budgets.

Now I see we were only cutting our own throats by doing so. Now they
can point to statistics showing "all those little planes using flight
following" and use them as a justification to add users fees.

We were suckered.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Borat

April 6th 07, 11:58 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-04-05, Skylune > wrote:
>> The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
>> massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
>> enforcement.
>
> What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.
>
> All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
> solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
> continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
> probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
> services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
> for-profit business aviation.

Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
some of the services were worthwhile.

I suspect that ATC spends as much time keeping CAT away from light GA as it
does keeping CAT apart. Improved technology like mode S and ADB-S is great
for the heavy end but giving like GA access to it just means that they end
up hanging around the same airspace as CAT and need separating.

Bring Class A airspace down to 5000' agl, that keeps the IFR traffic in one
area away from the VFR stuff below, the IFR stuff can pay for having
exclusive access to that airspace away from the poor trash VFR stuff who
have it for free.

Dylan Smith

April 10th 07, 04:56 PM

On 2007-04-06, Borat > wrote:
> Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
> does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
> airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
> charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
> some of the services were worthwhile.

You misread the intent of my message: the point is if airlines did not
exist, then the remainder of aviation could quite happily exist without
ATC or the FAA in most instances. ATC only came about because the
airlines exist. Now GA is being forced to pay for services that only
exist to make it possible for airlines to exist.

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

Roger[_4_]

April 12th 07, 04:34 AM

On 3 Apr 2007 13:29:16 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
>soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
>conclusions were the same as ours.
>
>Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
>GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
>bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!
>
>We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
>and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
>Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!

Tis not at all uncommon for a question raised in a thread on one or
more of the aviation groups to show up in one of the aviation
magazines

>
>:-)
>---
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[email protected]

April 26th 07, 11:33 PM

On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-04-05, Skylune > wrote:
>
> > The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
> > massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
> > enforcement.
>
> What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.
>
> All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
> solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
> continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
> probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
> services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
> for-profit business aviation.
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
car's incremental cost
is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

Orval Fairbairn

April 27th 07, 04:16 AM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2007-04-05, Skylune > wrote:
> >
> > > The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
> > > massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
> > > enforcement.
> >
> > What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.
> >
> > All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
> > solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
> > continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
> > probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
> > services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
> > for-profit business aviation.
> >
> > --
> > Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> > Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
>
> I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
> car's incremental cost
> is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

"jgrove"'s car does not impose incremental costs -- everything he does
is excremental.