Turboprops exempt...oh boy!!!

[Bob Gardner]

I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me that the
proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90 percent of general
aviation because recreational flights are exempt and so are all turboprop
flights outside of controlled airspace. Golly gee! That means that I can (in
my dreams) fly my turboprop single less than 1200 feet above the ground over
much of the state of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern
states can descend even lower to smell the roses without paying!

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?

Bob Gardner

[buttman]

On Aug 9, 3:06 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me that the
> proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90 percent of general
> aviation because recreational flights are exempt and so are all turboprop
> flights outside of controlled airspace. Golly gee! That means that I can (in
> my dreams) fly my turboprop single less than 1200 feet above the ground over
> much of the state of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern
> states can descend even lower to smell the roses without paying!
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>
> Bob Gardner

I can never understand why everyone here always gets all worked up
whenever someone like a reporter or a politician shows that they don't
have a private pilot level knowledge of aviation...

I wonder if doctor newsgroups and lawyer newsgroups act the same way
when a law is made regarding drugs or tort laws or something...

[Marty Shapiro]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me that
> the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90 percent of
> general aviation because recreational flights are exempt and so are
> all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace. Golly gee! That
> means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop single less than 1200
> feet above the ground over much of the state of Washington for
> free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can descend even lower
> to smell the roses without paying!
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>
> Bob Gardner
>

Significantly less than the average amoeba.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:45:45 +0000, buttman wrote:

> I wonder if doctor newsgroups and lawyer newsgroups act the same way when
> a law is made regarding drugs or tort laws or something...

I'd act that way if a medically-ignorant person were dictating medical
decisions regarding my health. Wouldn't you?

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

We really can't assume that the Senator composed and sent the email.
That's why they have staff.

Fred F.

[buttman]

On Aug 9, 7:01 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:45:45 +0000, buttman wrote:
> > I wonder if doctor newsgroups and lawyer newsgroups act the same way when
> > a law is made regarding drugs or tort laws or something...
>
> I'd act that way if a medically-ignorant person were dictating medical
> decisions regarding my health. Wouldn't you?
>
> - Andrew

Yes I would, but I doubt that particular senator in the OP was the one
who wrote up that particular bill. All Senators do is say "yay" or
"nay".

[Gig 601XL Builder]

buttman wrote:
> On Aug 9, 7:01 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:45:45 +0000, buttman wrote:
>>> I wonder if doctor newsgroups and lawyer newsgroups act the same
>>> way when a law is made regarding drugs or tort laws or something...
>>
>> I'd act that way if a medically-ignorant person were dictating
>> medical decisions regarding my health. Wouldn't you?
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> Yes I would, but I doubt that particular senator in the OP was the one
> who wrote up that particular bill. All Senators do is say "yay" or
> "nay".

Well let's see, she's on the Transportation Committee and on the Aviation
Operations, Safety and Security Subcommittee. So she has a lot more to do
with passing aviation related bills than your average senator.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> We really can't assume that the Senator composed and sent the email.
> That's why they have staff.
>
> Fred F.

It doesn't matter in the least if it was her or a member staff.

[S Green]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me that the
>proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90 percent of general
>aviation because recreational flights are exempt and so are all turboprop
>flights outside of controlled airspace. Golly gee! That means that I can
>(in my dreams) fly my turboprop single less than 1200 feet above the ground
>over much of the state of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the
>eastern states can descend even lower to smell the roses without paying!
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>
> Bob Gardner

$25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big deal in
the total running costs

[Gig 601XL Builder]

S Green wrote:
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me
>> that the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90
>> percent of general aviation because recreational flights are exempt
>> and so are all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace.
>> Golly gee! That means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop
>> single less than 1200 feet above the ground over much of the state
>> of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can
>> descend even lower to smell the roses without paying! Anyone want to
>> hazard a guess as to how much this computer
>> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>
> $25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big
> deal in the total running costs

Well if you fly out and back every day for month it's $1500/mo. Pretty
healthy cost increase considering you are getting nothing in return.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>S Green wrote:
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me
>>> that the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90
>>> percent of general aviation because recreational flights are exempt
>>> and so are all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace.
>>> Golly gee! That means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop
>>> single less than 1200 feet above the ground over much of the state
>>> of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can
>>> descend even lower to smell the roses without paying! Anyone want to
>>> hazard a guess as to how much this computer
>>> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> $25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big
>> deal in the total running costs
>
> Well if you fly out and back every day for month it's $1500/mo. Pretty
> healthy cost increase considering you are getting nothing in return.
>
Nothing?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> S Green wrote:
>>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me
>>>> that the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90
>>>> percent of general aviation because recreational flights are exempt
>>>> and so are all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace.
>>>> Golly gee! That means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop
>>>> single less than 1200 feet above the ground over much of the state
>>>> of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can
>>>> descend even lower to smell the roses without paying! Anyone want
>>>> to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
>>>> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>>>>
>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>> $25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big
>>> deal in the total running costs
>>
>> Well if you fly out and back every day for month it's $1500/mo.
>> Pretty healthy cost increase considering you are getting nothing in
>> return.
> Nothing?

Ok, nothing you aren't already getting.

Wait a minute! Is this really Matt Barrow standing up for a tax increase?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 9, 3:06 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me that the
> proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90 percent of general
> aviation because recreational flights are exempt and so are all turboprop
> flights outside of controlled airspace. Golly gee! That means that I can (in
> my dreams) fly my turboprop single less than 1200 feet above the ground over
> much of the state of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern
> states can descend even lower to smell the roses without paying!
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?

I wonder if she defines "uncontrolled airspace" as "VFR".

-Robert

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> S Green wrote:
>>>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I just received an e-mail from Senator Maria Cantwell telling me
>>>>> that the proposed user fee of $25 per flight would not impact 90
>>>>> percent of general aviation because recreational flights are exempt
>>>>> and so are all turboprop flights outside of controlled airspace.
>>>>> Golly gee! That means that I can (in my dreams) fly my turboprop
>>>>> single less than 1200 feet above the ground over much of the state
>>>>> of Washington for free...turboprop pilots in the eastern states can
>>>>> descend even lower to smell the roses without paying! Anyone want
>>>>> to hazard a guess as to how much this computer
>>>>> geek-millionaire-senator knows about uncontrolled airspace?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>
>>>> $25 extra cost per flight when running a turbo prop - what's the big
>>>> deal in the total running costs
>>>
>>> Well if you fly out and back every day for month it's $1500/mo.
>>> Pretty healthy cost increase considering you are getting nothing in
>>> return.
>> Nothing?
>
> Ok, nothing you aren't already getting.

Getting _now_. Were it only that the real world was so static.
>
> Wait a minute! Is this really Matt Barrow standing up for a tax increase?

The _present_ for of funding is primarily taxes; I prefer the proposed
method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making it
self-supporting. Under the present funding/governance, ATC is dead meat in a
just a few years.

Matt
--
“Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding
the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental
advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve
to intimidate the public and even scientists...there is a clear attempt to
establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, (6-26-06)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow"> wrote

> The _present_ for of funding is primarily taxes; I prefer the proposed
> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
> it self-supporting. Under the present funding/governance, ATC is dead meat
> in a just a few years.

I'm not quite sure why that you think this is so inevitable, but I'll accept
that premise for the sake of discussion.

If we knew that this was the only step down the slippery slope that the new
fee structure was going to take, that might not be so terrible. (unless you
are the turboprop user)

The problem is, that I think it is very likely that this will be the first
of the changes that will lead us down the road towards a system like Europe.
That would be a real shame, and that would be putting it mildly.
--
Jim in NC

[S Green]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow"> wrote
>
>> The _present_ for of funding is primarily taxes; I prefer the proposed
>> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
>> it self-supporting. Under the present funding/governance, ATC is dead
>> meat in a just a few years.
>
> I'm not quite sure why that you think this is so inevitable, but I'll
> accept that premise for the sake of discussion.
>
> If we knew that this was the only step down the slippery slope that the
> new fee structure was going to take, that might not be so terrible.
> (unless you are the turboprop user)
>
> The problem is, that I think it is very likely that this will be the first
> of the changes that will lead us down the road towards a system like
> Europe. That would be a real shame, and that would be putting it mildly.

Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.

In Europe ATC fees are zero for VFR and IFR below 2500kgs, which covers just
about most of the private pilot scene.

Privately owned airfields mean they charge but then what investor would not
charge for their product.

What kills here is the licensing. For example in 2005 in the UK only 65
private pilots got an IR in 2006 it went down to 23.

10 exam papers, a certified course of study costing about $5000 and a
checkride costing $1300 plus the cost of the specially modified aircraft -
no hoods or foggles allowed. Screens must be used and you can see why we
stay VFR. IR is really for the professional pilots.

to convert my FAA/IR to JAR, I need to do the 10 IR exams , or the 14 ATPL
exams and 15 hours of approved training then do the checkride.

And finally the exams each cost $130 take from 30 minutes to 3 hours to do
and happen every 2 months in one place in the country. page 4
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/AIC%2076%202007%20White_140.pdf


So the issue about user fees for flying and comparing with Europe is bunkum.

And again if you can afford to get the licences and certificates to fly in
the airspace, then the costs of doing so are no big deal either.

The other point as well is that in Europe ATC is provided nationally by a
myriad of (22+) bodies from private companies, to private/ public
partnerships to governments. A common charging policy means that no one
can route just through one country for the cheapest costs. All that would
do is increase congestion in certain places with spare capacity in others.
That is a crazy way of utilising resources.

I don't like it, but in the European context where you can pass through 6
countries in 30 minutes and 20 in a 3 hour flight, I cannot see what would
be better.

The US is not Europe, you can fly 7 hours and still not leave the country.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"S Green" > wrote:

> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.

you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
shills?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "S Green" > wrote:
>
>> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.
>
> you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
> shills?

Great analysis, Bob.

Can you substantiate that?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> "Matt Barrow"> wrote
>
>> The _present_ for of funding is primarily taxes; I prefer the proposed
>> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
>> it self-supporting. Under the present funding/governance, ATC is dead
>> meat in a just a few years.
>
> I'm not quite sure why that you think this is so inevitable, but I'll
> accept that premise for the sake of discussion.
>
> If we knew that this was the only step down the slippery slope that the
> new fee structure was going to take, that might not be so terrible.
> (unless you are the turboprop user)
>
> The problem is, that I think it is very likely that this will be the first
> of the changes that will lead us down the road towards a system like
> Europe. That would be a real shame, and that would be putting it mildly.

Jim, I'm going to assume for the moment that, all of a sudden, you can
comprehend moe than two factors that inter-relate, and apply them to a
dynamic situation, rather than the static world you're used to (Have you
figured out yet who Alexis d'Toucquville is ?)

[Here's the short version for the attention span stunted]The US is the only
country in the world that has a taxpayer funded system. Congress is the
overseer. Much of the ATC system [personnel and infrastructure] is a jobs
and porkbarrell operation.

The problem is not merely funding, but GOVERNANCE. In a era when changes are
happening abruptly, a glacial political process is a recipe for disaster.

If you were in charge of the US phone system, we'd still be using operators
for long distance and some local calls.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> >> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.
> >
> > you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
> > shills?
>
> Great analysis, Bob.

Thanks Matt.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> >> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.
>> >
>> > you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
>> > shills?
>>
>> Great analysis, Bob.
>
> Thanks Matt.
>

I thought not.

Shill?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> >> >> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.
> >> >
> >> > you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
> >> > shills?
> >>
> >> Great analysis, Bob.
> >
> > Thanks Matt.
> >
>
> I thought not.
>
> Shill?

<sigh>

Do you think everything AOPA "spouts" wrt user fees is nonsense.

Do you think nothing the user fee folks is nonsense?

btw - my view is that ATC is a government function. We (the US) should
fix the ATC funding, management, etc problems, not try to have a private
company perform ATC.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> >> >> Trouble is too many people believe the nonsense spouted by AOPA.
>> >> >
>> >> > you prefer the nonsense spouted by the user fee User Fee USER FEE
>> >> > shills?
>> >>
>> >> Great analysis, Bob.
>> >
>> > Thanks Matt.
>> >
>>
>> I thought not.
>>
>> Shill?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Do you think everything AOPA "spouts" wrt user fees is nonsense.
>
> Do you think nothing the user fee folks is nonsense?

Aside from that having noting to do with being a "shill"...

>
> btw - my view is that ATC is a government function.

And your Constitutional mandate is...?

> We (the US) should
> fix the ATC funding, management, etc problems, not try to have a private
> company perform ATC.

The new ATC operation is NOT a private company.

Try again.

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:35:35 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> It doesn't matter in the least if it was her or a member staff.

It would if the staff were chosen for their skills in relevant areas of
expertise. Sadly, the only expertise is likely along the lines of being
able to maximize dishonesty per unit time.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> I prefer the proposed
> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
> it self-supporting.


Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
running...anything. Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and we're
the enemy to the airlines.

It would be far more interesting were the ideas of funding and management
held distinct. The idea of user fees has some merits that can be argued.
Handing management of our airspace over to the airlines, or letting the
FAA roam free of any real oversight, on the other hand, has none.

- Andrew

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:35:35 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter in the least if it was her or a member staff.
>
> It would if the staff were chosen for their skills in relevant areas
> of expertise. Sadly, the only expertise is likely along the lines of
> being able to maximize dishonesty per unit time.
>
> - Andrew

The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they speak
for her.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> I prefer the proposed
>> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and making
>> it self-supporting.
>
>
> Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
> running...anything.

Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO, that's a
pretty lame.

> Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
> some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and we're
> the enemy to the airlines.

And neither of them are the one's who will run it.


>
> It would be far more interesting were the ideas of funding and management
> held distinct. The idea of user fees has some merits that can be argued.
> Handing management of our airspace over to the airlines, or letting the
> FAA roam free of any real oversight, on the other hand, has none.

Andrew...if you don't know the composition of the ATO operation, well, hell,
keep on bitchin' and moanin'...

The worst enemy is ignorance and pork-barrel politics.

It would be fascinating to archive these threads and read them 5-7 years up
the road when the rationing is in full bloom and GA/spamcans are relegated
to VFR operations.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer the proposed
>>> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
>>> making it self-supporting.
>>
>>
>> Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
>> running...anything.
>
> Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
> that's a pretty lame.
>
>> Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
>> some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
>> we're the enemy to the airlines.
>
> And neither of them are the one's who will run it.
>

Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:27:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they speak
> for her.

Of course. That's why they're picked for that particular skill.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).

But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

- Andrew

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:27:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> The point is, if the staff has been authorized to speak for her they
>> speak for her.
>
> Of course. That's why they're picked for that particular skill.
>
> - Andrew

Which was my original point when someone upstream tried to make an excuse
that the Senator shouldn't be blamed for things said in her name when she
authorized those who said them.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:42:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> I prefer the proposed
>>>> method of removing ATC out from under the tutalage of Congress and
>>>> making it self-supporting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Neither the airlines nor the FAA have shown great skill in
>>> running...anything.
>>
>> Since neither the FAA or the airlines are going to/should run ATO,
>> that's a pretty lame.
>>
>>> Admittedly, neither has Congress. But at least we've
>>> some input with Congress. We're nothing but noise to the FAA and
>>> we're the enemy to the airlines.
>>
>> And neither of them are the one's who will run it.
>>
>
> Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?

Not necessarily this arrangement, but something similar:

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

Now, the biggest hurdle is not operational, but political. Yet, there are
three major impediments to creating an ATO that can handle growth and
changes in the flying demographics:

1) Governance (of the ATO, not Congress, though it is Congress that is a
major factor in screwing things up with their on/off funding, their turf
protection ploys (http://www.reason.org/atcreform46.shtml - remarks about
Alcee Hastings in the middle of the page),

2) A bondable stream of funding front-loadable. Can't be done with the
present system of funding. Also, as I pointed out without a few people
grasping it, the earlier estimates by GAO (?) of future revenue streams are
worthless due to the rapidly changing face of the airlines (shifting from
hub carriers to regionals).

NTL, given American penchant for the status quo, I can expect that we'll
**** away a few more $$billions in tax based FAA funds and lost productivity
in the next few years.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:07 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Well, Matt who do you think would run it then?
>
> Take a look at the composition of the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
> Committee. AOPA has a representative. NBAA has a representative. ALPA
> has a representative. Continental has a representative. United has a
> representative. Airline Dispatchers have a representative. Southwest
> Pilots' has a representative. The FAA has a representative (and we've
> seen exactly where the FAA stands on relevant issues).
>
> But this wouldn't be biased in favor of airlines at the expense of GA.

And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
funding.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-08-11, S Green > wrote:
>
> What kills here is the licensing. For example in 2005 in the UK only 65
> private pilots got an IR in 2006 it went down to 23.
>
> 10 exam papers, a certified course of study costing about $5000 and a
> checkride costing $1300 plus the cost of the specially modified aircraft -
> no hoods or foggles allowed. Screens must be used and you can see why we
> stay VFR. IR is really for the professional pilots.

The solution is to move here to the Isle of Man, put your aircraft on
the Manx register (M-xxxx). Converting your license is just a paperwork
exercise with no exams - so your full FAA private pilot with instrument
rating is valid with your M-reg aircraft all over the world, including
the UK and Europe.

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

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> Here again the spamcan drivers want a spot at the trough, but don't even
> want to pay for FSS services for which they provide about 10% of the
> funding.

Which would be different from the tax-break-loving and
pension-breaking aviation industry how, exactly?

What GA brings is an understanding of how aviation works absent the
dishonesty being demonstrated by the airlines and their sycophants (ie.
the main issue being airspace congestion vs. runway congestion).

[Note: I'm not against improving airspace utilization, but the way it is
being sold and bundled is dishonest. Worse, I expect the dishonesty to
continue with more blame for GA (and who knows what else) when the
"expected" delay reductions don't occur.]

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:59 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> And what does GA bring to a procedures committee?

A second answer: a lack of history of failing in our own businesses.

Who would you hire as a consultant to your business: someone that failed
in theirs or someone that succeeded in theirs?

- Andrew

[Montblack]

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
> The solution is to move here to the Isle of Man, put your aircraft on the
> Manx register (M-xxxx). Converting your license is just a paperwork
> exercise with no exams - so your full FAA private pilot with instrument
> rating is valid with your M-reg aircraft all over the world, including the
> UK and Europe.


"...put your aircraft on the Manx register (M-xxxx)."

Manx register...Huh?

Cool.
http://gov.im/lib/news/dti/1stmay2007isleof.xml
"1st May 2007 - ISLE OF MAN LAUNCHES AIRCRAFT REGISTER"


Paul-Mont
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJbU0ssrvm4
Theme from Mannix (1967-1975) ...speaking of cool cats. <g>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-08-15, Montblack <Y4_NOT!> wrote:
> "...put your aircraft on the Manx register (M-xxxx)."
>
> Manx register...Huh?

Yes, and we had the people who run it come to the flying club to discuss
what it meant for us at the bottom end of the aviation food chain.

I had to pinch myself several times during the meeting to make sure I
wasn't dreaming it. I've never known an aviation authority prepared to
be so willing to help. The guy in charge and his airworthiness bod came
down, and both of them exuded enthusiasm for our kind of flying from
every pore - both extremely knowledgable not just about the high end
bizjets they are trying to attract, but also those of us who stooge
along at 2000 feet in 60 year old aircraft. Such a breath of fresh air.

As a consequence, most of the people with US registered aircraft here
are likely to move to the M-reg as well as those with G-reg aircraft.

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