FAA On User Fees: "The piston thing is not going to happen." Divide And Conquer?

Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.



Read all about the FAA's double-speak:

FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009)
Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
fliers, according to the fact sheet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009

USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007)
Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007

Yawn!

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.



Read all about the FAA's double-speak:

FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009)
Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
fliers, according to the fact sheet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009

USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007)
Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007

ANTI-USER FEE CHORUS GROWS DOWN ON THE FARM
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195081)
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has joined () the juggernaut of
opposition to the FAA's funding proposal, saying it's nothing more
than a bailout of airlines on the backs of small-town America. In a
news release, NFU President Pat Buis said the plan to more than triple
the existing general aviation fuel tax will have a direct impact on
rural residents. "Local airfields often provide the fastest and most
efficient means of transportation because the big corporate airlines
concentrate most of their service at only the nation's largest
airports," Buis said. "The FAA proposal to impose user fees and tax
increases will deal a heavy blow to farmers and rural communities who
depend on general aviation--for this reason we are strongly opposing
user fees and new taxes in any form." Also joining the chorus is the
Alaska State legislature.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195081


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :


Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.



Read all about the FAA's double-speak:

FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009)
Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
fliers, according to the fact sheet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009

USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007)
Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007

Larry Dighera wrote:
Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.


Not only that, but what would happen a few years down the road when
100LL could go away and someone comes up with a reasonably priced
turboprop for a C-172? Since it's not piston powered, the user fees
would apply. I realize "reasonably priced" and "aviation" are mutually
exclusive, but we shouldn't let the rules be made based on a particular
technology.

It's like California wanting to ban incandescent bulbs because they're
inefficient, but then GE comes out and says they're coming out with ones
twice as efficient as current versions.
http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pr...E_lamps_07.htm

On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:03:18 -0400, "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail
address)" wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowd. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.


Not only that, but what would happen a few years down the road when
100LL could go away and someone comes up with a reasonably priced
turboprop for a C-172? Since it's not piston powered, the user fees
would apply. I realize "reasonably priced" and "aviation" are mutually
exclusive, but we shouldn't let the rules be made based on a particular
technology.

Agreed.

However once in place, imposing NextGen user fees on ALL airspace
users would be a simple matter, and it would be possible because GA's
voice opposing the implementation of ATC user fees was stifled through
the tactic of saying user fees won't apply to GA. Once the user fee
beachhead is established, the user fee war can be waged from much more
secure ground from that point on.

It's like California wanting to ban incandescent bulbs because they're
inefficient, but then GE comes out and says they're coming out with ones
twice as efficient as current versions.
http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pr...E_lamps_07.htm

Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
production and on-going development.

The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly
twice as efficient, at 30 lumens–per–watt, as current incandescent
bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is
expected to be about four times as efficient as current
incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs.

Incandescent lamps will never be as efficient as LED based lighting.
That's where the industry is headed:

http://www.leditbe.com/
LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
more efficient than fluorescent lamps!

http://www.prime-light.com/products.htm
http://www.ledtronics.com/
http://www.ledtronics.com/markets/25mm_med_index.htm
http://www.ledlighting.net.au/
Even in hostile conditions, the typical working life of an LED can be
several tens of thousands of hours. Most incandescent bulbs expire
after just a couple of thousand hours,...
http://www.aerco.co.uk/Lamps_Lightin...ent+LEDs .htm
Based LEDs are shock and vibration proof ...
http://chinaleder.en.alibaba.com/pro..._LED_Lamp.html

Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
production and on-going development.

There are tradeoffs. For example, cost, bulb life, color, stuff like that.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:53:09 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Interesting. It sort of makes you wonder why this new technology was
finally deployed after over a hundred years of incandescent lamp
production and on-going development.

There are tradeoffs. For example, cost, bulb life, color, stuff like that.

Including providing an omnidirectional source in the way an Edison
bulb does. Also, "daylight" color in both LEDs and CFLs means a color
temperature around 3000 Kelvin, rather than 5-6000 K, like you'd get
from the sun or a halogen.

On the other hand, having an omnidirectional source is a mixed
blessing at best. I had an intereting briefing with Cree the other
week where the fellow I was talking to was pointing out the advantages
of full-spectrum LED lighting in parking garages and outdoor lighting,
and I asked him about response from the astronomy community, which
tends to prefer sodium vapor, with it's easy-to-filter narrow spectrum
lines. He said Cree works with the Dark Sky folks and that IDA is
actually pretty cool with directional outdoor lighting. There may be a
lighting paradigm shift on the way.

Don

On 2007-05-02, Larry Dighera wrote:
LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
more efficient than fluorescent lamps!

They aren't really quite there yet - I bought a few LED lamps to swap
out for halogen downlighters. The current crop is nowhere near bright
enough for general room lighting (they are fine for supplimental
lighting) unless you covered the ceiling with a huge array of them. They
are also a slightly odd colour - the white ones are really very pale
violet rather than white.

They will get there in the end though, but we're still a few years off
general purpose LED house lighting.

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

On Wed, 2 May 2007 16:17:54 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-05-02, Larry Dighera wrote:
LEDs lamps are 10 to 50 times more energy-efficient than conventional
lights, which can reduce operating costs by up to 90%. LEDs are even
more efficient than fluorescent lamps!

They aren't really quite there yet - I bought a few LED lamps to swap
out for halogen downlighters. The current crop is nowhere near bright
enough for general room lighting (they are fine for supplimental
lighting) unless you covered the ceiling with a huge array of them. They
are also a slightly odd colour - the white ones are really very pale
violet rather than white.

There's a good article here
http://environment.newscientist.com/...hold-bulb.html
that explains the reason for the color.

The most significant changes to the way we light our homes are
likely to come when LEDs become cheap and reliable enough to
provide ordinary diffuse white light. This is because CFLs, while
much more efficient than incandescent bulbs, still only emit
around 15 per cent of the electrical energy fed into them as
light, or up to 30 per cent in "tube" form. This compares with 30
per cent for existing white LEDs, with a target of up to 70 per
cent. "It will be CFLs first, but LEDs may eventually bypass
them," says Colin Humphreys, a pioneer of LEDs at the University
of Cambridge.

LEDs are semiconductor devices that emit light when a voltage is
applied across them. Each LED is typically a stack of five very
thin layers of the semiconductor indium-gallium-nitride, separated
by gallium nitride layers, and measures just 1 millimetre square.
By varying the amounts of indium, engineers can alter the colours
produced. For example, 10 per cent indium gives blue light, and 20
per cent gives green. To produce white light, blue LEDs are coated
with phosphor, which generates yellow light. This merges with the
blue light from the LED to create a somewhat harsh white light.

Already, some LED-based domestic light sources are appearing. Last
month Philips unveiled a globe-like lamp based on four LEDs - two
red, one blue and one green. By varying the intensity of the LEDs
it's possible to create mood lighting in up to 16 million
different colours. Launched in the Netherlands, the lamp, called
LivingColors, is operated with a simple remote control. Philips
stresses that this is a long way from the LED-based "bulb" that
people can simply screw into existing sockets. But it's a start.

Most white LEDs for the home are likely to appear first in sharp,
functional lighting such as desk lamps. Earlier this month
Siemens's subsidiary Osram unveiled an LED spotlight called Ostar,
which the company says can easily illuminate desks from a height
of 2 metres. The lights should also last 50 times longer than
incandescent lamps, and five times as long as CFLs.

To produce LEDs that can replace incandescent bulbs, the challenge
is to develop devices that create a warmer white light.
Humphreys's team and others around the world are tackling this by
coating individual LEDs with red, blue and green phosphors. "In
principle, we can mimic the quality of sunlight," says Humphreys.
"We're not there yet, but we're getting close," he says.

If white LEDs are ever going to be used as light bulbs, they will
also have to get much cheaper. Nowadays, a single LED lamp costs
up to $60, mostly because indium-gallium-nitride wafers have to be
grown on expensive sapphire crystals. Humphreys is confident LEDs
can be grown on silicon instead. This would cut the cost
drastically, as a 5-centimetre sapphire substrate costs $40,
compared to just $5 for silicon. His team has already grown blue
LED structures on 5-centimetre silicon wafers in the laboratory.

Humphreys and his collaborators have also banished a gremlin that
was causing LEDs to fail early. The units stopped working after
just 400 to 500 hours of use because of heat trapped by the
transparent epoxy resin dome that caps and protects the chip. By
exchanging epoxy for a type of silicone, Humphreys stopped the
LEDs overheating, vastly prolonging their working lives. Once
they're cheap enough, LEDs could last the entire life of a
lighting unit, he says.

Whenever LEDs are ready to take over, one thing is certain: the
incandescent light bulb is finally on its way out. "It's amazing
it's lasted this long," says Humphreys.


From issue 2597 of New Scientist magazine, 02 March 2007, page
26-27



They will get there in the end though, but we're still a few years off
general purpose LED house lighting.

Including providing an omnidirectional source in the way an Edison
bulb does. Also, "daylight" color in both LEDs and CFLs means a color
temperature around 3000 Kelvin, rather than 5-6000 K, like you'd get
from the sun or a halogen.

Say what? I can get high power white LEDs from Lumileds in
6500Kelvin, 4100Kelvin, or 3000Kelvin, pretty much any white point
you'd want (cool, neutral, and warm). Your statement above is
incorrect for LEDs.