Civil Aviation question

In article ,
NoMasWetbacks wrote:

You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?

1. Tie all transportation funds to "equal treatment" of GA at public
airports. IOW, if they discriminate against one segment of aviation,
they lose all Federal funding for airports, roads, mass transit, etc.

2. Require a certain allocation of GA facilities by population, say, one
hangar space per 1000 population.

3. Punish local governments, not the users, for violation of ADAP grant
agreements. IOW, if a city destroys a public airport or diverts
funds/resources, they lose ALL transportation funding until the damage
is repaired.

4. Federalise the public airport system, and have a separate division of
FAA to manage public airports. FAA should have first priority on
military surplus airfields -- especially in urban areas.

You are the President. You can make one major decision that will improve
civil aviation in America.

What would you do?


Assign all small airports protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Hire someone to head the FAA to do the following:
(This is akin to wishing for more wishes - "Poof!")

1. No Class III medicals needed for private pilot certificates.

2. No 138 mph speed limit for Sport Pilot.

3. LSA Gross Weight = 1700 lbs. (That would cover Cessna 152's, IIRC)

4. Part 103 Empty Weight of 400 lbs (up from 254 lbs).

5. No 63 mph speed limits for Part 103.

6. Up the Part 103 stall speed from 27 mph to 37 mph.

7. Lower the current 17 year manufacturer's (liability?) down to 8 years.
(That's fair)

8. GA planes older than 40 years old become 51% aircraft - and can be sold
as 51% aircraft to the next person.

9. Diesel Priority Program: Streamline the certification AND approval
process for diesel projects.

10. Lower (#7's) liability period to 5 years for diesel projects (Similar to
an Economic Development Tax Free Zone or a Duty Free shop)

AND FINALLY... "These go to 11."

11. OK for GA pilots to get paid - in a (L)imited role. (L-GA$)

A) No 100 hr inspections. Annual is still needed. [No medical. See #1.]
B) Ok to hold out for hire, etc.
C) No commercial license needed. However, you must sign up for L-GA$
D) One [paying] passenger per flight is Ok. Limit would be: Plane must only
have either 2 seats, or two people in the plane. This way you can't fly me
in your C-182 for $750, while my family rides free as your guests - in the
other two seats ...wink, wink.
E) Package courier service ok up to a certain MTOW (2,500 lbs? 3,000 lbs?)
F) Pilot must have 100 hrs.
G) Pass twice a year drug tests - one scheduled, one random.
H) Why not VFR? Sure. Maybe. IFR only? Don't know? Both is fine for now.
(It's your little business - if you're stuck on the ground all the time, or
constantly diverting, you'll lose customers)

IMHO, #11 would kick-start GA as much as (almost) anything else. $$$$$$$$$

[Big Brother? Or a bone thrown to the flying public?]

I'm thinking, if I'm the customer, I want a simple, accessible, on-line
log/record of:
1. Your past L-GA$ flights - similar to http://flightaware.com/ and some
others.
2. Plus, the plane when used in other L-GA$ flights.
3. Plus, the company's history of L-GA$ flights.
4. Plus some "basics" on your flying record.

As long as the Government doesn't set up the site, it should be quick and
easy to interface with.

IRS would be happy, too - "x number of flights claimed, huh? Let's take a
look-see." g


Montblack

NoMasWetbacks wrote:
You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?

Legal reform to ease the cost of liability insurance.
Consider something in parallel to the Illinois Equine Activity Liability
Act.
As I understand it, it has a big impact on the small businesses... the
effect is that the activity is defined as having risks even if all
reasonable precautions have been taken, and the liability does not
legally lie with the business or owner.

The problem is that the aviation community has great fear of the
negative connotation of defining aviation as an inherently "dangerous"
activity. I say BS...

The warning signs look like this:

WARNING

Under the Equine Activity Liability Act, each participant who engages in
an equine activity expressly assumes the risks of engaging in and legal
responsibility for injury, loss, or damage to person or property
resulting from the risk of equine activities.

Mike

No TFRs! There useless flight restrictions provide no increase in safety for
the protected person. It is the ultimate in self important hubris.


Also free flight IFR for any aircraft with a mode S transponder and an ADS-B
traffic display.

"NoMasWetbacks" wrote in message
...
You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?

"NoMasWetbacks" wrote in message
...
You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?

I have no idea that this is a troll but whoever you are you need to
understand that the US is not a dictatorship. The regulations and rules
surrounding aviation in this country are based on the laws passed by
Congress.

So a more legitimate questions would be, "What could our Government do to
improve civil aviation"?

Tort Reform would be my answer.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"NoMasWetbacks" wrote in message
...

You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?


I have no idea that this is a troll but whoever you are you need to
understand that the US is not a dictatorship. The regulations and rules
surrounding aviation in this country are based on the laws passed by
Congress.

Boy I feel better already... congress has a fantastic track record of
creating useful laws that benefit American citizens. [NOT]


So a more legitimate questions would be, "What could our Government do to
improve civil aviation"?

Government has caused much of the trouble in aviation as well as just
about everything else it tries to "improve".


Tort Reform would be my answer.


yes, it would but politicians are mostly lawyers anyway and that's
like asking Iran to monitor its own nuclear program.