FAA final rule: Aircraft registrations now good for only 3 years

On Jul 22, 4:31*pm, george wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:19*am, Bob wrote:



I don't know about anyone else out there, but, I am about at the end
of my rope!

I just want to fly my plane.

But every day now, it seems, is another fee or rule or restriction!
*Our ELTs are now useless or worse.
*We are going to have to shell out a fortune for ADS-B.
*We now need to register (and pay) every three years. -- Why now after
100 years of flight?
*We pay property taxes (at least here in CA) AND file a mandatory form
so we have to pay more if God Forbid we paint or improve our plane.
*We can't fly within 100 miles of D.C. (literally, I think) without an
act of Congress (almost literally)
* add your own.

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?

Wasn't there something where if you flew from one State to another you
could be liable for sales tax in that State although you'd paid it in
your own ?

For a time I think it was FL that treated an airplane there for more
than a few days as taxable property in that state. I am not sure how
that got resolved. I don't know this, but suspect the underlying issue
had to do with yachts registered in a state of 'convenience' rather
than the state where it was kept. On the eastern seaboard many boats
had Delaware registration but were moored or docked full time in for
example MA (not known for being modest in imposing taxes when I lived
there).

On Jul 22, 3:20*pm, a wrote:

I am not sure how that got resolved...

The AOPA has been on the case:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...30florida.html

Thanks, Bob K.

On Jul 23, 10:32*am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:20*pm, a wrote:

I am not sure how that got resolved...

The AOPA has been on the case:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...30florida.html

Thanks, Bob K.

And thanks from me...

Bob writes:

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?

Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

The main reasons are that too few people are interested in flying to
effectively lobby for maintaining it as a viable hobby, whereas the commercial
air travel industry is immense and well funded and very effective at lobbying.
Commercial airlines see private pilots as obstacles to their own business, so
they will consistently lobby in favor of airlines and against private pilots.
Over time, inevitably, private flight will wither and die.

As you observe, flying for fun already involves red tape and expense that
effectively reserves it to a very highly motivated and/or wealthy elite. That
trend will only continue.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob writes:

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?

Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 7/23/2010 10:26 AM, wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning wrote:
Bob writes:

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?

Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.


There is a difference between riding/driving/flying a vehicle made for
1,2,3, or 4 and driving a vehicle capable of carrying ten tons.
No doubt about it.
Abolish the cycle, motorbike, motorbike and sidecar, the car,
the row-boat, the bass-boat, the sail-boat?
I don't think so.

But there is something about light aircraft that connects with the
public fear of more hundred ton vehicles demolishing people and places...
Now THAT'S illogical!

Brian W

wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob writes:

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?
Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.



And typical mxsmanic garbage. Besides, some people do operate
tractor-trailers and trains for fun, but let's not confuse the poor kid
with facts.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

writes:

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.

Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.

You won't know what you've got until it's gone.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.

Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.

What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 23, 6:33*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.

Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.

What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, when an adult admits to spending what amounts to man - years
engaged in playing MSFS and posting here, it's reasonable to expect a
distorted world view. He intrudes on a forum that's intended to be for
general discussions among AVIATORS (caps intended). Responding to him
extends these threads in meaningless directions, as is being
demonstrated here.