Turboprops exempt...oh boy!!!

"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?

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?

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

"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)

"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

"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%20...0White_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.

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!!!)

"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?

"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.

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!!!)