Comments on FAA NPRM urgently needed

Why does PokerGTA bait us with this question on this important subject ?

" You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

How? "

Yet in another thread he asks for pictures for his aviation website..

So PokerGTA are you a G.A. proponent or an opponent ?


"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
You actually think that making the ADIZ permanent is bad?

How?

"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message A little extreme....no?

Creating a permanent ADIZ around DC to prevent tiny planes from scaring
idiot politicians who think their lives are more important than the lives of
their constituents is extreme.

By the way what are you Capt. of?

A 10' rowboat. What does it matter? In a condescending mood?

D.

In article
outaviation.com,
says...


Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH



Well, you seem to consider yourself to be an objective,
stare-the-facts-in-the-face kind of guy. Now that you're moving to a rural
place like New Hampshire, if you are going to be honest with yourself, this
should give you ample opportunity to reflect and reconsider your stance on
GA subsidies and the usefulness of GA.

The biggest users of GA are UPS, FEDEX, USPS etc. Their business models are
completely predicated on GA - without it, they don't work. In turn, the
entire economic viability of businesses in places like NH is dependent on
these services. Believe me - I grew up in neighboring Vermont, and there at
that time, if you needed anything more exotic than a 10-32 machine screw,
the word was "we can order it" - "in a few months . . ." New Hampshire's
substantial export business is also completely dependent on transport
services, in other words - General Aviation.

The GA industry, and the government's support of it, is not the "nefarious"
plot you seem to believe - instead it is a lucid recognition of the
economic tissue of the USA. This differs somewhat from Europe, where GA is
still important, but not as vital. The compactness of the European
continent and its climate allow trains to develop and take up much of the
slack. Over-regulation of GA in Europe is causing huge economic losses, but
nowhere near the calamity that a similar stance would engender in the US.
As Asian markets develop, they will face a situation more comparable to
that of the US, and GA will have to develop to support the growth of the
economy there.

Only a few generations ago, business in the US was only really viable in
one of the large metropolitan centers. To move from there was to be
condemned to a life of poverty and deprivation. Communication and
transportation are the infrastructures that have allowed that situation to
turn around, and GA is an absolutely vital link in that prodigious
development. Yes, you can find and elect, even in the US, people with a
European socialist view, who feel we would all be better off riding buses.
Such a mentality would really sting in the "live free or die" state, which
is entirely dependent on modern infrastructure for its survival.

GF

kontiki wrote:

If anything, this illustrates the need for term limits. The founding
fathers never intended these people to make careers out of serving
in congress. Its a total joke now... as evidence I submit Ted Kennedy.

....as well as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

John T wrote:
kontiki wrote:

If anything, this illustrates the need for term limits. The founding
fathers never intended these people to make careers out of serving
in congress. Its a total joke now... as evidence I submit Ted Kennedy.


...as well as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.


Agreed.

Thanx greg. I agree with most of your sentiments entirely. I agree that
GA is important and has a role. I agree that subsidies for remote parts
of the country are in the national interest and s/b subsidized.

But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
cutting it.

My biggest gripe, all along, concerns enforcement of the FARs and
enforcement of noise abatement. Since one of my local airports has given
the community the bum rush, with full collusion of the FAA, I am exposing
their tax subsidies (local and federal), their plans to extract additional
city tax moneys while refusing to raise any airport fees, some of the FBOs
lack of compliance with EPA regulations, water quality issues,
noncompliance with their 20 year old Act 150 study, etc.

I've said many times: I think 90% of GA fliers are responsible. But
there are some idiots that just think they are above any laws or
regulations. No one is responsible, and unless there is a crash or
something, the FAA turns a blind eye to community concerns.

"Skylune" wrote:

But I strongly think that user fees should play a substantial role,
especially for non-remote areas that have GA airports which serve
primarily recreational interests. The little AV gas taxes just aren't
cutting it.

Before you assert that avgas taxes are inadequate, tell me how much is
collected yearly and how much of that goes to support aviation. If a
significant amount is siphoned off to fund non-aviation purposes then
you have an obvious solution at ZERO increase in taxes or user fees.

Ron Lee

Been there, done that. Check for yourself. The data and studies are
readily available. I'm not gonna repost the same stuff.

Besides, the pilots are so damned myopic they won't believe anything that
does not conform to their pre-conceived fact set. And its a waste of
time: the user fees are a done deal. Just wait.

Well, I've posted it here often enough, I don't have to tell you I'm in
agreement about some arrogant pilots. If we don't learn how to integrate
better into communities, some hard-headed zealots are in for a rude
awakening as to what their "rights" really are.

Nevertheless, GA is a large and vital industry, full of dedicated people
who have to be goal-oriented to have made it there in the first place. And
it's an industry surrounded by misunderstanding and threatened, sometimes
even scapegoated by special interests, so it's really to the credit of
pilots to have organized to defend something that really needs defending.

I don't think the threat to GA really comes from the Federal government,
because so many legislators are involved one way or another, or have been
exposed to both sides of the equation, and understand the importance of
GA's role in our economy. Many citizens' groups however, in self-serving
endeavors can do great harm, and cheap-thrill journalismis a persistent
threat, filled as it is with air-heads who could not understand anything
about aviation if they tried - and they don't.

So, I agree about a few self-serving pilots, who don't want to know that
some social conditions are changing - but overall, this great industry and
activity is worth preserving and promoting, and needs defending - and
pilots have no greater tool than their substantial numbers and the lobbying
strength these represent to do so. All lobbying efforts require some
simplifications and politically expedient arguments to be effective. That's
how the game is played, and AOPA, overall, isn't doing such a bad job of it
- in my opinion.

G Faris

Now that I'm in the process of pre-retirement, and moving to NH, I see the
same thing here, although the pro-gun ownership culture (which includes
Skylune, btw) up here is much stronger, thank goodness.

Of course, our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It says
nothing about the right to fly low over peoples homes at all hours. That
crap came from the nefarious FAA.

Skylune pro-gun ownership, why am I not surprised, after all far more
people are killed by the lethally incompetent GA pilots than guns,
right?