GA User fees

by Orval Fairbairn Dec 23, 2005 at 01:49
PM


Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:.....

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Orval! (In reality, I think your
Johnson is a really cool looking machine...).

We can resume arguing after the new year, but next week I am going flying,
and skiing.

BTW, I'll be flying in the right seat of the 172 next week from ISP to
Danbury. Is ground (car rental) transportation pretty easy to get there?

Yes, if you stop at Reliant (where I'm based) you can get a taxi into
town for something like $6-10. At least that's what Reliant tells me -
I didn't think you could get anything for $6 these days. They can also
arrange a car rental from Hertz or Avis to be waiting for you,
especially if you have a card number ("wizard number"?) to give them.
They can also do Enterprise, but might not be able to get it on the
field. Reliant is at (203) 743-5100. Call ahead. They don't have a
courtesy car, but if it's quiet and a short distance one of the line
people might be able to give you a ride. There is a restaurant/bar
right in the same building; the food is good but the nonsmoking area
isn't always open and the restaurant ("McNalley's") is usually closed
for lunch. A short walk takes you to the Marcus Dairy. It's a lunch
counter type place with good food and wonderful ice cream. The mall is
also nearby (you fly over it on the approach to 17) and there's good
pizza and the regular mall food court stuff.

If you get a car, all of Ridgefield and Danbury is open to you.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In the Middle Ages all roads were toll roads. As one travelled, one had
to pay the tolls to whoever controlled the road. As society progressed,
it became evident that it was better public policy for the government
to build the roads with money collected through taxes. We still have
toll roads, and I believe a STRONG argument can be made that they are
not as efficient. But the fact is, both systems work. I personally am
in favor of taxes paying for toll roads. As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
use ATC services. I think it would be a mistake to completely privatize
ATC, but I will admit there is a lot of pork in ATC and the FAA, so a
good remaking of the service probably is in order. There are numerous
towered airports that really have no need for a tower whatsoever.
Usually if there is a tower, it is only the commercial airline service
that NEEDS it, general aviation gets along just find without any tower
whatsoever. The Unicom frequency system works well as do the automated
AWOSs.

Flying is all about freedom.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Orval Fairbairn Dec 23, 2005 at 01:49
PM


Here's the latest on GA user fees (from AOPA) -- yes -- I know that
Skyloon" will howl and bark at the moon about this one:.....

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Orval! (In reality, I think your
Johnson is a really cool looking machine...).

We can resume arguing after the new year, but next week I am going flying,
and skiing.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too! Judging from the weather
reports up there, you can use all the sticks and coal that Santa brings
you.

Well, make some sitzfalls for me! I haven't gone skiing in 30 years, but
it is really fun! It looks as if you will have some nice snow, too.

Favorite place was Crested Butte, in 1973.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

On 23 Dec 2005 11:43:43 -0800, "Doug"
wrote:

As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
use ATC services.

Therein lies one potential problem, that people may be inclined to
attenpt VFR flight into IMC in order to save money. It's bad enough
now that people attempt VFR when they really shouldn't.

While alternative weather may be available online, one needs to
remember that a reason to check FSS or DUATS is so that they can have
an entry in their log for CYA purposes. If something happens, the
investigators check for briefing logs and if they don't see that you
got an FSS briefing they might consider that reckless operation.

I think it would be a mistake to completely privatize
ATC, but I will admit there is a lot of pork in ATC and the FAA, so a
good remaking of the service probably is in order.

The whole idea of privatization of government services is to allow
market forces and competition to push service providers to improve
service and efficiency. So should ATC have competition? If I don't
like the clearance I get with one ATC service could I file with its
competitor and maybe get a better price? Or should ATC be a regulated
monopoly? People who like the phone company ought to love commercial
ATC.

What other government services might be supported by a user fee? I've
considered whether the IRS ought to be supported by a user fee. Maybe
about $25 to file a form 1040, in addition to your taxes. So if you're
filing for a refund of your witholding on that summer job selling ice
cream, you'd get the $10 tax refund and pay $25 to file the return.
Hey, that's fair. Everyone ought to pay the costs of government,
right?

RK Henry

In article ,
RK Henry wrote:

On 23 Dec 2005 11:43:43 -0800, "Doug"
wrote:

As a pilot, I mostly fly VFR,
and land at airports with no control towers so if I have to pay for FAA
services, I will simply avoid using them as much as possible. It is now
possible to get full preflight weather briefings on the internet or
local computer feed, so there will be little need for me, personally to
use ATC services.

Therein lies one potential problem, that people may be inclined to
attenpt VFR flight into IMC in order to save money. It's bad enough
now that people attempt VFR when they really shouldn't.


This kind of thing is one consideration in the determination of user fees
for NavCanada's fee structure. Visit their website and should be able
to locate at least one of the many documents that discuss the safety
aspects of having user fees (e.g., avoiding fees leading to unsafe actions).

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"RK Henry" wrote in message
...

The whole idea of privatization of government services is to allow
market forces and competition to push service providers to improve
service and efficiency. So should ATC have competition? If I don't
like the clearance I get with one ATC service could I file with its
competitor and maybe get a better price? Or should ATC be a regulated
monopoly?


How would the competing ATC services separate their traffic from their
competitors' traffic? ATC must be a monopoly.

Location, location, location. An airliner cruising at altitude may have
to
be placed in sequence hundreds of miles from the destination. A short
hauler might be doing a visual approach to a nontowered field.

What constitutes an "ATC service" in your mind?

Once he is in the system, who would need to talk to him? Nobody, until it
is time for him to come down.

The short haul commercial flights are normally being provided separation on
an IFR flight plan, no? Every time he departs, he has to be put into the
system, guided up to altitude, then talked to, for being let down, then
approach control to land. Every time, right? Sounds like one short haul
guy may be using nearly 3 times as much services, compared to the guy flying
3 times as far, with one flight plan.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Once he is in the system, who would need to talk to him? Nobody, until it
is time for him to come down.


Why wouldn't ATC need to talk to him?



The short haul commercial flights are normally being provided separation
on an IFR flight plan, no?


Yes. So are the long haul commercial flights.



Every time he departs, he has to be put into the
system, guided up to altitude, then talked to, for being let down, then
approach control to land. Every time, right?


Right. As are the long haul flights.



Sounds like one short haul guy may be using nearly 3 times as much
services, compared to the guy flying 3 times as far, with one flight plan.


Sounds like you're unfamiliar with ATC.