Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mars01 on April 04, 2007, 11:01:31 AM
-
I know this should be in the OClub, but I feel this is such an important topic that everyone must understand what is at stake and knowing HTC et-al are aviators I hope they will leave this topic here to get the most exposure.
If you dont know already the Bush administration, the Airlines and FAA are trying to kill General Aviation for the common man by instituting user fees to pay for our nations Airway services. This will not only kill the dream of flight for the common population it will make it less safe for those that do continue to fly.
User fees have been instituted in Europe and Canada and have all but killed general aviation and pushed everyone out of the skies except for the rich and the airlines.
Faced with an instrument approach below minimums, how would you react to the notion that a last-minute approach to a nearby airport with better weather would cost you $1,000? Such harried decision-making and its negative effect on safety are a way of life for European general aviation pilots. Bring along your calculator and fly with AOPA Pilot Editor-at-Large Thomas A. Horne on an IFR flight across Europe in a Piper Twin Comanche as he deals with just such a situation. You'll be appalled at the flight's price tag when you tally air traffic control services from the preflight weather briefing to the landing. "European pilots pay more, receive less, and can face higher risks," Horne writes after the flight in "Euro-Fees Fears. (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2007/feat0704.html) " Watch this intriguing first installment of a four-part video report to experience first-hand the chilling effects of user fees on costs and safety.
See what is costs to make a trip in Europe, watch this short flight and film:
http://flash.aopa.org/pilot_media_viewer/media/0704userfees/files/video1.html
If you ever dreamed of flying, get involved and help put a stop to the madness and greed which will take the dream of flight away from you and your children.
-
I've read estimates that this will raise fuel taxes for general aviation by $.70 per gallon!!!
-
They are not estimates, Bush's proposal was to institute user fees and add a $.70 a gallon tax to avgas which is already $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon and is only going to go up.
GA's biggest threat makes landfall
User fees and tax hikes in president's budget
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070205funding.html
'A cynical attempt to shift costs'
FAA financing bill a first step toward privatized ATC system
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070214funding.html
Do you want to pay nearly a fourfold increase in avgas tax?
AOPA members tell it as it is to Congress
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070228letters.html
FAA funding: Airlines win and GA loses
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070305funding.html
Some senators want aviation to pay more
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070308hearing.html
-
It is a bunch of bullchit.
The airways are congested in major hubs not because of GA, but because the airlines and to a lesser extent, corporate aviation have flooded them in their own money grubbing, government subsidized money bleeding fiasco they call business.
If this passes, Mars is 100% correct, it will kill the dream that is aviation for all but the ultra rich and result in more accidents just so the general public can protect airline profits.
-
Please take this to a Politically Oriented Web Site.
I dont think this is appropriate subject matter for this particular forum.
Just my opinion and you know... everybody has one :cool:
Later,
KayBay
-
BTW, this is not Bush's proposal. This is the airlines' proposal. Bush supports it, but he didn't initiate it.
-
President Bush released his $2.9 trillion spending plan in four massive volumes. The overarching philosophy is to increase military spending while squeezing the rest of the government. Unfortunately, the proposal would radically alter the funding mechanism for the world's largest, safest, and most successful air traffic control system. If that were not enough, the budget would slash airport funding by $1 billion.
Sounds like a Bush proposal to me. :aok Semantics anyway, he is naive enough to support it.
-
Yeah. Sure it does. However, keep in mind that the airlines have been pushing for this for years, and very aggressively for more than a year. Bush's proposed budget hasn't been around that long.
-
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198523
-
Yippee, that is not the point so please leave it alone. The idea here is to get the word out to those aviation minded people such that are on this board and others like it.
This does not affect only pilots as it will inevitably kill most GA businesses when the GA pilot population shrinks.
Also airshows and the like. So please stop trying to derail the message.
-
http://media.aopa.org/070321testimony.asx
Phil Boyer is the Man...So is AOPOA.
-
My point exactly BSAddict, this has been posted in OClub and got almost no exposure, that is why I hope HTC has the where with all to leave this here and at least help get the message out.
This affects everyone in this country that loves aviation but may not be pilots and may not know the fight that is brewing to keep our airspace free and usable by the common man.
-
By the way, just to give an example of how the general public uses GA every day, whether they know it or not........
Crop dusting
Air medical (transferring a live liver to Grandma)
Bank Checks
Non-scheduled cargo (overnight shipping)
Law enforcement
News media
Part 91 business operations
Just-In-Time manufacturing operations
Aerial forest fire fighters
and the list goes on....Not to mention that more than 170 million px fly in GA aircraft each year....
-
Forgive me for being naive, but what exactly does GA stand for? I'm assuming General aviation?
-
Yep you got it ripper.
Exactly Cav
-
It's a never ending struggle to bail out the big boys in the airline and aviation industry, ain't it?
Ranks right up there with the additional Traumatic Injury Protection (TSGLI) deduction in soldier SGLI deductions to pay for all the amputees from the war. "Give us a hundred dollars, and take back ninety-nine."
-
Who cares where this is posted....geeeez don't read it if you don't like the topic.
Some people:rolleyes:
-
LOL. The funny thing is, it's really a proposed tax increase to everybody, not just GA. GWB just doesn't want to call it that since he worked so hard to give us more money to spend (BS-ometer is getting pegged). If he says user fees, it doesn't sound so bad. However, if you increase the cost for a company to do business, guess what happens to the cost of their goods or services - they go up. They won't absorb the cost, just pass it on to everybody who uses their goods/services.
Glove
-
Did a flight last week from the Bay Area down to Pt. Mugu. Was 4.5 hours round trip with an ILS shot to minimums. Fuel was $200. Plane was $495. We went out of the Class B from San Francisco and had Flight Following most of the way, then went IFR when the fog popped in down in SOCAL and shot the approach to 200 and 3/4 mile vis at Oxnard.
So, the $695 bill which was that trip, would add a few new costs under the new rules would cost me and my passengers the following.
Tower fees: $30
Class B use: $40
Enroute services: $30
IFR Service: $40
Approach Service: $35
Fuel tax @ $.70 per gal (roughly 40 gallons burned) $28.00
Another $200 on top of $695, not including landing fees which we pay anyway at some airports.
Tell me who is getting ****ed.
Wolf
-
I will contact my representative and let him know I am against this rediculous proposal.
-SR-
-
That is the spirit SR,
Here is a site that is trying to organize Aviation Advocates in this country. http://www.AeroBlue.org
AOPA is a great org and is doing it's part, but they are more geared to pilots and plane owners and that limits their voting block, where AeroBlue wants to organize Aviation advocates which includes everyone. Power to the people. :aok
There is no aviation advocates like the NRA for guns etc. These guys want to fill that void so that when the siege comes we will be prepared.
-
Thank you for this post.
GA is very important to me and I plan on Contacting my Congressman and voice my opinion.
The GA community is relatively small but I hope that it can organize and become very vocal on this topic.
-
The GA community is relatively small
Absolutely right steely!! And that is exactly my point with AOPA vs the idea of an organization like AeroBlue. AeroBlue wants to encompass non pilots and people in the industry, people that support the industry, from Airport personnel to people that just like to go watch planes take off and land as well as pilots. I think in order to really protect Aviation for the common person we need to have a lobby that can generate the mass numbers needed to really be heard. Whether or not AeroBlue can deliver is yet to be seen, but it is a starting point.
They also have a list of reps etc for each state and a place to email those reps. I think it's under the "my action items". Be sure to have look.
As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to the AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This number has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:
* 84,866 student pilots
* 242 recreational pilots
* 939 sport pilots
* 236,147 private pilots
* 130,234 commercial pilots
* 144,681 airline transport pilots
Within those groups, there were:
* 37, 837 glider pilots
* 10,511 balloon pilots
* 41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots
An active pilot is defined as one who holds both a pilot certificate and a valid medical certificate, so this value omits pilots who do not have a medical certificate (particularly glider and sport pilots).
-
The FAA is right in the middle of this.
The pending FAA reauthorization is just a preview of draconian measures that will eviscerate GA in the US. We are almost the last bastion of viable GA worldwide.
The FAA is completely in the tank for the carriers. Consider this snippet from a recent Marion Blakey speech: (http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=8488)
When you hear horror stories about the FAA being “anti-GA,” I want you to take a good look at the numbers. In our proposal, Joe pilot in a Cessna 172 will experience an operating cost increase of about four dollars per hour. In other words, the owner of a very expensive airplane is engaged in a heated dispute that hinges on the cost of a Starbucks latte.
She seems to feel misunderstood about being perceived as "anti-GA" and then dismisses the concerns of "Joe Pilot".
We well on the path to a la carte pricing. I can't wait to hear the controller say: "Say type aircraft, altitude and VISA number."
This is part of a long FAA trend of pay more for less. In my FSDO district (Kansas City) there is virtually no such thing as a field approval any longer. I was negotiating with my PMI to put shoulder straps in my Luscombe. Had a ream of previously approved 337s and drawings. No dice. So I fly around wondering if I'm going to re-arrange the instrument panel with my face or hire a DER.
-
Yep you are right Casca.
I was just talking with an Aviat Pitts dealer this past weekend and the Aviat factory told their dealer that they were no longer allowed to put smoke systems in the S2C aircraft. Amazingly Aviat was going along with this BS.
The FAA said they were unsafe. Which is BS when you look at the fact that there are numerous working examples to go by, the fact that you cant get combustion where there is no oxygen ie, an exhaust stack etc.
So the dealer was smart enough to talk to the person that was making the problem and ask them to cite where it says in the regs that smoke systems are dangerous and not allowed. After a few phone calls and citing what the regs actually say they were able to get the system approved. The problem is the BS you have to go through.
Be persistent, find someone that pushed it through and you should get results.