Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:50 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Jim Sears)
2. 05:39 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (linn Walters)
3. 06:29 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Jim Sears)
4. 07:45 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Jeff Dowling)
5. 08:23 AM - Fees? (John Fasching)
6. 08:34 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (ronlee@pcisys.net)
7. 09:10 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Joseph Larson)
8. 09:46 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Tom Gummo)
9. 09:52 AM - Contact Info for John Parks (HCRV6@comcast.net)
10. 09:56 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (John Jessen)
11. 09:58 AM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Bob Collins)
12. 11:17 AM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (Terry Watson)
13. 11:23 AM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (Richard Dudley)
14. 11:24 AM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (Dale Ensing)
15. 11:25 AM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (Richard Dudley)
16. 12:02 PM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Mickey Coggins)
17. 12:28 PM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Bob Collins)
18. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Mark Burns)
19. 01:56 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Jamie Painter)
20. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (gordon or marge)
21. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey (Tim Bryan)
22. 03:16 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (ronlee@pcisys.net)
23. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey (Dale Walter)
24. 04:44 PM - Re: Interesting article on user fee issue (Bob Collins)
25. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey (Walter Tondu)
26. 06:05 PM - Re: Interesting article --Survey (Marty Helller)
27. 10:09 PM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (HCRV6@comcast.net)
28. 10:09 PM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (HCRV6@comcast.net)
29. 10:12 PM - Re: Contact Info for John Parks (HCRV6@comcast.net)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea. In central KY,
where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've learned that an
airport that can handle jets is essential to the local economy. Somerset's
facilities and runway were in dire need of upgrades to service their jet
customers. Our Danville airport is doing a runway widening project, soon,
and finally got a corporate hangar because our airport serves the jet
community on a regular basis to support local factories in at least two
counties. Jobs that we sorely needed have come into our area because of the
airports, colleges, etc. I appreciate the fact that my wife, son, and
neice are working in a factory that was brought here with the help of our
local airport. The folks who write these articles haven't a clue to the
impacts of airports to smaller economies. Maybe they're living in ritzy
enough areas that they don't have to worry about such things. In Kentucky,
we do.
Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs via
fuel taxes. I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough to
justify the kind of airports we have. Grass would work fine for us. Jets
need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame for the costs.
We probably don't use the system for our local flights nearly as much as
those who write these articles against us think, either. I rarely use the
system for my local engine warm ups, short trips for hamburgers, etc. I use
other resources and tell my friends where I'm going, just in case. That
costs the FAA nothing.
What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots come
from our ranks. If our level is hit with fees and taxes like other
countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't be pilots
for the airlines unless they come from the military. We won't be able to
afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless someone else pays for
it. Our airplanes will become worthless junk. Thousands of jobs at FBOs
will disappear, and the revenues from those jobs will go along with them.
But, I'm preaching to the choir. Someone needs to write to the fellow who
wrote that article to enlighten him. Maybe AOPA already has.
Oh, yeah. The guy was right about one thing. When charges start flowing
our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services. There will
become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get reduced taxes from
the airlines and few fees from us because we'll just stop using the system.
That's the way the guys in Europe can afford to fly; and, those guys are
wealthy enough to be able to afford it. Based on AOPA's article, it's
dangerous to fly there because more scud running is done, now. We'll see
aviation accidents increase in leaps and bounds.
For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs have gone
up. I was lucky to get into aviation when I did. I wouldn't be able to
afford it, if I were making comparable wages to what kids make today. Add
fees to my already iffy budget for aviation; and, I'll be just another
onlooker at the airport, just like those folks in other countries. It's no
wonder many of us are talking amongst ourselves about getting out of
aviation. It's not as much fun, anymore, when we have to worry about
increased costs in a hobby we can barely afford, as it is. We start
thinking we'd better get out before our airplanes become worthless because
only the very rich will be able to afford to operate them, just like the
warbirds are afforded by the few, today.
Jim Sears in KY
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
Jim, great post. Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir. Send it
to AOPA and your state reps (they have an interest too) and those in
Washington.
You made my biggest point .... "We'll see aviation accidents increase in
leaps and bounds. " By the time the magnitude of the accidents becomes
apparent ..... it'll be too late to say "I'm sorry".
Linn
do not archive
Jim Sears wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea. In
> central KY, where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've
> learned that an airport that can handle jets is essential to the local
> economy. Somerset's facilities and runway were in dire need of
> upgrades to service their jet customers. Our Danville airport is
> doing a runway widening project, soon, and finally got a corporate
> hangar because our airport serves the jet community on a regular basis
> to support local factories in at least two counties. Jobs that we
> sorely needed have come into our area because of the airports,
> colleges, etc. I appreciate the fact that my wife, son, and neice
> are working in a factory that was brought here with the help of our
> local airport. The folks who write these articles haven't a clue to
> the impacts of airports to smaller economies. Maybe they're living in
> ritzy enough areas that they don't have to worry about such things.
> In Kentucky, we do.
>
> Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs
> via fuel taxes. I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough
> to justify the kind of airports we have. Grass would work fine for
> us. Jets need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame
> for the costs. We probably don't use the system for our local flights
> nearly as much as those who write these articles against us think,
> either. I rarely use the system for my local engine warm ups, short
> trips for hamburgers, etc. I use other resources and tell my friends
> where I'm going, just in case. That costs the FAA nothing.
>
> What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots
> come from our ranks. If our level is hit with fees and taxes like
> other countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't
> be pilots for the airlines unless they come from the military. We
> won't be able to afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless
> someone else pays for it. Our airplanes will become worthless junk.
> Thousands of jobs at FBOs will disappear, and the revenues from those
> jobs will go along with them. But, I'm preaching to the choir.
> Someone needs to write to the fellow who wrote that article to
> enlighten him. Maybe AOPA already has.
>
> Oh, yeah. The guy was right about one thing. When charges start
> flowing our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services.
> There will become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get
> reduced taxes from the airlines and few fees from us because we'll
> just stop using the system. That's the way the guys in Europe can
> afford to fly; and, those guys are wealthy enough to be able to afford
> it. Based on AOPA's article, it's dangerous to fly there because more
> scud running is done, now. We'll see aviation accidents increase in
> leaps and bounds.
>
> For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs
> have gone up. I was lucky to get into aviation when I did. I
> wouldn't be able to afford it, if I were making comparable wages to
> what kids make today. Add fees to my already iffy budget for
> aviation; and, I'll be just another onlooker at the airport, just like
> those folks in other countries. It's no wonder many of us are talking
> amongst ourselves about getting out of aviation. It's not as much
> fun, anymore, when we have to worry about increased costs in a hobby
> we can barely afford, as it is. We start thinking we'd better get out
> before our airplanes become worthless because only the very rich will
> be able to afford to operate them, just like the warbirds are afforded
> by the few, today.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:52 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
>> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
I think Matt strips those I copy to. I did copy AOPA on this. I also
mentioned I was preaching to the choir. We already understand. I may have
to look at sending it to our reps, though. It wouldn't be the first time
I've done it on this subject. In fact, I'm finally beginning to write to my
congressmen on a more regular basis on subjects that have bothered me, of
late. We all should do that. I'll see what I can do on this one.
Jim in KY
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "linn Walters" <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
> Jim, great post. Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir. Send it
> to AOPA and your state reps (they have an interest too) and those in
> Washington.
> You made my biggest point .... "We'll see aviation accidents increase in
> leaps and bounds. " By the time the magnitude of the accidents becomes
> apparent ..... it'll be too late to say "I'm sorry".
> Linn
> do not archive
>
> Jim Sears wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea. In central
>> KY, where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've learned that
>> an airport that can handle jets is essential to the local economy.
>> Somerset's facilities and runway were in dire need of upgrades to service
>> their jet customers. Our Danville airport is doing a runway widening
>> project, soon, and finally got a corporate hangar because our airport
>> serves the jet community on a regular basis to support local factories in
>> at least two counties. Jobs that we sorely needed have come into our
>> area because of the airports, colleges, etc. I appreciate the fact that
>> my wife, son, and neice are working in a factory that was brought here
>> with the help of our local airport. The folks who write these articles
>> haven't a clue to the impacts of airports to smaller economies. Maybe
>> they're living in ritzy enough areas that they don't have to worry about
>> such things. In Kentucky, we do.
>>
>> Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs
>> via fuel taxes. I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough to
>> justify the kind of airports we have. Grass would work fine for us.
>> Jets need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame for the
>> costs. We probably don't use the system for our local flights nearly as
>> much as those who write these articles against us think, either. I
>> rarely use the system for my local engine warm ups, short trips for
>> hamburgers, etc. I use other resources and tell my friends where I'm
>> going, just in case. That costs the FAA nothing.
>>
>> What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots come
>> from our ranks. If our level is hit with fees and taxes like other
>> countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't be pilots
>> for the airlines unless they come from the military. We won't be able to
>> afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless someone else pays
>> for it. Our airplanes will become worthless junk. Thousands of jobs at
>> FBOs will disappear, and the revenues from those jobs will go along with
>> them. But, I'm preaching to the choir. Someone needs to write to the
>> fellow who wrote that article to enlighten him. Maybe AOPA already has.
>>
>> Oh, yeah. The guy was right about one thing. When charges start flowing
>> our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services. There will
>> become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get reduced taxes from
>> the airlines and few fees from us because we'll just stop using the
>> system. That's the way the guys in Europe can afford to fly; and, those
>> guys are wealthy enough to be able to afford it. Based on AOPA's
>> article, it's dangerous to fly there because more scud running is done,
>> now. We'll see aviation accidents increase in leaps and bounds.
>>
>> For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs have
>> gone up. I was lucky to get into aviation when I did. I wouldn't be
>> able to afford it, if I were making comparable wages to what kids make
>> today. Add fees to my already iffy budget for aviation; and, I'll be
>> just another onlooker at the airport, just like those folks in other
>> countries. It's no wonder many of us are talking amongst ourselves about
>> getting out of aviation. It's not as much fun, anymore, when we have to
>> worry about increased costs in a hobby we can barely afford, as it is.
>> We start thinking we'd better get out before our airplanes become
>> worthless because only the very rich will be able to afford to operate
>> them, just like the warbirds are afforded by the few, today.
>>
>> Jim Sears in KY
>> do not archive
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:52 AM
>> Subject: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
>>> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
Speaking of user fee's, I just got an envelope in the mail from NavCanada
with a one page, unexplained bill for 18 bucks. Im assuming this is a user
fee for flying into their airspace last September. Yep, 7 months. They
didnt even explain what service Im paying for. Oh well, this is a good
example of what not to do here, if we can fight it.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
320 hours
Chicago
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
> Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea. In central
> KY, where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've learned that an
> airport that can handle jets is essential to the local economy.
> Somerset's facilities and runway were in dire need of upgrades to service
> their jet customers. Our Danville airport is doing a runway widening
> project, soon, and finally got a corporate hangar because our airport
> serves the jet community on a regular basis to support local factories in
> at least two counties. Jobs that we sorely needed have come into our area
> because of the airports, colleges, etc. I appreciate the fact that my
> wife, son, and neice are working in a factory that was brought here with
> the help of our local airport. The folks who write these articles haven't
> a clue to the impacts of airports to smaller economies. Maybe they're
> living in ritzy enough areas that they don't have to worry about such
> things. In Kentucky, we do.
>
> Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs via
> fuel taxes. I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough to
> justify the kind of airports we have. Grass would work fine for us. Jets
> need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame for the costs.
> We probably don't use the system for our local flights nearly as much as
> those who write these articles against us think, either. I rarely use the
> system for my local engine warm ups, short trips for hamburgers, etc. I
> use other resources and tell my friends where I'm going, just in case.
> That costs the FAA nothing.
>
> What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots come
> from our ranks. If our level is hit with fees and taxes like other
> countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't be pilots
> for the airlines unless they come from the military. We won't be able to
> afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless someone else pays for
> it. Our airplanes will become worthless junk. Thousands of jobs at FBOs
> will disappear, and the revenues from those jobs will go along with them.
> But, I'm preaching to the choir. Someone needs to write to the fellow who
> wrote that article to enlighten him. Maybe AOPA already has.
>
> Oh, yeah. The guy was right about one thing. When charges start flowing
> our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services. There will
> become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get reduced taxes from
> the airlines and few fees from us because we'll just stop using the
> system. That's the way the guys in Europe can afford to fly; and, those
> guys are wealthy enough to be able to afford it. Based on AOPA's article,
> it's dangerous to fly there because more scud running is done, now. We'll
> see aviation accidents increase in leaps and bounds.
>
> For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs have
> gone up. I was lucky to get into aviation when I did. I wouldn't be able
> to afford it, if I were making comparable wages to what kids make today.
> Add fees to my already iffy budget for aviation; and, I'll be just another
> onlooker at the airport, just like those folks in other countries. It's
> no wonder many of us are talking amongst ourselves about getting out of
> aviation. It's not as much fun, anymore, when we have to worry about
> increased costs in a hobby we can barely afford, as it is. We start
> thinking we'd better get out before our airplanes become worthless because
> only the very rich will be able to afford to operate them, just like the
> warbirds are afforded by the few, today.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:52 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
>> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You got an $18 bill from Canada? Nothing ! I got a $852 bill from
Australia a fews years ago for landing fees...several years before I
even finished building the RV6A - even forgot I made the trip !! They
even had my registration number which was on reserve correct.
John at Salida, CO
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting
mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the
FAA/airline position.
I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride. $2.88 USD
When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or close to
that of arriving aircraft. I talk with COS approach for traffic advise
and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS. Imagine
what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly
airspace user? You guessed it. I would stop talking to COS approach.
I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked around
by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER Denver
Class B. Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN? I have no idea.
Don't care. I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no
longer try to play nice with them.
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
The head of the Minneapolis guys talked at a Wings a year or two
ago. He was there to explain why they were enlarging the Class B and
also to talk to GA pilots about some of our flying habits.
One thing he noticed is that the pilots tend to skirt the edges of
class B -- either barely below it, barely above, or barely outside.
He felt we thought we were "getting away" with something. I've flown
just under and just outside class B here, and I did it so that I
could stay out of the way of the busy controllers, but he basically
told us, "the controllers prefer to talk to you rather than guess
what it is you're doing".
If you add user fees for me to talk to the controllers, I'll go back
to my old habits of never talking to them. I'll use free weather
services, I'll never file a flight plan unless it's IFR, and I won't
file IFR if I think I can safely scud run. When I practice my
approaches, I'll only shoot approaches that don't involve talking to
any controllers. I won't file PIREPs in fear that talking to anyone
will cost me more money, and besides -- why should I file PIREPs if
they're going to charge some other pilot to hear them?
I will, however, fly at legal distances -- barely -- from both Class
B airspace and local clouds, blithely not talking to anyone at all.
That airliner will just have to go around me.
Is that really what anyone wants?
-Joe
On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:34 PM, ronlee@pcisys.net wrote:
>
> I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting
> mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the
> FAA/airline position.
>
> I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride. $2.88 USD
>
> When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or
> close to
> that of arriving aircraft. I talk with COS approach for traffic
> advise
> and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS.
> Imagine
> what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly
> airspace user? You guessed it. I would stop talking to COS approach.
>
> I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked
> around
> by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER Denver
> Class B. Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN? I have no
> idea.
> Don't care. I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no
> longer try to play nice with them.
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
I have had the same experience with Las Vegas Approach Control. Several
times, I attempted to contact them while over flying their class B airspace.
One time, a controller was very pleasant and even gave me a small vector to
help an airliner out. Every other time, all I got is a bunch of static from
them.
I now just over fly and stay on 122.0 Flight Watch. I use ATIS to get a
current-local altimeter setting.
Last time, I came within a mile of several airliners and I can be sure they
had to be vectored to avoid me. So be it. Keep your head out and eyes
open. :-)
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
> I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting
> mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the
> FAA/airline position.
>
> I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride. $2.88 USD
>
> When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or close to
> that of arriving aircraft. I talk with COS approach for traffic advise
> and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS. Imagine
> what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly
> airspace user? You guessed it. I would stop talking to COS approach.
>
> I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked around
> by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER Denver
> Class B. Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN? I have no idea.
> Don't care. I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no
> longer try to play nice with them.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Contact Info for John Parks |
Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the avionics
guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem to have
misplaced his number.
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Interesting article on user fee issue |
No, they don't want you to do that; they just want you to stop flying.
Economic flush and drain. I bet somebody has a spreadsheet somewhere that
has estimated the cost of losing the marginals. Both in terms of lives,
lawsuits and hard cash. I'm writing my elected reps today. I encourage
everyone to hit this with both fists, two feet and anything else you can
throw at it.
John Jessen
#40328
do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Larson
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Interesting article on user fee issue
The head of the Minneapolis guys talked at a Wings a year or two ago. He
was there to explain why they were enlarging the Class B and also to talk to
GA pilots about some of our flying habits.
One thing he noticed is that the pilots tend to skirt the edges of
class B -- either barely below it, barely above, or barely outside.
He felt we thought we were "getting away" with something. I've flown just
under and just outside class B here, and I did it so that I could stay out
of the way of the busy controllers, but he basically told us, "the
controllers prefer to talk to you rather than guess what it is you're
doing".
If you add user fees for me to talk to the controllers, I'll go back to my
old habits of never talking to them. I'll use free weather services, I'll
never file a flight plan unless it's IFR, and I won't file IFR if I think I
can safely scud run. When I practice my approaches, I'll only shoot
approaches that don't involve talking to any controllers. I won't file
PIREPs in fear that talking to anyone will cost me more money, and besides
-- why should I file PIREPs if they're going to charge some other pilot to
hear them?
I will, however, fly at legal distances -- barely -- from both Class
B airspace and local clouds, blithely not talking to anyone at all.
That airliner will just have to go around me.
Is that really what anyone wants?
-Joe
On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:34 PM, ronlee@pcisys.net wrote:
>
> I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting
> mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the
> FAA/airline position.
>
> I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride. $2.88 USD
>
> When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or close
> to that of arriving aircraft. I talk with COS approach for traffic
> advise
> and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS.
> Imagine
> what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly
> airspace user? You guessed it. I would stop talking to COS approach.
>
> I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked
> around by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER
> Denver
> Class B. Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN? I have no
> idea.
> Don't care. I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no
> longer try to play nice with them.
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
jpl(at)showpage.org wrote:
> Is that really what anyone wants?
>
> -Joe
>
Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think they'll have
a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the sacrifice, either
with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think that's what America wants.
I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to recognize that
there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim Oberstar's district,
there's some really beautiful airports out in the middle of nowhere.
I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really screwed
up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does -- and it's hard
to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a process (politics)
that is entirely irrational and illogical.
Frustrating, ain't it?
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107322#107322
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Contact Info for John Parks |
Harry,
I think you will get a lot of answers, but I'll bet you are talking about
John STARK at starkavionics.com. His phone number is (206) 321-1008 and
email address is john@starkavionics.com
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of HCRV6@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:51 AM
Subject: RV-List: Contact Info for John Parks
Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the
avionics guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem
to have misplaced his number.
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Info for John Parks |
Harry,
I wonder if you mean John Stark?
If so, here is the information that I have:
Stark Avionics
Hangar 12
Columbus Metro Airport
Columbus, GA 31909
706-321-1008
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
HCRV6@comcast.net wrote:
>
>Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the avionics
guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem to
have misplaced his number.
>
>--
>Harry Crosby
>RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Info for John Parks |
Harry, is it possible you are referring to electronics guy John STARK in
Columbus GA vs. John Parks? If it is John Stark his phone number is
706.312.1008.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: <HCRV6@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: RV-List: Contact Info for John Parks
>
> Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks,
> the avionics guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but
> seem to have misplaced his number.
>
> --
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Info for John Parks |
Not sure if this got sent.
Harry,
I wonder if you mean John Stark?
If so, here is the information that I have:
Stark Avionics
Hangar 12
Columbus Metro Airport
Columbus, GA 31909
706-321-1008
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
HCRV6@comcast.net wrote:
>
>Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the avionics
guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem to
have misplaced his number.
>
>--
>Harry Crosby
>RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9
>
I sure hope our friends at the AOPA try to get the other side out to
this journalist.
"A study released in February by the FAA said it cost $2.4 billion just
to provide air traffic control for private and corporate planes in 2005.
The industry contributed just $516 million in fuel taxes that year."
Does anyone have a link to this study? I'd like to see how they came up
with the $2.4 billion number. Sounds like a *slight* exaggeration.
The thing that is annoying is that almost no one ever mentions that if
there were no airliners in the sky, then GA would not need ATC or the FAA.
"Advocates of private and corporate aviation, which accounts for more
than half of all air traffic, ..."
Wow - I'd like to see how they justified that statement!
"Some airports have used AIP money to buy up surrounding property to
create noise barriers between aircraft and neighboring residential
areas. But an FAA audit found that six airports that used AIP funding
for noise mitigation later sold the land and used $82 million from the
sales for unapproved purposes."
If true, this is bad. There must be more to the story.
"Sardy Field, in the ultra-rich mountain playground of Aspen, Colo., has
received $27.2 million in funding since 2005. While Aspen does offer
service by major airlines, private jets and other general aviation
aircraft make up the majority of its traffic, airport officials said."
Ahh, it's not just those bad "rich" people, now it's "ultra-rich"
people! They should close the airport so those ultra-bad people will
drive SUVs hundreds of miles to their mountain playground. Right!
That'll provide a boost to the economy.
"California's Napa Valley Airport collected $6.3 million in taxpayer
dollars over the past two years, even though it mainly serves private
jets and small planes in addition to being a pilot training base for
Japan Air Lines."
We don't want those evil "ferners" coming over here to the USA to spend
their money now, do we? Heck, if we chased them back to Japan, think
about all the hotel rooms and restaurant space that wouldn't be all
booked up. Not to mention those flight instructors - they could get a
*real* job at Walmart or Home Depot.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure I'm boring you - sorry, but I'm just
in a ranting mood on this issue!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
I don't think a dollars-and-sense "defense" is going to work. AOPA has been trying
that for years and even *I'm* not interested in it.
I think the way to justify these is to note that without the support for airports
for private pilots, -- and specifically, I'm thinking that this story cited
several of the reliever airports in Minnesota -- the skies get more crowded and
all of a sudden commercial passengers (that would be the voters) are at risk
http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml (http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml)
We're going to have to hit the non-flying public where it hurts the most -- how
it affects THEM.
Right now, everyone who flies commercially knows it s*cks. So stress that if the
relievers -- like a Flying Cloud in the Twin Cities -- disappears, there'll
be fewer takeoffs at MSP. That's longer waits and runway delays.
There's the safety issue.
There's the benefits issue. In our neck of the woods, the forests have a nasty
habit of burning. These airports provide the ability to provide services to fight
them (this is especially true int he aforementioned Rep. Oberstar's district,
which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness). Close the airport,
let it burn, and then where are you non-flying hikers going to camp and
hike?
Hopefully, everyone kind of avoids the not-so-subtle "rich jet jockey" or rich
pilot message of the article. Anybody who's ever watched the Land Yachts come
rolling into Camp Scholler during AirVenture know there's some validity to
that. (g)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107368#107368
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
I don't think a dollars-and-sense "defense" is going to work. AOPA has been
trying that for years and even *I'm* not interested in it.
I think the way to justify these is to note that without the support for
airports for private pilots, -- and specifically, I'm thinking that this
story cited several of the reliever airports in Minnesota -- the skies get
more crowded and all of a sudden commercial passengers (that would be the
voters) are at risk
http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml
(http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml)
We're going to have to hit the non-flying public where it hurts the most --
how it affects THEM.
Right now, everyone who flies commercially knows it s*cks. So stress that if
the relievers -- like a Flying Cloud in the Twin Cities -- disappears,
there'll be fewer takeoffs at MSP. That's longer waits and runway delays.
There's the safety issue.
There's the benefits issue. In our neck of the woods, the forests have a
nasty habit of burning. These airports provide the ability to provide
services to fight them (this is especially true int he aforementioned Rep.
Oberstar's district, which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness). Close the airport, let it burn, and then where are you
non-flying hikers going to camp and hike?
Hopefully, everyone kind of avoids the not-so-subtle "rich jet jockey" or
rich pilot message of the article. Anybody who's ever watched the Land
Yachts come rolling into Camp Scholler during AirVenture know there's some
validity to that. (g)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107368#107368
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
We also need to publicize instances such as the recent incident where a
Comair CRJ made an emergency landing at RMG (Rome, Georgia) after a
disgruntled flight attendant set an intentional fire in the lavatory. I bet
those passengers and crew were glad Rome was there. There have been
innumerable instances where GA airports have played such a role in
emergencies.
There is definitely the wealth-envy portion of the equation. But from my
observations most pilots aren't ultra-wealthy. Granted, you're not going to
do a lot of flying on a minimum wage salary (some do), however the
overwhelming number of pilots are solidly in the middle-class. The
overwhelming number of pilots don't use ATC that much. Even those of us
that are IFR current...what percentage of flight time are you IFR? How much
infrastructure are you *really* using on a VFR x/c across the state?
The most annoying thing about the article is that it categorizes GA airports
as ones that don't serve the general public. Hmm....that's what a public GA
airport does! Anyone with an airplane is allowed to fly into/out of there.
That's the point. Not *everyone* flies on the airlines. In fact, I'm from
a rural farming background. My brother and I are the only people out of
several hundred family members that have taken airline rides, yet all of my
relatives paid to bail out the airlines after 9/11. I love how short-lived
the airline execs collective memory is when it comes to the billion dollar
taxpayer bailouts they received. I guess Hartsfield-Jackson doesn't
service the general public? It certainly does nothing for my family.
Jamie
do not archive
On 4/16/07, Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think a dollars-and-sense "defense" is going to work. AOPA has
> been trying that for years and even *I'm* not interested in it.
>
> I think the way to justify these is to note that without the support for
> airports for private pilots, -- and specifically, I'm thinking that this
> story cited several of the reliever airports in Minnesota -- the skies get
> more crowded and all of a sudden commercial passengers (that would be the
> voters) are at risk
>
> http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml (
> http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml)
> We're going to have to hit the non-flying public where it hurts the most
> -- how it affects THEM.
>
> Right now, everyone who flies commercially knows it s*cks. So stress that
> if the relievers -- like a Flying Cloud in the Twin Cities -- disappears,
> there'll be fewer takeoffs at MSP. That's longer waits and runway delays.
>
> There's the safety issue.
>
> There's the benefits issue. In our neck of the woods, the forests have a
> nasty habit of burning. These airports provide the ability to provide
> services to fight them (this is especially true int he aforementioned Rep.
> Oberstar's district, which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
> Wilderness). Close the airport, let it burn, and then where are you
> non-flying hikers going to camp and hike?
>
> Hopefully, everyone kind of avoids the not-so-subtle "rich jet jockey" or
> rich pilot message of the article. Anybody who's ever watched the Land
> Yachts come rolling into Camp Scholler during AirVenture know there's some
> validity to that. (g)
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107368#107368
>
>
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A N622JP
http://rv.jpainter.org
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
-
Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think that's
what America wants.
I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
middle of nowhere.
I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --
and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
Frustrating, ain't it?
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that is
not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel taxes
or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are not
exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable
and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God help
us all if this all comes to pass.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
Any thoughts on its impact
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
> sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> that's
> what America wants.
>
> I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> middle of nowhere.
>
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --
> and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
>
> Frustrating, ain't it?
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
> It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that
> is
> not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are not
> exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable
> and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God help
> us all if this all comes to pass.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear.
Fuel taxes go from around 19 cents a gallon to around 70 cents a gallon.
Best recollection from AOPA article.
Ron
Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
I think this is your opportunity to provide good input. If you don't respond
the survey may be less beneficial to you and our community. On the other
hand if you don't feel your participation will be relevant perhaps you have
good reason not to. It is good you brought this up, I also would like to
hear other thoughts on this.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
Any thoughts on its impact
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
> sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> that's
> what America wants.
>
> I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> middle of nowhere.
>
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --
> and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
>
> Frustrating, ain't it?
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
> It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that
> is
> not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are not
> exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable
> and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God help
> us all if this all comes to pass.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
jamie(at)jpainter.org wrote:
>
> There is definitely the wealth-envy portion of the equation. But from my observations
most pilots aren't ultra-wealthy. Granted, you're not going to do a
lot of flying on a minimum wage salary (some do), however the overwhelming number
of pilots are solidly in the middle-class.
It would actually be illuminating to see a survey like that. Of course, most people
consider themselves to be in the "middle class," so it has a wide ranging
definition. It's kind of like, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I consider myself middle class, but if you've got two Cheltons in your panel and
live on an airpark, you be rich in my book (g).
People -- non flyers -- have asked me how I afford to fly (which, I actually can't),
so I tell them "I don't drink and I don't chase women, so I use the money
that you spend on those things for flying instead."
BTW, was I dreaming or did I read somewhere in the last few days that the user
fees effort was pretty much dead. I could swear I read it but I don't know if
it was a flying source or a political newsletter.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107428#107428
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
On 04/16 5:00, Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
> faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
> everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
> purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
> are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
> it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
I stored it in the round file folder under my desk.
I can see some positive reasons for providing some of this information, but
not to the FAA, perhaps to EAA or AOPA.
My airplane is listed as an RV-7 when it's actually an RV-7A. I listed
it as an A model from the get-go. I've twice now tried to get this
information corrected with no results. I don't exactly trust the FAA
to use this information for my benefit, only theirs.
I don't see what benefit to pilots it would be for the FAA to know my
average fuel consumption for instance. I think as a whole the questions
can easily be used to calculate "their" profit from user fees, which
I oppose. I may be wrong here and maybe some of you can "enlighten" me.
It's not too late, the trashman doesn't come for a couple of days...
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com - Flying!
http://www.evorocket.com - Building
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article --Survey |
FYI: The FAA has done this survey for years. It helps them benchmark the
statistics of GA and Air Taxi flying. This past year, the survey expended
to include GPS equippage.
The survey results are available on the FAA website at:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/
Marty Heller
RV-7 (still riveting)
at S-N-F FAA Satellite Navigation Booth
>From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6@comcast.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:42:15 -0400
>
>
>I think this is your opportunity to provide good input. If you don't
>respond
>the survey may be less beneficial to you and our community. On the other
>hand if you don't feel your participation will be relevant perhaps you have
>good reason not to. It is good you brought this up, I also would like to
>hear other thoughts on this.
>Dale
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
>Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:01 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
>
>
>Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
>faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why
>plus
>everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
>purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
>are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
>it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
>
>Any thoughts on its impact
>Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> > they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes
>the
> > sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> > that's
> > what America wants.
> >
> > I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> > recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> > Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> > middle of nowhere.
> >
> > I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> > screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does
>--
> > and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> > process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
> >
> > Frustrating, ain't it?
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Collins
> > St. Paul, Minn.
> > RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> > http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
> >
> >
> >
> > It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> > addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system
>that
> > is
> > not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> > manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> > bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> > operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> > taxes
> > or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> > doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are
>not
> > exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> > electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be
>reasonable
> > and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> > respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God
>help
> > us all if this all comes to pass.
> >
> > Gordon Comfort
> > N363GC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Info for John Parks |
Richard,
Thank you. Of course I meant John Sparks, unfortunately my old brain didn't register
my mistake until about a half hour after I had hit send.
Do not archive
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1@bellsouth.net>
>
> Not sure if this got sent.
>
>
> Harry,
> I wonder if you mean John Stark?
> If so, here is the information that I have:
>
> Stark Avionics
> Hangar 12
> Columbus Metro Airport
> Columbus, GA 31909
> 706-321-1008
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Dudley
> RV-6A flying
>
>
> HCRV6@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the
> avionics guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem to
> have misplaced his number.
> >
> >--
> >Harry Crosby
> >RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Info for John Parks |
Thanks Dale (see my reply to Richard, same subject).
Do not archive
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Harry, is it possible you are referring to electronics guy John STARK in
> Columbus GA vs. John Parks? If it is John Stark his phone number is
> 706.312.1008.
> Dale Ensing
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <HCRV6@comcast.net>
> To: "RV-List" <RV-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:51 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Contact Info for John Parks
>
>
> >
> > Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks,
> > the avionics guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but
> > seem to have misplaced his number.
> >
> > --
> > Harry Crosby
> > RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Contact Info for John Parks |
Thanks Terry, and thanks to everyone who recognized that I meant John STARK.
Do not archive
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Harry,
>
> I think you will get a lot of answers, but I'll bet you are talking about
> John STARK at starkavionics.com. His phone number is (206) 321-1008 and
> email address is john@starkavionics.com
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of HCRV6@comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:51 AM
> To: RV-List
> Subject: RV-List: Contact Info for John Parks
>
>
> Can someone send me a phone number and/or e-mail address for John Parks, the
> avionics guy. I bought my Garmin stuff from him several years ago but seem
> to have misplaced his number.
>
> --
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 330 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|