---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 01/22/12: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:16 AM - Re: User fees (allenc3@bellsouth.net) 2. 09:44 AM - Re: User fees (Dj Merrill) 3. 12:01 PM - Re: User fees (Gary Vogt) 4. 12:04 PM - Re: User fees (Gary Vogt) 5. 02:33 PM - LoPresti Nose Bowl, Cheetah (Gary Vogt) 6. 02:36 PM - down trust angle (Gary Vogt) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:16:09 AM PST US From: "allenc3@bellsouth.net" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User fees Congress (both House and Senate) was controlled by Democrats from 2006-2010 w hen the house again became Republican. The Senate is still controlled by Dem ocrats. Congressman John Mica, who is from the North Florida area where I am from is Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and holds t he FAA purse strings is adamantly opposed to user fees, but there is a lot o f strong lobbyist out their pushing for these fees. Claude Allen Sent from my iPad On Jan 22, 2012, at 1:56, Gary L Vogt wrote: > Just doing a little light research on user fees. > > Did you know . . . The original FAA Authorization Bill, H.R. 3539, was w ritten and passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate in 1996? Of c ourse, it was signed by Clinton. This bill covered all authorization for 15 years. Hence, the fight last year and near shutdown of the FAA. A large por tion of the section on user fees was found to be illegal. > > Quote: "Section 273 of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act (P.L. 104-264) authorized the collection of new user fees for foreign o verflights. These fees were to be charged for air traffic control services p rovided to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land, in the United Stat es. > When the FAA set about writing the regulations that would establish this f ee, it went beyond the intent of Congress by also proposing a general aviati on (GA) overflight user fee. On May 19, 1997, the FAA began charging the fee for all foreign overflights, including those by GA aircraft, with the excep tion of Canada-to-Canada flights. > > Foreign airlines sued the FAA, claiming the FAA acted unlawfully in employ ing an expedited procedure to implement these fees, and that they violated t he anti-discrimination provisions of international aviation agreements. The c ourt made its decision on January 30, 1998. The court decided that the fees t hemselves were not illegal, but that the value-oriented "Ramsey pricing" met hod they had used to determine the fees did violate the law. As a result of t he court decision, the FAA suspended the fee program." End quote > > FAA authorization was reopened in Summer 2006, > > Quote "For over a year, the Bush administration has claimed that the exist ing aviation tax revenues are falling short of the FAA's expenses, noting th at ticket prices are not linked to their productivity costs. They also claim that the current tax-based funding system promotes an unstable operating en vironment for the FAA, making long-term financial planning impossible. Stati ng tight budget years make continued funding from the General Fund unlikely, the administration proposes to implement a user-fee-based system of revenue collections. The commercial airlines fully support this proposal because th ey believe it will result in a reduction in their operating expenses and per mit them to be profitable. The airlines also believe that a fee-based system will give them more say in how the FAA's air traffic control system is run, permitting them to bully general aviation further away from their major ope rating airports and airspace areas. > > User Fee time line > July 2006 =94 EAA launches its campaign to prevent user fees after t he Bush Administration, FAA, and airline industry unveil their plans to impo se user fees on general aviation. > > June 2007 =94 U.S. Senate introduces S.B. 1300, =9CThe Aviatio n Investment and Modernization Act of 2007,=9D a bill to authorize app ropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 th rough 2011, to improve aviation safety and capacity, to modernize the air tr affic control system, and for other purposes. The bill includes provisions f or substantial hikes in fuel excise taxes and a $25-per-flight IFR user fee f or turbine-powered general aviation aircraft. > > June 2007 =94 U.S. House of Representatives introduces H.R. 2881: Th e FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. The bill includes fuel tax increases and h ikes in other existing fees, but no general aviation user fees. > > July 2007 =94 At AirVenture Oshkosh 2007, top executives of the majo r general aviation organizations and several federal lawmakers meet in an op en forum to discuss the impact of and voice their united oppositition to use r fees. > > September 2007 =94 The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2003 expires. Cong ress extends the Act=99s revenue and spending provisions to June 30, 2 008. > > September 2007 =94 U.S. House of Representatives passes H.R.2881, wi th a 65% hike in aviation fuel taxes but no general aviation user fees. > > September 2007 =94 S.B. 1300 stalls as Senate=99s Finance Comm ittee and Aviation Subcommittee argue over user fees. > > April 2008 =94 Senate committees reach a compromise that drops the I FR user fee from the bill but retains a 65% increase in aviation jet fuel ta xes on business-jet operators. The bill stalls again in committee over disag reements on other amendments unrelated to user fees or aviation. > > June 2008 =94With the FAA budget reauthorization bill stalled in the Senate and FAA funding about to expire, Congress votes to extend the existi ng FAA budget through the end of September 2008. The budget extension will k eep the lights on at the agency; it leaves a great deal of long-term FAA pro grams and projects in limbo because no one knows what the final FAA budget b ill will include. > > June-July 2008 =94The airline industry, the FAA, and the Bush admini stration continue to push for GA user fees and airline-dominated control of FAA revenues and spending. EAA and the general aviation community continue t he fight against user fees. > > February 2009 =93 U.S. House of Representatives introduces H.R. 915: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. (The 111th session of Congress conven ed on January 6, 2009.) Extension granted through September 30, 2009. > > Today=99s government continues to work under a continuing resolution for FAA funding. Eventually, Congress will have to pass a new FAA budget b ill. No one can safely predict what compromises the FAA budget bill will co ntain when it finally reaches president=99s desk but EAA continues to w ork every day to prevent the introduction of new user fees and taxes on the g eneral aviation community." End quote > > Fortunately, I've been unable to find any Senators or Congressmen in favor of future user fees. > > Gary > Sent from my iPad > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:44:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User fees From: Dj Merrill On 1/22/2012 3:12 AM, allenc3@bellsouth.net wrote: > Congress (both House and Senate) was controlled by Democrats from > 2006-2010 when the house again became Republican. The Senate is still > controlled by Democrats. I was trying to say that on the other mailing list but the Censorship Troll didn't allow my message (but strangely did allow several other politically oriented messages to go through, isn't that just nice how that happens). Don't be fooled into thinking this is a Republican versus Democrat issue. We have both Democrats and Republicans that are in favor and are against user fees. Both Bush and Obama are in favor of user fees. The simple reality is that there isn't a huge difference between the two major parties these days. If we as a country want a real change, we are going to have to start seriously considering candidates with other, or no, party affiliation. I think we can all agree that if user fees get a start, we are all in for a big heap o' trouble. Many of us (likely including myself) will have to stop flying due to the cost. Regardless of which political party you cheer for at each election, let's band together to make sure our voices are heard as a unanimous shout against any form of user fee. -Dj ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 12:01:37 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User fees I agree. =C2-It's lobbyists promoting the fees. =C2-I haven't identifie d any politician that promotes the fees. =C2-Now, if Citizens United gets overturned, so corporations like the airlines can't control politicians, m aybe we'll have a chance.=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "allenc3@bellsouth.net" =0ATo: "teamgrumman-list@ma tronics.com" =0ASent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:12 AM=0ASubject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User fees=0A =0A=0ACongress (both House and Senate) was controlled by Democrats from 2006-2010 when the house again became Republican. The Senate is still controlled by Democrats .=0A=0ACongressman John Mica, who is from the North Florida area where I am from is Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee an d holds the FAA purse strings is adamantly opposed to user fees, but there is a lot of strong lobbyist out their pushing for these fees. =C2- =C2- =C2-=0A=0A=0AClaude AllenSent from my iPad=0A=0AOn Jan 22, 2012, at 1:56, Gary L Vogt wrote:=0A=0A=0AJust doing a little lig ht research on user fees.=C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>Did you know . . . =C2-The ori ginal FAA Authorization Bill, H.R. =C2-3539, was written and passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate in 1996? Of course, it was signed by Clinton. =C2-This bill covered all authorization for 15 years. Hence, the fight last year and near shutdown of the FAA. A large portion of the se ction on user fees was found to be illegal.=C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>Quote: "Sectio n 273 of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act (P.L. 104- 264) authorized the collection of new user fees for foreign overflights. Th ese fees were to be charged for air traffic control services provided to ai rcraft that neither take off from, nor land, in the United States.=0A>When the FAA set about writing the regulations that would establish this fee, it went beyond the intent of Congress by also proposing a general aviation (G A) overflight user fee. On May 19, 1997, the FAA began charging the fee for all foreign overflights, including those by GA aircraft, with the exceptio n of Canada-to-Canada flights.=C2-=0A>Foreign airlines sued the FAA, clai ming the FAA acted unlawfully in employing an expedited procedure to implem ent these fees, and that they violated the anti-discrimination provisions o f international aviation agreements. The court made its decision on January 30, 1998. The court decided that the fees themselves were not illegal, but that the value-oriented "Ramsey pricing" method they had used to determine the fees did violate the law. As a result of the court decision, the FAA s uspended the fee program." End quote=0A>=C2-FAA authorization was reopene d in Summer 2006,=C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>Quote "For over a year, the Bush adminis tration has claimed that the existing aviation tax revenues are falling sho rt of the FAA's expenses, noting that ticket prices are not linked to their productivity costs. They also claim that the current tax-based funding sys tem promotes an unstable operating environment for the FAA, making long-ter m financial planning impossible. Stating tight budget years make continued funding from the General Fund unlikely, the administration proposes to impl ement a user-fee-based system of revenue collections. The commercial airlin es fully support this proposal because they believe it will result in a red uction in their operating expenses and permit them to be profitable. The ai rlines also believe that a fee-based system will give them more say in how the FAA's air traffic control system is run, permitting them to bully gener al aviation further away from their major operating airports and airspace a reas.=0A>=0A>=0A>User Fee time line=0A>July 2006 =94 EAA launches its campaign to prevent user fees=C2-after the Bush Administration, FAA, and airline industry unveil their plans to impose user fees on general aviatio n.=0A>June 2007 =94 U.S. Senate introduces S.B. 1300,=C2-=9CT he Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007,=9D a bill to au thorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal y ears 2008 through 2011, to improve aviation safety and capacity, to moderni ze the air traffic control system, and for other purposes. The bill include s provisions for substantial hikes in fuel excise taxes and a $25-per-fligh t IFR user fee for turbine-powered general aviation aircraft.=0A>June 2007 =94 U.S. House of Representatives introduces H.R. 2881:=C2-The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. The bill includes fuel tax increases and hikes in other existing fees, but=C2-no=C2-general aviation user fees.=0A>Ju ly 2007 =94 At AirVenture Oshkosh 2007, top executives of the major g eneral aviation organizations and several federal lawmakers meet in an open forum to discuss the impact of and voice their united oppositition to user fees.=0A>September 2007 =94 The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2003 expi res. Congress extends the Act=99s revenue and spending provisions to June 30, 2008.=0A>September 2007 =94 U.S. House of Representatives pa sses H.R.2881, with a 65% hike in aviation fuel taxes but=C2-no=C2-gene ral aviation user fees.=0A>September 2007 =94 S.B. 1300 stalls=C2-a s Senate=99s Finance Committee and Aviation Subcommittee argue over u ser fees.=0A>April 2008 =94 Senate committees reach a compromise=C2 -that drops the IFR user fee from the bill but retains a 65% increase in aviation jet fuel taxes on business-jet operators. The bill stalls again in committee over disagreements on other amendments unrelated to user fees or aviation.=0A>June 2008 =94With the FAA budget reauthorization bill s talled in the Senate and FAA funding about to expire, Congress votes to ext end the existing FAA budget through the end of September 2008. The budget e xtension will keep the lights on at the agency; it leaves a great deal of l ong-term FAA programs and projects in limbo because no one knows what the f inal FAA budget bill will include.=0A>June-July 2008=C2-=94The airl ine industry, the FAA, and the Bush administration continue to push for GA user fees and airline-dominated control of FAA revenues and spending. EAA a nd the general aviation community continue the fight against user fees.=0A> February 2009 =93=C2-U.S. House of Representatives introduces H.R. 915: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.=C2- (The 111th session of Congr ess convened on January 6, 2009.)=C2- Extension granted through September 30, 2009.=0A>Today=99s government continues to work under a continui ng resolution for FAA funding.=C2- Eventually, Congress will have to pass a new FAA budget bill.=C2- No one can safely predict what compromises th e FAA budget bill will contain when it finally reaches president=99s desk but EAA continues to work every day to prevent the introduction of new user fees and taxes on the general aviation community." End quote=C2-=0A >Fortunately, I've been unable to find any Senators or Congressmen in favor of future user fees.=C2-=0A>=0A>=0A>GarySent from my iPad=0A>=== ========0At">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-L ist=0A======================= =============0Acs.com=0A========= ==0Amatronics.com/contribution=0A============= ============== ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:04:49 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User fees User fees have been used since 1971. -It's lobbying from AOPA and EAA tha t's kept it in check. -They need your check.=0A=0A=0A____________________ ____________=0A From: Dj Merrill =0ATo: teamgrumman-list@mat ronics.com =0ASent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:41 AM=0ASubject: Re: TeamGru ll =0A=0AOn 1/22/2012 3:12 AM, allenc3@bellsouth.net wrote: =0A> Congress (both House and Senate) was controlled by Democrats from 2006 -2010 when the house again became Republican. The Senate is still controlle d by Democrats.=0A=0A- - I was trying to say that on the other mailing list but the Censorship Troll didn't allow my message (but strangely did al low several other politically oriented messages to go through, isn't that j ust nice how that happens).=0A=0A- - - - Don't be fooled into think ing this is a Republican versus Democrat issue.- We have both Democrats a nd Republicans that are in favor and are against user fees.- Both Bush an d Obama are in favor of user fees.=0A=0A- - The simple reality is that there isn't a huge difference between the two major parties these days.- If we as a country want a real change, we are going to have to start seriou sly considering candidates with other, or no, party affiliation.=0A=0A- - I think we can all agree that if user fees get a start, we are all in f or a big heap o' trouble.- Many of us (likely including myself) will have to stop flying due to the cost.- Regardless of which political party you cheer for at each election, let's band together to make sure our voices ar =============== ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 02:33:19 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: TeamGrumman-List: LoPresti Nose Bowl, Cheetah I've installed 2 Power Flows on Cheetahs. -It takes a while to get the ai rbox properly aligned, drilled and nutplated. -When I got this Cheetah a year ago, there were only two screws holding the airbox down. -I thought it had to have been someone in a hurry and not taking the time to align and install the airbox correctly. -So, last year, I spent a couple of hours, removing the nutplates and realigning airbox. -Better. -But I still co uldn't get the forward two screws in.=0A=0ASo, this year, after reading the notes from last year, I thought I'd take another look at it. -It can't b e done.=0A=0AThe inlet on the LoPresti nose bowl is off-center by 3/8 inch. -I checked the rest of the installation and I can't see where the nose b owl could be rotated in place enough to correct the misalignment. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:36:00 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: TeamGrumman-List: down trust angle I've been doing some work on Papa John's 6-cylinder Cheetah. -I noticed t he cowling alignment and the change side-to-side. -His down thrust is mea sured at about 1 to 1.1 degrees down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.