flying user fee

[Doug S.]

If the argument for these fees is that people don't really "need" to own an airplane; well, you don't really need a computer either.

A bit of a mismatch there re: scale, don't you think?

Nobody "needs" an electric toothbrush, either.....

I'll play devil's advocate here....let's assume that aviation safety is an issue of concern to pilots (if not, it SHOULD be!). Obviously the old air traffic control methods, with lots of people looking at radar screens tracking more flights than they can manage, are questionable. It's hard to believe that those conditions offer optimal safety. The technology is outdated, the ATC's are tired from being overworked. IMHO the switch to a GPS based technology could improve air traffic safety by allowing for programming that would automatically notify the ATC's that there is a dangerous situation. It could all be automatic, rather than relying on fatigued air traffic controllers to notice it.

That costs! Keep in mind that the penalty points for failure of an airborne flight are significant, so already procedures have been implemented to require exceptional efforts to keep airplanes safe. For example, already there are higher-quality fasteners required for aircraft construction than for ground-based transport devices....just one example. It is one of the most highly regulated services and industries in our society...and the focus of those regulations is safety. A switch to an improved method of tracking airflights will cost....ya gotta pay to play.

How many of you want your family in an airplane that is involved in a mid-air collision b/c it was "missed" by a fatigued air traffic controller, all because those who enjoy and occasional pleasure flight fought and defeated the efforts to implement a method of tracking flights more effectively?

In our society efforts have been made to ensure public safety by the imposition of many fees....do you think the airbags in new cars that are mandated by the government are put there free? Of course not, the cost is included in the price of the car, it's there but it is hidden. This fee under discussion just isn't as invisible as many of the other fees we have to pay. All those employees at the airports who do the searches as you prepare to board a plane....not free, but the fees are hidden.

I agree with Jim that the "creeping" nature of fees is an issue, but if the legislation were written correctly that might be prohibited. Sounds to me like the idea is a good one, the implementation is what has pilots all up in arms.

How about this....the airports are required to pay the $100/flight fee. Then they could pass the cost on to the end users...the pilots or the company flying the plane...in a more hidden manner. Would this be more acceptable?

IMHO, what we're all discussing here is, once again, funding the function of government, not whether or not we want a safe aviation industry. Let's focus on the issue...getting ourselves and our loved ones from one place to another on an airplane SAFELY!!!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I think they write legislation with "creeping" in mind. Actually, flying is one hell of a lot safer than driving is right now.

 

[Doug S.]

I think they write legislation with "creeping" in mind.

Gotta agree, Al!

I also agree that flying is statistically much more safe than driving an automobile, it's just the magnitude of the cost for failure that seems to be inequitable. People survive car crashes much better than they survive airplane crashes....sure, there are miraculous examples where nobody is killed in a crash, but, really, how often does that happen?

Now.....if we could just eliminate the "creeps" from government, those "creeps" who write legislation to benefit themselves, maybe things would be different and the nature of "fee creep" in general could be one of the nails in their coffins.

Unfortunately, in our system of government, we can't keep the "creeps" from running for office, so we need to be involved otherwise. EAA and AOPA are lobbying organizations, but they have the rather limited focus of representing ONLY their members rather than representing the entire population of the U.S.

So what to do? Hold the "creeps" we elect to a high standard, get in THEIR faces and let them know how YOU feel, don't rely on an organization whose agenda a politician can predict based on the name of the organization.

I'm not trying to pit conservatives vs liberals here, dems vs repubs, nothing like that, I think we need to do a wholescale cleaning out of all the current politicians and get all new representation :idea:. Just can't see it happenin' :thumbsdown: .

Cheers!

Doug

 

[TimB]

I'm not trying to pit conservatives vs liberals here, dems vs repubs, nothing like that, I think we need to do a wholescale cleaning out of all the current politicians and get all new representation :idea:. Just can't see it happenin' :thumbsdown: .

Cheers!

Doug

I agree and as a population we DO have the ability to do so without any changes in law regarding term limits etc but (and it's a big but) between the % of the population that is uninterested/uneducated in politics and critical thinking skills (public education) and the % of the population being bribed by the "creeps" with free govt perks they know the likelihood of cleaning house is practically nil

 

[Doug S.]

I agree and as a population we DO have the ability to do so without any changes in law regarding term limits etc but (and it's a big but) between the % of the population that is uninterested/uneducated in politics and critical thinking skills (public education) and the % of the population being bribed by the "creeps" with free govt perks they know the likelihood of cleaning house is practically nil

Tim, I agree with probably most of your comments, but having worked in public education for 32 years I know from first hand experience that teachers realize that teaching critical thinking skills is more important than teaching content and DO emphasize those skills. Recently they have been hamstrung by the Republican's (well intentioned) "No Child Left Behind" requirements, so as a career educator I am happy to see the POTUS backing off on many of those requirements. Give the teachers more time to teach critical thinking skills and they'll be all over it like white on rice!

You are probably right, the % of our population who is uninterested in politics is probably an issue. When I go into the voting booth, I cast very few votes, believing that an uneducated vote is worse than no vote at all. I never vote a "party ticket" and have no problem voting for conservatives as well as liberals as long as they are doing a good job.

I've mentioned this before....this "group" is not a representative reflection of the population of the U.S. In order to own (or IMHO to even aspire to own) a vehicle that is the focus of this forum requires considerable in the way of self-discipline, knowledge, and, let's admit it, financial resources. It is not surprising to see what I estimate is in excess of 60% of our members claiming to be "conservative"...it's a very "skewed" view of what the general population is like. I suspect that there are MANY more of the population who are satisfied with the current POTUS than enraged conservatives who want to see him hang from the yardarm. If the GT40s forum elected presidents, B.O. would be on the way out.

Not surprisingly, though, the way I see it is that the 99%/1% division, which is quite likely divided along liberal/conservative lines, is much more representative of how the general population feels about our current leadership as well as what we need to do to bring back our country's greatness.

As for cleaning house, I've also said it before, will say it again...until we have a viable 3rd party (and by that I certainly don't mean the TEA party whackos here, I mean honest, well-intentioned individuals who want to rebuild a great country rather than tear it down to further their own financial aspirations), or until the disenfranchised arise in rebellion and clean out the current political house at the polls, it will not happen :cry: .

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

They should have term limits, medicaid and social security, then only people that actually want to help would run, not the power hungry.

 

[TimB]

Doug I actually also agree with what you wrote. When I fault public education it's not the educators but the administrators and the DOE who hand down possibly well meaning regs that interfere with actual teaching of important subjects vs politically correct social issues

 

[Doug S.]

Well said, Tim!

Here's a personal experience...a very conservative friend was raising his two grandsons when B.O. took office. Not long after that B.O. designed and provided some sort of educational lesson. It was up to the local school boards to decide if they wanted to broadcast it on their closed circuit systems, which his school board did. My friend kept his grandkids home on the day the lesson was broadcast just b/c he didn't want his sons "brainwashed" by the evil, demon liberal POTUS. He had no idea what the lesson was about, had no idea what the content was, all he knew about was the source of the lesson.

How closed minded is that?????

Cheers!!

Doug