The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Hineywheel Bill wrote: If anyone thinks that Uncle Sugar will only take just a little bit and won't come back for what's left of the Sunday dinner chicken on the second helping, then you probably don't have enough judgement to be flying an airplane in the first place. If they get their foot in your front door on Monday, by Tuesday night they'll be sleeping in your bed and you'll be on the couch, if you still have a couch. If it's government, be it Republican or Demeocrat, be afraid, be VERY afraid! Bill N76447

Well put Bill! This line from todays AOPA E-Pilot; "The Bush administration's FAA funding bill would increase avgas taxes from 19.4 to 70.1 cents per gallon, charge GA aircraft fees to fly in Class B airspace, and increase fees for other FAA service" If the objective is to kill GA as we know it this should be the prescription!!

i'll try not to forget info this time.
i've been digging myself out of snow!
dave

I sent an email to one of our state senators, John Whitmire, whom my daughter Ashley work with as a legislative assistant. I wanted to inform him of the issues, as well as express my opposition to a movement by some state gov'ts to raise state taxes on avgas. Since my daughter works for him, I sent the email thru her. She responded, in part:


On 3/2/07 Ashley Horn wrote:
Senator Seliger is a private pilot and would probably be very interested in that issue. You might wish to tell whomever is organizing this about that. ...

On 3/2/07, George Horn wrote:
The following news was posted in my weekly Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA)newsletter. There are major concerns over the Bush
Administration's drive to create a new method of financing the nation's Air
Traffic Control and Navigation System with new User Fee's. The User Fees
are favored by the airlines because they wish to drive private, corporate,
and General Aviation aircraft away from the airspace and airports most
commonly used by airlines. This is expected by the airlines to reduce their
congestion at hubs which the airlines themselves have created traffic
concentrations. Airlines would like to portray General Aviation (GA) as
non-payers or free-loaders in an air traffic system that airlines consider
their own.


Yet General Aviation, like private autos on the Interstate Highway, already
supports the system, has supported it for years, and should have equal
access to it. Unknown to most of the public however, GA aircraft actually
use a disproportionately SMALL amount of that system.
General Aviation aircraft actually use very little of the services airlines
require, and GA typically avoids the airports at which airlines "Hub"
because GA pilots/passengers wish to avoid the delays associated with the
snarl that airlines have created. A major asset to the nation is the GA
method of utilizing small community airports rather than the large "hubs"
that have become the airline "modus operandi". Factually, it is General
Aviation which provides needed transportation and emergency aviation
services to small communities. The Texas Dept. of Transportation has an
Aviation Division directed by David Fulton who can provide accurate
assessment of this phenomena, as well as additional data regarding these
issues.

General Aviation already pays a hefty tax on fuel which more than pays for
the services GA actually uses. There is the General Aviaiton "Trust Fund"
which was created by the fuel excise taxes years ago. It has quite
literally, billions of dollars that have not been spent to improve the
system for GA as promised, but instead has been borrowed/raided by congress
to offset other budgetary shortfalls unrelated to aviation. This
constitutes a deception and fraud upon the General Aviation community and
all Americans.

The primary method for GA pilots to receive important weather briefings,
flight planning, flight following, and certain Air Traffic Control services
(especially at un-towered airports) has been privatized (I am calling it
"Pirate-tization") by the Bush Administration, and is no longer managed by
the excellent system of federally employed Flight Service Specialists that
aviation has been served with traditionally. The nation's General Aviation
Flight Service has been given to Lockheed Martin who, in their effort to
create profits, has cut jobs and reduced locations where Flight Services are
offered.

General Aviation serves over 10,000 public airports nationally while the
airlines only serve about 800. If General Aviation continues to suffer the
sort of attacks as has been made by this administration, the nation's air
traffic structure and air service to small communities will suffer
tremendous loss, and present and future jobs will be lost forever as a
General Aviation industry shuts down. The future supply of aircraft pilots
will diminish as the nations source of trained pilots, General Aviation
training centers, shut down due to the financial burden transferred upon
them. GA manufacturing, avionics technology, etc., will also suffer as a
ripple effect takes charge. This will become yet another "America Lost"
story.

I hope that Senator Whitmire is a supporter of General Aviation efforts to
resist any attempts to institute additional aviation fuel taxes/increases
onto General Aviation and will oppose any shifting of additional costs or
instution of "user fees" onto the General Aviation sector.

An internet link to the funding debate is:
http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

George Horn
Instructor Pilot
SimuFlite, DFW Airport

The short article follows.
=====================
~ AOPA Close to Home ~
AOPA BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS AT TEXAS STATE CAPITOL
As part of AOPA's effort to build support for general aviation at the state
level, Joey Colleran, AOPA manager of state and local affairs, and AOPA
Southwest Regional Representative Shelly Lesikar deZevallos teamed up to
meet with Texas legislators this week. And it paid off. Sen. John Carona,
chairman of the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee,
turned to AOPA for accurate information on GA security. Laying the
groundwork for future initiatives, Colleran and deZevallos met with all of
the members, or their staff, of the Senate and House transportation
committees. They also met with AOPA members Rep. Gary Elkins and Sen. Kel
Seliger. AOPA used the opportunity to pay tribute to retiring former Speaker
James E. "Pete" Laney, the 2001 recipient of AOPA's prestigious Hartranft
award, for his 34 years of service to the state and general aviation. Laney
was a strong advocate for bringing a replacement airport to central Texas
for Robert Mueller Field.

Contact info for AOPA:

AOPA
Phil Boyer, president
421 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701
Tel: 800/USA-AOPA or
301/695-2000

i just read the artical in
AOPA
about european user fees.
i see what you mean
and don't really want this
to happen here in the USA either
dave

My thoughts on user fees is that our sirplanes will be worth about the price you can get for it at the scrap yard. Who will want them?

beings i live in the middle of iowa
and usually don't have to worry about class B space
it shouldn't effect me much
other than gas tax and registration etc.
i don't think my brother will charge
me to land on his grass strip
dave

Dave ;
Come out of your cave .if user fee are adopted you will not be immune
to the effects. You will pay a Federal license fee , a renewal fee ,and each
time your medical is sent to FAA they will charge for processing it .
Anytime you must have any communication or contact with the FAA you
will pay.
Bob

i will come out!
it will be interesting to see what happens.
i also read a letter written by a european
in the latest AOPA magazine
who thot that user fees weren't that bad,
and who, if one reads between the lines,
and from one who has been to germany
upteen times, feels that us americans are
big babies about certain things.
just stirring the pot a little bit
dave

It was interesting reading about user fees in the last issue of AOPA

Pif - thanks for posting the NBAA link - I just sent off a letter.

Scott

Iowa Dave,

If that guy from Europe thinks that the user fees over there are not bad, why in hell do all the Europeans, not to mention almost all of the rest of the world, come to the good old USA to learn how to fly and/or get their advanced ratings? It might be an eye opener for you to see how much it costs to do a little aviating over there.
Have you ever gone out on a nice evening and cranked up your trusty steed and just screwed around the local flying area for an hour or two?
What did it cost? Maybe a few gallons of gas? Try that in Europe. Shoot a few landings and see what it costs per landing. See how much it would cost to find out if it was raining in DesMoines.

Five years ago an English friend of mine was checking me out in his airplane. He flies it from his own farm strip, but he won't use that for landing practice because he wants to avoid annoying the neighbors.

So we went to a nearby airfield owned by a flying club, and he paid them 25 pounds for me to do five trips around their traffic pattern (bulk discount, and the cheapest available, actually). Fortunately, that was enough for me to get the hang of landing the airplane. At today's exchange rate, it cost him almost 50 dollars US.

The more you practice to improve your skills, the more you pay. If it gets like this in the US, what will happen to our safety record? This is an extremely serious issue; it's not just about a tax, it's about safety and the future of GA.

Another thing I just read that I thought was a little ironic.....One of the large airline groups is against raising fees for passengers but they sure want to raise fees for GA. I just read this on the Yahoo home page.
Keith

In theory, busses and trucks pay higher fees/taxes because they are commercial enterprises that cause heavier road-maintenance costs. While they may not wear out the air quite the same, their costs to the infrastructure is similar...and higher fees/taxes should be similarly paid by them. Private vehicles, including aircraft, are the rights of citizens who should pay minimally for that right when in private service.
Airlines also contribute more to overall pollution, noise, and global warming than private aircraft do, and they should bear the brunt of those costs proportionally. IMHO.
The rub will come from the "general aviation" that is actually corporate (commercial) aviation. True to form, if not vigorously opposed, the individual will lose his rights and pay the price for the privilege of the rich. Also, IMHO.

George, while I don't agree increased user fees are necessary, I do disagree with your arguements against them.

gahorn wrote:Airlines also contribute more to overall pollution, noise, and global warming than private aircraft do, and they should bear the brunt of those costs proportionally. IMHO.

If an airliner full of passengers drive their cars instead of flying, I think you are going to have just as much if not more polution, warming and noise. Airliners actually get pretty good milage on a passenger seat basis and kerosene burns much cleaner than gasoline or that leaded concoction we spew out of our tailpipes.

gahorn wrote:The rub will come from the "general aviation" that is actually corporate (commercial) aviation. True to form, if not vigorously opposed, the individual will lose his rights and pay the price for the privilege of the rich. Also, IMHO.

Some airline passengers think we are "rich" if we can afford to bore holes in the sky with expensive toys and fly at our leisure.