Stark reminder

[FlyingDude]

25 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

EXACTLY! Any cost increases will flow down to customers.

Well, then maybe this bill isn't going to hurt just us 0.1% lucky bastards who own fancy toys.  It will mean that each and every live&love&laugh dude and gal out there will pay more to travel, while their taxes do not drop.  How about we release this insight to the social media and let the algorithms do their thing?

[dkkim73]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

For the same reason that we will not need 2 pilots in the cockpit either in the future.  

People still drop dead. 

[1980Mooney]

6 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

People still drop dead. 

What do you need a pilot for in the future?  To monitor the computers?

AI-controlled fighter jet takes Air Force secretary on historic ride (airforcetimes.com)

The Pentagon’s Plan for More Ambitious, Affordable Jet Fighters: AI Pilots    - WSJ

USAF's F-16 to fly pilotless for first time in 2025 | Shephard (shephardmedia.com)

[dkkim73]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

What do you need a pilot for in the future?  To monitor the computers?

AI-controlled fighter jet takes Air Force secretary on historic ride (airforcetimes.com)

The Pentagon’s Plan for More Ambitious, Affordable Jet Fighters: AI Pilots    - WSJ

USAF's F-16 to fly pilotless for first time in 2025 | Shephard (shephardmedia.com)

I've had the "computers will replace people" discussion multiple times over a couple decades. In my opinion, it's actually a very complicated issue, more than just some proofs of concepts in heavily-resourced and controlled environments, and more than is going to be decisively argued in a few posts. 

Replacing human pilots in the complex soup of the current civilian operational environment seems like an untested leap of faith. Traffic detectors and good autopilots are a large step away from replacing the pilot entirely. 

I'm actually a little non-plussed at the AF Times quote of the Secretary about being willing to trust it with weapons release authority. Hopefully he means that in a limited context.  I'd actually heard of this project for a while (obliquely know a guy involved). While it's a necessary avenue to pursue for competitive reasons, particularly in ACM environments where the human factors can be severe, it's still a limited context.

I think there are a lot of people with so much neophilia that they end up with blind spots. And there's a huge profit motive to push skilled humans out of certain roles in multiple fields, replace them with less-trained people, automation, etc. So it's also not a neutral evaluation in the civilian world. 

That 2 cents plus $2.97 might get you a cup of coffee.... somewhere...

[ttflyer]

I'm not worried about AI taking my job (as a professional pilot) anytime in my lifetime.  We are a LONG away from having that technology in the cockpit of a passenger plane.  Heck, I fly one of the most recently designed biz-jets.  And it's 25 year old technology at best...  Airliners are almost all 40-50 year old technology.  Even the 787 is old technology - and it has largely failed as a concept (lots of problems with "new" technology in airplanes).  The technology isn't there for single or zero pilot airplanes and people aren't ready for it...

Also, I assume that if user-fees are implemented, light GA would be excluded.  The juice isn't worth the squeeze.  But who knows.  The government does seem to have a talent for doing REALLY stupid things...

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, FlyingDude said:

Wouldn't this bill mean that ALL airline tickets will get more pricey? Taxes for sure won't come down. 

The majors/commercial are already funding a majority of the FAA budget with all the pax taxes, fees and fuel taxes (way more than just the ATC budget). 

The ATC operating budget is about $9 Billion out of the FAA $24 Billion total budget. This was only about privatizing the ATC portion.

I think the long term goal of the majors would be to influence and sway the Board of the private ATC to:

• Offload more of the ATC cost onto Biz Jet and GA
• Prioritize spending where the majors fly
  • That means less spending on the thousands of GA airports where the majors will never fly
• I think that they would move to streamline airspace to keep GA out of Class B airports and busy corridors.

This could lower ATC costs, make it more efficient for the majors and lower their costs

[redbaron1982]

I think this is an extremely complex matter.

Airspace (as in the space above the Earth) is of public domain. It does not have an ‘owner,’ other than the sovereignty that the US exercises over it.

Having a private ATC would mean either privatizing it or delegating the policing of a public domain area to a private party. It is no different than having a private police or private courts.

[FlyingDude]

24 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Airspace (as in the space above the Earth) is of public domain. It does not have an ‘owner,’ other than the sovereignty that the US exercises over it.

Every country is different.  My Chinese colleagues get stunned by the fact that private citizens can own and operate small airplanes.  One of them sheepishly asked "how long does it take you to gather all the necessary permits for one flight?"  I said "I can fly from here to California without ever talking to anybody." 

 

45 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Offload more of the ATC cost onto Biz Jet and GA

How much truly does the GA weigh on the entire ATC costs?  Of the 9bln ATC cost, how much do our 100,000 turbo bugsmashers weigh in?  Mind you, I don't enjoy getting flight followings and talking to big brother.  I do that to not be a pest.  If you say no public money should be spent on GA, then I'll find tons of venues where my taxes are spent on - which I don't care about and deem to be a total waste.  

Good.  Let's kill GA.  And have all the people working in&around GA collect government welfare.  That's why we can't have good things.  To quote Sage from "The Boys" who said "I could cure cancer, reverse global warming, but what's the point? Humans are animals. And the lines at Voughtland are too long as it is."

https://the-boys.fandom.com/wiki/Sister_Sage

[redbaron1982]

2 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

Every country is different.  My Chinese colleagues get stunned by the fact that private citizens can own and operate small airplanes.  One of them sheepishly asked "how long does it take you to gather all the necessary permits for one flight?"  I said "I can fly from here to California without ever talking to anybody." 

 

Yeah, sure, I was talking about the US.

[1980Mooney]

19 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

I think this is an extremely complex matter.

Airspace (as in the space above the Earth) is of public domain. It does not have an ‘owner,’ other than the sovereignty that the US exercises over it.

Having a private ATC would mean either privatizing it or delegating the policing of a public domain area to a private party. It is no different than having a private police or private courts.

Complex is right.  Some like to toss around the "intent of our founding fathers" and their obsession with "preventing tyranny of government". From the beginning of recorded time Ad Coleum Doctrine held, private property owners owned "everything from Heaven to Hell" - airspace above their land and everything below it.  The Fifth Amendment states "no person shall be ... deprived of property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 

Yet the US Gov't did exactly the opposite 100 years ago.  The 1926 Air Commerce Act which took away the airspace rights of private property land owners without compensation (some would call that "theft"). But it is still a complex matter since we have Russian and Chinese satellites overhead all the time.

[FlyingDude]

17 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

. From the beginning of recorded time Ad Coleum Doctrine held

The world used to be flat back then and there used to be the hells below and heavens above, which didn't belong to the world as it is. I think the rotundization of the earth might explain this transition.

[ttflyer]

I don't know... I kinda like the system we have.  Having to call 1980Mooney and then all his neighbors to get permission to do traffic pattern work seems a bit unworkable. 

And there is NOTHING about China I would like to emulate...  so there's that...

We're actually all saying the same thing:  WE have the best system in the world AND it's probably gonna get F$cked up sooner or later...  Exactly how is the question.  For my part, I'm glad to be alive now and not in 50 years.  Things seem to be going downhill....

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

What I will say is that I'm tired of hearing how I 'expect' something for nothing; whether it's FAA services while flying, . .. over half of EVERY additional dollar my wife and I earn is taken by TAXES (SIT/FIT/SS/MC).  With what is left we pay MORE taxes ...(near 10% here in Kalifornia), ..we pay yet MORE taxes )...shall I go on? So, I pretty vehemently resent the implication that, "I expect something for free"!  GMAFB!  What I EXPECT ...

I think I'm longing for the days when you just complained about gear-ups raising your insurance premiums!

Good to know that you are longing to read my posts.... 

Also, I suspect in the future, in spite of your complaints of cost and regulations (remember when you posted how pained you were to be forced to install an ADS-B tail beacon?), that you will fondly look back at this as the "good ol' days" of General Aviation. 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

Good to know that you are longing to read my posts.... 

Also, I suspect in the future, in spite of your complaints of cost and regulations (remember when you posted how pained you were to be forced to install an ADS-B tail beacon?), that you will fondly look back at this as the "good ol' days" of General Aviation. 

Sadly, I suspect your cynical view of the future may prove correct. Maybe I just like tilting windmills; beats just giving up.

[FlyingDude]

I think the real problem is the diminishing number of planes and pilots. If we keep our numbers high, we can still keep this going. 

[1980Mooney]

38 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Sadly, I suspect your cynical view of the future may prove correct. Maybe I just like tilting windmills; beats just giving up.

Cynical?? 

[1980Mooney]

For those too young to remember primetime TV on one of the three (3) channels in the 50's and 60's...

[dkkim73]

Well, there have been some victories for individual rights in the last few decades. E.g. firearms rights, though that's 2 steps fwd and 1 back at times. Cities just won the obvious right to prevent squatters in public spaces. Etc. 

The main countervailing trends IMHO are 1. pervasive data collection and arguments to instrument everything, 2. the managerial mindset, where no robust distributed system can be tolerated when instead a Grand Design can be imposed ("So efficient!"), whose brittle weaknesses and negative externalities will only be seen much later. But who knows when it comes to ATC. I think there is a strong argument that it is a strategic piece of national infrastructure that needs to be overcome. And the federal bureacracy is probably evolving as younger, more institutional, minds rotate in. 

One thing that occurs: there have historically been some advocates for GA at the national level, e.g. James Inhofe back in the day. And I'm struck by meeting some fairly successful and connected people via GA. One of our potential next Senators from Montana made his mark in business with an aviation company (bringing ISR approaches to wildland firefighting) and has a GA background. So maybe it's a matter of good advocacy. E.g. the privatization proposal in the 1st Trump administration.... maybe it's a matter of who's ear the community can get. 

I would like to see a little less focus on unleaded gas and a bit more on a bigger positive vision for GA in the national advocacy groups. That's a subjective view. 

[GeeBee]

The problem with "facts" in a post modern world is facts are viewed through the prism of intersectionalism and the exception to the rule often is elevated to the norm. This philosophy is foundational to modern Marxist theory and now infects every part of our society to the point that as the owner of a GA airplane you are not a "little guy" but an oppressor in almost every way imaginable. From spewing lead upon children to being in places on time to insure the profitability of your business at the expense of the workers who can't catch a break from inaction on your part. If it can be proven you don't pay your "fair share" so much the better but if it can be proven you do contribute more than you take out, the value does not add up to your oppression. "Heads I win, tails you lose and mankind is the better for it."

 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

The problem with "facts" in a post modern world is facts are viewed through the prism of intersectionalism and the exception to the rule often is elevated to the norm. This philosophy is foundational to modern Marxist theory and now infects every part of our society to the point that as the owner of a GA airplane you are not a "little guy" but an oppressor in almost every way imaginable. From spewing lead upon children to being in places on time to insure the profitability of your business at the expense of the workers who can't catch a break from inaction on your part. If it can be proven you don't pay your "fair share" so much the better but if it can be proven you do contribute more than you take out, the value does not add up to your oppression. "Heads I win, tails you lose and mankind is the better for it."

 

Dang!  You might just be more cynical than 1980Mooney

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

The problem with "facts" in a post modern world is facts are viewed through the prism of intersectionalism and the exception to the rule often is elevated to the norm. This philosophy is foundational to modern Marxist theory and now infects every part of our society to the point that as the owner of a GA airplane you are not a "little guy" but an oppressor in almost every way imaginable. From spewing lead upon children to being in places on time to insure the profitability of your business at the expense of the workers who can't catch a break from inaction on your part. If it can be proven you don't pay your "fair share" so much the better but if it can be proven you do contribute more than you take out, the value does not add up to your oppression. "Heads I win, tails you lose and mankind is the better for it."

 

Well, you're kind of understating the case... It's worse in places. 

OTOH the more this affects individual people, the more the failures of this approach become apparent. It's a convenient way to manipulate people who are unmoored in morality, history, and religion, and buy into this new guilt-cult. But once they feel the torch of the inquisition on their own butts, they start to become more skeptical of the philosophy.  

We're starting to see cracks in the woke capture of institutions. 

But, yes, GA is a minority and easy to vilify. Just like most "soak the rich" pitches mostly hit the upper middle class. 

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

No discussion of ATC funding is complete without mentioning military flights, who do not pay taxes.  What percentage of ATC is used by military flights?

It seems to me taxing fuel covers GA's contribution, especially since I burn a lot of fuel on flights I never contact ATC.

[1980Mooney]

18 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

How much truly does the GA weigh on the entire ATC costs?  Of the 9bln ATC cost, how much do our 100,000 turbo bugsmashers weigh in?  Mind you, I don't enjoy getting flight followings and talking to big brother.  I do that to not be a pest.

 

10 hours ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

No discussion of ATC funding is complete without mentioning military flights, who do not pay taxes.  What percentage of ATC is used by military flights?

It seems to me taxing fuel covers GA's contribution, especially since I burn a lot of fuel on flights I never contact ATC.

Since you asked:

General Aviation uses about 29%  of TRACON ops

• And our fuel taxes pay about $29 Million towards the $9 Billion ATC Ops Budget ($10 Billion next year to pay for more Controllers) - that's about 0.3% Almost Nothing

Military uses about 4% of TRACON ops

• Military pays Nothing

 

The way the major carriers look at it, is that GA is responsible for about $2.6-2.9 Billion per year of ATC Ops cost.  Spread over about 200,000 planes and helicopters that is about $13,000 - 14,000 cost per plane per year (that we are getting free and not paying for)....

 

 

 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

The main countervailing trends IMHO are 1. pervasive data collection and arguments to instrument everything, 2. the managerial mindset, where no robust distributed system can be tolerated when instead a Grand Design can be imposed ("So efficient!"), whose brittle weaknesses and negative externalities will only be seen much later. But who knows when it comes to ATC. I think there is a strong argument that it is a strategic piece of national infrastructure that needs to be overcome. And the federal bureacracy is probably evolving as younger, more institutional, minds rotate in. 

One thing that occurs: there have historically been some advocates for GA at the national level, e.g. James Inhofe back in the day. And I'm struck by meeting some fairly successful and connected people via GA. One of our potential next Senators from Montana made his mark in business with an aviation company (bringing ISR approaches to wildland firefighting) and has a GA background. So maybe it's a matter of good advocacy. E.g. the privatization proposal in the 1st Trump administration.... maybe it's a matter of who's ear the community can get. 

I would like to see a little less focus on unleaded gas and a bit more on a bigger positive vision for GA in the national advocacy groups. That's a subjective view. 

 

36 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

The problem with "facts" in a post modern world is facts are viewed through the prism of intersectionalism and the exception to the rule often is elevated to the norm. This philosophy is foundational to modern Marxist theory and now infects every part of our society to the point that as the owner of a GA airplane you are not a "little guy" but an oppressor in almost every way imaginable. From spewing lead upon children to being in places on time to insure the profitability of your business at the expense of the workers who can't catch a break from inaction on your part. If it can be proven you don't pay your "fair share" so much the better but if it can be proven you do contribute more than you take out, the value does not add up to your oppression. "Heads I win, tails you lose and mankind is the better for it."

 

31 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Dang!  You might just be more cynical than 1980Mooney

All this philosophical talk....You are making this way more complicated than it is.  It is just simple dollars and cents.  There is not and will not be enough money to go around in the Federal coffers.  We are running Federal deficits every year of nearly $(2) Trillion per year with no end in sight.  We have a few pilots here with business backgrounds......how long can you run a company on negative cash flow constantly borrowing?  Something will have to give.

General Aviation only exists due to funding and hand outs and from the Federal Government.  When it comes to significant capital improvements and spending most smaller airports survive on FAA AIP Grants (about $3.5 Billion per year).

Money for highway infrastructure will win out over money for small GA infrastructure.  Local communities will not want to pay more (i.e more taxes) to subsidize money losing GA airports.  The burden of shortfalls will fall to pilot/aircraft owners to fully pay their way.  And local airports always expected the Federal Government to provide the money for infrastructure in the form of Grants.

A good example is the recent discussion of Mesquite Metro Airport (owned by the City of Mesquite) and its plan including improvements and expansion.  @hammdo commented on the Master Plan and all the great possibilities - "I like the idea of longer runway and expansion for more hangers. The plane wash areas would be nice to have… ".  @N201MKTurbo said "Well, it’s Texas after all. They have their head on straight. "

Looking at the Mesquite City Budget, 2024 Projected Airport Revenue of $3.5 Million with a small loss.  2027 Airport Revenue projected to grow to $3.9 Million growing to about a $(0.25) Million loss.  There is no material Capital Spending.

The "Master Plan" needs about $20 Million on Capital Improvement in the next 5 years just for airport infrastructure (no hangars).  They expect the FAA and TxDOT Aviation (which gets most of its funding from the FAA) to pay for it.   The City has no funds for expansion and does not want to sell bonds which voters will need to approve and ultimately be responsible for.

Without a handout (free ride, "Aviation welfare") from the Federal Government, Mesquite airport will not expand..  Like a crack baby, Texas is just as addicted to Federal funding as any other state for airport infrastructure spending.

 

 

[GeeBee]

It is recognized that those who make a profit from infrastructure pay more than private use. Toll roads commercial sized vehicles pay more. Taxis pay more than the same sized private vehicle. The size of the ATC infrastructure would be vastly different were it only GA part 91 operations. I dare say there would be little to no enroute radar. Finally there would be no ATC clearance requirement if it were not for government creation of controlled airspace even in IFR. All of this grew out if the Grand Canyon accident. The government wanted this system to protect public transportation and it is only right the airlines pay for the protection they get and required to have.We 91 operators should pay for the system we need, not the one the airlines need or are required to have.