I don’t think that general aviation should accept the premise that our use of ATC has a cost that can be arrived at in a simplistic manner - like the $25 quoted below.
In the first place, if there was no general aviation traffic in the system:
· How many controllers would be unnecessary?
· How many control towers would be unnecessary?
· How many radar installations would be unnecessary?
· Etc
In fact, most of the ATC infrastructure would still be required for the airlines and corporate jets (which I believe are in a different category from most of us single engine pistons). We are “added on” to the existing ATC system – sometimes, as in the case of flight following in LA on a “space available” basis. The only clear case of an additional cost is at a towered field that has no airline service. But it is my understanding that most of those controllers are paid for by the local airport, rather than the FAA or ATC. I think you can make a case that the cost for GA to use ATC is ZERO – or close to it.
I also agree that having GA planes on instrument flight plans or flight following adds to the safety of the airlines. New York Class B tops out at 8,000. Think about having dozens of planes flying over the top of LaGuardia, Newark and JFK at 8,500 and 9,500 (and other altitudes) not talking to ATC , practicing steep turns, stalls and slow flight – or just sightseeing. Would that add to safety?
Whenever I fly any significant distance, I almost always file a flight plan and use ATC. I believe this contributes to my safety and also to the safety of others. Show me which controller would be let go, which radar installation would be de-commissioned, or which tower would be closed if I stopped filing IFR.
(Now I do have sympathy for a fee on filing a flight plan/getting a briefing via telephone when you could file by DUATS.)
D. Brunner
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:12 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
not always clear. The controllers have to be there to protect the airlines. I'm not sure what the marginal cost of supporting us is. ...and I'm not sure that talking to us isn't good for protecting the airlines.
On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Bill Hannahan wrote:
Free? It costs the taxpayers about $25 bucks every time you key the mike.
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com> wrote:
From: N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 8:11 AM
It's hard to believe that most pilots don't use it at all, flight following...I can't figure that one out...It's free and keeps you up to date and watches out for you...In southern California it would be nuts not to use it with all the traffic here Ron,
That gives an interesting picture, but you should remember that you must
either file IFR or request flight following to show up on flight aware. I
don’t think many experimental pilots do that. I would probably estimate
that at any given time that 90%+ of the experimental planes aloft will not
show up.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ron
Laughlin
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
Hmmm, You might want to check FlightAware's website from time to time
and see how many experimentals are in the system at any given time. I
find only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at the moment. There are a bunch
of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHawks, etc.).
<http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/>
Ron
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age. Experimentals are
> generally newer than production A/C, and those thousands of hours
represent
> how many last year???? It's possible for both observations to be true.
>
> Ted Noel
> N540TF
>
> On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@aol.com wrote:
>
> Randy writes:
>
> <> certifieds...>>
>
> I don't see how that could be. One year at Oshkosh there was a special
> display area for homebuilts with over 1000 hours. There were just a
> handful. Bill Hannahan's Lancair was one of them. On the other side of
the
> runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified. I'll bet that none had
> less than 1000 hours, and most had more than 2000 hours.
>
> Further, every experimental for sale in Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems to
> have between 100 and maybe 500 hours. Virtually all spam cans have
> thousands.
>
> As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes more
> hours per year than spam can owners -- I have no idea.
>
> - Rob Wolf
>
> p.s. I do not use the term "spam can" as pejorative. I used to own one
and
> had a lot of fun with it.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14/11
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|