ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Seggy said:
What about the diesel 182 and DA42?
CNN: Tower Closures
- Thread starter n57flyguy
- Start date
What about the diesel 182 and DA42?
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
I said "relative ghost town". The tower was established under an operation that was significantly different than seeing aircraft do one in/one out operations. Try 10 in the pattern...at the same time...nothing like that now. Actually I was #13 once.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Why did the 2.5% have to come out of important things, and not the wasteful excess that is the military industrial complex?
The sequestration law states that the cuts are to budget line items individually, not to the overall budget.
There was a proposed amendment to the sequestration law to allow non-defense agencies to decide where the cuts came from in the overall budget, instead of being forced to cut each individual budget line - but it was killed in the senate last week.
Short answer = the text of the actual law is preventing what you are proposing to happen.
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
Damn Cubs clogging up my golf and echo.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
It is a fairness issue.
Use the money in implementing a NextGen System. Betcha the costs of the user fees to implement this system would be offset by the fuel savings per year.
More robust system. The NextGen would replace the technology we have been using since the 1950s. Pretty obvious increase in safety right there...
U_of_I_Tweak
Well-Known Member
Solid argument, "betcha." Do you actually have facts to support this claim? What is the fee structure? How much fuel am I going to save? How much money is wasted in setting up the infrastructure to monitor and collect these fees?
What is wrong with the current excise tax on fuel? How is it unfair, and to whom? Seems to me that what you pay in fuel taxes is directly proportional to the amount of flying done.
I still pose the question: Even if said fees are limited to turbine ops or 121 and 135 or some exemption for piston singles and light twins; what history suggests that these fees would directly go to aviation vs. the general fund, and why do you think the fees wouldn't be expanded to all aviation in short order? When was the last time a limited fee or temporary tax promise was followed through?
The current system works. If there has to be a general fund contribution to run the FAA/DOT, so be it. Having a sound aviation infrastructure benefits the entire country, not just the direct users.
It ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Before I answer the rest of your post, may I ask what your aviation experience is? Basically, I am asking if you are working in the industry (Part 121, Part 135, Part 91, CFI, student pilot, etc.)?
U_of_I_Tweak
Well-Known Member
I fly corporate 91. I also hope to one day own an airplane for recreational flying.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
To say the current system is not broken is simply not true. The aviation infrastructure of radar facilities, Towers, nonuse of GPS Technology is a disaster waiting to happen. The system was built when there were fewer planes flying around but there is a saturation point we passed loooooooooooooong ago. There are so many technologies that are out there that we aren't tapping such as CPDLC, WAAS, etc., could improve the system but there is no money to pay for to put in place that all operators could use. That is happening with NEXTGEN. We get these systems in place (paid for with user fees) safety is enhanced and operations condensed.
To say the current system is not broken is simply not true. The aviation infrastructure of radar facilities, Towers, nonuse of GPS Technology is a disaster waiting to happen. The system was built when there were fewer planes flying around but there is a saturation point we passed loooooooooooooong ago. There are so many technologies that are out there that we aren't tapping such as CPDLC, WAAS, etc., could improve the system but there is no money to pay for to put in place that all operators could use. That is happening with NEXTGEN. We get these systems in place (paid for with user fees) safety is enhanced and operations condensed.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
NEXTGEN will not help the primary chokepoint in the aviation system, runways. Particularly, runways at major airline hubs are what dictates the amount of traffic that the system can handle. DFW can only accept so many airplanes per hour, regardless of how they get vectored there.
No one here has complained that the FAA may have to generate more revenue to properly opperate. If they want to add .02/gallon to pay for NEXGEN and more runways then go ahead. Userfees in Europe almost cost as much to administer as they collect in revenue
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Nightmare. That place is a nightmare already. Huge corporate traffic on certain weekends and consistent airline flights during the winter.
Check out the ramp. That is during the summer when there is far less traffic. What a dumb decision.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
WAAS already exists. As does ADS-B. User fees will not make airlines install either in their aircraft. Hell, they haven't even put GPS in everywhere.
The problem with NEXTGEN is airlines not wanting to pay to equip their aircraft, not ATC limitations. Trust me, equipping 50 towers and 30 tracons is cheap compared to 8,000 airframes.
NEXTGEN is a boondoggle though. Truth. (My engineering opinion. Trust me, I am an engineer)
pntbllr233
Pilot
I've talked with people at OU and they're trying to spin some stuff around to fund the airport for at least the hours when the school is busiest.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
It sounds like a simple neat idea, but when you take a hard look at the AI required to run such a system it's apparent how complex it is.
We'll see fusion power-plants before HAL replaces the controllers.
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
drunkenbeagle said:
Sad when you have regional and major airline pilots fly with you GA and comment that the 2004 aircraft has better and safer equipment installed.
I went to Engineering school too. Now I are one! 8)
pntbllr - Can you elaborate or be more specific on "spin some stuff around?"
Seggy
Well-Known Member
That is just wrong. It is an ATC issue. When the US Airlines fly in Europe the requirements that airspace requires is very similar to the NextGen requirements. The airlines are ready to go with the implementation of it here domestically.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000156552
Yes it is. If the money was there, which it can be thanks to user fees, it would be less of one though.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
My critique of Nextgen is that it takes a fairly secure system (high powered radar controlled by the FAA) and replaces it with a GPS and radio totally in control of the operator. Which is trivial to spoof. Which means it is only a matter of time before Chinese hackers/Al Queda/Script Kiddies start doing so. It would likely take a state sponsor to create an attack likely to kill people, but on a shoestring budget, it would certainly be possible to effectively shut down air travel for a good while.
The only way the FAA has to protect against such attacks is.... Keeping the existing radar systems and comparing the two results! Not saving much money there, are we?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...-the-new-air-traffic-control-system-be-hacked
The FAA could have all the revenue in the world from fees, they still need Congress to approve the budget to spend it. Which is currently not likely.