LettersFromFlyoverCountry

LettersFromFlyoverCountry

Well Known Member
EAA called today and because I'll be working for EAA Radio during AirVenture, they asked me if I'd handle an interview with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. I said, "yes," mostly because I get to meet Jeb Burnside of Uncontrolled Air Space fame.

So, what question -- and frame them nicely -- would the RV community ask the cabinet secretary if it had the opportunity?

Which it now does.
 
Why is the FAA forcing ADS-B Out on the GA community when there are essentially no benefits to GA and all possible benefits are for the FAA and commercial aircraft?

Mucho source info (my input on the NPRM) is here

http://stopads-b.org/ADS.htm
 
Last edited:
USA

Many states seem to discourage GA or private planes.
What could the Federal Gov do to promote not discourage aviation. Look at Idaho, lots of recreactional airports. Texas,, two? Colorado? none that I know of. New Mexico, none.
 
Fuel issues

The Secretary has been very vocal about issues like "green" jet fuel for air carrier operations, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and so on. Could he comment on the future of General Aviation fuel, specifically, where we are with the development of an affordable, reliable replacement for 100LL?
 
Could the DOT take a proactive, pro-GA approach to solving the 100LL fuel problem, rather than letting EPA drive? Proactive means actually funding the solution to the problem, both research, and development, from the lab to the fuel truck.
 
I'd ask the same question as Dave. But, I'd substitute "solving the 100LL fuel problem" with "aviation security" and swap "EPA" for "TSA."

Or something along those lines. You get the idea.
 
Get the ethanol out?

Ask him why they are pushing the use of ethanol in our fuel when it has questionable environmental and economic advantages?

It has raised worldwide corn prices which impacts the worlds' poor, possibly has a negative net energy equation (Meaning it takes more energy to produce than you receive from it.), produces less energy than straight gas which means we must burn more of it because our MPG goes down. (Could it be because it actually increases taxes because we have to burn more of the stuff to go the same distance?) It has been documented to damaged cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, and lawn equipment, etc.

Heck, just replacing all the damaged lawn equipment has probably done more environmental damage than continued burning of 100LL.

PS. Congrats on getting the interview!
 
Besides the obvious fuel supply questions. I would ask him his feelings about his overall impressions of GA as an alternate mode of transportation to the automobile. I'd point out that many of our planes exceed the fuel economy of our autos and with the help of government funding, we could see further improvements. Not to mention the the condition of the highway infrastructure is failing (I told have to tell a Minnesotan that). Does he see the solution to travel being solely an improved Highway Transportation System, or does he have a more comprehensive view, an integrated approach, which includes land, air, sea and space? Don't bring up time travel or anything cooky but there maybe other modes that we not considered. Beam me up Scotty!
 
Any chance of dropping the medical certificate requirement for VFR use of common certified aircraft (such as PA-28 and 172's) by private pilots?
 
KurtB said:
Any chance of dropping the medical certificate requirement for VFR use of common certified aircraft (such as PA-28 and 172's) by private pilots?
Click to expand...

i don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone who is flying over my house to have a healthy heart and functioning body

am i out of touch?
 
I too, would like to see somebody end this ethanol boondoggle and address the very things that Bill R. brings up with it.
 
...second this

N941WR said:
Ask him why they are pushing the use of ethanol in our fuel when it has questionable environmental and economic advantages?


PS. Congrats on getting the interview!
Click to expand...

I second Bill's question. But I'm not sure how to phrase this nicely: :D Do these fuels such as E10 have more of a political benefit that a true environmental one? Real world tests are showing E10 and E-85 fuels are much lower in performance than gasoline, therefore cost more and have little carbon pollution benefit even before the production usage is calculated.

Also Congrats on the interview!
 
Peotone airport question

why does FAA encourage the Illinois Dept. of Trans. to build a new uneeded, unwanted and unaffordable airport near Peotone Illinois when there is already a new privately owned airport capable of handling light jets on a 5000 foot runway on the site? Thanks.
 
Even simpler: What is his personal opinion of GA and it's usefulness as a mode of personal transportation? His bio reminds me of a CEO who never had any hands-on experience in his own industry, yet still runs the company. I'd rather have someone like Jake Garn (an actual pilot). 14 yrs on house transpo committee? So what?
 
aerhed said:
Even simpler: What is his personal opinion of GA and it's usefulness as a mode of personal transportation? His bio reminds me of a CEO who never had any hands-on experience in his own industry, yet still runs the company. I'd rather have someone like Jake Garn (an actual pilot). 14 yrs on house transpo committee? So what?
Click to expand...

I was thinking along these same lines. I'm not sure how to phrase it into a question suitable for a live interview. But looking at the through-the-fence shenanigans a while ago, I wondered who is responsible for making these policies and decisions. I ended up at the FAA web page which lists their key officials (http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/). Most of these people don't appear to be pilots. And the ones that are are airline people. One of them proudly listed a private pilot certificate. Maybe others are too, but they decided not to include that in their bios.

So I guess the question is something like, "What is DOT doing to promote general and experimental aviation knowledge among its key decision makers?"
 
FAA "oversight"

The FAA is tasked with promoting aviation.

Virtually every company that has tried to develop a new certificated aircraft in the last 20 years has gone bankrupt trying to comply with FAA certification (Lancair/Columbia and Eclipse, for example) and they wound up being owned by foreign investors like the Bank of Dubai.

Q1. What was the total certification cost for the Columbia? (answer: according to Lance Neibauer it was like $20M)

Q2. What was the cost of certifying the factory so every Columbia didn't have to be flown by a DAR? (It was $5M and counting before the company went bankrupt and Lance N. got booted)

Q3. How much of the purchase price of each Columbia aircraft is the ammortized cost of certification of aircraft and aircraft factory?

Q4. What is the difference in accident history between kit-built Lancair 4-place planes and the certificated Columbia version? In other words have the citizens of the US gotten value received for the $25M+ rolled into the purchase price of the Columbia?

Q5. How many FAA employees are there (approximately 50,000 according to their website)

Q6. How many US registered aircraft are there (approximately 275,000 - 300,000)

Q7 What is the split in numbers between commercially flown and privately flown aircraft (75,000 commercial, balance are privately flown)

Q8. Does the administrator think that one FAA employee for every 6 airplanes in the US is an appropriate ratio (given that over 200,000 are flown less than 100 hrs. per year)? Why?

Q9. Please explain what the FAA is doing in response to their chartered task of promoting aviation?

I answered the factual questions above. If the administrator can't answer these questions he surely needs to know the answers.

Respectfully yours,

LarryT
 
Please, give Bob the suggestions he's asked for, and keep the pontification/politicizing to a minimum, or we'll loose the chance to give Bob our input.

Joe
 
gimp2x said:
i don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone who is flying over my house to have a healthy heart and functioning body

am i out of touch?
Click to expand...

Because even people who have 1st class medicals have heart attacks while flying. I for one am not sure there is really a correlation between having a medical, even a 3rd class medical, and aviation safety.

Heck, it is more likely that someone driving by your house in 5,600 pound empty weight Chevy Suburban has a heart attack and crashes into your living room than someone flying a 1,100 pound airplane crashing into the same living room.

So yes, ask him about doing away with the 3rd class medical requirement.
 
gimp2x said:
i don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone who is flying over my house to have a healthy heart and functioning body

am i out of touch?
Click to expand...

I'm less concerned about the guy flying over my house, then I am about whose driving those headlights heading toward me at 70 mph on that rural road. If I have to be in perfect health, so should they; they're a much greater threat to people.
 
These are good, especially the certification ones.

I also think the ELT FAA vs. FCC would be a good one unless it's settled before Oshkosh. It seems to me this could be handled rather quickly at the cabinet level. LaHood could just sit next to Gary Locke (Commerce Secretary) and get such a tangled mess solved in a couple of seconds.

Of course, there's also user fee and NextGen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.