When i say "layman" I mean someone who is of the general airline-travelling public and not intimately familiar with the issue as we pilots.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=289858&z=21

It seems there may be an allocation problem with the pool of available funds from the U.S. Treasury.
Check out this story: http://thecarltonviewpointonline.net/
Grrr. Berk

Hey check this one out.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/ti ... index.html

I flew 5 hours Sunday at the tune of $254 in fuel, that's right at $50. per hour. I for one can't take anymore fee increases.

Here's a great site that will make it easy to send a letter or email to your congressmen:

www.aviationacrossamerica.org

Here's a draft of the letter I sent. Please use ideas from it if you wish, but if you merely cut and paste the content directly and send it as is, you'll probably dilute the effectiveness of our efforts...

I am writing to voice my concerns with the proposed FAA funding plan that would levy a huge tax burden on small businesses and rural communities, and poses a direct threat to the continued existence of my own family business. I own and operate an aviation consulting, flight instruction, and commercial pilot service business. My company provides commercial pilot services in general aviation aircraft, business consulting, and instructional services to general aviation pilots with the primary goals of enhancing pilot proficiency and safety. I, myself, am also an Airline Transport Pilot who continues to work as a captain and check airman for the largest regional airline company in the world. I am exceptionally qualified to evaluate both sides of the argument regarding the new FAA funding proposal. My unique perspective leaves no doubt in my mind that the proposal is overwhelmingly favorable to the airline giants, and is the prelude to annihilation of general aviation as we know it.

Across the huge expanse of the nation, general aviation connects small rural communities with everything from mail, freight, food, and medical supplies; to the commerce that sustains the small businesses that are the lifeblood of those economies. If the FAA funding proposal is approved, the new "user fees" and general aviation fuel tax-hike plan would allow the airlines to shift billions of dollars of their tax burden onto that general aviation sector that facilitates, contributes to and even sustains these small and mid-sized businesses in rural America. General aviation also includes civilian flight schools. Civilian flight schools generate over 90% of the new-hire airline pilots who I personally train to fly the line when acting as a check airman for my airline employer. User fees and extreme fuel taxes will most certainly drive many flight schools into extinction, and certainly compromise the quality of training in the remaining schools who cut enough corners just to stay in business.

Fuel Tax. The general aviation fuel tax would (in the beginning) more-than triple the current rate of $.19 - $.21/gallon to $.70/gallon. Most flight training schools struggle for survival under the current tax burden. This would cripple or completely drive many flight schools out of business. The flight schools that do survive will need to cut more corners, and the quality of the training will falter. As I can personally attest, the results of substandard basic flight training eventually end up in the flight deck of a regional airliner. Commercial operators who provide medical, ambulatory, light commercial freight and passenger service, fire fighting air support, and critical mobility during times of emergency to rural communities will also be crippled. The economy, security and safety of smaller rural communities will suffer directly.

ATC User Fees. Also under the proposed funding plan are direct fees for Air Traffic Control services including (but not limited to): Filing flight plans, VFR flight following (voluntary radar traffic separation service), and IFR services (positive air traffic control service that all airlines use but may-or-may-not be used by general aviation traffic). Use of these services would be directly billed to the individual owners and operators of small aircraft. Air traffic control service provides an increased margin of safety to general aviation operations. These services are also essential to the operators of regularly scheduled light passenger and freight services as well as medical and ambulatory service for small rural communities. During a time of emergency, these services are critical. The decision to use or not use air traffic control services should not be effected by the thought of “how big the bill will be”. A significant margin of safety will be compromised if the general aviation pilot decides not to file a flight plan, or use flight following, or operate under positive air traffic control (IFR); just because it costs too much.

Fair Share? The user-fee-for-air-traffic-control-service proposal is extremely unfair to general aviation pilots for numerous reasons, but can primarily be summed up as follows: Most small general aviation airplanes usually fly into “satellite airports”. They do not congest the large “hub-and-spoke” airports of major metropolitan areas, as the proponents of the funding proposal would have you believe. The heavy costs and congestion of our air traffic control system exist primarily because of the massive hub-and-spoke system that the airlines require. In equitable fashion, they should rightfully continue to “foot the bill” for their self-imposed means of doing business.

In conclusion, the current FAA funding proposal will have a very direct and detrimental impact on rural America. General aviation provides mobility during national emergencies, the fastest transportation option to emergency medical facilities in rural areas, is responsible for our forest fire-fighting capabilities, traffic enforcement on rural highways, wilderness search and rescue, and many other means critical to maintaining healthy and economically viable rural communities. Small towns and their local businesses are dependent on general aviation because they are overlooked by the commercial airline giants. Rather than allowing this proposal and its big airline backers to pass the buck onto small businesses in rural communities, we should be working together to ensure funding for the FAA that makes sense and benefits the nation instead of big business. I urge you to stand against this latest tax break and power-grab by the big commercial airlines and help protect our small businesses and communities across America.

punkin170b wrote:Heres' a great site that will make it easy to send a letter or email to your congressmen: www.aviationacrossamerica.org

...I own and operate an aviation consulting, flight instruction, and commercial pilot service business. ...I, myself, am also an Airline Transport Pilot who continues to work as a captain and check airman for the largest regional airline company in the world. I am exceptionally qualified to evaluate both sides of the argument regarding the new FAA funding proposal....

Wow! You've really laid it all out. And you have the utmost authority to address the issue.
It's generally assumed that a single sided, one page letter will usually get the best attention.
Your address, and knowledge is material for a personal address on the floor of the Congress. Is that something that you would be available to do?
It's been said before that the best way for the common person to influence their representatives is in a one-on-one meeting with either the congress person or their staff. I don't know how to arrange an audience on the floor of the Congress, but they sure need to hear from the articulate common folk on this.
Thanks for putting it all together & putting it out there! Berk

If asked, I would go before congress. I don't know how to arrange such a thing, and personally, such an audience scares the living bejezus out of me. I'd rather go fly a circling approach to minimums in driving snow and a howling north wind every night for a month in Cody,WY (anyone out there who's done this knows what I'm talking about! )... But I do believe it's important enough... So I'd do it.

M