<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Our opposition to the FAAs Compliance Guidance Letter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://livingwithyourplane.com/2009/12/07/our-opposition-to-the-faas-compliance-guidance-letter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://livingwithyourplane.com/2009/12/07/our-opposition-to-the-faas-compliance-guidance-letter/</link>
	<description>The nation&#039;s source for residential airparks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:07:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darryl Phillps</title>
		<link>http://livingwithyourplane.com/2009/12/07/our-opposition-to-the-faas-compliance-guidance-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>Darryl Phillps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingwithyourplane.com/?p=1095#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>This proposal is another result of an agency completely out of touch with those it regulates, they have no idea what small airports are all about. The people who write these things travel commercial DCA-LAX-ATL and only know airports from that perspective.  And I don&#039;t think we can ever educate them

What we CAN do is sue the bastards. First, it can tie the whole idea up for years and make FAA put their legal resources there, rather than harassing airmen. Second, it can help alert society to the evils of FAA. Third, it can (finally) begin to establish a precedent that we&#039;re going to defend ourselves. And don&#039;t wait for AOPA, they&#039;re just lobbyists. We need brave souls who&#039;ll put it all on the line.

Taking property without due compensation is commonly used to stop things like this. If the FAA is going to do anything that lessens the value, either monetary or otherwise, of a through-the-fence home or business, they have to compensate appropriately unless they can demonstrate otherwise, and again that can tie things up for years.

But the bottom line is this: Why did we accept the federal airport money in the first place? Aviators as a group have more money than the average bear, why were we burdening the taxpayers to support our fun? We never deserved those dollars and now the piper wants to be paid. It turns out that money was far too expensive.  As are ATC services and much more, we&#039;d be far better off to be paying for what we use rather than sticking society for the bill. There ain&#039;t no free lunch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This proposal is another result of an agency completely out of touch with those it regulates, they have no idea what small airports are all about. The people who write these things travel commercial DCA-LAX-ATL and only know airports from that perspective.  And I don&#8217;t think we can ever educate them</p>
<p>What we CAN do is sue the bastards. First, it can tie the whole idea up for years and make FAA put their legal resources there, rather than harassing airmen. Second, it can help alert society to the evils of FAA. Third, it can (finally) begin to establish a precedent that we&#8217;re going to defend ourselves. And don&#8217;t wait for AOPA, they&#8217;re just lobbyists. We need brave souls who&#8217;ll put it all on the line.</p>
<p>Taking property without due compensation is commonly used to stop things like this. If the FAA is going to do anything that lessens the value, either monetary or otherwise, of a through-the-fence home or business, they have to compensate appropriately unless they can demonstrate otherwise, and again that can tie things up for years.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is this: Why did we accept the federal airport money in the first place? Aviators as a group have more money than the average bear, why were we burdening the taxpayers to support our fun? We never deserved those dollars and now the piper wants to be paid. It turns out that money was far too expensive.  As are ATC services and much more, we&#8217;d be far better off to be paying for what we use rather than sticking society for the bill. There ain&#8217;t no free lunch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick oliver</title>
		<link>http://livingwithyourplane.com/2009/12/07/our-opposition-to-the-faas-compliance-guidance-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-1335</link>
		<dc:creator>rick oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingwithyourplane.com/?p=1095#comment-1335</guid>
		<description>So if you read the offical FAA reply it would be logical that their next step is to ban private hangers on public airports alltogher. Thats fine except that will kill small rural airports. Most large communities can not afford to build airplane hangers and justify itto local voters muchless small rural communities.Accually if enforced to the letter this will oppress any private enterprise on airports across the contry large are small.
 I agree it makes since at class B or C airports.But one size does not fit all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if you read the offical FAA reply it would be logical that their next step is to ban private hangers on public airports alltogher. Thats fine except that will kill small rural airports. Most large communities can not afford to build airplane hangers and justify itto local voters muchless small rural communities.Accually if enforced to the letter this will oppress any private enterprise on airports across the contry large are small.<br />
 I agree it makes since at class B or C airports.But one size does not fit all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

