Since EAA Airventure is primarily a homebuilder’s gathering, there were plenty of homebuilt aircraft flown in for the event. Perhaps comprising the largest group of these were kitplanes by Van’s Aircraft. Van’s Aircraft is one of the most successful kitplane manufacturers in existence with more 4600 aircraft completed and flying. Over the past 30 years, Dick Van Grunsven has designed several models from the single seat RV-3 to the 4 seat RV-10. His designs have brought homebuilding to normal person – the kits are well constructed and well documented. The mostly all-metal construction is appealing to those who would rather not work with composites. In spite of the amount of metal, the aircraft have great lines and are very sporty in appearance.

Here are a few pictures of the RV aircraft I saw parked in a group…it was estimated that there were probably 200 in attendance.

.

Well I didn’t update this like I had hoped to while we were at Oshkosh…maybe next year.  Being my first time, I found out that 3 days is not nearly enough time to see and do everything one would like to.  I’m still “recovering” from the trip and thus have not yet gotten the pictures uploaded.

One very cool item of interest – I sat in on a forum called “Best of the Best” with none other than Chuck Yeager.  He’s definitely one of the best.  I had read his autobiography and of course seen “The Right Stuff” but neither of course compares to hearing him tell parts of his life story in person.  He basically just recounted some highlights of his becoming a fighter pilot, getting shot down, and his test pilot days.

Favorite Quote:  When asked by his fellow aviators how he managed to escape and evade capture after being shot down, he replied, “Ain’t nobody gonna catch a West Virginia boy in the woods…”.  My dad really liked that…he’s a West Virginia boy too.

I could have sat there all day if he had just kept talking…

AOPA president Phil Boyer is going to host a forum at Oshkosh to discuss user fees.  I am planning to attend, so I will give an update here with the details.  Specifically he is going to discuss the impact of user fees on the GA community and how a cost structure would be set up.  Cessna CEO Jack Pelton and Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier will be moderating the panel.

Other representatives from EAA, GAMA, and NBAA will also participate.

Cirrus has announced that it will offer a turbonormalized version of the SR22 to provide an option for pilots needing (or wanting) to fly higher and maintain performance. Currently, the SR22 has a 310-hp Continental engine, normally aspirated. The modification is being developed by an experienced group over at Tornado Alley Turbo. They have made many such improvements for Bonanzas and Cessnas. In case you didn’t know, turbonormalization pressurizes the intake air such that your manifold pressure remains at or around 29″ – 30″ all the way up to your cruise altitude (typically 20,000 feet in most light singles that have this). What this means is that your engine has the same performance at altitude that it has at sea level. In normally aspirated engines, as the air density decreases with your altitude, your engine becomes much less efficient.

This modification will greatly increase the usefulness of flying a Cirrus SR22 in mountainous regions since it greatly enhances safety margins. This would also allow more pilots to fly over bad weather than either through it or around it.

Read more about Cirrus Aircraft and Tornado Alley Turbo.

If you are not sure what user fees are, here is a quick overview. Basically, in the United States, the FAA is funded through fuel taxes, airline tickets, and air cargo, plus a contribution from a general fund. For the GA pilot, your use of the airspace system is paid for when you buy fuel (or rent an airplane with a wet rate). This system has worked great for many years, and is based on use. The more you fly, the more you pay. But as with just about anything to do with money there is always an element of jealousy. That is where user fees come in. Basically, there have been proposals floated in Congress to modify the funding system and directly charge every user of the airspace system a fee based on their usage of the system. Don’t think for a minute that your taxes on fuel would be eliminated along with it.

The biggest proponents of user fees are of course the airlines. They want a system where individual aircraft are charged a fixed fee for their fair share of operating the ATC system. Why do they want this? Here are the reasons I thought of:

• Because the vast majority of them are not making any money and in fact are losing money, and they want to lower their costs.
• The airlines realize that by making the cost of flying a GA aircraft go up, they would stand to gain more passengers who would normally fly in a private jet. If the private jet is too expensive, these people might opt for a first/business class ticket, where there is higher profit.
• Currently the “pot of money” is increased through taxation.  Under a user fee system, the money trail will be tied directly to the ATC services used.  This will give the airlines more clout since they will be contributing the most.  Watch for more restrictions on GA flying into and out of major airlines hubs.

Keep in mind that the two types of flying are totally different – that is commercial airlines are being paid to fly by their passengers. GA aircraft are by and large not operating commercially, since the vast majority of those pilots do not have commercial ratings. Thus, the cost of operating an aircraft is totally put on the owner. As Neal Boortz often says “companies do not pay taxes.” They don’t – they count all taxes and fees as an expense, and that gets passed on to the employees (through lower payraises or benefits) or the consumer (higher prices).

Perhaps the biggest reason to not have user fees for services is safety. You can bet that if pilots had to pay directly for weather briefings or IFR flight plans, then fewer of them would do so. This could only result in decreased safety throughout the entire ATC system.

Here are the reasons that AOPA lists for user fees being just a really bad idea:

• Assessing user fees for air traffic denigrates safety by discouraging aircraft operators from using the services.
• Collecting the current aviation excise taxes is extremely efficient with a low cost of collection and has been in place for nearly four decades, requiring very little government oversight. Collecting user fees would require a huge new accounting bureaucracy with a much higher cost to collect the fees.
• Implementing user fees removes critical congressional oversight, directing, and management of FAA resources that are key to an efficient national air transportation system.
• The air traffic control system is a public system designed to provide services for the airlines that is far in excess of that necessary for general aviation.
• Operators of light general aviation aircraft contribute $60 million a year and corporate jets pay $210 million annually to the trust fund through fuel taxes.
• General aviation also supports the aviation system with locally imposed taxes and charges on hangar and tiedown rental, fuel, and other assessments.

As an engineer I can really appreciate the complexity of what NASA does every time they fly into space. Prior to the Columbia accident, I think many people had gotten to the point where shuttle flights seemed routine. I hope that someday they are routine, but for now, we still have much to learn about this endeavor. Flying into space is no small feat – especially to do something useful, like dock with another craft, transfer supplies, do experiments, and glide back to earth like a greased brick, where you only have 1 shot to make the runway. Even though the pilot and commander have practiced the approach hundreds of times, by the time they return to earth on a real shuttle mission, they have had 2 weeks of no flying, and their bodies have been in 0 gravity the whole time.

While I’m waiting on a phone call from NASA saying they need me to fly the next mission, I’ll have to settle for watching the approach on TV. During this morning’s landing they broadcast the flight deck view of the approach, showing the HUD. It was cool to see them descend through the cloud deck as they landed.

If you missed the video, NASA has it here (Windows WMV file).

Here is a photo of Taiwan’s EVA Air’s Boeing 777-300ER (Extended Range) arriving at the Farnborough International Air Show airfield.  The aircraft will be on display there from July 17 – July 23.  This version does indeed have a long range – 7880 nm.  That’s enough range to fly from the L.A. – Taipei and Taipei – London routes non-stop.

Click on the picture to see a full size image.  More 777 info can be found at the Boeing website.