Forced landing? Be prepared to pay the DOT

ktup-flyer said:
Umm, isn't this why we pay road taxes?
Click to expand...
With cars we drive, sure, but not with airplanes. I don't know about that state, but at least Texas has an aviation division of our DOT, and I'm not sure how that'd get handled.

Regardless, insurance should cover it.
 
I would be interested to know if insurance does cover it. Seems like it should.
 
I would tell them to go pound sand, collecting the invoice will be a problem. Not sure why it took 8 employees and six trucks 4.5 hours either, just turn the airplane and get it off the road. Jus t bloated do nothing govt employees trying to justify their paychecks.
 
If their road or signs damage your plane can you charge them? lol This is stupid.
 
sounds like we have a lot of welfare state proponents here. :rolleyes2:
 
DOT is the "Department of Transportation" not the "Department of Cars and Roads". Last I checked, airplanes are transportation.

I think this should be vigorously fought. Does government really want to encourage pilots to choose off-airport landing sites much worse than nice flat straight roads, out of fear of incurring large bills?
 
if a pilot is afraid of a $2,000 bill that the insurance will likely pay anyway...then he needs to find another, cheaper hobby.

Do damage to public property (like crash into a guard rail with your car) = you pay to fix it.

Cost the state D.O.T. time and money because they need to protect your asset and/or public safety = you pay for it.

That's the way it is in my state too and the way it should be. I just don't see the problem here except possibly issues raised by those who want everything for nothing.
 
timwinters said:
if a pilot is afraid of a $2,000 bill that the insurance will likely pay anyway...then he needs to find another, cheaper hobby.

Do damage to public property (like crash into a guard rail with your car) = you pay to fix it.

Cost the state D.O.T. time and money because they need to protect your asset and/or public safety = you pay for it.

That's the way it is in my state too and the way it should be. I just don't see the problem here except possibly issues raised by those who want everything for nothing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Your road taxes go to pay for the construction and normal repair and upkeep of the roads, bridges, signage, etc. They are not there to pay for the damage caused by an accident or for any other costs related to such an event. This includes items such as extra manpower and equipment needed to handle the situation. You simply cannot expect the tax base or all of society to pay for the costs of your accident or incident.
 
Didn't something like this happen in Pennsylvania not too long ago?
 
timwinters said:
if a pilot is afraid of a $2,000 bill that the insurance will likely pay anyway...then he needs to find another, cheaper hobby.

Do damage to public property (like crash into a guard rail with your car) = you pay to fix it.

Cost the state D.O.T. time and money because they need to protect your asset and/or public safety = you pay for it.

That's the way it is in my state too and the way it should be. I just don't see the problem here except possibly issues raised by those who want everything for nothing.
Click to expand...

Lol, just hand out checks for 2k like candy eh? I don't think I could ever be that rich, I don't think it's possible to be rich with that mindset.

If he didn't damage anything the DOT should suck it.

The roads are paid for by the people to serve the people, looks like that's what happened, shy of damage it should just be a "glad everyone is ok" and move on.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Agreed. Your road taxes go to pay for the construction and normal repair and upkeep of the roads, bridges, signage, etc. They are not there to pay for the damage caused by an accident or for any other costs related to such an event. This includes items such as extra manpower and equipment needed to handle the situation. You simply cannot expect the tax base or all of society to pay for the costs of your accident or incident.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you've written. But in this case I didn't read where there was any property damage. The bill is for the state employees' time.

The article goes on to talk about fire departments billing people for showing up to put out house fires. I've known about this for quite a while and have always been opposed to it. I have no problem with that at all if they're private fire departments. But for ones supported by taxes I think it's asinine.

First, you're extorted by the government to pay taxes. The promise is that you get services in return for your payment...except if you opt to use those services you're also billed for the cost of using them.

Maybe this belongs in the Pet Peeve thread.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You simply cannot expect the tax base or all of society to pay for the costs of your accident or incident.
Click to expand...

I whole heartedly disagree. We pay taxes for among other things first responder services. If the pilot ottos out a fence, sure they should be responsible for those costs...if someone does something maliciously, they should pay...but basic emergencies is why we pay taxes.

If you read that article, they talk about fire services responding to calls billing for their services...that is complete BS and a VERY slippery slope as soon as providing services that we already pay for become a profit center for agencies pitting those that can pay vs those that can not.
 
Government has learned that most of us will put up with FEES in addition to taxes. They are all about increasing revenue so are finding more, and more excuses to bill additional fees.

I agree, this should be covered by the high taxes we already pay for roads. The revenue levels already include contingencies for unepxected occurences like this, so in effect we are paying TWICE.
 
Shawn said:
If you read that article, they talk about fire services responding to calls billing for their services...
Click to expand...

Red herring, totally unrelated to the forced landing.

Here in Missouri, we don't have a large enough road tax base to even pay for construction and maintenance of the roads, much less to have a crew protect a plane for four hours until it's moved.

As far as charge for fire, police, ambulance, etc. It just depends if their tax base is adequate. In my county the ambulance tax is minimal and doesn't come close to covering the actual cost of the service so there is a minimum of $500 charge for one to be dispatched.
 
The person responding about the charges on the video was from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

They do not like it since the insurance company will be the one who pays the bill.
 
Who pays? Ask a trucker whose over-height load just took out a bridge. Hint: the state ain't gonna pay.
 
My state uses the tax revenue received for roads, and bridges for other things like social programs, then raises the gas tax because they say they can't fix the roads, and bridges. Then they use the additional gas tax money for social programs..........

The DOT employees, and equipment are ALREADY PAID FOR, there is no marginal cost increase because a few state employees have to stand around for four hours. They are ALREADY STANDING AROUND. Most state agencies are so bloated, four can stand around while one is actually doing something.
 
timwinters said:
Here in Missouri, we don't have a large enough road tax base to even pay for construction and maintenance of the roads....
Click to expand...

Oh, we've got the tax base. More than enough money. It is just not spent wisely.

Here's an example of squandered funds that's not even a drop in the financial ocean. My neighbor is an engineering prof at the university. Also works part-time as a consultant to the DOT and most years the DOT pays him more than double what the university does. The way he explains it he spends 10-15 hours/week inspecting bridges and making recommendations. It's kind of a two-fer for him since he takes students from one of his classes with him to teach them.

And some of the projects they put forth, holy crap. But then they don't have money left to do what really needs to be done.
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
Who pays? Ask a trucker whose over-height load just took out a bridge. Hint: the state ain't gonna pay.
Click to expand...

And that is fine. We are not talking about being billed for damages, we're talking about DOT and emergency workers billing for having to show up and do the jobs they are paid to do. Presumably at least partially by the pilot, unless he was from out of state.
 
I don't know if this applies to any of those posting here and I certainly am not accusing anyone but..

I have noticed that many people believe that because they pay taxes or have paid taxes at one time or another that they are entitled to every governmental or quasi-governmental service that there is free of any additional charge.

Heck, I have even heard of people who have never paid taxes having the same feeling of entitlement.

Why do these thoughts or feelings of entitlement exist?
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don't know if this applies to any of those posting here and I certainly am not accusing anyone but..

I have noticed that many people believe that because they pay taxes or have paid taxes at one time or another that they are entitled to every governmental or quasi-governmental service that there is free of any additional charge.

Heck, I have even heard of people who have never paid taxes having the same feeling of entitlement.

Why do these thoughts or feelings of entitlement exist?
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. See bullwinkles post, and mine. Damages, or costs over and above what the agency normally would encounter are fine to bill. Worker time and vehicle use is already paid for by the taxpayer. To charge fees for things already paid for is just plain wrong. This is not entitlement, this is ACCOUNTABILITY.
 
Let's say a United jet does that. Would United get a bill? Methinks not.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don't know if this applies to any of those posting here and I certainly am not accusing anyone but..

I have noticed that many people believe that because they pay taxes or have paid taxes at one time or another that they are entitled to every governmental or quasi-governmental service that there is free of any additional charge.

Heck, I have even heard of people who have never paid taxes having the same feeling of entitlement.

Why do these thoughts or feelings of entitlement exist?
Click to expand...

Exactly my point too. Almost everyone wants a free ride, including many/most here.

Anthony said:
That's not true at all. See bullwinkles post, and mine. Damages, or costs over and above what the agency normally would encounter are fine to bill. Worker time and vehicle use is already paid for by the taxpayer. To charge fees for things already paid for is just plain wrong. This is not entitlement, this is ACCOUNTABILITY.
Click to expand...

B.S.

The workers would likely (or at least...should likely) be doing something productive like patching roads. Instead they're spending their time taking care of one individual. My tax money shouldn't be spent to guard someone's plane for four hours until it can be moved. The person who owns the plane should pay for that.

Had the crew not shown up and the plane been run over by an 18-wheeler, killing a few misc people, then most here would ***** about that also.
 
Last edited:
Do they charge you if you get in a no-fault car accident? I've never been in one, but I wouldn't think so.... I don't see this as being any different.
 
I like the idea of charging people $$ if they are involved in an accident. Safety devices and car accidents seem to be inversely related, as cars get safer, people drive with less care. I have often said that repeat accident drivers should have a metal spike mounted on their steering wheel, that will spur them to drive more safely. For some reason my metal spike idea has not caught on, so charging them for the cost of attending to their accident does the same thing.
 
They got two options, steal tax dollars, or just charge per accident/use of time and make all their workers paid per job and not salary or hourly with no retirement/401/etc.
 
Here's something I've never understood. If James331 is found to be at fault when he crashes his monster truck into my Yugo on I-70 and I am injured and out of work for a week, his policy will pay my lost wages for the week. However, after the accident 200 drivers were stuck in stand-still traffic for 2-3 hours while they cleared the road. But his policy won't compensate those drivers for their lost time.

You'd think James331 would owe them for their lost time too.
 
timwinters said:
Exactly my point too. Almost everyone wants a free ride, including many/most here.



B.S.

The workers would likely (or at least...should likely) be doing something productive like patching roads. Instead they're spending their time taking care of one individual. My tax money shouldn't be spent to guard someone's plane for four hours until it can be moved. The person who owns the plane should pay for that.

Had the crew not shown up and the plane been run over by an 18-wheeler, killing a few misc people, then most here would ***** about that also.
Click to expand...

I'm going to differ with you on this one basically because:

According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Evans will receive an invoice to cover the cost of assistance from the DOT. A department representative said the cost will include eight employees, six trucks, putting up advance warning signs and diverting traffic for four and a half hours. The representative said the bill could be up to $3,000.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, there is absolutely no need for 6 trucks and 8 employees for this. This is a one person job - two max. Put up a portable sign, some cones to move the traffic into the left lane, and you're good. I would also wager that these employees would probably not be patching roads if they weren't out there, because if it's like most union/gov't positions - they aren't "qualified" (even though they are capable) to do a job other than the one they are paid to do.

If it does require 6 trucks and 8 people, then they are throwing away money. Also, why is the DOT needed on this? Park a highway patrol car 1/4 mile back with it's flashers going. He's just going to be sitting in the median trying to issue tickets anyway, and you're definitely not keeping him from anything else.
 
Not sure why the DOT thinks the pilot needed assistance. It appears he got his airplane off the roadway just fine and didn't require any assistance.

Having a trooper hold up traffic for 5 minutes so he can take off again should be part of their job.

Ridiculous. I'll have to send something to the DOT about this.
 
Hello 911. can you please give me an estimate for the emergency response for landing on I-5 vers state hwy 35 vs Joes wheat field?


Or better yet, 911, my shed is on fire, What will it cost to send the fire deptartment, or if it cost to much I will just let it burn down and take my chances on it spreading to my neighbors shed.

We shouldn't be charging for emergency service, because cost should not be a factor in deciding if we should engage them or not.

Brian
 
timwinters said:
B.S.

The workers would likely (or at least...should likely) be doing something productive like patching roads. Instead they're spending their time taking care of one individual. My tax money shouldn't be spent to guard someone's plane for four hours until it can be moved. The person who owns the plane should pay for that.

Had the crew not shown up and the plane been run over by an 18-wheeler, killing a few misc people, then most here would ***** about that also.
Click to expand...

Have you ever worked in state or federal government? I have. Most agencies have four times the people they really need. The people that responded to the plane were probably drinking coffee, and playing cards. We pay way too much to support these huge bureacracies as it is. We don't need more, and more fees. You pay them. OK? :rolleyes:
 
They have a choice tax or charge for services. I can see paying for any damage ,that I cause is fair however paying for the equipment and personnel ,are already paid by tax dollars. That's basically double dipping to say nothing of the fed tax dollars the state dot collects.
 
brcase said:
Hello 911. can you please give me an estimate for the emergency response for landing on I-5 vers state hwy 35 vs Joes wheat field?


Or better yet, 911, my shed is on fire, What will it cost to send the fire deptartment, or if it cost to much I will just let it burn down and take my chances on it spreading to my neighbors shed.

We shouldn't be charging for emergency service, because cost should not be a factor in deciding if we should engage them or not.

Brian
Click to expand...


Bingo
 
Anthony said:
That's not true at all. See bullwinkles post, and mine. Damages, or costs over and above what the agency normally would encounter are fine to bill. Worker time and vehicle use is already paid for by the taxpayer. To charge fees for things already paid for is just plain wrong. This is not entitlement, this is ACCOUNTABILITY.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
I have to agree with Edfred. Our county road commission and state highway guys are a total waste of money. They can't fix the roads but six can be standing with their thumbs where the sun don't shine watching one man using a chain saw. We could do better eliminating them and contracting out the work.
 
EdFred said:
I'm sorry, there is absolutely no need for 6 trucks and 8 employees for this. This is a one person job - two max.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. I would never argue that there isn't waste in government (or any large corporation for that matter).

Rather I was simply stating that many here are just like some of those who live in Ferguson, MO and who think that government should provide everything for free.

And I find it absolutely hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top