Vick wrote:The tower is kind enough to keep track for you and just send you a bill.

It was incomprehensible to me. I asked a nearby Brit what he thought, he just shrugged and explained that he's never known it to be any different so he just accepts it as part of the game. I asked him about the many grass strips in the area - user fees for landing there too!

58Skylane wrote:
Even though I wouldn't do it , if I'm requesting VFR flight following from one non-towered airport to another non-towered, what's stopping me from calling out another 182's N# beside my own?

58Skylane wrote:
Even though I wouldn't do it , if I'm requesting VFR flight following from one non-towered airport to another non-towered, what's stopping me from calling out another 182's N# beside my own?

soyAnarchisto wrote:

58Skylane wrote:
Even though I wouldn't do it , if I'm requesting VFR flight following from one non-towered airport to another non-towered, what's stopping me from calling out another 182's N# beside my own?

The code in your transponder registered to your plane - that's what.

58Skylane wrote:

soyAnarchisto wrote:

58Skylane wrote:
Even though I wouldn't do it , if I'm requesting VFR flight following from one non-towered airport to another non-towered, what's stopping me from calling out another 182's N# beside my own?

The code in your transponder registered to your plane - that's what.

Dang it!!

The executive branch of the gov't and it's various divisions (FAA, NTSB, OMB) want a user fee that they can change arbitrarily. They cant change a fuel tax as easily. They need congress to do that. It's not just the democrats, President Bush pushed this too. So did John McCain. So will a second term Obama or a first term Romney.

Don't let them have it. They WILL abuse it. That's what governments do. They will take this money and populate an office building with people whose job it is to collect it, then give them salaries and raises and pensions and send them to expensive meetings in Vegas where they get in trouble for not paying their hookers. (OK, I'm mixing stories) This NEW department will burn half of what they collect. Then they will ask for MORE. Then it's $200/flight. (But only $75 for piston planes - consider yourself lucky...) And $20 for an instrument approach. And $20 for flight following, etc.

All of this instead of simply adjusting the ALREADY EXISTING fuel tax by a few pennies for the same revenue. No new expensive collection method needed. Already exists and wont get bigger by changing the tax rate.

Have you ever got a late fee for not paying your fuel tax? NOPE, you pay it when you buy the fuel.

Will you get a late fee for not paying your NEW user fees bill on time? YOU BETCHA.

Sorry to beat this one to death. (I really wish I COULD beat it to death) But if the effin government wants MORE of my money, they should AT LEAST do it in an efficient manner by USING THE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS, not by CREATING A REDUNDANT ONE.

Write to your Senators. Write to your Congressman. If you email them, print it out and put a stamp on it too. Piles of paper mail are more effective than emails.

c170pete

March 4, 2014 By Elizabeth A Tennyson
User fees for aviation were once again part of the president’s new budget proposal, despite continued strong opposition from Congress and the aviation community.

On March 4, the White House released its fiscal year 2015 spending plan, which included a $100-per-flight “surcharge” to pay for air traffic control services.

“We are disappointed that the President doesn’t seem to have gotten the message” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “With Congress on our side, I am confident we can prevent this arbitrary proposal from becoming a reality, but we have to stay vigilant. We are working hard to make general aviation more accessible and affordable, and whether you call it a user fee or a surcharge, we will keep fighting against proposals like this that would raise the cost of flying."

A $100 per-flight fee has been a regular feature of the president’s annual budget proposals, making an appearance in each of the past four spending plans. But each time, the idea has been forcefully rejected.

On Feb. 27, leaders of the House aviation subcommittee and the co-chairs of the House General Aviation Caucus sent a letter to President Obama reiterating their strong bipartisan opposition to user fees and asking the president not to include a user fee proposal in his upcoming budget. The letter noted that the House of Representatives has repeatedly rejected this user fee proposal and opposition remains strong in both parties.

The letter was signed by House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey) and Ranking Member Rick Larson (D-Washington), along with AOPA members Sam Graves (R-Missouri), and John Barrow (D-Georgia). Graves and Barrow co-chair the House General Aviation Caucus which has 238 members. And while it expresses support for the economic contributions of commercial and general aviation, including manufacturing and associated industries, it also notes that those industries could be harmed by fees.

“Your continued support for any proposal to implement a per-flight-fee on commercial and general aviation would only serve to undermine the strength of our aviation transportation system and the jobs that rely on this important segment of our nation’s economy,” the letter warned.

In April 2013, 223 members of the House of Representatives signed a strongly worded letter to the president opposing user fees and telling the president the idea was “dead on arrival.”

Now the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation has scheduled a March 12 hearing on the budget proposal. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is scheduled to testify and the user fee provision is among the budget elements likely to be discussed.

AOPA and others have long argued that user fees are the wrong way to fund the national air transportation system and that the FAA needs to reduce spending in several areas before looking for any new revenues. The current system of excise taxes on fuel is efficient and ensures that everyone who flies pays to support the system.

Section 9502 of Title 26, U.S. Code, provides for amounts equivalent
to the funds received in the U.S. Treasury for the passenger
ticket tax and certain other taxes paid by airport and airway
users to be transferred to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
In turn, appropriations are authorized from this fund to meet
obligations for airport improvement grants, Federal Aviation
Administration facilities and equipment, research, operations,
payment to air carriers, and for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics Office of Airline Information.
To more equitably distribute the cost of air traffic services across
the aviation user community, the Administration proposes to
establish a new surcharge for air traffic services of $100 per flight.
Military aircraft, public aircraft, piston aircraft, air ambulances,
aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-
Canada flights would be exempt. The revenues generated by the
surcharge would be deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund. The surcharge would be effective for flights beginning after
September 30, 2014.

Oregon180 wrote:My layman's interpretation is that this language is most likely coming from the airline lobby as a way to put more of the air traffic cost burden on jet charter operations.