Obama administration’s commitment to a proposed $100-per-flight fee for use of air traffic services, claiming that the fee would both “ensure that everyone is paying their fair share” and help reduce the deficit.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... ponse.html

There goes flight following for many Vfr pilots not mention a loss of business at class d + airports that cater to ga.

User Fees…..Really??!!
January 16, 2012 by Craig Fuller

So, the Obama Administration budget negotiators last year suggested a $100 per flight operation user fee during the debt ceiling negotiations — Congress said, “no.”

Then, the Obama Administration budget team suggested last year that the Super Committee consider the $100 per flight operation user fee – Congress said, “no.”

During this debate last year, one of our energized AOPA members noticed that The White House set up an online system allowing citizens to petition The White House on issues of the day. If you get enough people to sign the petition, someone from The White House will review your sentiments and respond.

Well, almost 9,000 people “signed” the petition calling on The White House to abandon it’s user fee dreams.

Then, on Friday the 13th the grim reaper appeared. The White House official who reviewed the petition issued a written statement saying basically, thanks for your willingness to pay for air traffic control services through aviation fuel charges, but we really want to go and create a whole new bureaucracy that can collect $100 for every flight operation requiring ATC….oh, we are willing to exempt some of you…so, don’t worry….just trust us…you will really like our plan!

Sorry, this remains a non-starter with us!

When you look around the world you find that once the user fee bureaucracy gets built it needs to be fed more and more revenue just to be self sustaining. So, plans that are narrowly directed soon spread to more aircraft and the fees go up.

And, what’s the rationale? One business aircraft pilot and member wrote me and explained that he might take a plane to an airport to pick up a passenger, deliver the passenger to his or her chosen airport and return to the home field. Three legs would be $300….maybe more than the pilot made!

Honestly, The White House statement was not that much of a surprise….they just won’t let go of this bad idea and we expected to see it in the President’s Budget in February. What was a surprise was the timing. But, hey, thanks for the headstart. We will build opposition to this idea yet again. If only our budget bureaucrats would work as hard at actually passing the FAA Reauthorization legislation that provides funding for important projects around the country that will produce jobs as opposed to building a user fee bureaucracy.

Of course, doing real policy work during a very political year might be expecting too much! I suspect this is only the most recent example of policy by pollster. No one really did the policy analysis here, but the pollsters told the campaign team that taking yet another shot at businesses using aircraft is a great idea. By the way, those pollsters might want to check with the workers who build the best aircraft in the world to see how they are liking this campaign theme!

http://blog.aopa.org/aopanow/?p=1074

I will not pay $100 for flight following, and I will avoid towered airports and any radar service like the plague. Maybe that's the desired affect? I realize that this is not targeted at small GA, but it's only a matter of time if the precedent is set.

The losers are going to be the small time FBO's at towered fields.

Zane wrote:I will not pay $100 for flight following, and I will avoid towered airports and any radar service like the plague. Maybe that's the desired affect? I realize that this is not targeted at small GA, but it's only a matter of time if the precedent is set.

The losers are going to be the small time FBO's at towered fields.

Piston powered aircraft are exempt in this.....for now that is.

They wouldn't dare, least ways on an election year.

Piston powered aircraft are exempt in this.....for now that is.

......And only $100......for now that is.

lc

Its a very slippery slope as Rob said, once the beaurocracy is in place it will get hungrier and look for more to feed on. Initially maybe only Biz Jets but as time goes on it will go down the line until no one is exempt.

If this ever gets implemented with small piston type aircraft, what's stopping anybody from calling out bogus N#'s?

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? I just see big problems with this crazy idea our leaders are coming up with

I would also think this would cause even more congestion and possibly major issues with non-towered airports that are surrounded by Class B, C, and D airports like in the SoCal area. my cause pilots to move their planes from towered airports like Fullerton, Torrance, Chino, Riverside, etc to non-towered airports like Corona, Flabob and French Valley.

I dunno. I think they are going to open up another can of rotten worms if this gets pushed though!

58Skylane wrote:If this ever gets implemented with small piston type aircraft, what's stopping anybody from calling out bogus N#'s?

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? I just see big problems with this crazy idea our leaders are coming up with

If your transponder is on, it broadcasts a Mode S Code that identifies your airplane. They already know who you are before you contact them on the radio.

That's why I reprogrammed my transponder to use the Mode S Code I found on this page:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=4836D

kevbert is right about the Mode S Code #. Now, for a couple of billion a year we can establish an enforcement agency that can do real-time cross referencing of the FAA database and all current flights under ATC jurisdiction. Any deliberate mismatch and your symbol on ATC radar will be replaced with a red icon shaped like a pair of handcuffs. It will trigger a shit avalanche akin to what happens if you lie on your third class medical application or try to sneak a frosted cupcake past the TSA.

All they have to do is follow the model of some Euro Countries. Mandatory flight plans, filed 24-48 hrs in advance. Anything else is illegal.
My flying is already 50% of two years ago, just from the price of fuel.

The language includes an exemption for 'recreational piston aircraft'. I think 'recreational piston aircraft' is pretty vague. How will they determine if a flight is recreational or not? What, exactly, does 'recreational' mean?

They want the new fees to pay 75% of the costs of airspace administration. The current fuel tax system pays around the same amount currently for administration. Does this mean the fuel tax will go down? Or will it mean that the FAA will suddenly find a new way to fund useless mandates that leave small GA rusting in the hangars?

Mass exodus of small aircraft from towered airports to smaller fields. Emptying hangars and lowering hangar values and rents. More competition for hangar space at smaller fields raising rents, more volume of fuel sold, possibly lower fuel prices. More air traffic at smaller airfields, more noise complaints by nearby home owners. Big city problems following the increased numbers to the smaller fields. More people, more problems. Lets try to keep it where it is, as it is.

The overwhelming stupidity in this idea (which goes back much further than the Obama administration, Senator McCain was an advocate of aviation user fees) is that the proposal is to create a redundant method of collecting user fees with a significant additional cost of administration where a user fee structure already exists.

USER FEES ARE TAXES. FUEL TAXES ARE USER FEES. We all know this. The fuel tax system is based on amount of use -- Use the system more, use more fuel, pay a bigger fee.

So why do the politicians want "user fees?" What's the real reason other than wanting to be an ass and losing pilot votes? Because TAX RATES require congressional action to adjust, and manipulating user fee schedules requires only administrative action. Makes it much easier to screw the little guy.

Fight this one. Write your senators and congressmen. Do it often. This one matters.

I realize that I'm swimming against the tide here, but I don't have a problem with paying reasonable user fees -- the key word being "reasonable", of course. But the $100 per flight fee is BS-- I'm thinking more like maybe $5 for an IFR flight plan, $1 for flight following, $1 to land at a towered airport, to be billed quarterly. Or maybe just a fixed quarterly fee, based upon aircraft size. I think the feds missed the boart with only charging $5 for the new tri-yearly re-registration.
To me it's no different than paying a toll to drive across a highway bridge, which goes on in many places including western WA, in addition to annual registration fees & fuel (road) tax.

hotrod150 wrote:I realize that I'm swimming against the tide here, but I don't have a problem with paying reasonable user fees -- the key word being "reasonable", of course. But the $100 per flight fee is BS-- I'm thinking more like maybe $5 for an IFR flight plan, $1 for flight following, $1 to land at a towered airport, to be billed quarterly. Or maybe just a fixed quarterly fee, based upon aircraft size. I think the feds missed the boart with only charging $5 for the new tri-yearly re-registration.
To me it's no different than paying a toll to drive across a highway bridge, which goes on in many places including western WA, in addition to annual registration fees & fuel (road) tax.

Whats wrong with the gas tax. The more you fly the more you pay?

Why can't we get the turds we elected to manage the monies they get from us now, or find some good turds to take their place!

wtxdragger wrote:good turds

I think the feds missed the boart with only charging $5 for the new tri-yearly re-registration.

If that is how you feel, take comfort in the fact they will undoubtedly raise it (significantly) before long-if the gvmt's track record is any indication......


lc