In August I flew up to Port McNiel just south of Port Hardy on Vancouver Island. We spent four days over in Echo Bay and had a great time. Today I get a bill from Nav Canada for a quarterly fee for using the Canadian aviation system. Its been a few years since I have flown to Canada, so this is the first time I've encountered it. In reading the invoice, apparently if you land in Canada on a point to point flight in the U.S. (to/from Alaska)you are exempt. It was $19.08 CDN

yeah we get the same thing every time we use Canada's airspace...in fact I think we got billed for flying into it but never landed in canada on a trip from montana to boston...we had to fly into canada for winds and if I am correct we got a bill in the mail a while later. I know that canada's ATC system is privatly owned unlike ours...so to speak. They get their "funding" when people fly in their airspace.

I contacted Nav Canada to ask about this a while back. My scenario: departing Point Roberts (a little peninsula of US territory that protrudes from Canada, south of Vancouver BC) to fly south to the San Juans, I wanted to get higher than the floor of Vancouver's controlled airspace for safety's sake out over the cold, deep salt water but didn't want to incur "charges for air navigation services provided or made available by Nav Canada" (as their invoices describe it). Their response that I would not be charged the quarterly fee just for an airspace clearance.

Eric

If the current FAA Administrator gets her way, and/or the airlines get their way, we'll all be paying such fees for the "services rendered". Don't believe it--read the news briefs from any of the aviation organizations, including NBAA.

Join AOPA and EAA, if you are not already a member. This is a big issue, and they are the ones that have any hope of preventing this disaster.

Imagine our government, charging these types of fees--the accounting process and oversight of such a program would require an entire new bureaucracy, which would soak up much if not all of the fees.

I can't believe that Nav Canada still isn't costing the citizens of Canada a LOT of money, as in government funded.

The airlines in this country want all pilots to pay "their fair share" of ATC costs, they say. Which means the airplane that uses instrument approaches once a month will have to pay just as much to support those facilities as the one who uses them seven times a day.

What a crock.

MTV

The airlines in this country want all pilots to pay "their fair share" of ATC costs, they say. Which means the airplane that uses instrument approaches once a month will have to pay just as much to support those facilities as the one who uses them seven times a day.

What a crock.

So by that rational then, it should be charged per approach, per occupied seat. I bet that would shut the airlines up real fast when they start doing the math. Those buggers are already exempt from the fuel tax.

Congress has again told them "NO USER FEES". I was just reading about this and apparently the aviation trust fund is at a surplus and growing, so their claim of short fall has fallen on deaf ears and their continued request for user fees is causing some dissent in congress.

Just goes to show, you can't trust political appointees. Over here we are fighting with the port athority in Grays Harbor. They are trying to shut down Bowerman Field KHQM. So far they haven't figured out how to get it done becasue of government obligations over the surplus land aquisitions contract, but they are trying.

Why are they trying to close your airport? Or rather, what is their excuse? I'm flown into Bowerman quite a few times, seems like there's nothing so close that "airplane noise" would be a problem.
That bird/wildlife sanctuary on the north side might be an issue. I remember that the Canadian geese used to be something of a hazard to navigation when those flockers used to congregate by the (seemingly) hundreds on the grass adjacent to the runway. Luckily the runway is long enough that you could always just start your takeoff or landing far enough away that they wouldn't be a factor.
Or is it a land grab? Seems like the economy isn't doing all that great around the Grays Harbor area, I would think that land is obtainable enough that they don't have to try to strongarm the airport.
What's the scoop on the big biodeisel or gasahol plant they want to build out there?

Eric

Babygreatlakes,

THe airlines DO pay the fuel taxes. That's what they're trying to get out of. If they can convince Congress or the FAA to get them off that hook, they can sell tickets a lot cheaper.

Also, there is a certain portion of the FAA budget that comes from the General Fund. Since the general public (yes, every one of us) benefits in some way from air commerce in this country, every one of us who is able should be paying a fair share.

It is always well to bear in mind that aviation and aviators aren't necessarily viewed as "welcome" in many communities.

MTV

zero.one.victor wrote:Why are they trying to close your airport? Or rather, what is their excuse? I'm flown into Bowerman quite a few times, seems like there's nothing so close that "airplane noise" would be a problem.
That bird/wildlife sanctuary on the north side might be an issue. I remember that the Canadian geese used to be something of a hazard to navigation when those flockers used to congregate by the (seemingly) hundreds on the grass adjacent to the runway. Luckily the runway is long enough that you could always just start your takeoff or landing far enough away that they wouldn't be a factor.
Or is it a land grab? Seems like the economy isn't doing all that great around the Grays Harbor area, I would think that land is obtainable enough that they don't have to try to strongarm the airport.
What's the scoop on the big biodeisel or gasahol plant they want to build out there?

Eric

So far we haven't been able to determine what they are up to. Serious neglect over the last 10+ years has left repair costs soaring so of course they are defering those even further. We ask questions and keep getting evasive answers. They held an open meeting for the airport and got a bigger turn out than they expected given the 2 1/2 week lead time they gave the public. Tomorrow at 9AM they are having another meeting to go over the results of what they picked up at the meeting. I'll miss it but our group will be well represented.

mtv wrote:Babygreatlakes,

THe airlines DO pay the fuel taxes. That's what they're trying to get out of. If they can convince Congress or the FAA to get them off that hook, they can sell tickets a lot cheaper.

Also, there is a certain portion of the FAA budget that comes from the General Fund. Since the general public (yes, every one of us) benefits in some way from air commerce in this country, every one of us who is able should be paying a fair share.

It is always well to bear in mind that aviation and aviators aren't necessarily viewed as "welcome" in many communities.

MTV

My understanding from what I have read is that they pay an emplanement or seat tax, but are exempt from the fuel taxes.

Mark;

Keep us updated on the HQM status. I would hate to lose that airport since it is usually just out of the coastal fog line and you can hang out there waiting for Ocean shores or Copalis to clear. Having fuel at the coast is a big bonus as well.

TD