If you are an AOPA member you have probably been reading about the Obama administrations plan to charge us $100 for each flight. This will probably stop me from flying if it applies to CAP missions and training. >:(
The taxes and fees that are in store for Americans are unbelievable. If you live in CA, start saving your pennies for our $100Billion high speed rail project so you can ride a train from LA to SF! They swear its going to save CA. And I sit in on their meetings, I hear it.
As far as the fee to fly, just one more nail in the coffin. http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120113white-house-aviation-user-fee-response.html (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120113white-house-aviation-user-fee-response.html)
this is actually kind of old news, but there is supposed to be an exemption for most GA flights. I forget which article this was in but... "All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted." So, while this is bad (the taxes on AVGas are for providing the funds that the proposed fee is supposedly for), it's not as bad as the AOPA is trying to make it...
Class E, which is pretty much everything we fly in, is controlled.
Quote from: whatevah on January 21, 2012, 01:13:20 AM
this is actually kind of old news, but there is supposed to be an exemption for most GA flights. I forget which article this was in but... "All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted." So, while this is bad (the taxes on AVGas are for providing the funds that the proposed fee is supposedly for), it's not as bad as the AOPA is trying to make it...
The article is a week old?
the article you posted is new, but I was replying to the first post. They've been talking about the fee for a couple months.
Quote from: simon on January 21, 2012, 01:14:59 AM
Class E, which is pretty much everything we fly in, is controlled.
I can see it now... Everyone trying to stay below 1200ft AGL.
Some of you folks are not listening: piston engined aircraft are currently exempted, as the proposal is written. Last I heard, CAP did not have an turbine aircraft, so all CAP aircraft will be exempt.
So will my Bonanza.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 21, 2012, 01:06:15 AM
The taxes and fees that are in store for Americans are unbelievable. If you live in CA, start saving your pennies for our $100Billion high speed rail project so you can ride a train from LA to SF! They swear its going to save CA. And I sit in on their meetings, I hear it.
The fed tried to force that BS on us. We said we'd be happy to take that money and use it to fix our roads and bridges. They said no. We told them to take their money and do something impolite with it.
I don't really understand what the heart burn is all about.
Yes it is expensive....but so are all the Airport/ATC services that the FAA and Federal Government provides. Aren't we supposed to be reducing the deficit? To do that we either reduce services.....close airports or raise fees and taxes.
I don't like it. I really don't. But how do you balance the two needs?
QuoteI can see it now... Everyone trying to stay below 1200ft AGL.
The only upside being it should be good for CAP business.
QuoteSome of you folks are not listening: piston engined aircraft are currently exempted, as the proposal is written. Last I heard, CAP did not have an turbine aircraft, so all CAP aircraft will be exempt.
So will my Bonanza.
I am not so sure. Neither is AOPA. The language proposed by the fed is so ambiguous that nobody is quite sure EXACTLY what the fed intends. Currently, there are no user fees in the US. Full stop. But here is the wording from the fed:
Quote...the Administration proposed to establish a new surcharge for air traffic services...the proposed $100 per flight fee...all piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace...would be exempted.
BTW, if anybody can tell me what "public aircraft" are, I'd be interested.
So if you are a "piston aircraft" (exempt) operating "inside controlled airspace (e.g. Class E)" (not exempt), does that mean you pay $100? What if you are inside controlled airspace but don't talk to a controller? What if you have your aircraft based at a towered airport like Sonoma but never use Norcal after you leave? Do you still have to pay $100?
It's all very confusing.
Here is a link to the actual draft legislation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf)
"All flights that use controlled air space require a similar level of air traffic control services."
Any pilot or controller knows this is just wrong. You can fly across the country and not talk to anyone.
I just got back from a month in Australia, a country that should be heavenly for flying. General Aviation was killed in the 80's by a couple of people who convinced the government to privatize everything. Now it is $30 to land at our local airport. EVERY LANDING. Some airports at $50. It costs $50 to get an IFR clearance. Every time. Now the only people who fly are the wealthy and die hard GA pilots who scud run rather than get a clearance. GA is dead there. We were all soft soaped the same way - "Oh, it's only a couple of bucks here and there". It was the thin end of the wedge and the costs went up and up and up. While some would say the European ATC system is excellent, in the US the fantastic part is that it is open and encourages people to use it, build their skills and share the skies safely with other aircraft. The FAA is funded now by excise taxes and fees. It is paid for. This is just another layer of taxes.
People come from all over the world to learn to fly in the US. Commercial pilots as well. We all know flying is expensive. If the government starts charging for ATC, that will drive a stake through the industry. I watched it happen in Australia. Ask anyone who has flown in Europe as well.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2012, 06:30:07 AM
I don't really understand what the heart burn is all about.
Yes it is expensive....but so are all the Airport/ATC services that the FAA and Federal Government provides. Aren't we supposed to be reducing the deficit? To do that we either reduce services.....close airports or raise fees and taxes.
I don't like it. I really don't. But how do you balance the two needs?
I'm for just raising fuel taxes if they have to have more money. Creating a separate fee with a separate method to collect it would not reduce the deficit as much due to the cost of collecting.
If piston aircraft will be exempt, will we see the return of the DC-6? Hmm....
The proposed legislation will go no where. The house leadership already said this is a "non starter". As in previous years, I don't think this is much to worry about. The aviation "trust fund" is solid. Aviation taxes are already paying "our" way quite well and, I don't hear anybody except the airlines complaining about GA.
Quote from: simon on January 21, 2012, 09:08:07 AM
BTW, if anybody can tell me what "public aircraft" are, I'd be interested.
I can help there. According to 49 U.S.C. ยง 40102
Quote(41) "public aircraft" means any of the following:
(A) Except with respect to an aircraft described in
subparagraph (E), an aircraft used only for the United States
Government, except as provided in section 40125(b).
(B) An aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any
person for purposes related to crew training, equipment
development, or demonstration, except as provided in section
40125(b).
(C) An aircraft owned and operated by the government of a
State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession
of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these
governments, except as provided in section 40125(b).
(D) An aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous
days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or
a territory or possession of the United States or a political
subdivision of one of these governments, except as provided in
section 40125(b).
(E) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or
chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces under
the conditions specified by section 40125(c).
I think there are some members on here that operate law enforcement aircraft under this definition that can probably shed more light onto it.
Mark
Now that some change you can belive in! We should just move towards a goverment run/controlled air line. It worked for years in mother Russia.
Quote from: eaker.cadet on January 21, 2012, 05:32:03 PM
Now that some change you can belive in! We should just move towards a goverment run/controlled air line. It worked for years in mother Russia.
And Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Spain, in fact just about every major country except the United States.
I seem to recall from the AIM that "controlled airspace' refers to that airspace above 18000 ft MSL. Some of our posters are trying to make Class B, C, D, E and G controlled airspace and I do not think that the FAA has stated that. For all practical uses, Class B and C are controlled by the respective TRACONs and towers, but I don't think that they are considered "controlled".
OK, guys, get out the FARs and make me a liar. I am too lazy to do it.
QuoteSection 2. Controlled Airspace
3-2-1. General
a. Controlled Airspace. A generic term that covers the different classification of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace) and defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. (See FIG 3-2-1.)
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/chap3/aim0302.html (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/chap3/aim0302.html)
QuoteI seem to recall from the AIM that "controlled airspace' refers to that airspace above 18000 ft MSL. Some of our posters are trying to make Class B, C, D, E and G controlled airspace and I do not think that the FAA has stated that. For all practical uses, Class B and C are controlled by the respective TRACONs and towers, but I don't think that they are considered "controlled".
Any instructor that should be instructing would most likely say that it is basically everything except Class G. Unless one owns a Cub, I'd consider everywhere we fly technically as "controlled". I have never quite understood the definition applying to Class E - people flying around all day in Class E, not talking to anyone yet it is "Controlled Airspace". I guess maybe another way of looking it is that the only place ATC can't control a pilot is in Class G - that close to the ground (If you are not in an airport's tower controlled airspace and further away than the controlled space in the approach path).
But I hope everyone gets my point about the Fed's plan being poorly written. Their intentions are unclear.
Ambiguity is the key to taxing flexibility.
Well, that is what I get for not reading the FARs. You are correct, the FAA usually doesn't make their directions clear, except those from some controllers.
On the issue of what constitutes a "public aircraft" Wasn't it back in the 80s that the FAA decided CAP Aircraft were not considered public aircraft? Anyone know why wouldn't CAP Aircraft be considered public aircraft or what the FAA reasoning was? If CAP aircraft could be considered public aircraft that should settle the whole fee issue. Maybe we could get Congress to define CAP Aircraft that way and take the FAA out of it completely.
my $0.02... as a devil's advocate of sorts.
IMHO,
Wouldn't CAP aircraft be considered private use, AKA Corporately owned/operated? Using the FAA N-number look up, N17NJ:
- Cessna 172P, Registered to Civil Air Patrol, INC. Maxwell AFB, AL.
- Registration Type: Corporation
Therefore, as an "Aviation Operator", we would have to pay the per flight fee on missions performed on behalf of national/region/wing etc., would we be under another "law" for AF assigned missions, I don't know, it would depend on how those flights are defined by the FAA.
On the other hand, N4NJ:
- Bell OH-58 Helicopter. Registered Owner: The State of New Jersey
- Registration Type: Government
That would be considered a Public Use aircraft according to 49 U.S.C. 40102. So therefore they would be exempt. IMHO, the difference between the two is the registration type.
What about flight training or rental, they are considered recreational piston aircraft right? Sort of... Flight training wouldn't be considered recreational use. It would be considered a product used in a service therefore, the aircraft being used is most likely owned/leased by a corporation (Inc, Corp, LLC, etc.) would no longer be considered a recreational use piston aircraft. Yet, what if you rent an airplane from an FBO/Flight School for personal use. Would that then be considered recreational use. Yet, a majority of the friends of mine who own their own aircraft have it registered as corporation, would they be then considered a recreational piston aircraft?
Lastly, how would the FAA know who I am, if I was giving flight lessons in a 172, squawking 1200, and not using flight following, in Class E airspace, from one uncontrolled field to another? If they didn't know who I am, how can I be charged? Is the FAA going to post inspectors at every airport and write down tail numbers then cross reference that to radar returns based on the approximate time I landed. That sounds like a lot of effort to collect a $100 fee from a flight school. Or would I only be charged if I utilized flight following, therefore I flew in "controlled airspace" without being charged.
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, its my interpretation of the current legislation here: pages 22 and 23 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf)
I feel like the FAA needs to define "aviation operator" and "recreational piston aircraft".
Just asking some questions, everything above is just my opinion, not actual fact.. maybe some of the pilots with more time than me can shed some light on the topics I brought up. YMMV.
Well- just looking at NTSB reports I always see that CAP operates under Part 91.
On the fee, my first thought was ... "as long as they have a burger chute someplace... we'll be fine"
If this fee ever gets passed (which I doubt) then CAP will just get another exception to the FARs like we already do.
Quote from: Gomes on January 24, 2012, 12:54:07 AMTherefore, as an "Aviation Operator", we would have to pay the per flight fee on missions performed on behalf of national/region/wing etc., would we be under another "law" for AF assigned missions, I don't know, it would depend on how those flights are defined by the FAA.
The vast majority of flying are AFAMS already. If this gets people to stop flying C's and process A's & B's, I'll sign it.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 02:03:24 AM
If this fee ever gets passed (which I doubt) then CAP will just get another exception to the FARs like we already do.
I agree - there's not much point in taxing yourself, and the majority of the revenue would just be a paper shuffle from one federal account to another,
with no actual net gain.
Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -
Quote"All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."
How many non-piston aircraft does CAP own?
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -
Quote"All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."
How many non-piston aircraft does CAP own?
How many gliders and balloons do we own?
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -
Quote"All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."
How many non-piston aircraft does CAP own?
Where in the legislation does it say all piston aircraft. According to what I have found it only mentions recreational piston aircraft
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 24, 2012, 02:49:03 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -
Quote"All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."
How many non-piston aircraft does CAP own?
How many gliders and balloons do we own?
Very few that land or takeoff at airports.
QuoteOn the issue of what constitutes a "public aircraft" Wasn't it back in the 80s that the FAA decided CAP Aircraft were not considered public aircraft? Anyone know why wouldn't CAP Aircraft be considered public aircraft or what the FAA reasoning was? If CAP aircraft could be considered public aircraft that should settle the whole fee issue. Maybe we could get Congress to define CAP Aircraft that way and take the FAA out of it completely.
QuoteWouldn't CAP aircraft be considered private use, AKA Corporately owned/operated? Using the FAA N-number look up, N17NJ:
* Cessna 172P, Registered to Civil Air Patrol, INC. Maxwell AFB, AL.
* Registration Type: Corporation
...
On the other hand, N4NJ:
* Bell OH-58 Helicopter. Registered Owner: The State of New Jersey
* Registration Type: Government
That would be considered a Public Use aircraft according to 49 U.S.C. 40102. So therefore they would be exempt. IMHO, the difference between the two is the registration type.
Correct, except for the date. In 2001, the NTSB, at the request of Congress, looked at public use aircraft accidents from 1993 to 2000. Among its findings was that the FAA included CAP flying hours in the public use aircraft total. The NTSB issued safety recommendation A-01-079 to the FAA to remove CAP from public use aircraft statistics. The NTSB report, NTSB/SS-01/01, includes an appendix describing why CAP shouldn't be included, but that including CAP hours had negligible effect on the results.
The NTSB rationale was that CAP aircraft are owned by a private corporation and CAP flights are not considered public aircraft operations under current law. [then and now] The FAA agreed and answered the NTSB in 2010 (not in much of a hurry to answer) that CAP has been removed from public use aircraft stats in its Annual Survey since 2004.
Also, this "draft legislation" that is being thrown around is not draft legislation. It's a statement contained in an OMB report (which AOPA refers to as a draft plan) that states "recreational piston aircraft."
Mike
Quote from: Gomes on January 24, 2012, 03:12:20 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 02:22:08 AM
Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -
Quote"All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted."
How many non-piston aircraft does CAP own?
Where in the legislation does it say all piston aircraft. According to what I have found it only mentions recreational piston aircraft
I snatched the quote from a prior post. I confess to not having gone all the way back to any original source.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 07:54:18 AMI snatched the quote from a prior post. I confess to not having gone all the way back to any original source.
Tisk tisk ... and you would have taken someone else to task for a "I heard it from a friend who's mom said her daughter's unit commander said..." :)
OK, here's the quote from simon's link:
Quote from: Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future
The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
September 2011
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
BUDGET.GOVThis proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Here's a quote from a Jan 14 article, on
Aero News Network:
Quote"The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community. All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
The water looks a little muddy from my seat on the bank.
From what I've just read, this is a proposal, nothing more. There doesn't even appear to be a draft bill yet. About 25% of the members of Congress have expressed disapproval of the idea.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 11:23:15 PM
OK, here's the quote from simon's link:
Quote from: Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future
The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
September 2011
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
BUDGET.GOVThis proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Here's a quote from a Jan 14 article, on Aero News Network:
Quote"The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community. All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
The water looks a little muddy from my seat on the bank.
From what I've just read, this is a proposal, nothing more. There doesn't even appear to be a draft bill yet. About 25% of the members of Congress have expressed disapproval of the idea.
From the way I read that it looks like the only class not exempted is airliners and
private jets...
Also crop dusters. That would destroy crop dusting and really jack up agriculture in most areas.
Crop dusters operating outside of controlled air space would not have to pay.
At the most it would raise the cost of the "job" a few hundred dollars....but I don't see it destroying anything.
I the Agri buisness relies that badly on crop dusting...the growers will pay...and pass the cost onto the consumers.
Why not crop dusters? Most of the ones I've seen in the last 20 years have had "round" engines. AFAIK, "round" engines all have pistons.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 11:36:28 PM
Why not crop dusters? Most of the ones I've seen in the last 20 years have had "round" engines. AFAIK, "round" engines all have pistons.
They're commercial not recreational. Also most are turbines now and there are helicopter dusters.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 11:36:09 PM
Crop dusters operating outside of controlled air space would not have to pay.
At the most it would raise the cost of the "job" a few hundred dollars....but I don't see it destroying anything.
I the Agri buisness relies that badly on crop dusting...the growers will pay...and pass the cost onto the consumers.
A duster can land and restock a dozen or more times in a day. Most ag is fairly thin margins and farmers do not get to pass costs onto consumers. Ag is price taking not price setting. Believe it or not but there are farms inside controlled airspace too.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 24, 2012, 11:29:11 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2012, 11:23:15 PM
OK, here's the quote from simon's link:
Quote from: Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future
The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
September 2011
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
BUDGET.GOVThis proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
Here's a quote from a Jan 14 article, on Aero News Network:
Quote"The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community. All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
The water looks a little muddy from my seat on the bank.
From what I've just read, this is a proposal, nothing more. There doesn't even appear to be a draft bill yet. About 25% of the members of Congress have expressed disapproval of the idea.
From the way I read that it looks like the only class not exempted is airliners and private jets...
Also crop dusters. That would destroy crop dusting and really jack up agriculture in most areas.
Clear as mud right?
I bet they intended it to be just airlines and private jets, but they need to work on the wording first.
And the user fee debate has been proposed every year for the past 3-4 years, but never actually gets put into the budget. This year is different because they actually gave some definition to what the fee would be.
I still want to know what they mean by aviation operators and recreational piston aircraft and what exactly is meant by flying in controlled airspace. Does that mean the simple fact entering class E airspace, or actually utilizing ATC services?
You know, I think that a fee of $100 per flight (i.e. per steel tube in its entirety) would somehow be interpreted by the airline industry as a good reason to raise rates $100 per ticket (or some other similarly horrendous number that doesn't make any sense).
I don't think this would pass the house. To me it looks like the current administration is going after the private jet holders... aka Millionaires. I can see it now..... Cessna 172 33W slow down to below 250 knots. (As the lear jets uses a 172 plane designations on its flight plan to avoid $100.00. fee.)