$100 fee

[RogueLeader]

Ambiguity is the key to taxing flexibility.

[bosshawk]

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.

[blackrain]

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.

[FalconHatTrick]

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

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.

[a2capt]

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"

[lordmonar]

If this fee ever gets passed (which I doubt) then CAP will just get another exception to the FARs like we already do. 

[Eclipse]

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. 

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.

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.

[SarDragon]

Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -

"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?

[Spaceman3750]

Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -

"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?

[FalconHatTrick]

Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -

"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

[Eclipse]

Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -

"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.

[sardak]

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.

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
...

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

[SarDragon]

Regarding CAP flights (emphasis mine) -

"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.

[a2capt]

I 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..."

[SarDragon]

OK, here's the quote from simon's link:

This 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:

"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.

[davidsinn]

OK, here's the quote from simon's link:

This 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:

"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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[SarDragon]

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.

[davidsinn]

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.

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.

[FalconHatTrick]

OK, here's the quote from simon's link:

This 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:

"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?