Main Menu

$100 fee

Started by scooter, January 21, 2012, 01:02:51 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scooter

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.  >:(

Flying Pig

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

whatevah

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... 
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin

simon

Class E, which is pretty much everything we fly in, is controlled.

Flying Pig

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?

whatevah

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.
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin

Chief2009

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.
"To some the sky is the limit. To others it is home" — Unknown
Dan Nelson, 1st Lt, CAP
Deputy Commander for Cadets
Illinois Valley Composite Squadron GLR-IL-284

bosshawk

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.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

♠SARKID♠

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.

lordmonar

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?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

simon

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

"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.

peter rabbit

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.

Pump Scout

If piston aircraft will be exempt, will we see the return of the DC-6? Hmm....

FW

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.

Mark_Wheeler

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. § 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

Persona non grata

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. 
Rock, Flag & Eagle.........

PHall

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.

bosshawk

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.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

lordmonar

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

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

simon

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.