ATC User Fees

[inav8r]

I know (thankfully) that the AOPA is working really hard to stop both the privatization of ATC as well as prevent user fees. (Related link: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050426funding.html)

I'm scared myself because I can see these special interest groups lobbying until it eventually becomes a reality...

I know other countries do it, and I was wondering how it worked. I sure hope it doesn't happen something like this in the future:

"big city approach, bugsmasher 123 request VFR traffic advisories."

"bugsmasher 123, big city, squawk 0123 and say credit card number and exp date"

 

[poadeleted3]

User fees will happen. What ya'll need to decide is whether or not you are going to be willing to fly VFR without flight following (I don't have a problem never talking to ATC, personally), whether you are going to pay to support an ATC system run by and for the airlines, or whether you are going to quit flying.

AOPA can yammer all it wants, but the airlines have way more money and clout than we do, and they are waving the false hope that we can somehow support the ATC system they primarily benefit from. Sooner or later, they'll be able to buy their votes.

 

[BillG]

Joe is probably right, but I really like flight following when on a VFR trip somewhere. It was REALLY nice to have some help when my engine hiccupped and belched last trip. Yes, I could have found the airport I ended up at anyway and no, I didn't need the police to show up (thankfully), but I was glad for the help anyway. Unfortunately if I had to pay for the service I would have been on my own.

 

[acrodisiac]

The Canadian experience.

Well, it works OK. That's the short answer.

For we little guys the financial burden is no big deal , C$70 bucks or so annually.
The services given is good, but...........

We used to get this same service provided via our tax dollars. No better/no worse. We still pay big taxes and now have to cough up another 60 bucks a year plus p-off our US neigbours with a surprise navigation service bill whenever they visit this side of the border.

Our air navigation service is no different than highway signs and other tranportation infrasturcture that is all paid with our tax dollars. It should be no different with aviation, but here we are. We are SO special .

We as tax payers, in our respective countries,have already paid for the aviation infrastructure and continue to pay and will continue to pay even when privatization of those services happens.

I don't mind paying my share, but I only want to pay ONCE!
Keep up the good fight,

 

[Anthony]

Since the airlines use ATC services all the time and way more than GA, wouldn't the cost impact the airlines more? What am I missing?

 

[wsuffa]

Since the airlines use ATC services all the time and way more than GA, wouldn't the cost impact the airlines more? What am I missing?

It might, but the airlines will have more influence over the system. Since they see GA as competition for airspace, airports, and revenue, it means that their influence will be to marginalize the service that GA gets.

You get what you pay for.

 

[MSmith]

Would this be charged per plane, or per pilot?

 

[Razor]

I know (thankfully) that the AOPA is working really hard to stop both the privatization of ATC as well as prevent user fees. (Related link: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050426funding.html)

I'm scared myself because I can see these special interest groups lobbying until it eventually becomes a reality...:

Unfortunately, we are also a special interest group. With only about 600,000 members (certificated pilots, not AOPA), we're really a very small voice.

Good for AOPA for trying, and there are a precious few congressmen/women on our side, but it's like we're holding on by our fingertips and slowly sliding over the edge of the cliff.

My opinion is that user fees will become a reality in the near future. The question is how much I'm willing to pay on top of club/rental fees. If I'm taking a vacation, I'd factor that into the cost. If I'm flying for pancakes, I can probably do so without talking to ATC or filing a flight plan (until they make that mandatory too ).

Unfortunately, change is inevitable. Grass roots aviation may soon be a thing of the past. I for one intend to enjoy what I've got while I have it. As hard as we try to stop the tidal wave, I don't think we can hold it back much longer. I sure hope I'm wrong.

Carolyn

 

[acrodisiac]

Commercial Aviation vs. GA. ATC fees

We have manged to negotiate a service fee based upon aircraft gross weight. That is why we pay "only" 70 bucks (under 10,500 lbs) The airlines pay huge. In fact the cost has been blamed for part of Air Canada's fincancial woes that led to bankruptcy.
Nav Canada keeps upping the amount and keeps lobbying for more. It is a tough fight but it is a much easeir battle BEFORE service fees become mandated. Keep fighitn it.

 

[Dave Blackmon]

Re: I wonder...

...what the fuel tax generated amount is for General Aviation alone?
Perhaps there should be a seperate GA ATC system...privatized even...

FWIW,

Dave

 

[AdamZ]

(I don't have a problem never talking to ATC, personally),

You will if you go for that IR!

 

[wsuffa]

Re: I wonder...

...
Perhaps there should be a seperate GA ATC system...privatized even...
FWIW,

Dave

And how would you propose to go into airports that have commercial service/commercial aircraft ATC?

 

[poadeleted3]

(I don't have a problem never talking to ATC, personally),

You will if you go for that IR!

I would not bother with the IR if I didn't need it for future tickets/endeavors. I would concentrate on improving other areas of my flying. For my hobby flying, I want to see the scenery, and regard single pilot IFR as an unacceptable risk for my family. Just my personal feelings, but I don't foresee ever doing it. If I'm weathered in somewhere and just have to get back, I'll rent a car.

 

[wsuffa]

I would not bother with the IR if I didn't need it for future tickets/endeavors. I would concentrate on improving other areas of my flying. For my hobby flying, I want to see the scenery, and regard single pilot IFR as an unacceptable risk for my family. Just my personal feelings, but I don't foresee ever doing it. If I'm weathered in somewhere and just have to get back, I'll rent a car.

in my experience, getting the IR makes one a better pilot (just like getting the commercial). How so? Because you have to learn careful control of the airplane.

It also, IMHO, adds another layer of safety, because you've developed skills that could bail you out if the weather goes to cr^p while you're up there. A large portion of VFR aircraft accidents are caused by VFR into IMC.

That is my opinion, and only my opinion. FOlks may never want to get an IR, and they don't have to....

Isn't it a great country where we have the ability to choose the level of skills we want to develop?

 

[Maverick]

I would not bother with the IR if I didn't need it for future tickets/endeavors. I would concentrate on improving other areas of my flying. For my hobby flying, I want to see the scenery, and regard single pilot IFR as an unacceptable risk for my family. Just my personal feelings, but I don't foresee ever doing it. If I'm weathered in somewhere and just have to get back, I'll rent a car.

The got my instrument rating for those occasions where the weather wasn't really bad but bad enough to prevent going somewhere without it. Not an uncommon occurrence in Michigan. One such case was a trip I took to Memphis for a get together with pilots from another group I belong to. The trip had been planned for some time and on that weekend there was low overcast stretching from the Michigan Ohio border to and well beyond Memphis, it went on as far as the eye could see. Tops were around 3,000 and ceilings along the route were right around 1,000. Of course this prevented many VFR pilots from making the trip unless by car.

My flight was beautiful. Granted I didn't see the ground after leaving Michigan but the air above the clouds was so smooth and the sun was shining so brightly, it was just a beautiful site to see. my approach into Memphis International was a piece of cake. A descent through a 2,000 ft. cloud layer breaking out at 1,000 AGL on the ILS approach.

My idea of instrument flying has always been trips like this. Climb through the cloud layer to the smooth air above and enjoy the flight.

On another occasion I was returning from Oshkosh at night and there were reports of thunder storms in Michigan. Radar also showed some activity in eastern Michigan. Since my airplane is equipped with a working storm scope and western Michigan was pretty clear I decided to file IFR and head for home thinking I could always set down somewhere if need be. The entire trip home was uneventful. The storm activity that had been in Eastern Michigan had either moved on or dissipated long before I arrived at my home base. I certainly would not have even thought of making such a trip without the instrument rating or the storm scope.

I usually file IFR when taking a trip even in good weather, especially long trips to unfamiliar areas. It guarantees flight following where as VFR pilots often have difficulty maintaining flight following from one controlled airspace to another. Between the preflight briefing and direction from ATC I don't have to worry about busting TFRs either.

The instrument rating sure beats scud running. Not that I have ever done that but I know there are pilots that do.

Even with an instrument rating, a pilot has to know and act within their own personal limitations / minimums as well as the FAA minimums. Stretching those limits are what gets folks in trouble.

Jeannie

 

[Dave Blackmon]

Re: I wonder...

And how would you propose to go into airports that have commercial service/commercial aircraft ATC?

Well, I guess that would be a detail to work out...could be a use based pro-rate of fuel tax monies paying a share of fixed costs...

--I have never heard Dogbert use this line!

 

[Lance F]

Flying IFR at the lower altitudes I normally use, I get worked by a LOT of military approach facilities. As a taxpayer I already pay these guys, and they're not going to go away no matter what happens to the FAas ATC. Has anybody heard how user fees would apply to the use of these military facilities?
In my opinion the more one looks at the details of the user fee concept, the less sense it makes.

 

[mdreger]

In my opinion the more one looks at the details of the user fee concept, the less sense it makes.

That's because you are looking at it from a pilot/taxpayer/logical position. Look at it from the bureaucrat position.

They aren't going to lower fuel taxes, landing fees, licensing, or anything else. They are going to levy a brand new set of fees. More money for them to spend on their pet projects.