EAA petition against the exhorbitant user fee

denverpilot said:
There's no toll road that will take me somewhere I can't get to on a public road.

I'm not a huge fan of big government, but if they're going to say they run something, they should run it from the existing taxation system completely.
Click to expand...

Cost of providing the service went up. In the old tax scheme everyone buying avgas paid for it, not everyone used it. So in fairness the new costs need to be paid for by the users of those services. I'm not going to Oshkosh why should I pay for the ATC extravaganza?
 
So you got all your trips done last year and now you don't want to pay. Nothing has changed this year other than that the house decided to rake a bigger share of the pot.

ClimbnSink said:
Cost of providing the service went up. In the old tax scheme everyone buying avgas paid for it, not everyone used it. So in fairness the new costs need to be paid for by the users of those services. I'm not going to Oshkosh why should I pay for the ATC extravaganza?
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Cost of providing the service went up. In the old tax scheme everyone buying avgas paid for it, not everyone used it. So in fairness the new costs need to be paid for by the users of those services. I'm not going to Oshkosh why should I pay for the ATC extravaganza?
Click to expand...

A ludicrous premise.

The same reasoning applies to every pilot, every time that pilot flies somewhere without speaking with ATC.
 
SCCutler said:
A ludicrous premise.

The same reasoning applies to every pilot, every time that pilot flies somewhere without speaking with ATC.
Click to expand...

And none of them should be paying for ATC services they don't use. You want ATC then pay for what you use.
 
ClimbnSink said:
And none of them should be paying for ATC services they don't use. You want ATC then pay for what you use.
Click to expand...

The moment ATC vectors an aircraft away from you, you've just used their services. That's the argument I'd make were I them, and I think it's a good one.
 
steingar said:
The moment ATC vectors an aircraft away from you, you've just used their services. That's the argument I'd make were I them, and I think it's a good one.
Click to expand...

How can they vector aircraft away from a non radio non transponder equipped aircraft?
 
steingar said:
But the Conservatives will keep screaming scandal as much, as loud, and as long as they can. Par for the course I guess.
Click to expand...

The tiny-mind Liberals should be pleased, since imitation is a sincere form of flattery.
 
steingar said:
The moment ATC vectors an aircraft away from you, you've just used their services. That's the argument I'd make were I them, and I think it's a good one.
Click to expand...

Yeah........ Till ATC abuses that concept........

I can hear it now..........

Bugsmasher N12345, traffic is 424 miles at your 9 o clock position, advise when you have that traffic in sight...... And the poor fool who is 424 miles away gets a bill from ATC for their services..:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad:;)
 
ClimbnSink said:
How can they vector aircraft away from a non radio non transponder equipped aircraft?
Click to expand...

"Bugsmasher 1234, traffic 11 o'clock and 2 miles eastbound, type and altitude unknown, fly heading 340..."

Hear it plenty. Sometimes they say "slow moving" which generally indicates a large flock of birds, but I've also gotten that call-out without the "slow moving" part and ended up seeing a real airplane.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Cost of providing the service went up. In the old tax scheme everyone buying avgas paid for it, not everyone used it. So in fairness the new costs need to be paid for by the users of those services. I'm not going to Oshkosh why should I pay for the ATC extravaganza?
Click to expand...

Then raise the tax on all users.

What evidence do you have that the costs went up, by the way?

Fuel costs have also gone up and the tax is a percentage, so did their costs rise faster than their revenue rose?

Show your numbers. Otherwise you're just making stuff up to defend their **** poor management.

Was sequestration intended to cut services or cut fat? Which did FAA cut?

Why haven't they detailed their budget shortcomings to Congress, and showed where they've cut all non-essential services and are now down to levying illegal taxes to provide them?

Sorry, I don't believe their BS, and neither should you.
 
Dean V said:
A fixed 19.4 cent tax per gallon is a percentage?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misinformed. Sounds like it should be levied as a percentage of sales price to automatically adjust for the well-known significant annual inflation within our particular choice of Fed policy and overall monetary system.

That'd put small operators who can't negotiate lower prices by flows at a significant disadvantage, however.

Basis for the question still stands, however...

Where is the hard numbers documentation that FAA can't provide critical infrastructure on 19.4 cents per gallon and that they've cut ALL other non-essential services first?

Let's see the balance sheet.
 
None of which covered what the breakdown of costs were between essential services and non-essential services.
 
denverpilot said:
Then raise the tax on all users.
Click to expand...
All users of FAA services or all purchasers of avgas? How about we just send a bill to all rated pilots whether they fly or not, call it a fee for keeping services operational they may want in the future.
denverpilot said:
None of which covered what the breakdown of costs were between essential services and non-essential services.
Click to expand...

What is essential to you and nonessential to me are the same services. Only you want me to help pay for what you think are essential services.
 
It is a bit crazy that the avgas isn't a percentage. It hasn't gone up since I started flying, while the cost of avgas has increased 3 fold.
 
ClimbnSink said:
All users of FAA services or all purchasers of avgas? How about we just send a bill to all rated pilots whether they fly or not, call it a fee for keeping services operational they may want in the future.


What is essential to you and nonessential to me are the same services. Only you want me to help pay for what you think are essential services.
Click to expand...

Purchasers of AvGas. I've obviously been saying for years now the AvGas system is the most efficient of a multitude of inefficient ways to collect from the right people. And not just AvGas, of course... Jet-A also.

Someone sitting at home for ten years with a pilot certificate isn't a user. Period.

Please read my comments literally. I choose the words carefully most of the time. A user cannot possibly be someone not participating anywhere other than in a government propaganda world where numbers of certificates are used to garner budgets. Let's not play those games.

I also disagree with you on the propaganda that there aren't easily definable essentials and non-essentials. That's a common weasel word tactic used to make things seem complex that really aren't.

Case in point: Does anyone NEED the Wings program, or they'll DIE in a flaming fireball? No. Non-essential. Whack it.

Just one of many examples.

Until you kill those items, the "30% over budget reports that don't provide line-item project details, are meaningless.

How about when I say, "Show me the FAA budget" you consider it a request to show me something at least as detailed as a public company 10K and accounting confirmed by something at least as standardized as GAAP.
 
denverpilot said:
Someone sitting at home for ten years with a pilot certificate isn't a user. Period.
Click to expand...

I am in general agreement with you except for this line. But - it's an important distinction. I would say that every person, in every state, in every corner of the country is a user of the NAS system. Therefore, a national tax(in the form of avgas) is justified, and user fees are not.

When you live in St Louis, and you order a Maine lobster, it's a good bet that your lobster came in on a freight plane within the past 36 hours. You ordered lobster, you got lobster, and a plane got it to you - ergo, you are a 'user' of the NAS system. Just as if it were to come to you from a truck(possible of course) paying OTR diesel tax, and other taxes to use I 40. If you ordered a part for your Yugo from Amazon, and you decided to go for the UPS/FedEx shipping, you are a user of the NAS. If you have never sat in any aviation contraption in your life, but you own/rent a home, and drive a car, and eat food - you are a user of the NAS, to some small extent.

This -- is what the framers intended when they wrote those famous words of section 8 of the constitution; 'and the general welfare'. It is beneficial to ALL persons within the confines of the country to have a well established NAS. We all benefit collectively, and even someone as hell-bent on a fee based system of users pay, can see that this approach when done correctly is of very great value to the public.

Now, we get down to the EAA convention. Yes, I can see a justification for a fee based system, but as others have said, not a fee based system PLUS a contribution based on gas, PLUS a general revenue fund, PLUS contributions to the AATF:

Trust Fund revenues are derived from excise taxes on:
Domestic airline passenger tickets
Domestic airline passenger flight segments
International passenger arrivals and departures
Air cargo waybills
Amounts paid for the right to provide mileage awards
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All of these combined sources of funding provide for the benefit of the NAS, whether you fly an exec Falcon at FL380 back and forth across the country every week, or whether you sit in front of the tube and order a pocketwatch from HSN. Or - whether you attend EAA Airventure 2013.

So, we have a gen rev amount, a fuel tax percent, an excise tax, and now, as if that 's not enough, a new user tax. Sorry, not buying.
 
Dean V said:
Maybe you should list some more of the non-essential services you believe should be cut.
Click to expand...

So it's my job to list unknowns at an Agency I pay for? No. Get your head on straight, man. Demand accountability.
 
Dean V said:
So they believe its within their safety mandate to address the issue through a voluntary training program. I will also specuate that the aviation insurance industry and AOPA support the FAA efforts in the Wings program. If the inaurance folks didn't believe the program was valuable, they would not give discounts to those insureds that complete it.

For any service you believe is non-essential, there is likely a group of people supporting it - just like the EAA guys trying to support the tower services at AirVenture even though it would only serve a special interest group.
Click to expand...

Just like everyone's definition of essential is different. I recall a time, not that long ago when the wings program didn't exist. Pilots still flew, people got from A to B, and yet - there was no wings program?

Who created the 'safety mandate' you speak of? Could it be the feds? Were they justified, because of the rate of GA accidents? Well, what is a justifiable rate of accidents in GA? Who gets to decide that question?

Remember, N Korea has a perfect GA accident safety record. Today, it's a voluntary system. Will that be true in 2015? 2020?

Also, at what cost do we reduce the accident rate, and are there definitive studies that show the rate of reduction is a direct result of the wings program? Could it be better avionics, fewer ops than last year? Or something else, not related to the wings program.

No disrespect to the various FAAST members here, but are you really part of a solution, or is it more a function of shining a light on the issue, and the light is the preventative element, and not the training? Is a rash of windshield replacements because the windshields are in fact damaged, or are people simply looking AT the windshield glass and not THROUGH the glass?
 
If the Feds don't want to do their job unless we give them a payout, perhaps with our current unemployment rate, we could find new unemployed folks to take their jobs for less pay.

I say the Feds should fill out a survey for anyone in the FAA that thinks they should only work the EAA if that fee was paid, pink slip em' and post their jobs on monster.
 
Dean V said:
The Wings program has been around for at least 17 years. The "New Wings" program began in 2007, the previous version began in 1996 and there were other safety programs that predated that. Here is a history if you care to read it. http://www.iflyamerica.org/faa_safety_programs.asp this author claims accident rates beginning in the 70s reduced accident rates 60%.
Click to expand...

Geez Dean... Give it a rest... On every thread about the guv being too big and wasteful in their spending, for some reason you always stick up the the feds........

So 400 or so people are killed in aircraft accidents every year.... Almost 50 THOUSAND... 50,000.... people perish in road accidents each year and what does NHTSA do.......:dunno:

Not much ..:no::nonod:

I can't wait for you to stick up for them now..:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Dean V said:
The Wings program has been around for at least 17 years. The "New Wings" program began in 2007, the previous version began in 1996 and there were other safety programs that predated that. Here is a history if you care to read it. http://www.iflyamerica.org/faa_safety_programs.asp this author claims programs beginning in the 70s reduced accident rates 60%.
Click to expand...

Sorry, seems I hit a nerve. OBTW, the 60% reduction was in training accidents after implementation of the flight instructor refresher clinic. What that tells me, is that there was a deficiency in the trainers, and not the GA pilots(once certified). Although I grant you that safety programs are useful.

It still doesn't answer the questions about the cost benefit ratio for the rest of the fee based programs.

Also from your link: If after reading this article, you still have questions or reservations, check out http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/, contact the FAA (they have over 100 people in Safety Program managerial positions at the district, regional and national levels). This tells me that we're spending millions of tax dollars annually for a program developed and managed by the feds, and they have absolutely NO definitive correlation to a reduction in GA accidents or deaths. Maybe the CFI refesher clinic was sorely needed back then, heck maybe it's needed now, but without any statistics to show gains, what do we make of all that money being spent?

More importantly, the question of where will it end? Mandatory training? More per-flight oversight? Added new airspace restrictions on GA planes? All this and more is tied to FAA spending and now user fees. Will it ever be reduced?
 
And why would I as the customer care what the vendor thinks is essential when I'm paying?
 
AOPA already handles the Wings qualifying seminars part VERY efficiently online, they may even be free to all, not sure.

Why not yank it from the FAA and let AOPA handle all voluntary CFI submitted Wings applications for those that voluntarily wish slightly higher flight training standards than a conventional, required BFR and then qualify to receive already available insurance deductions associated with same that more than offset the cost of the additional flight training?

denverpilot said:
Purchasers of AvGas. I've obviously been saying for years now the AvGas system is the most efficient of a multitude of inefficient ways to collect from the right people. And not just AvGas, of course... Jet-A also.

Someone sitting at home for ten years with a pilot certificate isn't a user. Period.

Please read my comments literally. I choose the words carefully most of the time. A user cannot possibly be someone not participating anywhere other than in a government propaganda world where numbers of certificates are used to garner budgets. Let's not play those games.

I also disagree with you on the propaganda that there aren't easily definable essentials and non-essentials. That's a common weasel word tactic used to make things seem complex that really aren't.

Case in point: Does anyone NEED the Wings program, or they'll DIE in a flaming fireball? No. Non-essential. Whack it.

Just one of many examples.

Until you kill those items, the "30% over budget reports that don't provide line-item project details, are meaningless.

How about when I say, "Show me the FAA budget" you consider it a request to show me something at least as detailed as a public company 10K and accounting confirmed by something at least as standardized as GAAP.
Click to expand...
 
I'm still wondering who the mystery underwriter is that gives a significant discount for participating in Wings.

Meanwhile, here in reality... Insurance companies do a pretty good job of fixing many "safety" issues with specific aircraft by jacking up rates until you meet their requirements, which usually top the FAA ones.
 
I asked my insurance guy and he said he was already giving me the wings discount and then I asked what it was, and he said it was a flat $62/year. Which is nothing to sneeze at, but maybe 12 gallons of avgas? 1.5 hours of fuel flight time.

I have only done one wings program in the past 24 months, and it sounded to me like the wings credit was some check mark on the insurance form that everyone got checked, no matter if they had current wings credit or not. He just marked it off as done to get me the discount. I have a very nice insurance agent....
 
Pretty sure we're all paying more than $62/year to keep it operating. That's a Net loss.
 
Insurance-required training is hands-down better than no training, but there's no pass-fail evaluation to determine if the trainee has in fact progressed to the level that he should be able to demonstrate consistently as PIC. So the industry continues its superficial wishy-washy "train to proficiency" practices that allow many of these pilots to fly around in airplanes in which they are hanging on by their fingernails.

And the FIRC program is as big a joke as the Flight Review program. During 30-some years as a CFI I've qualified by activity about half of them and done the FIRC for the others. I'd challenge anybody who has ever sat through one of those mind-numbing weekends to show any tangible benefit other than perhaps a couple of naps and escaping the honey-do list at home.


denverpilot said:
I'm still wondering who the mystery underwriter is that gives a significant discount for participating in Wings.

Meanwhile, here in reality... Insurance companies do a pretty good job of fixing many "safety" issues with specific aircraft by jacking up rates until you meet their requirements, which usually top the FAA ones.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
It is a bit crazy that the avgas isn't a percentage. It hasn't gone up since I started flying, while the cost of avgas has increased 3 fold.
Click to expand...

consider possible unintended consequences of that: What incentive does the government have to help keep the cost of fuel low? Consider how unhappy the tax-happy zombies would be if prices fell?
 
So now we got two guys on here who don't understand the terms.
 
Are you calling tea-partyers crooks?

Dean V said:
They are all hooked up wth death and taxes. Tea partyers run around complaining about taxes and holding signs say liberty or death. I'll pay taxes thank you.
Click to expand...
 
You're the one that started it, why didn't you take it there?

Dean V said:
Well, I could get names, then you would ask me to prove they are tea party members. Take the TP stuff to the spin zone.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top