Oregon Requires Pilot Registration?

[Keane]

We were going over the rules in order to get our plane registered in the state of Oregon, and discovered this:

From the Oregon Dept of Aviation. Not just the airplane needs to register. Who knew?

It has come to our attention that many may not realize there is a law requiring pilots and aircraft based in Oregon to​

be registered in Oregon and pay the appropriate registration fees. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 837 specifically​

states within 60 days of any type of federal pilot license or registration, the pilot or aircraft must be registered in Oregon.​

For Oregon-based pilots, this means paying a $12 registration fee for the initial year then $24 for a two year​

renewal.

I checked the law, and it seems to say exactly that: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
See .025

Interestingly enough, it also says that ALL pilots flying in Oregon are required to register as well, except in Commercial Operations! So, if travel through Oregon, you're supposed to pay the fee.

Is this a legitimate thing? I hadn't heard of this at all, my CFI never mentioned it and I never heard about it before.

 

[ghogue]

We were going over the rules in order to get our plane registered in the state of Oregon, and discovered this:


I checked the law, and it seems to say exactly that: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
See .025

Interestingly enough, it also says that ALL pilots flying in Oregon are required to register as well, except in Commercial Operations! So, if travel through Oregon, you're supposed to pay the fee.

Is this a legitimate thing? I hadn't heard of this at all, my CFI never mentioned it and I never heard about it before.

When I lived in Oregon all our pilots had the Oregon registration. Our company always handled the paperwork and paid the fees, so I wasn't to concerned with the reason behind it. Just put it in my wallet and went about my business. At one time I read that it was more or less just a fee intended to help cover the costs of search and rescue, but not sure if that was accurate.

Here's a link to the Oregon Department of Aviation website.
http://www.oregon.gov/Aviation/pilotreg.shtml

 

[Keane]

I saw that as well in my research, but it is something I'd never heard of, and has never been mentioned to me!

I understand that aircraft registration is something that some states make you do, but even those seem iffy to me.

How is this not a violation of full-faith and credit?

 

[Tom-D]

I saw that as well in my research, but it is something I'd never heard of, and has never been mentioned to me!

I understand that aircraft registration is something that some states make you do, but even those seem iffy to me.

How is this not a violation of full-faith and credit?

Wa. is the same, we pay and pay and get nothing.. there is a time limit on how long you can operate in the state with out paying the registration.

There is an exemption for unairworthy aircraft.

 

[Ddayle]

Wa. is the same, we pay and pay and get nothing..

NOTHING? Wow, I feel the privilege of living here in the GREAT NW. Particularly to be able to live in Washington to be of tremendous value. If you think there is no value living here, if you are getting "nothing " out of it, why haven't you left? Dave

 

[Tom-D]

NOTHING? Wow, I feel the privilege of living here in the GREAT NW. Particularly to be able to live in Washington to be of tremendous value. If you think there is no value living here, if you are getting "nothing " out of it, why haven't you left? Dave

It ain't about living here, its about paying bull sh-- taxes and getting nothing for them.

 

[denverpilot]

Makes me even more proud to live in a State with normal to lowish taxes, no pilot "registrations" to pay for, and politicians who created a State Division of Aeronautics that produces a color Airport Guidebook, pays to fill in AWOS data where the FAA chose not to in mountainous terrain.

The State also makes funds available to handle the majority of maintenance on Civil Air Patrol aircraft through a different State organization that picks up where National can't, so the fleet is ready at all times to be a resource to the State.

How government ever got these things right here, I have no idea, being a skeptic of most government endeavors. Of course our State government is mostly made up of no-nonsense rural folk from outside Denver.

Denver City & County government is a whole different ballgame.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Makes me even more proud to live in a State with normal to lowish taxes, no pilot "registrations" to pay for, and politicians who created a State Division of Aeronautics that produces a color Airport Guidebook, pays to fill in AWOS data where the FAA chose not to in mountainous terrain.

But, I believe your state is also one of the ones where seaplanes aren't allowed to land on any body of water unless it's specifically permitted. Fail.

 

[denverpilot]

But, I believe your state is also one of the ones where seaplanes aren't allowed to land on any body of water unless it's specifically permitted. Fail.

Good point. We've mentioned that on the podcast once, I think, too. And at least one guy I know refuses to join the Colo. Pilot's Assn. over it. He wants them to battle for it.

We have very few bodies of water that are big enough, that don't have 100 mad boaters doing laps on them, and they're virtually all man-made and ultra-busy recreation areas. I'm sure reasonable mixed use could be done, but there'd have to be a pretty big education campaign for the boaters. Most of our rivers aren't deep or wide enough.

Someone pointed out somewhere that this was due to Colorado not signing on to some 1920's-1930' agreement with the Feds that made some change to the ownership of the waterways but also did something to the legal liability for future aircraft accidents on bodies of water, too?

Being that water is regularly scarce and we sell an awful lot of it downstream, I'd guess that the Colorado government at that time wanted nothing to do with letting Washington touch water rights out here back then. Wars have started over water out here on the high plains.

 

[ScottM]

We were going over the rules in order to get our plane registered in the state of Oregon, and discovered this:


I checked the law, and it seems to say exactly that: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/837.html
See .025

Interestingly enough, it also says that ALL pilots flying in Oregon are required to register as well, except in Commercial Operations! So, if travel through Oregon, you're supposed to pay the fee.

Is this a legitimate thing? I hadn't heard of this at all, my CFI never mentioned it and I never heard about it before.

There is a similiar fee in Illinois. Ours is $20 biennially. As far as I know though if you are an out of state pilot passing through you are not required to pay the fee.

 

[steingar]

I don't think we have a fee for pilots, but there is a registration fee for aircraft. I don't mind paying in the slightest. They do some upkeep on airports, and my hangar rent is so heavily subsidized I can't complain about anything.

 

[Clark1961]

But, I believe your state is also one of the ones where seaplanes aren't allowed to land on any body of water unless it's specifically permitted. Fail.

Ya gots to 'member that Colorado has two floatplane/amphib suitable bodies of water and one of those is actually in Nebraska.

 

[murphey]

RE: Seaplanes

Good point. We've mentioned that on the podcast once, I think, too. And at least one guy I know refuses to join the Colo. Pilot's Assn. over it. He wants them to battle for it.

Too many battles, gotta pick & choose.

We have very few bodies of water that are big enough, that don't have 100 mad boaters doing laps on them, and they're virtually all man-made and ultra-busy recreation areas. I'm sure reasonable mixed use could be done, but there'd have to be a pretty big education campaign for the boaters. Most of our rivers aren't deep or wide enough.

Right now the battles of choice are Hold Harmless on backcountry & private strips (e.g. Marble) and Homeowner Notification (or whatever the official titles will be). Pushing for written notificaiton to potential homewoners that they will be living within an airport Area of Influence as well as near/under takeoff & landing paths.

CPA, AOPA, and other successfully fought off major development off the end of 10-28 at APA 3 years ago, who knows what will happen again? We also expect the Big Carriers to start going after a reduction in the fuel tax in 2012. That's more critical than seaplanes. IIRC that fuel tax funds 100% of the Div of Aeronautics.

Being that water is regularly scarce and we sell an awful lot of it downstream, I'd guess that the Colorado government at that time wanted nothing to do with letting Washington touch water rights out here back then. Wars have started over water out here on the high plains.

Two law schools out here and the one in Boulder is considered the leader in water rights. It's complicated and it's ugly. For example, I'm not allowed to capture runoff from my gutters into a barrel for watering the yard - I have no rights to any water other than what I pay for from the tap.

 

[N801BH]

Being that water is regularly scarce and we sell an awful lot of it downstream, I'd guess that the Colorado government at that time wanted nothing to do with letting Washington touch water rights out here back then. Wars have started over water out here on the high plains. [/QUOTE]


Interesting.... On my private ranch/ airport in Wyoming, 8 natural springs flow year round, they drain into Beaver Creek, that drains into the Green River, that drains into the Colorado river...
Since I am the headwaters of the mighty Colorado river can I sell my water to all the downstream users ?

 

[Everskyward]

Of the states I have lived in as a pilot only Idaho required registration and a fee. California, Missouri and Colorado did not.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Interesting.... On my private ranch/ airport in Wyoming 8 natural springs flow year round, they drain into Beaver Creek, that drains into the Green River, that drains into the Colorado river...
Since I am the headwaters of the mighty Colorado river can I sell my water to all the downstream users ?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the water rights laws in WY. In CO, the first person to use the water, regardless of where it originates from, has the rights to the water. Example, if I lived downstream from you and was using 100k gallons of water per year for irrigation, and you were not using the water that originated from your land, then I would have first rights to that 100k gallons. If there was extra, then you could claim the extra for your own use. So, I would own the rights and you would not (for the first 100k gallons).

 

[poadeleted20]

First, it says only pilots "based" in Oregon, not transients. Second, it is constitutionally legal as long as they don't make you take any tests or the like.

 

[ScottM]

First, it says only pilots "based" in Oregon, not transients. Second, it is constitutionally legal as long as they don't make you take any tests or the like.

The link he provided had this requirement in it

[FONT=&quot]Nonresidents operating within this state, other than in a commercial operation, shall register with the department within 60 days of the date of arrival within the state. [/FONT]

I don't see where they are referring to only those that are based in OR.

 

[John Baker]

What you get are a hard working, well paid, professional group of people who diligently look out for your welfare. Granted, the fee you pay seems wrong, but remember, it is a fee, not a tax. You must pay all fees, no matter who levies them, be it government or pseudo government, such as your utility companies. The money collected is to benefit you directly. Would you want some low paid morons working on your behalf? I think not.

John

 

[Tom-D]

The link he provided had this requirement in it

I don't see where they are referring to only those that are based in OR.

If you are there 60 days or more aren't you based there? Seems like it to me.

 

[Pilawt]

First, it says only pilots "based" in Oregon, not transients. Second, it is constitutionally legal as long as they don't make you take any tests or the like.

This comes up on one message board or another regularly.

The Oregon statute is clumsily drafted (shock!). But as I understand it the people at the state Dept. of Aviation look at it as only requiring registration for pilots/aircraft "based" in the state, and they consider "based" as being there for sixty days. I've never heard of Oregon going after a transient aircraft or pilot for registration fees. My airplane is hangared less than a mile from the Oregon state line and flies over and/or lands in Oregon almost every time it leaves the ground, and Oregon has never asked me for any fee.

Washington has a $65/year aircraft registration fee, which stays in the Aviation Division of the state Dept. of Transportation. That agency is highly supportive of G.A. AOPA et al successfully opposed an attempt by the state legislature last year to impose an annual excise tax of 0.5% of the airplane's value, which would have gone to the state general fund, not just for aviation.

Washington used to require registration of pilots and mechanics, but that was dropped in 2005.

 

[ScottM]

If you are there 60 days or more aren't you based there? Seems like it to me.

It did not say that. It said to register within 60 days of your arrival if you are a non-resident.

 

[ScottM]

This comes up on one message board or another regularly.

The Oregon statute is clumsily drafted (shock!). But as I understand it the people at the state Dept. of Aviation look at it as only requiring registration for pilots/aircraft "based" in the state, and they consider "based" as being there for sixty days. I've never heard of Oregon going after a transient aircraft or pilot for registration fees. My airplane is hangared less than a mile from the Oregon state line and flies over and/or lands in Oregon almost every time it leaves the ground, and Oregon has never asked me for any fee.

So the law says one thing but the bureaucrats are interpreting it differently? That is kinda of a dangerous precedent.

 

[Tom-D]

What you get are a hard working, well paid, professional group of people who diligently look out for your welfare.

Not in Wa. GA gets nothing from the money that is taken from us.

Granted, the fee you pay seems wrong, but remember, it is a fee, not a tax. You must pay all fees, no matter who levies them, be it government or pseudo government, such as your utility companies. The money collected is to benefit you directly. Would you want some low paid morons working on your behalf? I think not.

John

Stupid concept, fee or tax, is just a method of getting money that the public voter doesn't get to say no to, it all money we pay and pay and pay, and that money is then given to municipalities like the city of Arlington, Darington, both of which own airports which they should support them selves.

90% of the money we pay is spent to support the system, IOWs the state spends most of it to collect it. The new building at AWO is proof of that it contains about 5 office workers, and cost well over a million to be build to airport code.

Our aviation taxes are spent mostly to benefit commercial activities not the GA

Washington state owns several airports, they are in pitiful state of care, and they are mostly intended to be used as fire bases when needed.

 

[Pilawt]

So the law says one thing but the bureaucrats are interpreting it differently? That is kinda of a dangerous precedent.

Dangerous, yes. Novel, no. Examples: 14 CFR 61, 91, 121, 135, 141, etc., etc., etc.

Actually, the letter from Oregon Dept. of Aviation, quoted in the OP, is consistent with the interpretation in my post above:

It has come to our attention that many may not realize there is a law requiring pilots and aircraft based in Oregon to
be registered in Oregon and pay the appropriate registration fees.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[Ghery]

Washington used to require registration of pilots and mechanics, but that was dropped in 2005.

And it wasn't all that expensive, either. Good have it gone as it probably cost the state more to administer than they got out of it, and we sure don't want to encourage them to fix that by raising the fee.

 

[bobmrg]

Wa. is the same, we pay and pay and get nothing.. there is a time limit on how long you can operate in the state with out paying the registration.

There is an exemption for unairworthy aircraft.

I've spent many an hour as a search pilot in Washington, and I have attended many seminars put on by State Aero (none recently). Expenses for these flights were paid for in part by pilot registration fees. I'm glad that you were not the object of any of those searches, but if you had been, you would have been very grateful for the efforts put forth by fellow Washington pilots.

Bob Gardner

 

[poadeleted20]

The link he provided had this requirement in it

I don't see where they are referring to only those that are based in OR.

I'm thinking that if you're there for more than 60 days, you're "based" there. And if you're no longer there when the 60 days from your arrival elapses, it's not an issue. But if you hear about the State of Oregon hunting down every non-resident pilot who lands in the state and demanding that fee, you let us know.

 

[Tom-D]

I've spent many an hour as a search pilot in Washington, and I have attended many seminars put on by State Aero (none recently). Expenses for these flights were paid for in part by pilot registration fees. I'm glad that you were not the object of any of those searches, but if you had been, you would have been very grateful for the efforts put forth by fellow Washington pilots.

Bob Gardner

With the advent of the ELT upgrades you won't be doing much of that anymore. and the state dictates who can search and who can't, and who gets paid and who don't. try searching on your own and see if you get any money for it.

I'll stand by my statements that most of the money paid to the state is wasted in the bureaucracy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ya gots to 'member that Colorado has two floatplane/amphib suitable bodies of water and one of those is actually in Nebraska.

Au contraire. Lots of suitable-sized lakes in the Greeley/Ft. Collins area, in the mountains, etc... Doesn't look like you have much in the far east or far western portions of the state, but there are plenty of places you could operate a seaplane there, unless all the lakes marked on the sectional are only a foot deep.

We have very few bodies of water that are big enough, that don't have 100 mad boaters doing laps on them, and they're virtually all man-made and ultra-busy recreation areas. I'm sure reasonable mixed use could be done, but there'd have to be a pretty big education campaign for the boaters. Most of our rivers aren't deep or wide enough.

Naah, it doesn't take much to coexist. Where I fly seaplanes is a very popular recreational spot in Michigan, with lots of boats, etc. on the water in the summer. Before you land or take off, you check for traffic on the water, and then plan your run to go behind them and/or avoid them as much as possible.

It's actually a lot harder to fly on the same lakes on skis in the winter - Snowmobiles are much faster and more maneuverable than boats, and since they only take one or two people rather than the whole family there tend to be larger numbers of them as well. But, again, we manage to coexist - Even when the big snowmobile "convention" (Dunno what you really call such a thing) is there.

 

[Ddayle]

It ain't about living here, its about paying bull sh-- taxes and getting nothing for them.

I guess you don't use roads, schools, police or firemen, ETC. Of course you can go to Wyoming with a population of 500,000 they have far less infrastructure. All of our infrastructure costs money You got to pay to play It is more expensive to live here because we have more. Why & how do you think all the advantages of living in a highly developed areas is free? Stop trying to get something for nothing either pay the price or move. Dave

 

[Tom-D]

I guess you don't use roads, schools, police or firemen, ETC. Of course you can go to Wyoming with a population of 500,000 they have far less infrastructure. All of our infrastructure costs money You got to pay to play It is more expensive to live here because we have more. Why & how do you think all the advantages of living in a highly developed areas is free? Stop trying to get something for nothing either pay the price or move. Dave

Say on topic, gas taxes pay for roads, and such, aviation taxes no matter what you call them give you nothing.

Who ever owns any airport should support it, not the states pilots.

Washington state plots association, does more (percentage wise) with their dues than the state does with its taxes, because the WSPO is better managed. and does what the state should be doing.

infrastructure = bureaucracy and bureaucracy always costs more and produces less

 

[ejensen]

Au contraire. Lots of suitable-sized lakes in the Greeley/Ft. Collins area, in the mountains, etc... Doesn't look like you have much in the far east or far western portions of the state, but there are plenty of places you could operate a seaplane there, unless all the lakes marked on the sectional are only a foot deep.



Naah, it doesn't take much to coexist. Where I fly seaplanes is a very popular recreational spot in Michigan, with lots of boats, etc. on the water in the summer. Before you land or take off, you check for traffic on the water, and then plan your run to go behind them and/or avoid them as much as possible.

It's actually a lot harder to fly on the same lakes on skis in the winter - Snowmobiles are much faster and more maneuverable than boats, and since they only take one or two people rather than the whole family there tend to be larger numbers of them as well. But, again, we manage to coexist - Even when the big snowmobile "convention" (Dunno what you really call such a thing) is there.

Part of the complication in Colorado is almost all of the bodies of water large enough for aircraft are reservoirs. The water is owned by someone and control the use. Many do not allow any public access. Other limit by type, no motors, no body contact, etc. So the State can't just open water to aircraft.

I don't agree with the restrictions. Water craft and planes can coexist. But each reservoir is pretty much a separate negotiation and there is not much incentive to allow aircraft. The effort to reduce recreational liability for aircraft may help open more water.

 

[Ddayle]

I agree That is why living in nowhere like wyoming is cheap. It is on topic. Wa has huge expenses to support EVERTHING so every one pays seems fair to me. I sure don't want to live anywhere else. Dave

 

[denverpilot]

I guess you don't use roads, schools, police or firemen, ETC. Of course you can go to Wyoming with a population of 500,000 they have far less infrastructure. All of our infrastructure costs money You got to pay to play It is more expensive to live here because we have more. Why & how do you think all the advantages of living in a highly developed areas is free? Stop trying to get something for nothing either pay the price or move. Dave

Around here, Police, Fire, and Ambulance all charge for "out of district" user services now. And the only new roads and bridges are toll roads. And the teachers are paid now, but their pension fund is billions in the hole.

Pretty sure that's what's called an "epic fail" these days.

Wyoming ain't so bad if you don't mind the wind. No State tax. A State University that offers in-State tuition rates to all children of alumni no matter where they live. The U.S.' Largest inland live-fire artillery range. (Camp Guernesey) And an active Air Force base with no active fixed-wing runway but that once had one that Eddie Rickenbacher crashed on... That's got a whole lot of funny little concrete and steel gopher holes around it with nukes in 'em. (F.E. Warren)

I'm pretty sure Wyoming could take us if they wanted to. Maybe not if North Dakota fought back. ;-)

 

[Clark1961]

Part of the complication in Colorado is almost all of the bodies of water large enough for aircraft are reservoirs. The water is owned by someone and control the use. Many do not allow any public access. Other limit by type, no motors, no body contact, etc. So the State can't just open water to aircraft.

I don't agree with the restrictions. Water craft and planes can coexist. But each reservoir is pretty much a separate negotiation and there is not much incentive to allow aircraft. The effort to reduce recreational liability for aircraft may help open more water.

Another complication is elevation. I'd hate to see the water run requirements on departure. The lakes may "look" long enough on the sectional but I'd suggest checking those numbers...and its gonna be worse up in the bumps.

 

[Anthony]

Being that water is regularly scarce and we sell an awful lot of it downstream, I'd guess that the Colorado government at that time wanted nothing to do with letting Washington touch water rights out here back then. Wars have started over water out here on the high plains.

Yes, when I lived in Lone Tree, CO that's the first time I ever heard of "Water Courts". That's how precious water is as a commodity. Remember, much of CO is high plains dessert.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Part of the complication in Colorado is almost all of the bodies of water large enough for aircraft are reservoirs. The water is owned by someone and control the use. Many do not allow any public access. Other limit by type, no motors, no body contact, etc. So the State can't just open water to aircraft.

I don't agree with the restrictions. Water craft and planes can coexist. But each reservoir is pretty much a separate negotiation and there is not much incentive to allow aircraft. The effort to reduce recreational liability for aircraft may help open more water.

But the reservoirs should be closed to seaplanes individually in accordance with said owner's wishes, not blanket-closed by the state. Most states allow water landings on any body of water except those where it's specifically forbidden, and the Seaplane Pilots Association keeps a Water Landing Directory so that you can tell which ones to avoid.

Another complication is elevation. I'd hate to see the water run requirements on departure. The lakes may "look" long enough on the sectional but I'd suggest checking those numbers...and its gonna be worse up in the bumps.

True, but that should be up to the pilot, not the state.

 

[Ddayle]

I'm pretty sure Wyoming could take us if they wanted to. Maybe not if North Dakota fought back. ;-)

For me the question is not would Wyoming take us . but why would i want Wyoming, or either Dakota. been there , done that, a miserable place for me. Dave

 

[Everskyward]

For me the question is not would Wyoming take us . but why would i want Wyoming, or either Dakota. been there , done that, a miserable place for me.

Wyoming has a lot of natural resources. It's not a poor state by any means. That said, I would not want to live there, with the possible exception of Jackson.