ATC to be privatized

[Bill Berson]

Could be anything. But if EAA simply opposes it without offering a solution they won't listen to EAA nor will EAA get a seat at the table.
We already have user fees from FAA. The FAA is billing Airventure for ATC.
The FAA now requires pilot check ride fees and Homebuilt airworthiness fees that were formerly free.
The goal should be to reduce all these fees with automation.

[Louis]

Ron has said it very well a couple of times in this thread - attack the policy and the politics, not the politician. Doing otherwise destroys our credibility and won't be tolerated, period.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks so much for helping keep things civil. I really appreciate how the EAA, from the very beginning with Paul P., has been welcoming and respectful to folks regardless of who they are and their political bent. Another organization I belong to seems to do it's best to make you feel like an enemy to them and the country in general if you don't support the politician they're endorsing....will happily accept everyone's dues, however! Like the man said: "we must hang together or hang separately."

[Mike M]

...The FAA now requires pilot check ride fees and Homebuilt airworthiness fees that were formerly free...

The pilot check rides and homebuilt airworthiness fees are not FAA fees, are they? Did I miss something? Aren't they designated examiner fees because the FAA is just oooohhhh so busy they can't do THEIR BASIC JOB of ensuring aviator competence and aircraft safety? And the services weren't free before, they were paid out of FAA budget which includes aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket fees and etc etc plus the general fund because the purpose after all is to keep stuff from falling on groundlings' heads. But I digress. We agree on the basics, Bill - I think.

[Mike M]

...the more they can force GA to pay, the less the airlines have to shell out.

The airlines don't pay a dime now. Their customers do. Those of us flying Pt91 don't have that luxury of passing on the costs.

[Frank Giger]

Mike has the right of it.

The FAA did the inspection on my homebuilt and the fee was paid with my taxes - no additional financial requirement was asked for.

The DAR's around here, on the other hand, were asking for a full grand when it was all said and done.

[rwanttaja]

The airlines don't pay a dime now. Their customers do. Those of us flying Pt91 don't have that luxury of passing on the costs.

But if our new airspace overlords reduce what the airlines pay, and the airlines keep ticket prices the same...

Ron "Time to buy United stocks...and Delta manacles" Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

Attack the idea, not the person. Attaching the idea to a person you dislike is called "ad hominem" and is a logical fallacy. I understand that logic does not apply in todays politics and governance, but I would like to encourage people to try.

I wrote my representative two days ago. Here is the gist:

1. The control of interstate traffic is an inherently governmental function. They have the authority to give directions to civilian and military personnel that are enforceable under law. If the directions are wrong, people can die. This kind of responsibility should be exclusively held by government officials accountable to the public, just like the police and military.

2. The airspace system is paid for by direct fees paid for through fuel and passenger taxes. An airplane is therefore encouraged to use the system, thereby enhancing safety, because they already paid for it. Privatization will almost certainly lead to user fees, which will discourage participation by private aviation.

3. We have the very best airspace system in the world right now. Why mess with it?

Her office called me to say that they got it and asked if I wanted to add anything. I will, just not right at this moment.

[Bill Berson]

The pilot check rides and homebuilt airworthiness fees are not FAA fees, are they? Did I miss something? Aren't they designated examiner fees because the FAA is just oooohhhh so busy they can't do THEIR BASIC JOB of ensuring aviator competence and aircraft safety? And the services weren't free before, they were paid out of FAA budget which includes aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket fees and etc etc plus the general fund because the purpose after all is to keep stuff from falling on groundlings' heads. But I digress. We agree on the basics, Bill - I think.

Right.
The FAA doesn't get the money that you pay the DAR. In effect we pay both taxes to run the FAA and additional user fees to the DAR. Not good.
The solution is to reduce both costs. Really, the builder does the initial condition inspection and signs the form now.
That should be good enough. Why do we need a DAR for $1000?
In the old days the FAA did several precover inspections, the initial inspection and the annual condition inspection EVERY FOLLOWING YEAR. All that has changed to eliminate all the precover inspections and to shift the annual condition inspections to the qualified builder (repairman) or A&P.
No need for FAA at all, I say. Other than to prescribe a checklist to fill out and keep with aircraft records and standard operating limitations to follow.
Just one more step away FAA oversight to allow the builder or A&P do the first Airworthiness inspection is not a safety problem.

[martymayes]

The control of interstate traffic is an inherently governmental function. They have the authority to give directions to civilian and military personnel that are enforceable under law. If the directions are wrong, people can die. This kind of responsibility should be exclusively held by government officials accountable to the public, just like the police and military.

The law regarding air traffic control was changed in 2002 from "Air traffic control is inherently a government function" to "Air traffic control is NOT inherently a gov function." I understand that was to make contract towers fully "legal" (I suppose prior to that they were not legal?)

This is an excerpt from Dorothy Robyn's testimony to the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure:

"NAV CANADA’s 20-year track record is practical proof that its approach works. User charges
are a third less in real terms than the ticket tax they replaced. The system is handling 50 percent
more traffic with 30 percent fewer people."

I read the whole transcript and she has impressive credentials and convincing data with real numbers. Be hard to convince lawmakers this is not a good idea with emotions only.


I also found this to be interesting (again from Roby's testimony):

These problems are most evident in the FAA’s long-running struggle to deploy new technology
that would improve efficiency and make air travel safer. When it undertook to modernize the air
traffic control system in 1981, the FAA estimated that the work would cost $12 billion and take a
decade to complete. Thirty-six years and more than $56 billion later, many controllers still keep
track of aircraft using paper strips. Outdated technology limits the capacity of the system, contributing
to flight delays and increased flight times. It also helps to explain why the FAA’s
cost per unit of service has gone up by more than 66 percent since 1997.

Basically the current system is unsustainable. Somethings gonna give.

[Mike M]

....These problems are most evident in the FAA’s long-running struggle to deploy new technology
that would improve efficiency and make air travel safer. When it undertook to modernize the air
traffic control system in 1981, the FAA estimated that the work would cost $12 billion and take a
decade to complete. Thirty-six years and more than $56 billion later, many controllers still keep
track of aircraft using paper strips. Outdated technology limits the capacity of the system, contributing
to flight delays and increased flight times. It also helps to explain why the FAA’s
cost per unit of service has gone up by more than 66 percent since 1997....

I'm just opinionated here (read "experienced") but it seems to me the biggest problem with the current government agency trying to change is congresspersons protecting their constituents (read "lobbyists for users vs lobbyists for current employee groups vs lobbyists for contractors vs lobbyists for contractors who didn't get the contract") and the resultant changes to direction every two years.