tombuch 0 #1 February 16, 2007 There are several important FAA political issue at the national level that should be of concern to skydivers. The first is a major overhaul in the way the FAA is funded, as presented in the new Federal Budget that is now before Congress. The administration is proposing a change to a user fee system that would dramatically increase the costs to general aviation, and especially the turbine component of GA. It would further erode our position as an equal in the national airspace system, and make us more subservient to the airlines. I’m encouraging all skydivers to carefully review the proposed user fee system and then contact your congressman and senators with your opposition to this wholesale change in airspace management. USPA has done a preliminary review of the proposed Federal budget and offers the following on their web site: FAA Proposes New Fees for ATC(updated 02/15/07) On February 14, the FAA released its plan to revamp air traffic control to a cost-based system funded by a combination of user fees, fuel taxes, and the general fund. Though the FAA has not yet finalized all details, it does say that “Air traffic user fees would apply to commercial flights by turbine-powered aircraft (jets and turboprops).” Exactly how the rates will be structured is still to be determined, but there would be separate fees for enroute, terminal, and other airspace. The FAA intends to introduce congestion fees for those that use the airspace around the 30 large, congested hub airports. Whether those fees would be restricted to the surrounding Class B airspace, or beyond, is not specified. The FAA also proposes an increase in the federal fuel tax to 70 cents per gallon on both avgas (currently taxed at 19.3 cents per gallon) and jet fuel (currently taxed at 21.8 cents per gallon). Already, there are many in Congress who have expressed displeasure and disagreement with the administration’s proposal. Clearly there will be a political battle before this is decided. USPA staff is reviewing the fine print for details. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has a terrific overview of the issue at http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/. The second big issue is a rewrite of Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations offered as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Part 61 details pilot qualifications, and most of the changes are beneficial, but there are a few that might raise concern. If you are a pilot, please take a look at the 50 page proposal released in the Federal register at: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070207part61-nprm.pdf. AOPA and USPA are reviewing this proposal. The AOPA quick view of critical changes is available at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070207part61.html One change that seems unreasonable to me is an unannounced alteration (listed as #30) to 61.57(c)(1)(ii), that would require an instrument rated pilot to do two complete holding patterns within the preceding six months in order to maintain instrument currency. The present regulation simply requires a pilot to perform and log “holding procedures” but does not specify what that entails. Many pilots answer this requirement with a simple holding pattern course reversal. The proposed change would significantly increase the cost of maintaining an instrument rating, but is not supported within the NPRM by any safety data. While skydiving only occurs under VFR conditions, our pilots often end up in clouds, either inadvertently while getting us to altitude, or while ferrying jump airplanes. It is in our interest that jump pilots have and maintain a current instrument rating, and this regulatory change increases the burden of holding that rating. Comments on the proposed change to part 61 are due by May 8, 2007. The address for sending email, web, or printed comments is listed at the beginning of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr17Hz 1 #2 February 16, 2007 This is all very serious. It should be made a sticky. Here is a link to where to find the contact information from your house representatives. Some do not accept email unless it is made through their web form, others will, but writing a letter is sometimes the best way to get through. Print the letter four times and drop one in the mailbox once a week. Hands write the address and it's more likely to stand out. http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml Here is the link to find your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm REMEMBER THAT IF YOU WANT ANY WRITE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. Whether you're talking about the senate, the house, or just the USPA - unless you communicate your opinions they go unheard. A single letter can make a difference. It gives senators that are already on your side more firepower and drive. It also has a chance of changing the mind of a senator who would otherwise be 'impartial' because he heard no reason for complaint. The authors of this bill probably don't have any idea how it will negatively effect skydiving. It was clearly written to try to get more money from airline companies for homeland security. Skydiving operations should not have the same responsibility as airway corporations in paying for security. One suggestion that could be made is that the tax is only made for flights that take off and land at different airports - this would exclude most 'recreational' uses, such as skydiving, gliding, and tours. Size of aircraft and amount of fuel on board could also be considered for exclusions that would allow skydiving to continue to exist in the USA. Our sport is at risk. This is your opportunity to make a difference, let your voice be heard. Don't wait until it's too late.Matt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Programmer 0 #3 February 16, 2007 Glad you brought this up. I would like to encourage all skydivers to do two things:1. Go to an airport near you and take a flying lesson. Even if you have no intention of becoming a pilot, it will only cost a couple of jump tickets and you'll get an introduction to what the person in the front of the plane is doing. You might like it enough to keep going.2. Join AOPA. [url]www.aopa.org[url] If you aren't a pilot or aircraft owner you'll be a non-voting member, but AOPA is the organization that does the most to lobby Congress on behalf of general aviation. Your dues will help, and you get a neat magazine. Again, only costs about as much per year as a couple of jump tickets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeNReN 0 #4 February 17, 2007 3331 posted From the USPA web page. On February 14, the FAA released its plan to revamp Air Traffic Control to a cost-based system funded by a combination of user fees, fuel taxes, and the general fund. Though the FAA has not yet finalized all details, it does say that “Air traffic user fees would apply to commercial flights by turbine-powered aircraft (jets and turboprops).” Exactly how the rates will be structured is still to be determined, but there would be separate fees for en route, terminal, and other airspace. The FAA intends to introduce congestion fees for those that use the airspace around the 30 large, congested hub airports. Whether those fees would be restricted to the surrounding Class B airspace, or beyond, is not specified. The FAA also proposes an increase in the federal fuel tax to 70 cents per gallon on both avgas (currently taxed at 19.3 cents per gallon) and jet fuel (currently taxed at 21.8 cents per gallon). Already, there are many in Congress who have expressed displeasure and disagreement with the administration’s proposal. Clearly there will be a political battle before this is decided. USPA staff is reviewing the fine print for details. More information is on the FAA web site here: http:// http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #5 February 17, 2007 There's already been some discussion of this in Speakers Corner (it is a tax proposal from the Bush administration), and there's more information here: www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BLAK02147.xml Tripling the fuel tax alone will have a significant effect, regardless of any ATC fees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #6 February 17, 2007 It is a tax proposed by the FAA with the Major Commercial Airlines being the ones who proposed and drafted the original idea. The Bush admin did appoint he current idiots in the top FAA seats but did not propose the original idea of the tax, just happen to be backing it now. Maybe since they will be looking for jobs in 18 to 24 months they are starting their networking? It is a sad day when the truth is commercialism of one part of our aviation society is jeapodizing the end of another. AOPA and USPA need to work together as one voice, and all the DZO's, Ratings Schools, and any other "voice" that has a little volume need to band together with them to back the defeat the Tax effort. Some of the increases are awful steep and way out of proportion in my opinion. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #7 February 22, 2007 NPR did a story this weekend with a good (IMHO) overview of the situation. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #8 February 22, 2007 QuoteNPR did a story this weekend with a good (IMHO) overview of the situation. Link to the NPR story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7480080Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #9 May 3, 2007 www.aviationacrossamerica.com/pubs/Setting_the_Record.cfm Read about FAA's disinformation campaign.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #10 May 18, 2007 Sadly the Commerce Committee Reports FAA Investment and Modernization Act S.1300 passed by one vote. Now it still has to go through hoops to get made into law, but this is a LARGE SETBACK for some, if not many dropzone operations. If passed, a $25 user fee per flight will be assessed on commercial flights. I am not clear on the interpretation of the legislation, one part says for commercial flights, and another says that GA is exempt if piston powered or Turbines operating in controlled airspace. So is a commercial flight still considered GA? Whatever, - Skydive City operates almost every flight in the Class B dome of Tampa, which means $25/load being paid to ATC. That is more than a $1/jump increase in the costs to the end jumper. Are their other DZ's operating in controlled space? There must be some all over the country. Anyway what to do? SUBSCRIBE to the notices that get emailed out by me at skydivecity.com, to the USPA email lists or simply email ED Scott and ask that he keep a list of concerned parties. AOPA is another great source of information and notices. Because when they finally get down to making this law - we will ALL need to write our representatives to derail this, or in the end, we will ALL be paying a lot more money for jumps. And we will receive little or no improvement in services rendered. TK Hayes Skydive City Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #11 May 18, 2007 Quote If passed, a $25 user fee per flight will be assessed on commercial flights. I am not clear on the interpretation of the legislation, one part says for commercial flights, and another says that GA is exempt if piston powered or Turbines operating in controlled airspace. As I understand the current proposal, it applies to turbine powered flights on an IFR flight plan (that's as per Ed Scott at USPA). As it stands now, skydiving operations would not be charged the fee. HOWEVER, it is a tiny step from where we are now, to assessing the fee on all operations in controlled airspace, or all turbine operations, or all commercial operations. It's something we need to aggressively attack before it becomes law. This would cripple skydiving as we know it. The other part of the proposed regulation worth noting is that there will almost certainly be significant additional fuel taxes on turbine aircraft, and probably on piston aircraft too. Every pilot, jumper, and DZO should be in touch with their Senators and Congressmen to let them know we don't need new funding sources or user fees for the FAA. The aviation funding we have now is adequate. If you do not understand the issue, it's OK to say to your representatives that they should contact AOPA for additional guidance about the position of GA.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #12 May 19, 2007 QuoteQuote If passed, a $25 user fee per flight will be assessed on commercial flights. I am not clear on the interpretation of the legislation, one part says for commercial flights, and another says that GA is exempt if piston powered or Turbines operating in controlled airspace. As I understand the current proposal, it applies to turbine powered flights on an IFR flight plan (that's as per Ed Scott at USPA). As it stands now, skydiving operations would not be charged the fee. HOWEVER, it is a tiny step from where we are now, to assessing the fee on all operations in controlled airspace, or all turbine operations, or all commercial operations. It's something we need to aggressively attack before it becomes law. This would cripple skydiving as we know it. The other part of the proposed regulation worth noting is that there will almost certainly be significant additional fuel taxes on turbine aircraft, and probably on piston aircraft too. Every pilot, jumper, and DZO should be in touch with their Senators and Congressmen to let them know we don't need new funding sources or user fees for the FAA. The aviation funding we have now is adequate. If you do not understand the issue, it's OK to say to your representatives that they should contact AOPA for additional guidance about the position of GA. This entire proposal is being pushed by the administration at the behest of the airlines. The "concessions" to general aviation are like the camel's nose under the tent - they are designed only to get the legislation passed by Congress.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #13 May 19, 2007 I am an ultralight flyer, soon to be registered as an E-LSA. My group, the EAA, is also is trying to get this voted down. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #14 May 25, 2007 Just in case anyone was in any doubt that the FAA is run by idiots: www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070524gps.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrismgtis 0 #15 May 25, 2007 It won't be too long before you can't do anything in the United States, simply because every organization with any say so in the USA wants to impose every ridiculous restriction that their little minds can think of. It's a huge problem. It's not just a problem with the FAA, but with copyright law, satellite radio, movie ratings, the patent system all the way down to the people that complain about smokers in bars of all places. The government really needs to make some major changes to laws.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #16 June 1, 2007 AOPA's petition against the FAA proposal: HERE... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RBM 1 #17 June 2, 2007 Im not a pilot as the petition say, but I support the petition,, am i allowed to sign that petition Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
