Howdy all,
I keep reading about the FAA and how they want to impose user fees to fund the ATC system vice keeping everything supervised by Congress (the way things work now). There is quite a bit of debate on how exactly the FAA and ATC system should be funded. From what I have learned so far, the airlines are in favor of a user fee system. Basically you'd pay $XX for a weather brief, $XX for shooting a practice instrument approach, etc. Pay as you go type thing, eventually across the board for everyone using US airspace. Maybe the cropduster guys who operate out of private strips and don't use radios can still fly for free under this new "user fee" idea.
I personally think that my tax dollars have been doing a fine job at funding the FAA and the ATC system. While I am currently too busy to really have time to fly GA these days (flight school is a *****), I have flown on my own in the past and look forward to a day in the future when I will have the opportunity to do so again. Personally, I'd rather not pay for each practice approach, weather brief, call to Center, or anything else. Congress has done a fine job at providing a safe ATC system in America and I don't see why we'd need to convert to a fee based system.
What are the opinions of you guys who fly for the airlines? As more of a general aviation guy, I'm all for keeping things like they are now. I'm interested to hear from someone who can provide some real answers as to why we need "user fees" to fund our airspace system. It seems that the airlines are all for this new idea and the weekend Cessna pilot thinks it is a ridiculous plan.
The concept has been compared to gun control. Start off with user fees for turbine aircraft on IFR flight plans... give it a few years and even guys flying with a Sport license are paying user fees. Kind of like starting with a national registry of gun owners and ending up with only legal firearms for law enforcement personnel. I don't want to get into a gun control debate, but I thought I'd use the comparison for illustrative purposes.
So, what does everyone think about this?
Here is a summary of the whole concept from the AOPA website.
I keep reading about the FAA and how they want to impose user fees to fund the ATC system vice keeping everything supervised by Congress (the way things work now). There is quite a bit of debate on how exactly the FAA and ATC system should be funded. From what I have learned so far, the airlines are in favor of a user fee system. Basically you'd pay $XX for a weather brief, $XX for shooting a practice instrument approach, etc. Pay as you go type thing, eventually across the board for everyone using US airspace. Maybe the cropduster guys who operate out of private strips and don't use radios can still fly for free under this new "user fee" idea.
I personally think that my tax dollars have been doing a fine job at funding the FAA and the ATC system. While I am currently too busy to really have time to fly GA these days (flight school is a *****), I have flown on my own in the past and look forward to a day in the future when I will have the opportunity to do so again. Personally, I'd rather not pay for each practice approach, weather brief, call to Center, or anything else. Congress has done a fine job at providing a safe ATC system in America and I don't see why we'd need to convert to a fee based system.
What are the opinions of you guys who fly for the airlines? As more of a general aviation guy, I'm all for keeping things like they are now. I'm interested to hear from someone who can provide some real answers as to why we need "user fees" to fund our airspace system. It seems that the airlines are all for this new idea and the weekend Cessna pilot thinks it is a ridiculous plan.
The concept has been compared to gun control. Start off with user fees for turbine aircraft on IFR flight plans... give it a few years and even guys flying with a Sport license are paying user fees. Kind of like starting with a national registry of gun owners and ending up with only legal firearms for law enforcement personnel. I don't want to get into a gun control debate, but I thought I'd use the comparison for illustrative purposes.
So, what does everyone think about this?
Here is a summary of the whole concept from the AOPA website.