ATC Privatization, HR 2997

Just curious... If any country sent me a bill for my US registered
aircraft and I'd not flown it in that country, I'd tell them politely
that it wasn't me and then ignore all further communications from them.

I agree and tried that. I got followup invoices with late fees and penalties.
The US has some sort of obligation agreement to help them collect fees, so the US gets involved too.
They eventually assigned a debt collector to harass me.
I finally had to get an attorney involved.
I spent far more money fighting it, than if I had just paid the tolls, but then it was the "principle of the thing" and I am stubborn.

When you see how much of the money goes to the "administration" cost of these systems, it is really sad.

Wow!

My only similar incident was when I received a bill for *fuel* for my
ASW-19b from a North Carolina FBO and I had only flown it in Texas at
that time.Â* It wasn't me and I called them and told them so.Â* That was
the last I heard of it.

On 10/7/2017 9:23 AM, wrote:
Just curious... If any country sent me a bill for my US registered
aircraft and I'd not flown it in that country, I'd tell them politely
that it wasn't me and then ignore all further communications from them.

I agree and tried that. I got followup invoices with late fees and penalties.
The US has some sort of obligation agreement to help them collect fees, so the US gets involved too.
They eventually assigned a debt collector to harass me.
I finally had to get an attorney involved.
I spent far more money fighting it, than if I had just paid the tolls, but then it was the "principle of the thing" and I am stubborn.

When you see how much of the money goes to the "administration" cost of these systems, it is really sad.

--
Dan, 5J

My only similar incident was when I received a bill for *fuel* for my
ASW-19b from a North Carolina FBO and I had only flown it in Texas at
that time.Â*

Funny, does your ASW-19b burn 100LL or JetA?
Never had an issue with fuel bills, although I have received incorrect landing fee invoices from airports.

That was back in the '80s.Â* My current glider burns 91 octane
ethanol-free auto fuel.

On 10/7/2017 11:25 AM, wrote:
My only similar incident was when I received a bill for *fuel* for my
ASW-19b from a North Carolina FBO and I had only flown it in Texas at
that time.
Funny, does your ASW-19b burn 100LL or JetA?
Never had an issue with fuel bills, although I have received incorrect landing fee invoices from airports.

--
Dan, 5J

By the number of views and on-topic posts, it appears that few people care.
The bill was supposed to be voted on today but there is no update.
Jim

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...783AA4FFD366A3

Oh Jim, I care.

I sure wish the SSA had been more vocal opposing this

Daryl

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:33:03 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
By the number of views and on-topic posts, it appears that few people care.
The bill was supposed to be voted on today but there is no update.
Jim

I care and have contacted my representative and senators.
In Florida Senator Nelson is opposed to privatization.
I have not been able to confirm Rubio's position or that of my representative Gaetz.

I believe: "IF IT IS NOT BROKE, DO NOT FIX IT"

My understanding is that the vote in the house has been delayed with no new date set.

We have some smart people in soaring and it would be good if someone would take a look at the bill. It is 461 pages, so there is a lot in there.
I have a call into AOPA and they were unable to answer my questions, the young lady actually said she had not read it. She was from the UK and said she knew their system was a disaster. Someone is suppose to call me back.

In my quick review, it appears that the bill says no fees may be charged to Part 91 operators??? Of course, I suppose they could start that way and then change it once the billing systems are in place.

However, a couple of other items potentially scary items jumped out at me.
--AIRSPACE
There are almost twice as many references to "airspace" is there are to "fees". It appears that the Corporation can make recommendations to the Secretary for airspace changes and they can be approved without any public review. If that is correct, that is scary.

--EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS
There is a reference to the corporation evaluating ... "the appropriateness of requiring an authorization for each experimental aircraft rather than using a broader all makes and models approach". Not sure what that could mean to us with aircraft classified as experimental.

--REQUIRED SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
Section 315 appears to allow the corporation the ability to require certain "safety enhancing equipment and systems for small general aviation airplanes".

++10 YEAR REGISTRATIONS
One positive thing I noticed, is a change to the re-registration requirements for aircraft from the current 3 years to 10 years.

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:33:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:33:03 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
By the number of views and on-topic posts, it appears that few people care.
The bill was supposed to be voted on today but there is no update.
Jim

I care and have contacted my representative and senators.
In Florida Senator Nelson is opposed to privatization.
I have not been able to confirm Rubio's position or that of my representative Gaetz.

I believe: "IF IT IS NOT BROKE, DO NOT FIX IT"

My understanding is that the vote in the house has been delayed with no new date set.

We have some smart people in soaring and it would be good if someone would take a look at the bill. It is 461 pages, so there is a lot in there.
I have a call into AOPA and they were unable to answer my questions, the young lady actually said she had not read it. She was from the UK and said she knew their system was a disaster. Someone is suppose to call me back.

In my quick review, it appears that the bill says no fees may be charged to Part 91 operators??? Of course, I suppose they could start that way and then change it once the billing systems are in place.

However, a couple of other items potentially scary items jumped out at me..
--AIRSPACE
There are almost twice as many references to "airspace" is there are to "fees". It appears that the Corporation can make recommendations to the Secretary for airspace changes and they can be approved without any public review. If that is correct, that is scary.

--EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS
There is a reference to the corporation evaluating ... "the appropriateness of requiring an authorization for each experimental aircraft rather than using a broader all makes and models approach". Not sure what that could mean to us with aircraft classified as experimental.

--REQUIRED SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
Section 315 appears to allow the corporation the ability to require certain "safety enhancing equipment and systems for small general aviation airplanes".

++10 YEAR REGISTRATIONS
One positive thing I noticed, is a change to the re-registration requirements for aircraft from the current 3 years to 10 years.

Neither of my senators nor my representative will register a position for or against. I certainly registered by preferences with them.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

I support AOPA, have contacted my NJ reps......
Yes, wish I saw more from SSA.....maybe I missed it......

Canada has this privatised system, and according to news reports are serving aircraft better and cheaper. I would be curious to hear from our canadian friends if it's such a disaster for soaring interests as has been painted here.

John Cochrane