A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ATC Privatization, HR 2997



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 7th 17, 07:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Whelan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

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.* It
wasn't me and I called them and told them so.* 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.



My vote is for "appalling" rather than "sad," but that's a quibble, not an
argument!

I/my sailplane also once received a fuel bill from an FBO in NM. Fully
prepared to ignore any "further/perpetuating/reinforcing errors" until the end
of my natural life, I simply wrote them back it had to be an error, and why,
and never heard another word. OTOH, my wife continues to occasionally receive
dunning notices (from a collection agency) for a once unpaid (as in, late)
utility bill from long before we ever met. These receive all the attention
they deserve...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Ads
  #13  
Old October 12th 17, 03:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

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
  #14  
Old October 12th 17, 03:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,952
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

Oh Jim, I care.

I sure wish the SSA had been more vocal opposing this

Daryl
  #15  
Old October 12th 17, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

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.
  #16  
Old October 12th 17, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Frank Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,770
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

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
  #17  
Old October 12th 17, 05:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 626
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

I support AOPA, have contacted my NJ reps......
Yes, wish I saw more from SSA.....maybe I missed it......
  #18  
Old October 12th 17, 09:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

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
  #19  
Old October 13th 17, 08:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
India November[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:05:25 AM UTC+4, John Cochrane wrote:
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


You're right, Canada's air navigation system has been owned and operated since 1996 by NavCanada, a private, not-for-profit corporation. (More info about NavCan is available on the web so I won't say more). I acted as the Soaring Association of Canada's representative on airspace from 1997 until 2008.

There is no doubt that Navcan primarily serves its fee-paying customers who are the airlines and through them the travelling public. The main issues that arose for soaring after NavCan's formation were first, large expansions in controlled airspace around several major and regional airports, and second pressure to remove the glider exemption on transponder carriage in the Canadian air regulations.

On the positive side, after a few arguments NavCan implemented a consultative process ("aeronautical studies") for system changes wherein soaring and other users could provide input, which in some cases NavCan accommodated. Recently there have been some give-backs in the form of reductions in controlled airspace around Montreal. So life definitely didn't end!

However, I've moved away several years ago so will let my Canadian friends speak to the present.

Regards
Ian
  #20  
Old October 13th 17, 12:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default ATC Privatization, HR 2997

"large expansions in controlled airspace around several major and regional airports,"

Ian
What are the flight rules for gliders and gliderports inside the NAVCAN controlled airspace, like that around Toronto?
If NAVUSA expanded the airspace around KORD to the same size as that around CYYZ, it appears there would be five existing gliderports within the new KORD airspace.
How would NAVCAN done things differently to prevent something like the recent near miss at KORD?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA and ATC Privatization Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 139 November 12th 03 09:26 PM
AOPA and ATC Privatization Chip Jones Piloting 133 November 12th 03 09:26 PM
More about ATC privatization Casey Wilson Piloting 1 November 5th 03 04:20 PM
What Don Young, R-AK says about ATC privatization Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 2 September 19th 03 05:10 AM
What Don Young, R-AK says about ATC privatization Chip Jones Piloting 2 September 19th 03 05:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.