Lately there’s been a lot of buzz in General Aviation about a fee on using the Air Traffic Control system in the US. This fee is not a new idea. In the past it has been defeated as part of the federal budget. This year it seems to be a real possibility. The thing that gets overlooked is really who it applies to. I don’t know if this is intentional or not, but the skeptic in me thinks the intention could be to cause a public uproar and force politicians into excluding it from legislation. On the other side, maybe nobody is actually reading the president’s proposal. Here is what it actually says:
The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
September, 2011
Government Liabilities and Operations – More equitably share payments for air traffic services
To reduce the deficit and more equitably share the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community, the Administration proposes to establish a new mandatory surcharge for air traffic services. This proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted. The revenues generated by the surcharge would be deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years. Assuming the enactment of the fee, total charges collected from aviation users would finance roughly three fourths of airport investments and air traffic control system costs.
The overlooked distinction in this plan is that the fee does NOT apply to pilots flying for personal use (non-commercial). So this really affects businesses like Flight Schools, Skydiving Operations, Air Tours, Aerial Photography, etc.. They would have to pay an additional $100 per flight.
See a description of the proposal on the White House blog here
See the full document here
AOPA Article Describing the Debate
White House response to a petition to eliminate the fees from the budget proposal
Addendum 1/20/2012 18:06:
Maybe I’m wrong. I thought I didn’t fall under this rule paying fees because of the “public aircraft” or “recreational piston aircraft” exemptions. On second thought, they may mean a “Recreational Pilot” which I am not. I am a private pilot and I don’t carry the more restrictive and easier-to-obtain recreational license defined in FAR 61 Subpart D. Even more deceiving is the public aircraft statement which I do not fall under according to this:
Excerpt from the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
§ 1.1 General definitions (see full text here)
Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:
(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments…
(2) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces…
(3) An aircraft owned or operated by the National Guard of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, and that meets the criteria of paragraph (2) of this definition, qualifies as a public aircraft only to the extent that it is operated under the direct control of the Department of Defense.