Strike Force Behind The Book: strikeforce.mp3 Writers Roundtable Interview With Dale Brown ATARI ACT OF WAR: DIRECT ACTION LINKS Dale Brown Interview With: Peter Anthony Holder When a former pilot turns his hand to thrillers you can take their authenticity for granted. His writing is exceptional and the dialogue, plots and characters are first-class... far too good to be missed.' --Sunday Mirror ‘Dale Brown is a superb storyteller’ --WASHINGTON POST ‘Dale Brown is the best military adventure writer in the country’ --CLIVE CUSSLER

Just Stop Shoveling The Shit, OK?
by Dale Brown, 2007

ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT TheBigFiveOh.com Blog @ Yahoo.Com, Sunday April 15, 2007

An article by the Associated Press published this weekend said that billions of dollars are being paid by airline passengers to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and then lavishly awarded to private pilots and globe-trotting corporate executives.

Wow! Where's my cut of this money? I'm a private pilot and have been for over twenty years, and I haven't seen a dime--in fact, I'm PAYING more than ever before!

In fact, the AP article is one of the most slanted, skewed, bullshit articles I've ever read. Let's deal with a few of the falsehoods in the 15 April 2007 article by Bob Porterfield:

First, the article is entitled "Ticket Taxes Fund Corporate Jets." FALSE. Ticket taxes don't fund the jets. Among many things they pay for--air traffic control services, safety programs, security, and research--are improvements to smaller county and regional airports throughout the country. These airports are used more and more by private, corporate, and even small commercial and cargo operators because of overcrowding, high fees, and high costs of everything at large airports, and because it's often easier and less costly to fly in and out of outlying airports. But they don't pay for the jets.

Why should you care about small airports? These airports generate tremendous amounts of revenue for local, county, state, and federal governments in the form of property, sales, and use taxes. They provide diverse and recession-resistant employment. They bring in a highly skilled workforce--pilots, mechanics, technicians, shop owners, high-tech businessmen, and suppliers.

Regional and local airports provide many services that would take longer, be more expensive, or might be impossible otherwise. If every FedEx or Airborne package I sent had to go through Reno, Sacramento, or San Francisco International Airports instead of Sparks, Truckee, Elko, or Mather Airports, overnight service may be impossible or much more expensive.

Also, my local airports provide bases for other services such as aerial firefighting, crop dusting, police air patrols, air ambulances, small cargo delivery, flight training, and sightseeing that would create a real traffic mess or might even be prohibited from major airports. In coming years, every small airport could have a jet air taxi service that would provide on-demand walk-up air service to anyone, with no tickets, lines, or security screening. If local small airports disappeared, services like these would probably not exist or be severely curtailed at major airports, further driving up costs, delays, and danger due to overcrowding.

Porterfield whines about the "hassles" experienced by airline passengers--delays, lost baggage, and being involuntarily bumped from a ticketed flight--and then swings right back to attack corporate and private aviation, as if WE'RE responsible for the screwed-up state of affairs on the airlines.

He says that general aviation pays for services primarily in the form of aviation fuel taxes. That's true--a tax that in most cases is 40% HIGHER than what automobile drivers pay and can equal 100% in places such as large airports where added local fees are added.

Porterfield says that the fuel tax pays for only a fraction of the services provided. That's true too--but that's also true for the airline passenger fees paying for all the other services provided to us. The rest of the money comes from all the OTHER taxes and fees we already pay to the federal, state, and local governments--income, property, and sales taxes, and a myriad of fees and expenses. I would say that most of the money I pay in property taxes on my airplane and hangar don't go to improving the airport or anything to do with aviation--it goes to all the other things that the state and county spend money on. There's no free lunch here, folks.

This completely one-sided and slanted article deals with the issue of user fees for general (non-commercial) aviation. The Federal Aviation Administration wants to change the way pilots and airplane owners pay into the system. Along with aviation fuel taxes, the FAA wants to charge pilots a fee for particular services. A weather briefing--done for free now via an 800 number or online--might cost a couple dollars before each flight. Filing a flight plan--mandatory for some flights but important for safety on most flights, especially in poor weather--might cost another couple dollars. Flying into Class B airspace--busy airspace around major metropolitan cities--would cost extra. Fees for submitting paperwork on repairs, selling or buying a plane, or getting or renewing a license would cost more.

The problem with this plan is that the airlines wouldn't pay the same because they would use their own services and so wouldn't use the government services, or if they did they would get a "volume discount" and access a more streamlined, efficient way of utilizing those services. Plus, the airlines don't actually PAY for these services--THEIR PASSENGERS PAY!

We in general aviation don't have a system of dispatchers, weather centers, government liaisons, and traffic flow analysts to assist them--we use the FAA system because it's standardized, it's "official," readily accessible, and free. A few of us use commercial products like Jeppesen charts instead of government charts because they're easier to read and available in formats that the government doesn't provide (but still charges for). The airlines wouldn't be affected by user fees because they bypass the government services with their own products and utilize a direct, less costly pipeline to the FAA system when they need to tap it.

A recent article in a general aviation magazine highlighted the issue of user fees by showing how much a simple private flight in Europe would cost, where user fees are the norm. A four hundred mile flight in a twin-engine plane across national borders--a typical two-hour flight in a mid-sized piston twin airplane--costs an average of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE in Europe because of user fees--and that doesn't include the higher prices of fuel and taxes in general. User fees have almost killed general aviation in Europe.

What would happen in the U.S.? Like recent fuel price increases, most GA pilots like myself would curtail some personal flying (like the so-called "$100 hamburger" fun flights, which last year completely went away when fuel prices skyrocketed) and just suck it up and pay the fees on business trips because we enjoy the freedom and utility of private flying.

For recreational and occasional pilots, user fees would simply ground many and drive more away from controlled airspace where they wouldn't use government services--they wouldn't fly near large towns or cities, wouldn't use identification transponders, and wouldn't file flight plans or get weather briefings. The problem is that air traffic control still has to keep the system's users away from these uncontrolled flights, which means their workload stays the same and is made even more difficult because they're not talking to more pilots any more.

I like to think that most of us are responsible, but there are always the ones who think saving a few dollars is more important than being safe and responsible. Some pilots who want to fly in bad weather but didn't want to pay user fees might do something irresponsible like "scud-running"--flying under bad weather, or ignoring the laws regarding flying in bad weather. That's dangerous for them and for the rest of us who rely on everyone following procedures.

Some pilots might not get official weather briefings and so might miss critical information. For example, the Air Force occasionally establishes a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) around Beale Air Force Base in northern California whenever they fly an unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk reconnaissance plane. The TFR encompasses two nearby general aviation airports. The TFR is announced and published by the FAA issuing NOTAMS, or Notices To Airmen, and are distributed by getting a weather briefing by telephone or using various online briefing and flight planning services, which access the FAA information.

Today, getting NOTAMs is free from the FAA. But if pilots have to pay to get NOTAMs, a few might elect not to pay the money, and would never know that a TFR is up. That's a violation for them if they stray into the TFR, but it could result in death and destruction of millions of dollars of equipment if a mid-air collision occurs. Why did this have to happen--just so the airlines could save a few dollars?

User fees are similar to the idea of using toll highways versus surface streets. Most of us curse under our breath but toss the money into the hopper anyway in exchange for a better road and quicker drive times. Some would take the surface streets and believe that a few extra minutes' drive time is worth the savings. Some might move to a town where they didn't have to take the toll road; a few might stop driving altogether.

But imagine that now EVERY street is a toll road except for dirt trails and open fields. Imagine that if you stop at a red light you have to pay a dime, or a penny for stopping at every stop sign, or a quarter for every off- or on-ramp you take. Might some elect NOT to stop at red lights or stop signs? Might some take a dangerous dirt road or open field, even if they're carrying their precious families?

Here's the bottom line:

First, we don't need hacks like Bob Porterfield of the Associated Press writing bogus, slanted articles on the issue. To be fair, magazines like AOPA Pilot lean strongly away from user fees and really lay it on just as thick, but AOPA represents the general aviation community, and that's their job. The AP is supposed to be an unbiased news source. If you want to discuss the issue, do it fair and balanced.

Second, let's be rational about this and find a way to pay for professional services that enhance safety and efficiency without driving hundreds of thousands of pilots out of aviation or into hazardous practices. Aviation fuel taxes seem to me the most equitable way to pay for aviation services--if you fly you have to buy fuel, so you pay the tax. Access to services are paid for before you leave the ground, and they're free so you have no excuse not to access them. I could put up with higher fuel taxes to pay for modernized air traffic control systems and better pay for controllers. Charging higher fees for filing paperwork or for licenses and inspections might be inevitable.

User fees don't seem like the answer. You can't bypass the fuel tax, but you can do unsafe things to bypass user fees, and that's not right. Charging extra to use the national airspace system itself, the system our tax money has already built, could lead to abuse and irresponsible acts.

Of course, the airlines don't like higher fuel taxes because they would have to charge more for airline tickets, which could result in more persons driving or riding trains or buses instead of flying.

What will they argue for next--highway user fees? Train user fees? Bus user fees?

Welcome to AirBattleForce.Com Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA Cyberspace home of: Dale Brown readermail@dalebrown.info