ATC Privatization, HR 2997

[Tango Eight]

Received this morning... see below. Anyone know the issues, particularly the flip side? Thx.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8



Dear Evan,

I am writing to ask if you could please take a few minutes and call your representative in Congress, THIS WEEK! If you have already called, please call again and let them know that you oppose HR 2997. This is vital as we fight to protect our freedom to fly.

I know you have heard from me on a couple of occasions over the last few months about HR 2997, a bill that would hand over our air traffic control system to the airlines. And now, once again, supporters of the planned proposal are planning to schedule the bill for a vote next week in the U.S House of Representatives, the 11th of October

Your voice is critical in this fight. Privatization proponents are making calls and twisting arms every day to gain support. We must remain vigilant, which is why I am asking you to please take a few minutes and contact Congresswoman Ann Kuster and voice your strong opposition to HR 2997. You can reach them at [phone]

Here are some talking points to use when you call:

I am a constituent and I oppose HR 2997.
HR 2997 simply hands over our Air Traffic Control system to a board controlled by the airlines and special interests.
This legislation will not reduce delays – 80% of delays today are caused by the airlines (crew scheduling, flight scheduling, maintenance), and weather events.
We have the largest, safest, and most efficient air traffic system in the world.
This proposal is risky and has many unintended consequences.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, HR 2997 will add $100 billion dollars to the deficit.
The American Conservative Union foundation says this is not privatization and has requested the bill be pulled.
The General Accountability Office says that this transition will slow modernization of our air traffic control system.
The Congressional Research Service says that HR 2997 is most likely unconstitutional.
Nearly 200 General Aviation organizations, small airports, mayors, unions, conservative groups, and many others oppose HR 2997.

Thanks for your time and your support!

Mark Baker, President & CEO Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

[g***@gmail.com]

Mostly they are worried about airplane pilots having to pay per flight for ATC services. Won't affect soaring much. Motor pilots argue ATC services are paid for with avgas tax, but that also means they are subsidized by everyone that burns avgas and doesn't use ATC. Bigger issue is if a private company and a monopoly is making money off controlled airspace then they are likely to lobby for more controlled airspace. See red light camera scumbaggery for an example. Could argue that there is a safety issue, if every request to ATC generates a bill less pilots will use ATC. I think the ADSB mandate for motorplanes(in certain airspace) is going to drive more pilots out of the ATC system then pay per use would. Not getting excited I suspect the bill is privatization theatre and other than generating donations for the advocacy orgs will be a nothing burger. And if the rules do get too onerous we'll just paint all our gliders and towplanes black and fly at night.
Parachute people sent this:
THIS MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE SKYDIVING FROM DIRE CONSEQUENCES

October 3, 2017

The proponents of the bad idea of stripping air traffic control from the FAA, and handing it to a new private corporation are planning to have the House vote on their bill--HR 2997--next week. All of the general aviation (GA) groups, including USPA, are opposed.

If you have not called your Congressional Representative and secured their "no" vote on HR 2997, please do so now!

1. Dial toll-free: 833-GAVOICE (833-428-6423), weekdays from 9-5 Eastern.

2. You will be asked to input your zip code then transferred to your Representative's office.

3. Say: "I am opposed to ATC privatization, and my Representative should vote 'no' on HR 2997."

If you do not call, and HR 2997 passes Congress and is signed into law, here is what could happen:
The airlines and large airports will gain control of the new ATC board, outweighing GA and skydiving interests.
FAA's current "first come, first served" ATC policy will be eliminated, degrading service to skydive operators.
Decisions affecting airspace and ATC procedures will favor airline efficiency and penalize skydiving operational and airspace needs.
Drop Zones could lose airspace.
Skydive operators will incur higher costs due to increased flight times; jump ticket costs will increase.
For more information, go to www.atcnotforsale.com.

Please call! The future of skydiving, and all of GA, is at stake!

[Tango Eight]

On further reflection, this is an inherently detestable idea. It's not "privatization". It's "privatization and the creation of a government protected, rent seeking, unaccountable monopoly".

best,
Evan

[JS]

Note that is is not necessary to hit the star key after the representative hangs up, if you already hear "connecting to the next lawmaker".

The proposed system could be as bad as or worse than privately run prisons.
Jim

Post by g***@gmail.com
Mostly they are worried about airplane pilots having to pay per flight for ATC services. Won't affect soaring much. Motor pilots argue ATC services are paid for with avgas tax, but that also means they are subsidized by everyone that burns avgas and doesn't use ATC. Bigger issue is if a private company and a monopoly is making money off controlled airspace then they are likely to lobby for more controlled airspace. See red light camera scumbaggery for an example. Could argue that there is a safety issue, if every request to ATC generates a bill less pilots will use ATC. I think the ADSB mandate for motorplanes(in certain airspace) is going to drive more pilots out of the ATC system then pay per use would. Not getting excited I suspect the bill is privatization theatre and other than generating donations for the advocacy orgs will be a nothing burger. And if the rules do get too onerous we'll just paint all our gliders and towplanes black and fly at night.
THIS MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE SKYDIVING FROM DIRE CONSEQUENCES
October 3, 2017
The proponents of the bad idea of stripping air traffic control from the FAA, and handing it to a new private corporation are planning to have the House vote on their bill--HR 2997--next week. All of the general aviation (GA) groups, including USPA, are opposed.
If you have not called your Congressional Representative and secured their "no" vote on HR 2997, please do so now!
1. Dial toll-free: 833-GAVOICE (833-428-6423), weekdays from 9-5 Eastern.
2. You will be asked to input your zip code then transferred to your Representative's office.
3. Say: "I am opposed to ATC privatization, and my Representative should vote 'no' on HR 2997."
The airlines and large airports will gain control of the new ATC board, outweighing GA and skydiving interests.
FAA's current "first come, first served" ATC policy will be eliminated, degrading service to skydive operators.
Decisions affecting airspace and ATC procedures will favor airline efficiency and penalize skydiving operational and airspace needs.
Drop Zones could lose airspace.
Skydive operators will incur higher costs due to increased flight times; jump ticket costs will increase.
For more information, go to www.atcnotforsale.com.
Please call! The future of skydiving, and all of GA, is at stake!

[Frank Whiteley]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Mostly they are worried about airplane pilots having to pay per flight for ATC services. Won't affect soaring much. Motor pilots argue ATC services are paid for with avgas tax, but that also means they are subsidized by everyone that burns avgas and doesn't use ATC. Bigger issue is if a private company and a monopoly is making money off controlled airspace then they are likely to lobby for more controlled airspace. See red light camera scumbaggery for an example. Could argue that there is a safety issue, if every request to ATC generates a bill less pilots will use ATC. I think the ADSB mandate for motorplanes(in certain airspace) is going to drive more pilots out of the ATC system then pay per use would. Not getting excited I suspect the bill is privatization theatre and other than generating donations for the advocacy orgs will be a nothing burger. And if the rules do get too onerous we'll just paint all our gliders and towplanes black and fly at night.
THIS MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE SKYDIVING FROM DIRE CONSEQUENCES
October 3, 2017
The proponents of the bad idea of stripping air traffic control from the FAA, and handing it to a new private corporation are planning to have the House vote on their bill--HR 2997--next week. All of the general aviation (GA) groups, including USPA, are opposed.
If you have not called your Congressional Representative and secured their "no" vote on HR 2997, please do so now!
1. Dial toll-free: 833-GAVOICE (833-428-6423), weekdays from 9-5 Eastern.
2. You will be asked to input your zip code then transferred to your Representative's office.
3. Say: "I am opposed to ATC privatization, and my Representative should vote 'no' on HR 2997."
The airlines and large airports will gain control of the new ATC board, outweighing GA and skydiving interests.
FAA's current "first come, first served" ATC policy will be eliminated, degrading service to skydive operators.
Decisions affecting airspace and ATC procedures will favor airline efficiency and penalize skydiving operational and airspace needs.
Drop Zones could lose airspace.
Skydive operators will incur higher costs due to increased flight times; jump ticket costs will increase.
For more information, go to www.atcnotforsale.com.
Please call! The future of skydiving, and all of GA, is at stake!

A similar type of thinking brought us the USPS many years ago. How's that working out? I keeping thinking ADS-B's larger impact will be that it will become the toll beacon of the sky. That will impact soaring and all air sports as I'm sure any exemptions will canceled in a privatized ATC sky. Transponders squawking 1202 will just not be 'safe' enough.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Whiteley
I keeping thinking ADS-B's larger impact will be that it will become the toll beacon of the sky. That will impact soaring and all air sports as I'm sure any exemptions will canceled in a privatized ATC sky. Transponders squawking 1202 will just not be 'safe' enough.

Frank, glad to see someone else believes we will eventually all be paying a toll whether we use ATC or not. The problem with privatization is that it is based on user fees and giving priority to the airlines. That is sort of like giving bus lines control and priority over cars, which has already happened in some places. The initial response by GA will be to avoid ATC to avoid fees. Pilots that might have flown on an IFR flight plan (even in VMC) or requested flight following, will then fly without ATC. The chance of a mid-air for GA will most certainly increase. It does not appear the airlines have realized the problem it will create for themselves by having so many more GA pilots outside the ATC system. Currently, ATC will vector a GA pilot they are controlling to minimize the impact on airlines in the same vicinity. If ATC is not talking to the GA aircraft, then the airlines will have to do ALL of the vectoring to avoid GA. That will eventually lead to major inefficiencies for the airlines and they will then need to lobby for all aircraft to be controlled over larger areas or lose even more money. Eventually, all of the airspace could become "controlled" and everyone pays a user fee. We do not even need ADSB for that to happen, since the mode-S transponders we use now give ATC and the FAA all the information they need to send us a bill whether we use ATC or not. I've received dozens of invoices from Canada even though I have not flown there in more than 15 years. Either their system has issues, someone is flying with my mode-s code, the N number was heard incorrectly, or they simply want to send out bills hoping the payee will not notice. I even received an invoice for my balloon of all things. The sad part is that I have to be the one to prove my aircraft was not there, not the other way around. While I do not expect this all to happen in my lifetime, the next generation or two will not have the opportunities we all had.

[Dan Marotta]

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.

As to tolls, last I heard the air was free and, since I'm not required
to have a transponder, I could simply remove it.  Problem solved (for now).

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Frank Whiteley
I keeping thinking ADS-B's larger impact will be that it will become the toll beacon of the sky. That will impact soaring and all air sports as I'm sure any exemptions will canceled in a privatized ATC sky. Transponders squawking 1202 will just not be 'safe' enough.

Frank, glad to see someone else believes we will eventually all be paying a toll whether we use ATC or not. The problem with privatization is that it is based on user fees and giving priority to the airlines. That is sort of like giving bus lines control and priority over cars, which has already happened in some places. The initial response by GA will be to avoid ATC to avoid fees. Pilots that might have flown on an IFR flight plan (even in VMC) or requested flight following, will then fly without ATC. The chance of a mid-air for GA will most certainly increase. It does not appear the airlines have realized the problem it will create for themselves by having so many more GA pilots outside the ATC system. Currently, ATC will vector a GA pilot they are controlling to minimize the impact on airlines in the same vicinity. If ATC is not talking to the GA aircraft, then the airlines will have to do ALL of the vectoring to avoid GA. That will eventually lead to major inefficiencies for the airlines and they will then need to lobby for all aircraft to be controlled over larger areas or lose even more money. Eventually, all of the airspace could become "controlled" and everyone pays a user fee. We do not even need ADSB for that to happen, since the mode-S transponders we use now give ATC and the FAA all the information they need to send us a bill whether we use ATC or not. I've received dozens of invoices from Canada even though I have not flown there in more than 15 years. Either their system has issues, someone is flying with my mode-s code, the N number was heard incorrectly, or they simply want to send out bills hoping the payee will not notice. I even received an invoice for my balloon of all things. The sad part is that I have to be the one to prove my aircraft was not there, not the other way around. While I do not expect this all to happen in my lifetime, the next generation or two will not have the opportunities we all had.

[m***@gmail.com]

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 Marotta]

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.  It wasn't me and I called them and told them so.  That was
the last I heard of it.

Post by Dan Marotta

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.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Dan Marotta
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 Marotta]

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

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Dan Marotta
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.

[JS]

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-congress/house-bill/2997/text#toc-H05E51D216F8743308F783AA4FFD366A3

[Darryl Ramm]

Oh Jim, I care.

I sure wish the SSA had been more vocal opposing this

Daryl

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by JS
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.

[Frank Whiteley]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by JS
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

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

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

[John Cochrane]

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

[India November]

Post by John Cochrane
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

[m***@gmail.com]

"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?

[Bob Whelan]

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.

Post by Dan Marotta

Post by Dan Marotta
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

[Wit Wisniewski]

This is much like the Net Neutrality issue.

Are profits of the largest stakeholders to be paramount, or are people who strive for recreation, beauty, education, charity, or are simply poorer to be equally treated by the law?

[t***@serkowski.com]

I stumbled on this BLOG about a guy trying to fly a J-3 cub in Spain and southern France, but it provides an American's view of the bureaucracy over there: https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/author/garretfisher/

Whether this is what privatization looks like, or if it's just the way Europe does it, I don't know.

5Z

[Martin Gregorie]

Post by t***@serkowski.com
Whether this is what privatization looks like, or if it's just the way
Europe does it, I don't know.

As far as I know air traffic management in the UK is run by a non-
government company and has been since the end of WW2. There was a massive
airspace grab by the airlines in the late 40s/early 50s but that got
fought off and controlled airspace pushed back to reasonable sizes. The
only real issues since I've been flying have been the temporary Olympic
airspace extension over London and the attempted landgrabs by TAG at
Farnborough (still ongoing) and some regional airports with vastly
inflated ideas of their traffic (Norwich, I'm looking at you).

Generally, UK airspace management works fairly well. My club operates
from an ex-RAF bomber field 11 nm west of Cambridge and 22 nm north of
Stanstead. This puts us just 2 nm inside the outer layer of the Stanstead
CTR - not a problem as at this distance we're under the outer layer of
the 'inverted wedding cake', with its lower boundary at 5500 ft. This
isn't usually an issue because its a pretty good day if we can get that
high. Put it this way: I can only remember three flights in 17 years when
I've been at 5000 and climbing over our field. Cambridge (Marshals) has
23,000 movements a year or thereabouts and seems happy with a standard
sized ATZ plus a pair of ILS feathers (we add a margin to both and stay
out of it) and RAF Lakenheath, a bit NE of Cambridge, has a standard
military MATZ. We talk to both if we're passing within 5nm, they talk to
each other and I frequently hear Cambridge Appproach warning their GA and
bizjet traffic about gliders if its a good day. I believe Cambridge has a
FLARM receiver in their tower, and their combination of radar and airband
DF seems able to localise anybody talking to them.

We have good relations with both airfields, getting regular visits from
the USAF at Lakenheath and invitations to tour the tower and workshops at
Marshals.

IME there's no problem with with the UK's 'privatised' ATC, only with a
few greedy airport operators who are getting a lot of pushback via the
mandatory consultation process for airspace alteration.