Six years ago, I started an article on the Obama Administration proposal to implement user fees on aircraft flying in controlled airspace with the words, "Here we go again." And yes, once again, the specter of ATC Privatization has reared it's ugly head again. While I always knew that privatization would likely be bad for … Read more
The Oregon State Marine Board is poised to ban seaplanes on Waldo Lake, even though a Federal court ruled in 2009 that the ban was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. I rarely ask anything of my readers, but I will now. Please take a few minutes to send a letter or email to the Oregon State Marine Board and oppose the provision of OAR 250-020-0221 and OAR 250-030-0030 that bans floatplanes from Waldo Lake. The Columbia River Seaplane Pilots Association has a Waldo Lake page that lists a number of reasons why Waldo Lake should remain open to floatplane owners.
A press release today from the AEA, Aircraft Electronics Association, signals that once again we need to rally all pilots to fight proposed user fees. Deficit reduction is important, but preserving our industry is also important. Currently the proposed $100 per flight fee would only apply to aviation operators flying in controlled airspace.
If you’re in Silicon Valley and look at the south end of Hangar One at Moffett Field, you’ll see that a large amount of siding has been removed, exposing the hangar’s inner framework to the elements. Unfortunately, the $32 million from Congress to re-side the hangar has run into resistance, which isn’t surprising in the current environment. Here’s a photo I took 2 years ago when I was at Moffett Field flying teenagers for EAA’s Young Eagles program. Sadly, the hangar looks different now. If you’re in Silicon Valley and look at the south end of Hangar One at Moffett Field, you’ll see that a large amount of siding has been removed, exposing the hangar’s inner framework to the elements. Unfortunately, the $32 million from Congress to re-side the hangar has run into resistance, which isn’t surprising in the current environment.
There is an online petition to encourage the appropriation of funds for this project. Please consider going to http://www.tinyurl.com/4yll2tv and adding your name to the online petition to ask that funding be allocated to help preserve Silicon Valley’s most iconic, historic landmark.
General Aviation needs the equivalent of an X PRIZE for the design of a new, low cost, electric aircraft that cuts the cost of flying by 80%. To be effective, a general aviation X PRIZE needs to spur the development of an electric aircraft that is the functional equivalent of the venerable Cessna 152, or the more modern Cessna 162 SkyCatcher. Criteria should include:
Two seats
Speed of 100 knots
Endurance of three hours with 30 minute reserve
Recharging or battery switch time of 30 minutes
Carry 400 pounds of pilot, passenger and baggage
Costs less than $10/hour to operate for electricity
Target production cost of $100,000
Men and women are different. But knowing how they are different when it comes to flight training is not well known. A review of FAA Airman statistics showed that over the prior ten years, women consistently comprised 6% of total pilots and 6% of CFIs, yet were 11% of student pilots. That suggested to me that women may drop out of flight training at a higher rate than men. Also, as an active flight instructor, I realized that I have had relatively few women clients, but that female CFIs seem to have a relatively large number of female clients. Thus I wondered, are women student pilots more likely to complete flight training and earn a certificate if they have a female CFI versus a male CFI? My mail survey was design to test that hypothesis and identify barriers to completing flight training.
I’ve often said that pilots will need to become even more active in the future in protecting their flying privileges from the increasing number of threats. Here’s an opportunity for you to help do that. If you live in California, your help is urgently needed to contact your legislators on July 1 and July 2 before their recess. Please ask them to vote for AB 1140(amended).
California AB 48 levied large state fees, increasing costs to flight schools and flight instructors and goes into effect in August 2010. This will raise the cost for pilots to get flight instruction, and effectively put many instructors and flight schools out of business. In early June, I emailed you asking you to contact legislators and/or attend a public hearing in Sacramento on June 7. AOPA and dozens of flight schools and flight instructors showed up and testified. However the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) said that they would still be implementing the regulations. Since new bills cannot be introduced until January 2011, efforts by AOPA, NATA and flight schools turned to finding an existing bill that could be amended with provisions delaying the new fees for a year, pending further legislative hearings.
Last week, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held a confirmation hearing on the nomination of John Pistole to be the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administrator. The most interesting revelation from a General Aviation point of view was one Senator’s acknowledgment of the effectiveness of pilots in lobbying Congress.
I'd like to thank everyone who either wrote to Sacramento or attended the meeting on Monday to provide the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education with comments regarding new regulations and fees for the flight instruction industry. Clearly there was an impact, as the Bureau seemed surprised by the flurry of comments generated over the past … Read more
California A.B. 48 was signed into law giving the BPE, part of the California Consumer Protection Agency, authority to levy new fees on flight schools. The bureau appears to be taking the broadest possible interpretation of the law and proposes to include all independent flight instructors and flight schools, including Part 141 and Part 61 schools. To quote a story by EAA, “Each instructor would be charged an initial application fee of $5000 and a $3500 renewal fee every three years. If the instructor has a second location an additional fee of $1000 would be assessed. Finally, they would be required to pay an operation fee of three-quarters of a percent of the CFI’s income (not to exceed $25000 annually).” Compliance includes providing the Bureau with audited financial statements each year.