FAA final rule: Aircraft registrations now good for only 3 years

[Jim Logajan]

The U.S. FAA has issued a final rule on its aircraft registrations
proposal. All current aircraft registrations will expire in 3 years. Owners
will need to re-register periodically (every 3 years) to continue to
operate their aircraft.

Here is the final rule notice:

http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-17572_PI.pdf

[george]

On Jul 20, 5:34*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The U.S. FAA has issued a final rule on its aircraft registrations
> proposal. All current aircraft registrations will expire in 3 years. Owners
> will need to re-register periodically (every 3 years) to continue to
> operate their aircraft.
>
I sense a money maker here

[Brian Whatcott]

On 7/19/2010 1:46 PM, a wrote:
>... Would
> anyone be very surprised if sometime soon there will be some structure
> put in place to 'validate' our certificates too?

Uh? That happened already. This March just passed.

Brian W

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 19, 5:23*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:34*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:> The U.S. FAA has issued a final rule on its aircraft registrations
> > proposal. All current aircraft registrations will expire in 3 years. Owners
> > will need to re-register periodically (every 3 years) to continue to
> > operate their aircraft.
>
> I sense a money maker here

George, the re-registration fee is $5. Clearly there are not enough
lawyers in the FAA's administration.

[Wayne Paul]

The $5 is the current initiation fee. According to the AOPA the authorization bill currently working its' way through congress allows the FAA to charge as much as $130 for initial registration and $45 for renewals. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"a" > wrote in message ...
On Jul 19, 5:23 pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:34 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:> The U.S. FAA has issued a final rule on its aircraft registrations
> > proposal. All current aircraft registrations will expire in 3 years. Owners
> > will need to re-register periodically (every 3 years) to continue to
> > operate their aircraft.
>
> I sense a money maker here

George, the re-registration fee is $5. Clearly there are not enough
lawyers in the FAA's administration.

[george]

On Jul 21, 7:20*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> The $5 is the current initiation fee. *According to the AOPA the authorization bill currently working its' way through congress allows the FAA to charge as much as $130 for initial registration and $45 for renewals. *We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds.

At one stage we had 'Lifetime' car driving licenses.
However that soon changed and the license is now only good for ten
years and costs megabucks to renew...

[BobR]

On Jul 20, 3:42*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:20*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > The $5 is the current initiation fee. *According to the AOPA the authorization bill currently working its' way through congress allows the FAA to charge as much as $130 for initial registration and $45 for renewals. *We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds.
>
> At one stage we had 'Lifetime' car driving licenses.
> However that soon changed and the license is now only good for ten
> years and costs megabucks to renew...

This is JUST THE BEGINNING and like everything else the government has
imposed on the public it starts out small and they will then find a
way to justify adding onto it every year thereafter.

[Bug Dout]

BobR > writes:

> This is JUST THE BEGINNING and like everything else the government has
> imposed on the public it starts out small and they will then find a
> way to justify adding onto it every year thereafter.

For sure, just look at the Pentagon and the military. Bloat city.

--
You always feel a bit scared when stroking horses.
--Peter Kay

[Bob]

I don't know about anyone else out there, but, I am about at the end
of my rope!

I just want to fly my plane.

But every day now, it seems, is another fee or rule or restriction!
*Our ELTs are now useless or worse.
*We are going to have to shell out a fortune for ADS-B.
*We now need to register (and pay) every three years. -- Why now after
100 years of flight?
*We pay property taxes (at least here in CA) AND file a mandatory form
so we have to pay more if God Forbid we paint or improve our plane.
*We can't fly within 100 miles of D.C. (literally, I think) without an
act of Congress (almost literally)
* add your own.

Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
professionals?

[george]

On Jul 23, 5:19*am, Bob > wrote:
> I don't know about anyone else out there, but, I am about at the end
> of my rope!
>
> I just want to fly my plane.
>
> But every day now, it seems, is another fee or rule or restriction!
> *Our ELTs are now useless or worse.
> *We are going to have to shell out a fortune for ADS-B.
> *We now need to register (and pay) every three years. -- Why now after
> 100 years of flight?
> *We pay property taxes (at least here in CA) AND file a mandatory form
> so we have to pay more if God Forbid we paint or improve our plane.
> *We can't fly within 100 miles of D.C. (literally, I think) without an
> act of Congress (almost literally)
> * add your own.
>
> Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
> Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
> professionals?

Wasn't there something where if you flew from one State to another you
could be liable for sales tax in that State although you'd paid it in
your own ?

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 22, 4:31*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:19*am, Bob > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't know about anyone else out there, but, I am about at the end
> > of my rope!
>
> > I just want to fly my plane.
>
> > But every day now, it seems, is another fee or rule or restriction!
> > *Our ELTs are now useless or worse.
> > *We are going to have to shell out a fortune for ADS-B.
> > *We now need to register (and pay) every three years. -- Why now after
> > 100 years of flight?
> > *We pay property taxes (at least here in CA) AND file a mandatory form
> > so we have to pay more if God Forbid we paint or improve our plane.
> > *We can't fly within 100 miles of D.C. (literally, I think) without an
> > act of Congress (almost literally)
> > * add your own.
>
> > Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
> > Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
> > professionals?
>
> Wasn't there something where if you flew from one State to another you
> could be liable for sales tax in that State although you'd paid it in
> your own ?

For a time I think it was FL that treated an airplane there for more
than a few days as taxable property in that state. I am not sure how
that got resolved. I don't know this, but suspect the underlying issue
had to do with yachts registered in a state of 'convenience' rather
than the state where it was kept. On the eastern seaboard many boats
had Delaware registration but were moored or docked full time in for
example MA (not known for being modest in imposing taxes when I lived
there).

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jul 22, 3:20*pm, a > wrote:

> I am not sure how that got resolved...

The AOPA has been on the case:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100430florida.html

Thanks, Bob K.

[george]

On Jul 23, 10:32*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:20*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > I am not sure how that got resolved...
>
> The AOPA has been on the case:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100430florida.html
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

And thanks from me...

[Mxsmanic]

Bob writes:

> Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
> Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
> professionals?

Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

The main reasons are that too few people are interested in flying to
effectively lobby for maintaining it as a viable hobby, whereas the commercial
air travel industry is immense and well funded and very effective at lobbying.
Commercial airlines see private pilots as obstacles to their own business, so
they will consistently lobby in favor of airlines and against private pilots.
Over time, inevitably, private flight will wither and die.

As you observe, flying for fun already involves red tape and expense that
effectively reserves it to a very highly motivated and/or wealthy elite. That
trend will only continue.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob writes:
>
>> Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
>> Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
>> professionals?
>
> Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
> really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
> eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.

Or submarines or earth movers...

Illogical babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian Whatcott]

On 7/23/2010 10:26 AM, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning > wrote:
>> Bob writes:
>>
>>> Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
>>> Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
>>> professionals?
>>
>> Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
>> really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
>> eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.
>
> Or submarines or earth movers...
>
> Illogical babble.
>
>
There is a difference between riding/driving/flying a vehicle made for
1,2,3, or 4 and driving a vehicle capable of carrying ten tons.
No doubt about it.
Abolish the cycle, motorbike, motorbike and sidecar, the car,
the row-boat, the bass-boat, the sail-boat?
I don't think so.

But there is something about light aircraft that connects with the
public fear of more hundred ton vehicles demolishing people and places...
Now THAT'S illogical!

Brian W

[Dan[_12_]]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bob writes:
>>
>>> Is this going to stop before everyone gives up our hobby?
>>> Or will flying in the United States be reserved only for the rich and
>>> professionals?
>> Eventually hobby flight will be squeezed out of existence. Just as nobody is
>> really driving tractor-trailer rigs for fun, or driving trains for fun,
>> eventually there will be nobody flying for fun.
>
> Or submarines or earth movers...
>
> Illogical babble.
>
>

And typical mxsmanic garbage. Besides, some people do operate
tractor-trailers and trains for fun, but let's not confuse the poor kid
with facts.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Or submarines or earth movers...
>
> Illogical babble.

Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.

You won't know what you've got until it's gone.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Or submarines or earth movers...
>>
>> Illogical babble.
>
> Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
> others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.

What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 23, 6:33*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> Or submarines or earth movers...
>
> >> Illogical babble.
>
> > Wait and see, particularly if you continue to spend time personally attacking
> > others when you could spend it lobbying, or voting.
>
> What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, when an adult admits to spending what amounts to man - years
engaged in playing MSFS and posting here, it's reasonable to expect a
distorted world view. He intrudes on a forum that's intended to be for
general discussions among AVIATORS (caps intended). Responding to him
extends these threads in meaningless directions, as is being
demonstrated here.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.

Whatever you choose to call it, it isn't helping the cause of general and
private aviation.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> What you call "personally attacking" I call stating the truth.
>
> Whatever you choose to call it, it isn't helping the cause of general and
> private aviation.

Like any of your inane postings have anything at all to do with real
aviation, much less helping aviation in any way, shape or form.

Please tell us again that people can't run trains for fun when in fact
they do and can think of two places fairly locally to me where it happens,
and how that somehow is relevant to aviation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

> Commercial airlines see private pilots as obstacles to their own business, so
> they will consistently lobby in favor of airlines and against private pilots.
> Over time, inevitably, private flight will wither and die.

"Commercial airlines" is a redundancy. All commercial pilots started
as private pilots, and private pilots are a revenue source for
instructors, the FAA, mechanics, manufacturers and the rest of the
industry... Oshkosh being the best evidence. I'm sitting at a towered
airport right now looking at a privately-owned King Air next to about
two dozen private aircraft, from jets all the way to a humble
Traumahawk and an Ercoupe.

Times are tough, but a FedEx pilot I've been flying with said the
airlines are calling back furloughed pilots, hiring new ones, and
started to get nervous about an upcoming pilot shortage. You can't
get to the airlines without a lot of time and the best way to build
time short of instruction is to own and fly your own airplane.

It's the general public we have to worry about, who believes that
aviation serves an elite few.

> As you observe, flying for fun already involves red tape and expense that
> effectively reserves it to a very highly motivated and/or wealthy elite.

Truth. However, as an instructor I find that a high degree of
motivation is characteristic of anybody who can afford to fly, and
I've discovered that the "wealthy elite" are most often self-made
entrepreneurs and businessmen with a prodigious work ethic. Not
necessarily great pilots, but, if you spend a half hour with *most* of
them you come to understand how they've earned what they
have. ...financial/investment manager types, not so much.

I left my sysadmin career to live in near-poverty as a CFI (haven't
looked back) and have found my view of the average "rich person" to be
far less cynical than before. I definitely prefer the "very highly
motivated" to the trustafarian "wealthy elite" although the latter are
the best cash cow because if daddy or the taxpayers are paying for
flight school, they take forever to finish whereas if they're paying
their own way, they're done in half the time.

Gloomy economic times for general aviation, to be sure, and the
increased regulations, FCC nonsense and red tape certainly don't help.
The person who died nearby in his experimental recently went through
at least two instructors here who wouldn't sign his flight review, so,
he wasn't flying legally. Regulation didn't accomplish anything.

-chris
CFI

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:

> All commercial pilots started
> as private pilots, and private pilots are a revenue source for
> instructors, the FAA, mechanics, manufacturers and the rest of the
> industry... Oshkosh being the best evidence.

Mostly, even overwehlmingly, but not invariably.

In an earlier incarnation, I worked for IASCO at Napa, CA.

Their main business at the time was ab initio training of JAL pilots. From "what
is an airplane?" to Falcon 20 certification (plus B-727 flight engineer) in one
long slog. The students may have technically been private pilots at one point,
but for all practical purposes they were students from day one through
graduation (at which point they went back to Japan to work as baggage handlers
to ticket agents, etc. until sent back to the U.S. for the flight engineer
training).