GA In The Crosshairs: The Math Behind The Mayhem | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date






Airborne On ANN

Airborne 10.17.16

Airborne 10.18.16

Airborne 10.19.16

Airborne 10.20.16

Airborne 10.21.16

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 10.17.16

Airborne 10.18.16

Airborne 10.19.16

Airborne 10.20.16

Airborne 10.21.16

Wed, Feb 14, 2007

GA In The Crosshairs: The Math Behind The Mayhem

Agency Worked With National Accounting Firm To Determine Allocations

How did the Federal Aviation Administration arrive at its decision to increase fees operators of smaller aircraft would pay under its proposed new funding scheme? The FAA states it worked with accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers to designed what the agency calls "a simple, transparent, thorough, and repeatable cost allocation methodology."

The FAA used FY 2005 Cost Accounting System data -- which the agency says is the most detailed and comprehensive cost data available as the proposal was being developed -- to distinguish between two types of users:

  • Turbine-powered aircraft (jets and turboprops) users drive most system costs because they fly in all weather, at all times of the day, tend to be time-sensitive, generally compete for the same air traffic control resources, and require complex air traffic equipment and procedures.
  • Piston aircraft and helicopter users, who typically fly lower and slower than turbine pilots. These aircraft typically fly less complex equipment, tend to be less time sensitive, frequently fly under visual flight rules, and require different types of air traffic control resources.

The FAA allocated the costs of more than 600 Cost Accounting System projects between these two user types and determined that, in most cases, piston users were responsible for only a share of incremental costs. The total FY 2006 air traffic costs were allocated as follows:

  • 87% to turbine users,
  • 7% to piston users, and
  • 6% to flight service stations (expected to decline in future years).

Within each group, the FAA divided costs among commercial, general aviation and public users based on their share of activity. In the terminal environment, the allocation looks at costs and activity within groups of similarly-sized airports. As a result, users of less costly facilities do not bear the costs of more expensive facilities.

This table summarizes the FY 2005 cost allocation results, according to the FAA:

Flight Service Station costs are not allocated among users, because costs are expected to decline substantially in future years (one assumes, due to increased privitization of the service -- Ed.) and the cost recovery proposal funds these costs from the General Fund.



More News

Airborne 10.21.16: NIMBYs Out Of Control, SMO Evictions On Hold, New Race Class

Also: CVR/FDR Expansion, Focusing On Santa Monica, NASAO Boss, GE9X Engine, 1000th H-60M, Verizon Drones, New LAS ATC A Transportation Safety Board of Canada team is currently inve>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (10.23.16)

Aero-News Quote of the Day "Think of this transition as changing an engine on a plane when it's inflight. Rolling out STARS in our nation's busiest airspaces, without disrupting ai>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (10.23.16)

Aero Linx: The Society of United States Air Force Flight Surgeons (SoUSAFFS) SoUSAFFS was established in 1960 to more specifically support the USAF FS than AsMA at large could. Sin>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (10.23.16): Final Approach Point

Final Approach Point The point, applicable only to a nonprecision approach with no depicted FAF (such as an on airport VOR), where the aircraft is established inbound on the final >[...]

ANN FAQ: Q&A 101

A Few Questions AND Answers To Help You Get MORE Out of ANN!>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus





© 2007 - 2016 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC