Hmmm... good point, Ron. Although, in ignorance I wonder what more would be needed other than a comm setup and of course, a/c, for "the show."
Perhaps there will be some type of maintenance provided, such as keeping systems on or cycling them periodically. I would think (again, ignorantly) that no one really assumes this will go on very long.
Dollars to donuts says the FAA has regular technician checks that are required on all comm equipment in order for it to be used in "Live" ATC. For instance, if a radio hasn't received its frequency stability and transmission power checks in the last 90 days, the FAA operational standards might not allow it to be used.Originally Posted by CarlOrton
As you say, though, the FAA may cut back on the operational budget while keeping the maintenance budget intact. That would make sense, in that if the budget problems are suddenly fixed, the equipment is ready to go and they don't need to wait while it all gets calibrated or whatever.
But one does wonder what contingency plans EAA has in mind for Airventure....
There is a lot of political extortion involved, of course...the senators and representatives from Wisconsin will be strongly motivated to ensure Oshkosh tower is operational in July (lotsa bucks poured into the state during Airventure). Similarly, the FAA has proposed to shut down the towers used at all Boeing factory locations in Washington state, PLUS the tower at their remote flight-test base. The tower at the primary flight-test base (Boeing Field) will remain, but the nighttime hours would be eliminated. You can bet the Washington state congresscritters have been reminded what effect this would have on one of the biggest companies in the state. And all the states that rely on airlines to bring in the tourists (hello, Hawaii, Florida, and California) would be harmed, too. It's quite possible some sort of temporary funding will be found "in the interest of aviation safety."
Ron Wanttaja
Do you really thing the goverment would close something then shut the power off. They will leave the lights on for "security" reasons. Us tax payers will pay the light bill for a lot of empty buildings. I am sure the goverment has a lot of closed buildings that have power in them today. I could be wrong.
I think the goverment does need to look at where its wasting money and try to do something about it. Saying that I also believe this is a scare tatic to get the american public talking about how our leaders are doing nothing but taking days off or should I say weeks off when we need them at work.
But some of these towers as we have seen from the posts on other forums really are not needed. I believe this list of towers was already compiled or researched. I bet these towers have been on the "Radar" of closers for a while. I also bet they do not close them all but some are going no matter what.
I could be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the volunteering aspect was that they applied to go to the busy Oshkosh area during the Convention. They're still getting paid their salary, and possible overtime, for the hours they work.
Which is what I said in the post you quoted. "Will they shut down the power to everything but security systems and minimal AC to keep the place dry?"
As a taxpayer, I do *not* want them to shut the building down completely. If they do, the interiors will be quickly stripped. Just last week, thieves stole wire that powered runway lights at Sea-Tac airport. Which is a fully-operational, TSA-protected international airport.
Ron Wanttaja
they use temporary towers at other airshows all over the nation.
i was wrong about pure numbers of ops being the criteria for starting/stopping towers. google FAA-APO-90-7 to find out all about it. and to find out that the administration will be violating CFR 14 section 170.15 if they shut down towers based on numbers, as they proposed. so any shutdown will be "temporary" not permanent - yeah, right.
seriously, there are nine WA airports with below 70k ops a year, such as MWH with 39k, YKM with 37k, and ALW with 25k. TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND OPS A YEAR AND THEY HAVE A TOWER? do those nine REALLY need to be open?
scheduled airlines regularly service American airports without towers, so what's a few more with low volume? big deal.
I didn't clearly state my rhetorical question. I should have said, "But one does wonder what contingency plans EAA has in mind for Airventure if the FAA refuses to operate a tower."
Will the FAA step up? First, we'd have to assume that the FAA's austerity budget includes moving and supporting a temporary tower. Seems like that portion of the budget would be an early victims of cuts. Second, we'd have to assume that the FAA would be willing to control a show as big as AV from a ground-level facility. That'll really hurt the visibility of the controllers.
Third, we'd have to consider whether, in an austerity environment, the FAA would dare to allocate resources to a privately-operated airshow. This may not go over well to folks outside of Wisconsin.
So...if Wittman Field is turned into an uncontrolled airport, what will the EAA do? I can't see them cancelling the show, but there'd be a huge liability with all those planes coming in.
This sort of issue may rise to a head earlier than one might think: I see that Lakeland airport is also on the block for closing. Sun-N-Fun is less than two months away....
Ron Wanttaja
You are correct, Paul; an esteemed senior member of EAA wrote me to assure me that the controllers are in fact paid during their week at AirVenture.
Sorry, folks, if I flexed fingers before having the correct information.
The tower will be open as per the FAA and Dick Knapinski (EAA Comm. Advisor)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote