FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[Bill Berson]

Unfortunately, that would be illegal under federal law. My wife, as a fed, was told in no uncertain terms what would happen to her if she were to do any government work while on furlough.

I am not surprised to hear about that.
What about retired controllers? Are they allowed to volunteer in this republic?

[FloridaJohn]

Land's sake, folks. I don't think I've been on an aviation forum that hasn't decried big government, and pushed for a reduction in entitlements. We may not *like* that AirVenture is affected, but this sort of action is exactly what folks have been demanding.

As much as I dislike big government, there are certain functions that the government should and do handle best. These are things like large infrastructure projects (roads/bridges), fire protection, police, and military. I also feel that ATC is one of those functions. It is something that is best handled by the government, because to do otherwise would reduce air safety.

If the FAA is concerned about air safety, then they need to staff KOSH appropriately. Simple as that. If there are budgetary concerns, then they need to re-evaluate their budget and reduce those things that don't contribute to air safety. Air safely is their primary mission and they need to put that above all else. If they run out of money, then hire less administrators or accountants, or take less trips. Evaluate ATC services (like towers) based on actual need, and close those that do not meet the minimum standards for a tower. If you are implying that the FAA has already cut their budget to the bone and the only thing left is to start charging EAA, then I would say the FAA no longer values air safety as their primary mission.

[rwanttaja]

A distinction without a difference, in my opinion.

I haven't seen any request by EAA for additional ATC services. Could you point me to the document that shows this?

http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-05...shortfalls.asp

"For instance, the agency is asking EAA to cover certain costs for its AirVenture operations, including air traffic controllers' travel, per diems, and overtime, which had traditionally been covered by the FAA."

Controllers normally assigned to Oshkosh wouldn't need travel or per diem.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Do you think that list was created for safety reasons or political reasons? The data I have seen points to political reasons.

I'm sure there were political factors involved in the list. However, most of the comments on the aviation groups were, "close 'em." Other than the temporary tower at Arlington, I haven't spoken to an FAA controller in fifteen years.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I am not surprised to hear about that.
What about retired controllers? Are they allowed to volunteer in this republic?

Don't know much about controllers, but are there currency or refresher training standards they must meet? If so, a retired controller may not be able to officially do the work.

Ron Wanttaja

[FloridaJohn]

http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-05...shortfalls.asp

that is a request from the FAA for more money, not a request from EAA for more services.

[FloridaJohn]

I'm sure there were political factors involved in the list. However, most of the comments on the aviation groups were, "close 'em."

Yes, that was the basic sentiment, but there was the initial proposed list, and then the actual, final list of tower closures. The towers with the least amount of traffic were not all on the final list. And towers with a significant amount of traffic were. I'm all for closing unnecessary towers, but the FAA list did not do that.

[FloridaJohn]

I had another thought on this subject. If something happens every year, for 43 years, at the same location and at the same time if the year, is that still considered unusual? Sounds like something that should be planned and budgeted for as part of normal operations to me.

Another thought I had was that the FAA is the one coming up with the procedure. Could they not take another look at the procedure and see if the could reduce the number of required controllers? And why do controllers have to come from all over the country? Why can't they just use controllers based in Wisconsin? That would reduce travel costs and maybe even housing costs. It seems to me that the FAA has not made any attempt to contain their costs associated with this yearly event.

[Jim Rosenow]

From AvWeb News 5/28..."Sun 'n Fun was sent a bill for about $285,000 to cover controllers' expenses, in April." Anyone hazard a guess as to the relative size of the two fly-ins? Are we talking a half $mil here for OSH or are they closer in size than that?

+1 on FJ's post above- FAA lets controllers from all over the country post for the (prestigious and coveted, based on controllers I've talk to) positions and WE pay their expenses....hmmmm??

[Mike Hongisto]

Is EAA going to roll over and pay off the FAA? If so, this would be an extraordinary lack of leadership on behalf of the EAA.


Where’s the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rule Making, its preceding study, the Public Comment Period and Final Rule? The FAA’s pay-to-play scheme is simply an illegal, “shoot from the hip” demand from the FAA, that has no precedence. We don’t allow Government to operate in this manner and we don’t for good reason.


If EAA pays this fee, then General Aviation has forever lost the debate on User Fees. Should EAA cave in, there will be no reason for the FAA to demand, with little or no notice, other “necessary” fees from progressively smaller and smaller users, each having a lessor voice and limited ability to protest. Even worse, EAA will have sent a precedent which will embolden the FAA to further implement new, unapproved User Fees.


If the current leadership at EAA isn’t prepared to defend us against this type of threat to GA, then EAA’s entire management team needs to change. In addition to decisive leadership, EAA must have competent legal, political and lobbying resources to back up its positions. EAA’s members deserve this. Our future as pilots, as an organization, depends on it.