FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[Jim Rosenow]

Thanks, Jim, glad to know it wasn't deliberate. I don't have many buttons, but THAT was one of them. :-)
Ron Wanttaja

It amazes me that any international diplomacy ever gets done. We are two at least semi-intelligent folks, allegedly trying to speak the same language, and havin' a doozie of a time! :-)

Thanks for taking a look at the FAA budget....a tall, cool drink can help you get over that experience. I think I'll pass...on the budget experience at least.

JR calling EAA staff....JR calling EAA staff.... At what point is this process? Have funds actually been requested in writing by the FAA? Has there been a response from EAA? I'm sure you're in touch with SnF...did they pony up the funds? Inquiring minds.....

Jim

[Hal Bryan]

Hang tight, Jim - I asked Dick Knapinski earlier today if he'd chime in so you could get a response straight from the horse's mouth, and he promised me he would. Dick, along with a number of the rest of us, were out of the office and a bit "off the grid" for a few hours at a "General Aviation Rally" at that Appleton airport today, so I'm sure he'll jump on once he's had a little time to get caught up.

[Jim Rosenow]

Hang tight, Jim - I asked Dick Knapinski earlier today if he'd chime in so you could get a response straight from the horse's mouth, and he promised me he would. Dick, along with a number of the rest of us, were out of the office and a bit "off the grid" for a few hours at a "General Aviation Rally" at that Appleton airport today, so I'm sure he'll jump on once he's had a little time to get caught up.

Thanks, Hal! I will cut and paste a couple of things I was curious about below, as possible points to be addressed....Others please feel free to Reply with Quote for yours....
---------------
Had there previously been a FAA-budgeted amount (line item) for this which was removed?...What was the methodology that brought the change about? Was it an announced policy change....Just somebody said..."hey, how about if we".... ??

At what point is this process? Have funds actually been requested in writing by the FAA? Has there been a response from EAA? I'm sure you're in touch with SnF...did they pony up the funds?
---------

Thanks, again, Hal!

Jim

[FloridaJohn]

+1 on all points but the 'other events', John. I believe someone here proferred knowledge that non-aviation events pay for temp towers, etc. If true, that makes some sense on one level, as FAA should not be supporting NASCAR or whomever, IMO. On another level, we're back to the aviation safety argument.

In my post, I tried to make it clear that other "events" could be something as simple as increased traffic over a holiday weekend (i.e. Thanksgiving). It does not necessarily mean a "NASCAR" event, or other things like that. Air traffic is not at a constant rate throughout the year, so staffing changes (I presume) are made to adjust to the natural ebb and flow of the yearly air traffic cycle. The EAA fly-in at KOSH also fits into that ebb and flow and should be accounted for, if nothing else, for the sake of air safety.

Unless, of course, the FAA now thinks that air safety is only available to those who pay extra for it.

[Dick Knapinski]

Hi, all:

As Hal said, just catching up here. Part of the day was working with this topic. I'll try to answer best as I can, although some of those are questions for the FAA where we might not have complete knowledge.

The AirVenture air traffic services have always been a budgeted item. It was budgeted for this year, too. A couple of weeks ago, FAA admitted they were going to bill EAA for expenses, even though Congressional action fully funded the air traffic control system. The reason we're receiving is because of sequestration, there are budget cuts FAA must make. That doesn't pass the smell test, really, for a variety of reasons, including the FAA's own statements. And the sequestration budget is still much larger than the FAA budget of just a couple of years ago.

We don't know the methodology they used to determine the costs. Those were extremely broad (just three line items) in the initial contract that we received. We're pressing for more information and clarification, among other things, since we don't know exactly which incidental costs are included. There are also sequestration politics involved, to be sure.

It was NOT an annnouced policy change. EAA had heard some rumblings about some numbers being gathered. It took a trip to DC to ask the FAA's top officals directly whether this was taking place before we got the honest answer. That was about two weeks ago.

There are a lot of things taking place in various directions right now. We've talked to people in Congress. All options are still open. There could soon be a role for EAA members to play in this and we'll be sure to get everybody involved when that point comes up.

Sun n Fun did pay the FAA, to our knowledge. Given the comparative size of the events, you can be sure our bill is bigger. And statements by FAA top officials to Congress made it sounds as if it would be even bigger in the future.

We've already paid for FAA air traffic services with our fuel taxes. The agency's mandate is safety, so therefore they should be where the airplanes are. That safety should not be for sale. This is also bigger than AirVenture; we're worried about where this new philosophy ends. We're in this for everybody, not just Oshkosh. It many ways, it's a user fee without Congressional mandate.

Hope that helps a little!

[FloridaJohn]

We've already paid for FAA air traffic services with our fuel taxes. The agency's mandate is safety, so therefore they should be where the airplanes are. That safety should not be for sale. This is also bigger than AirVenture; we're worried about where this new philosophy ends. We're in this for everybody, not just Oshkosh. It many ways, it's a user fee without Congressional mandate.

My feelings exactly!

Thanks for the update, Dick. Keep fighting the good fight!

[RV8505]

My feelings exactly!

Thanks for the update, Dick. Keep fighting the good fight!

+1

[58boner]

The agency's mandate is safety. Isn't it also promoting aviation? I thought that was the conflict the FAA was always caught in the middle of.
Safety plus promoting aviation equals FAA controller presence at Airventure.

[Mike Hongisto]

Assuming that EAA has retained outside legal Counsel which is knowledgeable of the FAA’s rule making and budgeting process, then EAA ought to send notice, through its Counsel, that all further correspondence regarding ATC services at AirVenture should be reduced to writing and directed to its legal representative. This issue has apparently progressed well beyond an agreeable outcome and is now a legal matter and should be dealt with accordingly. Additional outside pressure can be brought to bear upon the FAA through EAA’s political contacts and lobbyists.

[MADean]

While it may be inevitable, the thought of this winding up in, and working it's way through, the courts is frightening. Not only could it take forever, but the final outcome could be disastrous. (i.e. court mandated - or at least approved - user fees)