No more of this kind of thing.Originally Posted by Cyclone-Aviator
Debate the issues at hand, especially how they effect GA and Oshkosh, etc., but if you want to declare the the President is a communist, you need to do that elsewhere.
This discussion is too important to risk it being locked.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
+1
Has anybody put forth exactly how much money is being requested?
Keith
Logically, why shouldn't EAA and its members have to pay for additional ATC services at AirVenture? If I decide to hold an event in my town that requires a police detail to direct vehicle traffic, guess who pays? Hint: my taxes don't cover it. This is what smaller government looks like: fewer services, less money for infrastructure, research, and education, and higher fees for what IS provided.
And no offense, but as pilots we tend to have more disposable cash than most people, so there's something kind of unseemly about hearing fellow pilots complain about loss of free ATC when mandatory budget cuts are hitting other Americans harder than us.
Last edited by Chuck Arnold; 05-28-2013 at 10:39 AM.
I assume Chuck is a GA pilot, not a sport pilot , from his comments about income above. My income is far below average (as an independent airplane mechanic). But I have been lucky enough to own and restore and build several airplanes these past 40 years (partly because of EAA).
Now I work ( without compensation) almost full time, year round, on things to promote sport aviation. Chucks comments seem to say: aviation is for high income people, get over it, user fees are the future, just like Europe and Canada.
After 10 years of effort, EAA created the Light Sport Rule so that entry level sport pilots could get a certificate without all the unneeded tower and instrument training. Ironically, a basic sport pilot can't fly into Oshkosh because of the Tower.
Yes, a sport pilot could fly into the seaplane base. And the ultralight field is open to ultralights. Both of these operate without FAA controllers, manned by volunteers. So no, towers are not "compulsory" for a sport pilot like me. I tend to avoid towered airports for various reasons. I think other sport pilots do also.
It is really a shame that the $31 million federal dollars went to build the Oshkosh tower. That money could have bought up the surrounding land and built several new distant grass sport airstrips that would allow operations without controllers.(with reduced traffic, like the seaplane base) The whole complex could be interconnected with taxi lanes. And the airplane parking area would be doubled.
Anyway, I see this latest FAA request as just another move to destroy sport aviation. I won't be going to Oshkosh if the ticket price doubles to pay tower controllers.
I hope EAA rejects this demand for controller perdiem. ( half million, I heard on Aero-News)
Why can't they do it like the Arlington Fly-in? (Just a few controllers out on the runway with a small support trailer)
Last edited by Bill Berson; 05-28-2013 at 11:25 AM.
Two points:
in support of previous posters -- What is it if someone (anyone) makes you pay for something you already paid for? (Please, answers like: Chicago, West Africa, the Middle East, and so on will only get us into trouble. Think of this as a RHETORICAL question.)
On the other hand, there is an argument that this is an extraordinary event and than some additional compensation is due. Without going into the merits of the argument itself let's look at some other issues:
1. What are the laws that would allow for those specific fees? Are they posted and public? I am not talking about adapting a current regulation to fit the crisis of the moment. What is the specific provision under law or other legally binding regulation, RIGHT NOW that the Federal Government can use to charge a private organization (the EAA) to cover the costs for a surge in air traffic? Maybe there is one, and I don't know about it.
2. There is an established agreement between the EAA and the FAA about providing this support. It may or may not be written, but it exists nonetheless. It has never been on a cost-reimbursement basis before. That is not to say that things can't change. Things do change, but they need appropriate notice and consent periods. 60 days is insufficient to even assess the actual costs, much less to figure out how to resources them. I am not talking about a cost estimate that can be done in an afternoon. I mean an actual cost schedule that can be written into a contract. As anyone who has ever done contracting with the Federal Government knows, contracts cannot be done in 60 days. Not even in wartime (personal experience.)
If they want to do this for 2014 then now is the time to start. By any USG procurement standard, it is too late for 2013.
Last edited by Mayhemxpc; 05-28-2013 at 11:41 AM. Reason: Forgot to insert last line
Yes, I am a GA pilot. I don't own a $400,000 Cirrus; instead I own a $20,000 Yankee. I have a $65 per month tie-down instead of a hangar, and I shovel snow all winter in order to fly. I am a big believer in trying to keep the cost of flying down, which is why I support EAA's mission. I think light sport is a great idea that mostly hasn't worked the way it was planned to, when a typical light sport airplane is over $125,000. I do NOT want to pay user fees but I don't mind paying taxes for things that we need as a society: roads, schools, defense, ATC, and a hand up to the less fortunate, among other many other things. Americans pay some of the lowest taxes of any industrial nation, but to hear some people talk, you'd think we were being bled dry.
My point is that you can't have it both ways. Arbitrary budget cuts equals reduced government services. Stuff costs money and somebody's gotta pay for it. I like the professionalism of ATC at AirVenture and I think it's worth paying for. With tax money.
Since the FAA wants to charge extra for ATC services during the EAA event due to an increase in traffic, does that mean the FAA will be charging commercial airlines for ATC services during the increase in traffic seen each year the day before Thanksgiving?
It seems only fair to me. After all, it is air traffic that is above and beyond what is normally experienced on any other Wednesday of the year. Extra people will have to be brought in, some of them probably will get paid overtime. It only happens once a year, so it is clearly not a "normal" event. It is well known that the day before Thanksgiving is the "busiest travel day of the year."
"After 10 years of effort, EAA created the Light Sport Rule so that entry level sport pilots could get a certificate without all the unneeded tower and instrument training. Ironically, a basic sport pilot can't fly into Oshkosh because of the Tower."
Umm, am I missing something here? My understanding is that the holder of a Light Sport license can fly day VFR into a towered field.
Yes, with additional training. But that sort of defeats the purpose of light sport, which is low training hours, low operating cost without radios and low cost at a small field with no tower expenses and high rents.
Sure you can add all these things, but then you are back to normal GA cost structure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote