Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 189

Thread: FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

  1. #101
    PaulDow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    351
    Should make for an interesting "Meet the Administrator" session this year...If he has the integrity to show up after this.

  2. #102
    EAA Staff
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    14
    Actually, Congress removed the "promoting aviation" part of the FAA mission about 15-20 years ago. FAA's mission statement is now:

    "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." And the "Our Vision" statement at www.faa.gov is:
    "We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders."

  3. #103
    Jim Rosenow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Smithville, OH
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Knapinski View Post
    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.
    Thanks for providing that info, Dick. The whole thing is, in my opinion, wrong on so many levels.

    First, our elected officials, who we pay well to represent us, failed us miserably by not passing a budget. Those people supposedly work for US. (Folks, please allow me that comment without the thread going all politics...please!!)

    Second, the 'philosophy' of FAA concerning budget cut priorities seems to be somewhat askew....especially assuming that the normal FAA staff of a dozen or more will still be doing their whiz-bang multi-media presentations in the building dedicated to them at the fly-in. Perhaps if they're requiring pay for FAA services, we could respectfully decline that particular one, and save them a few bucks.

    Third, the proferred contract is nothing less than legalized extortion (again, this is my opinion) given the timing and presentation. The ransom note...I mean contract, based on your description, is vague (perhaps on purpose) to the point of ludicrousness.

    Fourth, as you noted, we have already paid for these services once with fuel taxes. If I pay someone to do something for me, then they spend the money for something else and can't buy what's needed to finish the project, that should be their own problem, not mine as a consumer.

    This is as good a place as any to put a stop to it. Together we have more power than I do as an individual when presented with a bill after using flight following. I could see that as a natural out-growth of what is occuring here.

  4. #104
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    How about we just use volunteer Controllers and simply staff the Fisk, OSH tower and elsewhere as required with volunteer controllers. There is nothing inherently governmental in being a controller...there are plenty of Contract Controllers out there. If a Fed Controller wanted to do it then they would likely have to take leave.

    Lets not beg the FAA to do their job, lets do it ourselves!

  5. #105
    Jim Heffelfinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, California, United States
    Posts
    416
    As I offered before it sounds good but there is the format for controllers at AV
    http://www.airventure.org/atc/volunteers.html

    Competitive selection process [edit]

    The FAA has staffed a tower at the EAA convention since the 1960s. FAA air traffic staffers (including controllers, supervisors, and managers) compete from throughout the FAA's new 17-state Central Terminal Service Area to work this event. In 2007, 145 air traffic professionals representing 45 facilities volunteered to staff the facilities at Oshkosh (OSH), Fond du Lac (FLD), and Fisk. Sixty-four controllers and 11 supervisors were ultimately selected. Controllers normally can only volunteer for a maximum of seven years at the EAA convention, to allow others a chance to work this temporary duty assignment. However, recent staffing shortages at some facilities have caused the FAA to use a few veteran controllers beyond the seven-year limit.

    see this video -
    http://www.postcrescent.com/VideoNet...ers-talk-it-up
    Last edited by Jim Heffelfinger; 05-31-2013 at 09:09 PM. Reason: more content

  6. #106
    Mayhemxpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    800
    I am not privy to what is actually going on in "negotiations" but I trust that Dick and the other relevant EAA management have engaged experts in federal contracting to help them. My experience is in Defense contingency contracting (that means wartime support), and there are elements which probably don't apply to this. Nonetheless, there are elements of what I am hearing about that seem very contrary to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Just a small example that may or may not apply. When we contract for certain support or services in a combat zone, there is the issue of life support for the contractors. This includes but is not limited to lodging, food, and medical care. These services are normally provided on a cost reimbursable basis. Figuring out what these costs are is enough of a challenge, as is how to collect them. (Direct versus indirect costs, separating the cost of support provided to a contractor from the overhead of providing that same support to a soldier right next to him is one example.) The contractors have the right to negotiate, which includes the opportunity to obtain services from other sources. E.g., they might provide their own dining facilities, combine together with other contractors to staff their own man-camps, and even medical care might be provided by subcontracting with companies that specialize in this. Then the company gets to look at what the government is offering and narrow the scope to what is necessary and sufficient. No "gold plating." Then the contractor decides whether to accept the government offer of reimbursed support or obtain it through other means.

    So how does this relate to AirVenture? As has been pointed out above, there really is room for negotiation (required under the Federal Acquisition Regs). 51 weeks a year, KOSH operates as a contractor operated tower. The EAA should have the opportunity to use contractors this week, too. It can probably be demonstrated that volunteers can provide an equivalent level of safety in what SOME of what the FAA does (spotters at Fisk and beyond). KOSH continues to service normal air operations NOT directly related to AirVenture. These operations have to be separated out from what the FAA would like to charge. Support provided by the FAA has to be fair and reasonable. Paying travel for someone to come from San Diego when someone is available from Chicago is not fair and reasonable. Lodging must be based on normal rates in the region according to the GSA schedule, not hopped up prices at 4 star hotels. Similarly, as required, compensation should not be based on 30 year ATC veterans, unless that level of experience is what EAA wants (and wants to pay for.) As I posted earlier, if the FAA wants to impose this for 2014, the time to start negotiating is now. It is WAY too late for 2013.

    As EAA negotiates, however, remember that the pressure to do this may NOT be coming from within the FAA. Although insisting on proper federal contract negotiation is critical, the solution may lie in applying appropriate pressure at appropriate places outside of the FAA.

    Apologies for taking so much space. Federal contracting is complicated.

  7. #107
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc View Post
    ... Federal contracting is complicated.
    Mayhem is spot on about Federal contracting (I too am a defense contractor and know all too well that it can be a bottomless quagmire when trying to do something different). For that reason, I think EAA should avoid contracting with the Feds. We should see what we can staff with Volunteers, perhaps Fisk and not the Tower, and make a clean line between EAA and the FAA. There is no reason that Fed Controllers can not volunteer their time to EAA (but not FAA). But I believe that EAA directly paying FAA is a bad precedent.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    106
    The first question that has to be answered before any 'negotiations' start is, "Is air safety for sale?"

    What happens if an agreeable contract cannot be reached? Is the FAA going to wash their hands of it and let the ships fall where they may? Is the EAA now responsible for the airspace around KOSH? How far out? 5 nm? 10 nm? 100 nm? There are a lot a philosophical and moral questions that need to be answered before any money changes hands, because this could set a negative precendent that will affect us all, even if we don't fly in to Oshkosh.

  9. #109
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    To FloridaJohn: Exactly!!!!! Not one dime to the FAA, but if the FAA needs augmentation, EAA augments with volunteers. I would even go so far as to compensate volunteer controllers from EAA or EAA associated funds, but not one dime to the US Treasury.

  10. #110
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Klapka View Post
    Mayhem is spot on about Federal contracting (I too am a defense contractor and know all too well that it can be a bottomless quagmire when trying to do something different). For that reason, I think EAA should avoid contracting with the Feds. We should see what we can staff with Volunteers, perhaps Fisk and not the Tower, and make a clean line between EAA and the FAA. There is no reason that Fed Controllers can not volunteer their time to EAA (but not FAA).
    Don't forget the liability issue. If EAA assumes responsibility for air traffic control services, it's also legally going to take responsibility for the safety of the aircraft using them. EAA's current insurance probably doesn't cover that; it's possible that a rider to do so might cost more than the FAA wants to charge for the services....

    Ron Wanttaja

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •