Well, yes it is. It always HAS been.
There's an implied phrase any time you talk about the FAA's mission or its responsibility for safety. "[The FAA's] continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world" must be followed by the phrase "...to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress."
It's funny how much folks forget this. Mode C transponders? 406 MHz ELTs? ADS-B systems? If the FAA's overwhelming responsibility is safety, shouldn't they be GIVING this stuff to us?
But no: The FAA has to live on a budget. And a budget means you make hard choices, EVEN with safety.
I haven't heard the actual dollar amount the FAA is demanding, but for the sake of argument, say it's one million dollars.
In other words, EAA is asking the FAA for one million dollars' worth of services to help protect about 50,000 aircraft pilots and passengers per year. Seems a reasonable expense.
But then someone from, say, Atlanta-Hartsfield airport stands up and says: "For one million dollars, we can upgrade **** and protect 92 MILLION passengers per year."
So, where does the hard-headed "Safety is paramount (to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress)" FAA budgeteer put that one million dollars?
Sure, we'd prefer they cover this by transferring money from the account that covers carpet-cleaning of Huerta's office. But remember, this was all triggered by sequestration. I posted a link to the FAA's budget summary a couple of days back; about 900 pages just for a summary that didn't even go low enough to show the Oshkosh support. It probably takes months to prepare; no way they could rework the entire thing once the sequester went into effect (and there was no budget to pay for "what if" work BEFORE the sequester).
The only thing they could possibly do, in the short time they had, is to cut back all items by about the same percent. If the EAA support was listed under "safety", there might be some hope to protect it...but it was probably listed under "Operations," and that's one of the things that's getting pared back. Some FAA accountant saw this as a low-hanging fruit, especially since it was primarily benefiting a private corporation, and other private groups were already paying for such services. With time to work with the next year's budget, they might be able to re-allocate funds to cover Oshkosh. Doesn't help this year, though.
It's not the fault of EAA, it's not the fault of the FAA, its the fault of those spineless representatives and senators (from BOTH sides of the aisle) who refused to do their jobs. Too many of them saw political suicide in voting to reduce things like the defense budget, so they threw it up to a process where they could deny responsibility ("Hey, it was automatic"). Hand grenades instead of scalpels.
The only thing these weasels fear is losing their jobs at the next election. That's one of the reason all of us should be hammering our political representatives over the EAA issue; let them know we aren't happy with they're doing, and encourage them push the FAA to fix this important safety gap.
Ron Wanttaja