FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[RV8505]

Thu, May 23, 2013
Update: Startling... FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh (http://eaaforums.org/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c011f54d-92ba-4631-8f97-50decd786bd7)Could The FAA Get ANY Stranger? Worse Yet... Will They?ANN RealTime News Update, 0001ET, 05.23.13: The FAA has twice promised ANN a statement this day in order to understand some of their rationale for this sudden AirVenture cost recovery/User Fee scheme. If and when they provide this promised statement, we will make sure you see it right away. In the meantime, we have talked with EAA Boss Jack Pelton about the matter and have come to the understanding that EAA WILL apparently wind up having to pay the FAA something for their services... the same ones that we all thought were paid for by our income, fuel, and numerous other taxes. The primary question is just how much will EAA pay for all this and what effect might it have on AirVenture 2013? EAA has apparently NOT had a lot of warning about this and the manner and timing with which the FAA has extortionately demanded these fees positively begs for an aggressive Congressional investigation. ANN is currently researching additional details about this matter and will present more info as it becomes available.

http://eaaforums.org/images/content/sportav/2013/Airventure2013-logo-0413a.jpg (http://eaaforums.org/#)Original Report, 1502 ET, 052213: Despite a clear mandate in opposition to user fees and similar funding mechanisms oft discussed by the FAA, the FAA has decided to start enacting some user fees of its own. And... they've made a pretty aggressive demand for EAA to pay them to staff the event.
The EAA, via published statements, has noted that, "General aviation is wearing the target as the FAA looks for revenue, with the agency appearing to be readying a plan to add burdens on recreational aviators with increased costs for a variety of activities. This is occurring even after the Congress enacted legislation that enabled the FAA to fully fund air traffic services. The agency is moving more aggressively toward assessing costs on duties that have always been covered under the FAA budget, including some essential air traffic operations and functions."
EAA's Dick Knapinski has confirmed that the FAA has its hand out... and to the tune of well into six figures. EAA says that, "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. This may be an early indication of further efforts by the FAA to charge GA operators for functions in ways that could add unforeseen costs for the average pilot who simply wants to enjoy flying.

http://eaaforums.org/images/content/politics/2011/Money-0511a.jpg (http://eaaforums.org/#)"This issue is significantly bigger than AirVenture," said EAA Chairman Jack J. Pelton. "We'll have full air traffic staffing and operations at Oshkosh and are well-prepared for our event. Unfortunately this is coming at a great cost to EAA. The larger issue, however, is about the unknown and alarming new direction the FAA is taking in charging for an equivalent level of safety that has previously been provided. If the FAA asks for reimbursement on certain AirVenture operations for which it has always budgeted, where else could the agency unilaterally impose assessments, fees, and other costs on GA? It's a frightening thought."
EAA adds that, "GA should continue to contribute its fair share to FAA and national airspace operations through the current aviation fuel tax. EAA will, however, vigorously oppose efforts to burden aviators with costs for which the FAA already receives funding and has budgeted as part of its stated mission of providing a safe, efficient national airspace system."

[RV8505]

Why are we paying aircraft fuel taxes?

[WLIU]

Do you have the misunderstanding that aviation fuel taxes go to the FAA? Nope.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Ylinen]

If the FAA wants travel and lodging, I say let's go pick them up in our aircraft and let's have them camp in the north 40.

Wish the controller union would put out their position.

[Hal Bryan]

Realizing just who it is that wrote the article, I'm wondering what the real story is.

Just FYI, Jim's article was written after we posted ours and he called and spoke with Jack and Dick:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-05-22_GA-asked-to-absorb-FAA-budget-shortfalls.asp

[Tom Downey]

Why should the FAA do these EXTRA services for free? Just because they have in the past, doesn't mean they must in the future.

[rwanttaja]

IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay for their controllers this year, too. Shouldn't be a surprise....

Ron Wanttaja

[JoesPiper]

EAA does not have to pay for anything, they are a private entity. There are volunteer controllers. If Whitman field is open, which it will be, and that tower is staffed by the FAA, that tower must exhibit its duties. The FAA could close the tower for the event, but the FAA cannot close the event unless there is a threat to national security. If the FAA were to pull their legs that far, then the event can be moved elsewhere. Remember, these negative actions are being directed from a current President that sees NO advantage of GA, NO advantage of having events as such, and definitely sees GA as a threat to your own airspace. There is truly serious issues that are NOT right in Washington..............

[rwanttaja]

EAA does not have to pay for anything, they are a private entity. There are volunteer controllers. If Whitman field is open, which it will be, and that tower is staffed by the FAA, that tower must exhibit its duties.
The issue, I think, is the level of staffing. The 2-3 controllers per shift normally at OSH is way inadequate for the amount of activity during Airventure. If you read EAA's news release, you see the FAA is balking to paying the overtime, travel, and per-diem for the controllers that normally augment the permanent staff.

The FAA ate the expenses for these additional controllers in past years, but in a budget-constrained environment, they're apparently no longer willing to do so. All it takes is one Congressman saying, "The FAA is closing the airport in my home district, but they pay millions of dollars* to support a private air show for a bunch of fat cats, drinking champagne in air-conditioned chalets!"

Ron Wanttaja

* You know it's not millions of dollars. I know it's not millions of dollars. But that's precisely what a Congresscritter would say.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

I have to go along with Ron on this one. It is a private gathering. It is a 10 million dollar+ gate gathering. Sure it brings in 110 million in an economic bump to Oshkosh but not to the feds who have to support the busiest airport on the planet. There is major training to work in an environment like AV. So to have FAA request to be compensated for the extra staff and expenses seems fair - sadly not on the budget radar for EAA/AV.
jim

[Bill Berson]

If 5000 volunteers work at Airventure for free to run the event, why can't controllers serve for a few hours out of the week like other volunteers?
Is there a shortage of people willing to do this?

I know the controllers do request to be sent for Oshkosh duty, for the fun of it, apparently.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Great comment Bill. And it would seem as though it would work like AV volunteers. This was thought about when the controllers were being furloughed too. Why not just move people around? The system (controllers) have long and very specific training procedures long before they key a mic.

[Mike M]

Turn off your xpdr. Get in line miles from the airport. Do not talk on the radio. Follow the airplane ahead to the airport. Do not hit each other. If you mess up, depart and re enter. Why do we need ATC for that?

[Jim Heffelfinger]

I offer this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Nng7l-R_M

this is approach.... tower is equally busy. I hope you get to listen to ATC this coming AV - it is live and then log on to the live field cameras. Way too much fun/

[Jim Heffelfinger]

This from Wiki.... may need editing...
Competitive selection process [edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EAA_AirVenture_Oshkosh&action=edit&section=15)]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Terminal_Service_Area&action=edit&redlink=1) 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.
Teams [edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EAA_AirVenture_Oshkosh&action=edit&section=16)]

The controllers are divided into teams of four persons each:


One veteran controller serves as the team leader. Another veteran works on the team as well. Each of these controllers will have three or more years of previous EAA AirVenture experience. Fifty percent of the controller workforce falls into this category.
At least one member of the team will have one to two years of EAA AirVenture experience. This group is identified as the limited category and makes up 25 percent of the total controller population.
The final member of each team will be new to AirVenture duty and is identified as a rookie. Controllers in this category total the final 25 percent of the controller workforce.

These teams stay together throughout the convention as they rotate through the control towers at OSH or FLD, FISK VFR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_flight_rules) Approach Control and the two mobile departure platforms known as MOOCOWs (Mobile Operating and Communications Workstations).
It's important to note that even a "rookie" will have the years necessary to become certified as a Certified Professional Controller (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Certified_Professional_Controller&action=edit&redlink=1) (CPC). All controllers, operations supervisors, and the air traffic operations managers are certified for operations at their home facilities.

[MADean]

"...but in a budget-constrained environment..."

And who's fault is that?

Seems to me that if Washington quit spending money on things it has no business spending money on there would be a lot more money available to spend on those things it should be spending money on.

But then I'm not a rocket scientist.

[FlyingRon]

During most of the day operations there are FIVE teams of three controllers each at Oshkosh: two in the tower (9-27 and 18-36), two on the moocows, and one at Fisk.

That's way more than the two guys they usually stock that tower with.

Now if they decide to actually issue the billets to those who demonstrated the ability to work in the Airventure environment (this is the way they used to do it ages ago) rather than doling it out as a bureaucratic perk, then it might be worth paying for.

[FloridaJohn]

If 5000 volunteers work at Airventure for free to run the event, why can't controllers serve for a few hours out of the week like other volunteers?
Is there a shortage of people willing to do this?

My understanding is it is not the cost of the controllers that are actually at Oshkosh, but the controllers back home that have to fill-in for the controllers that are away. Those controllers are working overtime to keep the towers properly staffed while the others are away at Oshkosh. That is where the expenses lie.

[trav8s]

This idea had to come from one person in the FAA. Just fire that idiot and there's the money to pay for the controllers. I'm sure his government salary is more than enough.

[Mike M]

Folks, i was kidding when i wrote my previous "we don need no steenking badges" comment. It was memory of past trips. After seeing what others are writing, i downloaded and read this year's notam. Basically, my jocular comment was right! No adsb, no tcas, xpdrs off. Etc. So. If we have atis, use our heads, look out the window........oh, no, personal responsibility and be adult? Never work. Hold my hand, big brother.


Turn off your xpdr. Get in line miles from the airport. Do not talk on the radio. Follow the airplane ahead to the airport. Do not hit each other. If you mess up, depart and re enter. Why do we need ATC for that?

[Bill Berson]

My understanding is it is not the cost of the controllers that are actually at Oshkosh, but the controllers back home that have to fill-in for the controllers that are away. Those controllers are working overtime to keep the towers properly staffed while the others are away at Oshkosh. That is where the expenses lie.

Close a few unneeded rural towers. That should provide a huge surplus of controllers for Airventure, if needed.

[Chuck Arnold]

Frankly, the idea that controllers should be expected to work Oshkosh for free is laughable. That is their work and their livelihood. I'm willing to bet that the volunteers who show up to help park airplanes and drive the shuttles don't spend their working days parking airplanes and driving shuttles. Providing ATC services to those of us who are well enough off to fly airplanes costs money. If it doesn't come from taxes, it has to come from somewhere. Everyone seems to think smaller government is a terrific idea, at least until the stuff THEY like gets cut.

[Bill Berson]

Most of the volunteers at Oshkosh are retired, and all choose to be there, of course.
I don't see any problem having some retired controllers volunteer for a few hours each (for one day or more), or as they choose.
In any case, nobody is expected or forced to volunteer.

[Bill Berson]

Rereading the news clip, I think I misunderstood.
Apparently 64 controllers "volunteer" to work the Oshkosh show. But they always get paid for time and expenses. ( so not really a volunteer, in the usual sense)

Apparently this year, the demand from the FAA is for travel and other expenses, they will still be paid for time.

The whole situation seems trivial and perhaps political. But if a change in compensation is needed, I think the controllers that really like to " volunteer" for Oshkosh, should be able to afford to pay their own travel expenses like everyone else.

[Floatsflyer]

I think the controllers that really like to " volunteer" for Oshkosh, should be able to afford to pay their own travel expenses like everyone else.

The controllers should have all their expenses paid. They're compulsary, they need to be there...you don't.

[JimRice85]

The controllers should have all their expenses paid. They're compulsary, they need to be there...you don't.

+1

[Mike M]

The controllers should have all their expenses paid. They're compulsary, they need to be there...you don't.

Compulsory? Only because FAA says FAA is compulsory. And without paid ticketholders, there would be no show. Both ATC collision-avoidance advisors and spectators have reason to be there, but without the many the few would be superfluous. So yes, we need to be there - or they don't.

Keep perspective - cooperate, have fun.

[Cyclone-Aviator]

OH, please! You all have been going on about who should pay or where the money is going to come from. Does anyone actually believe that this idea originated anywhere but with the "COWH". The AOPA called this for what it is: user fees. For that reason alone, this must be fought back and defeated. This is the proverbial camel's nose. The "COWH" will use any means legal or illegal to ram user fees down our throats.
And yes, Chuck, we need much smaller government even if everybody's ox must be gored. General aviation does not need to be gored with user fees. An increase in the fuel tax, not wanted but much preferable.
For those wondering, "COWH - Communist Occupant of the White House"

[trav8s]

So on the busiest travel days of the year, when the FAA has to have more controllers on duty (meaning more on overtime, etc.) do the airlines have to pay for the extra workers to be there? Of course not. It's already paid for with taxes. Just because an airport gets busy shouldn't mean one entity has to foot the extra bill. And during Airventure, the tower is actually open less than a normal day. Sure, more controllers, but less hours. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid, they should. But all the taxes I and you already pay covers it. If EAA pays it, it sets bad precedence and will allow the FAA to start charging extra whenever they choose to whomever they choose.

[RV8505]

So on the busiest travel days of the year, when the FAA has to have more controllers on duty (meaning more on overtime, etc.) do the airlines have to pay for the extra workers to be there? Of course not. It's already paid for with taxes. Just because an airport gets busy shouldn't mean one entity has to foot the extra bill. And during Airventure, the tower is actually open less than a normal day. Sure, more controllers, but less hours. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid, they should. But all the taxes I and you already pay covers it. If EAA pays it, it sets bad precedence and will allow the FAA to start charging extra whenever they choose to whomever they choose.


+1

[Hal Bryan]

For those wondering, "COWH - Communist Occupant of the White House"

No more of this kind of thing.

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.

[Jim Rosenow]

So on the busiest travel days of the year, when the FAA has to have more controllers on duty (meaning more on overtime, etc.) do the airlines have to pay for the extra workers to be there? Of course not. It's already paid for with taxes. Just because an airport gets busy shouldn't mean one entity has to foot the extra bill. And during Airventure, the tower is actually open less than a normal day. Sure, more controllers, but less hours. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid, they should. But all the taxes I and you already pay covers it. If EAA pays it, it sets bad precedence and will allow the FAA to start charging extra whenever they choose to whomever they choose.

+1

[kmacht]

Has anybody put forth exactly how much money is being requested?

Keith

[Chuck Arnold]

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.

[Bill Berson]

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)

[Mayhemxpc]

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.

[Chuck Arnold]

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.

[FloridaJohn]

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."

[Chuck Arnold]

"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.

[Bill Berson]

"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.

[rwanttaja]

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's the difference between mere overtime, vs overtime plus per diem plus travel plus lodging costs (ever price an Oshkosh hotel during AirVenture?). The issue isn't a higher level of service, it's temporarily providing a service that isn't otherwise available 51 weeks out of the year. Plus, of course, the holiday rush benefits so many corporations and individuals it would be difficult to figure out who to bill. With Oshkosh, of course, it's being run solely for the benefit of one corporation. Bean counters like that.

In any case, once the FAA institutes user fees, you probably WILL see a surcharge for holidays.

As far as comparing it to the Arlington Fly-In, the number of operations there is drastically less... and in past years, there have been controllers remotely located like Oshkosh does. According to one of the organizers in another forum, the amount of support available to Arlington this year (and its costs) is still under negotation.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

Extra ATC service is provided for many events. Superbowl, Indy 500, NASCAR, Masters golf tournament. Not aware of anyone paying separately for that service.

[Chuck Arnold]

Okay, I see your point. I think that part of the AirVenture experience is that aviation is (or should be) a very big tent. There's room in here for everyone from ultralight pilots up to warbirds and aspiring C-5 pilots. Personally, I hope that everyone who wants to fly gets to in some form.

[Bill Berson]

As far as comparing it to the Arlington Fly-In, the number of operations there is drastically less... and in past years, there have been controllers remotely located like Oshkosh does. According to one of the organizers in another forum, the amount of support available to Arlington this year (and its costs) is still under negotation.

Ron Wanttaja
I have been to Oshkosh and Arlington many times and the traffic flow seems similar to me. Both can only handle about 6 planes in the pattern at any time. They both ask pilots to land long or short to maximize the runway use.
The difference is that Oshkosh has two runways... with different frequencies. Almost like two separate airports. That is the secret to future growth at Oshkosh, in my opinion. (connected but widely separated runways for different classes of aircraft and to reduce traffic to a pilot manageable level at each runway)

[FloridaJohn]

It's the difference between mere overtime, vs overtime plus per diem plus travel plus lodging costs (ever price an Oshkosh hotel during AirVenture?). The issue isn't a higher level of service, it's temporarily providing a service that isn't otherwise available 51 weeks out of the year.
I believe KOSH is a class D airport with an operating control tower. So ATC services is available at that airport during the entire year. During one week of the year, there is a need for a higher level of service, but it is not a service that is unavailable during the rest of the year.


Plus, of course, the holiday rush benefits so many corporations and individuals it would be difficult to figure out who to bill. With Oshkosh, of course, it's being run solely for the benefit of one corporation. Bean counters like that.
Seems to me, any airline that flies a plane on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving should be pretty easy to track down.


In any case, once the FAA institutes user fees, you probably WILL see a surcharge for holidays.
Maybe, maybe not. The airlines seem to have a much more effective lobby than GA does.

ATC was started to benefit the airlines, not GA. ATC handles many, many more flights each day for the airlines than it does for GA. The airlines pay more for ATC services (though fuel taxes) than GA does (also through fuel taxes), but GA is still paying for them even though most GA pilots don't use them. So, in a way, it seems that GA is helping to subsidize ATC for the airlines. And now, there is a move by the FAA to charge GA for "additional services" with a nebulous definition on what "additional" means. So it starts with EAA, then it is Sun N Fun, then maybe Arlington, then the airports around the Super Bowl, and then temporary towers set up for college football games, etc. Next thing you know, GA is both directly paying for ATC services during these "large events" and then subsidizing the ATC services used by the airlines during the rest of the year. Doesn't sound too fair to me.

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?" Does the FAA have some responsibility for air safety even though EAA has said it is not going to pay extra? Or can they just wash their hands of it, and if there is an accident, tell everyone that air safety is no longer a priority and if EAA wants safety they have to pay for it?

I just don't see this as a workable solution for anyone.

[RV8505]

I believe KOSH is a class D airport with an operating control tower. So ATC services is available at that airport during the entire year. During one week of the year, there is a need for a higher level of service, but it is not a service that is unavailable during the rest of the year.


Seems to me, any airline that flies a plane on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving should be pretty easy to track down.


Maybe, maybe not. The airlines seem to have a much more effective lobby than GA does.

ATC was started to benefit the airlines, not GA. ATC handles many, many more flights each day for the airlines than it does for GA. The airlines pay more for ATC services (though fuel taxes) than GA does (also through fuel taxes), but GA is still paying for them even though most GA pilots don't use them. So, in a way, it seems that GA is helping to subsidize ATC for the airlines. And now, there is a move by the FAA to charge GA for "additional services" with a nebulous definition on what "additional" means. So it starts with EAA, then it is Sun N Fun, then maybe Arlington, then the airports around the Super Bowl, and then temporary towers set up for college football games, etc. Next thing you know, GA is both directly paying for ATC services during these "large events" and then subsidizing the ATC services used by the airlines during the rest of the year. Doesn't sound too fair to me.

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?" Does the FAA have some responsibility for air safety even though EAA has said it is not going to pay extra? Or can they just wash their hands of it, and if there is an accident, tell everyone that air safety is no longer a priority and if EAA wants safety they have to pay for it?

I just don't see this as a workable solution for anyone.


People will wonder why the price of Oshkosh tickets will go up. I wonder how much the Bottled water will be?

[Bill Berson]

I don't see how EAA is responsible for payment in advance for an unknown number of aircraft operations.
Of course I am opposed to direct billing in this case, but if anything is imposed, it seems the FAA should send a bill to each N- number owner that requests ATC service. ( like Canada does, I think)

But lets hope that EAA gets this stopped (one way or another) before a precedent gets set.

[rwanttaja]

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?"
Then AirVenture would get the standard amount of service that would be available on any given day. Contrary to opinion, Oshkosh is NOT the busiest airport in the world... it's the busiest airport in the world for the duration of the fly-in. The busiest airport in the world handles an average 100 aircraft per hour... and they've got a big Class B with Approach Control feeding airplanes to them. Oshkosh is mostly VFR pop-up arrivals, and won't even have the Ripon controllers to get the incoming stream straightened out.

About 5% of the total registered aircraft in the US come to the Oshkosh area for the Fly-In, usually on the first day or two. How many more planes than "Oshkosh normal" is that? Do we really expect two guys to handle it? Their easiest solution is to "temporarily" close the field.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I don't see how EAA is responsible for payment in advance for an unknown number of aircraft operations.
Of course I am opposed to direct billing in this case, but if anything is imposed, it seems the FAA should send a bill to each N- number owner that requests ATC service. ( like Canada does, I think)

But lets hope that EAA gets this stopped (one way or another) before a precedent gets set.
They're not expected to pay by the number of operations, but by the amount of support that will be deemed necessary. If the powers that be claim that, to maintain safe operation, 20 additional controllers are required, then EAA will have to pay overtime, per diem, travel, and lodging costs for 20 additional controllers.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I have been to Oshkosh and Arlington many times and the traffic flow seems similar to me. Both can only handle about 6 planes in the pattern at any time. They both ask pilots to land long or short to maximize the runway use.
Bill, I'm local too, and have flown into the Arlington fly-in a number of times. I've never been there when it's been busy enough to actually *require* that temporary tower, much less the Ripon-like checkpoint to the Southeast. If Oshkosh is no busier than Arlington, then I think EAA could say "good riddance" to the need for extra controllers.

But I really don't think that's the case. About 15,000 aircraft show up for Oshkosh, and I think Arlington is about a tenth of that.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Rosenow]

I haven't seen anyone yet address the legal basis that allows FAA to unilaterally begin charging the additional fees they are asking from EAA. I think it's a valid question that was asked earlier. I ask it again...could someone more knowledgeable than I address it?

From the FAA web site (http://www.faa.gov/about/safety_efficiency/)....
"Under the broad umbrella of safety and efficiency, we have several major roles:


Regulating civil aviation to promote safety
Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology
Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft
Researching and developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics
Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation
Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation"


My personal opinion is that bullet point 2 would certainly include financially supporting the gathering of a few thousand of the brightest and most innovative folks in the general aviation arena.

Another curiosity question...Will the several thousand square foot building that houses the FAA multi-media self-promotion dog-and-pony show (and the accompanying staff) also be empty this year? That would permit significant savings for the FAA.

Jim

[MADean]

"Ironically, a basic sport pilot can't fly into Oshkosh because of the Tower."

"Yes, with additional training."

That's funny. I earned my Sport Pilot license in June 2011. My first flight, after getting the ticket, was into Oshkosh. And I didn't get any "additional" training. Yet I was perfectly legal. why? Because flying into a towered airport, with my instructor, was part of my regular training. (Note: Our base airport is non-towered.)

[FloridaJohn]

Then AirVenture would get the standard amount of service that would be available on any given day.
So what you are saying is that the FAA is no longer concerned with air safety?

[RV8505]

So what you are saying is that the FAA is no longer concerned with air safety? +1

[rwanttaja]

So what you are saying is that the FAA is no longer concerned with air safety?
What would be unsafe? If the controllers get overwhelmed, they close the airport. If pilots run out of gas or suffer mid airs, it's their fault...they violated regulations, it's not the FAA's responsibility. That's how the Feds will spin it.

About 45 years ago, thousands of hippies decided to converge on a small North Dakota town. Massive criminal acts occurred. Was it the fault of the members of the part-time police force of the ~200 town residents?

Ron Wanttaja

[FloridaJohn]

What would be unsafe? If the controllers get overwhelmed, they close the airport. If pilots run out of gas or suffer mid airs, it's their fault...they violated regulations, it's not the FAA's responsibility.
So 5% of all registered airplanes are going to converge at a single airport. This has been happening for 43 consecutive years. The FAA has been informed and is aware of this year's date. The FAA is operating a control tower at that airport. The FAA has defined a Class D airspace around the airport. The FAA fails to staff for this known influx of air traffic. An accident happens, and the FAA has no responsibility? It seems to me they have taken over the responsibility of the airspace/airport when they made this a controlled airfield.

According to the FAA, "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." How can they fulfill their mission when they decide to no longer provide a safe aerospace system? And how efficient is a system that isn't prepared for a known increase in air traffic?

[martymayes]

The FAA basically drives the staffing requirements based on the procedures they implement. If they don't want any involvement, they should withdraw all the procedural NOTAMs. "Pilots are required to follow our procedures but we reserve the right to default on our end of the deal." Gonna be hard to say it's not their fault.

[FloridaJohn]

The FAA basically drives the staffing requirements based on the procedures they implement. If they don't want any involvement, they should withdraw all the procedural NOTAMs. "Pilots are required to follow our procedures but we reserve the right to default on our end of the deal." Gonna be hard to say it's not their fault.
Excellent point. The Airventure NOTAM is an FAA publication and has already been released for this year's event. Is the FAA really going to back down from the procedure (with the attendant staffing requirements) that they themselves drew up?

[rwanttaja]

Excellent point. The Airventure NOTAM is an FAA publication and has already been released for this year's event. Is the FAA really going to back down from the procedure (with the attendant staffing requirements) that they themselves drew up?
Why not? They either issue an updated NOTAM, or cancel it entirely. No regulatory reason they couldn't do so even after the start of AirVenture.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

The FAA is going to cancel the NOTAM and put up a 25nm radius TFR around OSH. No flying allowed.

[FloridaJohn]

No regulatory reason they couldn't do so even after the start of AirVenture.
There also is no regulatory reason for charging for ATC services.

[rwanttaja]

There also is no regulatory reason for charging for ATC services.
Nor is there any regulatory reason to provide a level of service specified by a *user* of the service, vs. the agency that provides the services. Note that the FAA felt that the Oshkosh tower was not sufficiently needed, to the point where (a couple of months back) it was on the closure list. Doesn't sound like the FAA thinks it's that important.

My city allows me park free in front of my house. Police come around occasionally to, among other things, check if the curb area is being used legally. If I demanded the city, one week out of every year, put up "Reserved Parking for Ron Wanttaja" sign and station a police officer to enforce the sign, I wouldn't expect that service to be provided for free.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Rosenow]

What would be unsafe? If the controllers get overwhelmed, they close the airport. If pilots run out of gas or suffer mid airs, it's their fault...they violated regulations, it's not the FAA's responsibility. That's how the Feds will spin it.

About 45 years ago, thousands of hippies decided to converge on a small North Dakota town. Massive criminal acts occurred. Was it the fault of the members of the part-time police force of the ~200 town residents?

Ron Wanttaja

Hmmmm....hippies...the 60's... Hey, I got it! We all start growing beards, find some tie-dyed clothes, big signs, and picket the FAA building this year :-) My sign...."FAA would rather promote themselves than safety"

In Ron's scenario, I suspect the courts would find fault with the local PD if they knew several years in advance that the mob was coming, and chose not to adequately staff and prepare. Even more so if they closed the PD and went home. I don't have a juris doctorate, but I can spell it! :-)

Peace and love (we already have the Rock & Roll ...Chicago on opening day)! ROFL!!

Jim

[martymayes]

There also is no regulatory reason for charging for ATC services.

In other words, if the FAA can charge users for ATC services at Airventure, then they can charge user fees anytime and anywhere they deem its appropriate.

[rwanttaja]

In other words, if the FAA can charge users for ATC services at Airventure, then they can charge user fees anytime and anywhere they deem its appropriate.
The FAA is not charging for ATC services at AirVenture. They've demanded payment for an extra level of service that a private corporation has requested.

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.

Ron Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

If 5000 volunteers work at Airventure for free to run the event, why can't controllers serve for a few hours out of the week like other volunteers?
Is there a shortage of people willing to do this?
I know the controllers do request to be sent for Oshkosh duty, for the fun of it, apparently.

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.

[FlyingRon]

Why not? They either issue an updated NOTAM, or cancel it entirely. No regulatory reason they couldn't do so even after the start of AirVenture.

Ron Wanttaja

Things can change. A lot of the procedures went out the window or were heavily modified during sloshkosh the year before last.

[RV8505]

The FAA is not charging for ATC services at AirVenture. They've demanded payment for an extra level of service that a private corporation has requested.

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.

Ron Wanttaja

Then We as a aviation community need to rethink closing FAA and contract towers that are underutilized for service that we do need. Close the unwanted Towers!

[FloridaJohn]

The FAA is not charging for ATC services at AirVenture. They've demanded payment for an extra level of service that a private corporation has requested.
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?

The only thing I have seen is a document from the FAA outlining a procedure to ensure safe operations that must be staffed by FAA personnel.

[FloridaJohn]

Note that the FAA felt that the Oshkosh tower was not sufficiently needed, to the point where (a couple of months back) it was on the closure list. Doesn't sound like the FAA thinks it's that important.
Do you think that list was created for safety reasons or political reasons? The data I have seen points to political reasons.

[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/2013/2013-05-22_GA-asked-to-absorb-FAA-budget-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/2013/2013-05-22_GA-asked-to-absorb-FAA-budget-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.

[rwanttaja]

that is a request from the FAA for more money, not a request from EAA for more services.
What, then, are we arguing about? Are you saying the FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower (e.g., the staffing required 51 weeks out of the year)? That EAA does not want special treatment (e.g, increased controller staffing) during the Fly-In?

You seem to be saying that the FAA has demanded money for providing ANY services during the fly-in, which I do not think is the case.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

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.
Actually, I've read that this policy has been in effect for a number of years: For instance, NASCAR and the PGA supposedly pay for the temporary towers set up to support their events. The only difference is that the FAA previously waived the fees for aviation events. With a constrained budget situation, they're no longer willing to.

I tend to agree that EAA should just refuse to pay, plus request the FAA close the tower for the duration of the show. This will probably cut down on the warbirds and the bizjet, but probably won't affect the homebuilts, antiques, and classics who deal with these kinds of conditions all the time.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Rosenow]

Yes, Ron...that is exactly MY position, anyway, and you stated it quite well....Quoting RW.."FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower"....the routine staffing for 43 years now give or take; Exactly like they staff up for holidays, and other yearly events without charge to anyone that I am aware of. Guess it all comes down to one's definition of 'routine', and we may all just have to arm wrestle for it. :-)

I would be cautious about EAA asking that the tower be closed during the fly-in. There might be some liability in that. I strongly support telling them where they can put their ......um, let me re-phrase that....that we respectfully refuse to pay unauthorized user fees.

Jim

[Floatsflyer]

... plus request the FAA close the tower for the duration of the show.

Ron Wanttaja

I hope you mean that as a threat strategy by EAA to FAA to get them to back down. If not, you've just provided the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[rwanttaja]

Yes, Ron...that is exactly MY position, anyway, and you stated it quite well....Quoting RW.."FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower"....

Jim, please don't edit my statements in order to put words in my mouth. What I said was, "Are you saying the FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower ...?" I did not claim that the FAA *was* asking EAA to pay for the routine staffing, as you edited my statement to say.

Your answer to my question is apparently "yes." And I disagree.

Is the Fisk Approach Control staffed year-round? Here's a picture of it from a previous AirVenture:

2993
Count the pink shirts. That's five people sitting in a trailer controlling inbound traffic. I bet they're not sitting there right now. So that's at least five...probably actually ten or more... folks that are added for the show.

Here's a shot of the tower. Count the pink shirts:

2994
Do you seriously think tomorrow's afternoon shift in Oshkosh tower has that many people?

According to Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAA_AirVenture_Oshkosh) in 2007, the FAA brought in 75 additional people to work traffic control at AirVenture.

According to US Department of Labor statistics (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/air-traffic-controllers.htm), median pay for an Air Traffic Controller is $51/hour. The controllers at AV are the top, and probably make more than that. But assume those 75 controllers make the median, and work 40 hours. That's $153,000, just in straight salary. Add a goodly amount to cover the pension contributions and health care plans, and also the overtime being worked by the controllers when those 75 people disappear from their home facilities. Add travel, per diem, rental cars for transportation. (EAA's web page doesn't mention housing; EAA has nearby hotels booked, and I bet they give rooms to the FAA guys).

So let's stop the fiction that this is routine year-round staffing, hmmm?

The issue is that the FAA has previously absorbed the costs for its support of AirVenture and now are unwilling to do so. EAA is under the lion's paw, here... without the controllers, they won't dare put on a show. The FAA doesn't HAVE to deal (if the show gets cancelled, they'll actually SAVE money), and EAA can't afford to cancel. So they're going to (eventually) pay.

How much? I suspect there'll be more than coin o' the realm involved. EAA provides a lot of support for the FAA and there might be some quid pro quo involved (hosting retreats for FAA conferences, providing warbird training for FAA check ride pilots, etc.). There will probably be a dollar amount announced, but the extra deals probably won't be made public.

If you don't like this...and none of us do, even myself... don't bad-mouth the EAA staffers and brass. I'm sure they're trying like crazy. Don't bother complaining about the FAA. They're caught in a squeeze, too. Their budgets are tight, and they have to do more with less.

Wanna do something? Call your Congresscritter. The FAA is forced to follow its budget, but Congress ultimately controls it. FAA won't budge about making EAA pay because they're afraid that some member of Congress will accuse them of wasteful favoritism to a private Wisconsin company. But get some of those members of Congress to encourage FAA support of AirVenture, and the FAA won't be as afraid of risking censure by one or two isolated representatives or senators.

So there's your choice, guys. Continue to whine, moan, and slam the guys trying to make AirVenture go...or actually do something.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Rosenow]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my earlier post, Ron. The purpose was to say that MY position is that FAA is asking EAA to pay for 'routine' staffing, and that those specific words expressed MY position well.

I define routine as something that happens with regularity, in a cycle, and is expected. The cycle could be hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, Schwinn*, yearly, etc. The fly-in currently meets my criteria. Having been there at other times, I fully concur that the operational levels at KOSH are different the rest of the year than during the fly-in. (I've tried to get into this "Airventure" phraseology, but probably never will.)

My argument is only with the administrator within the FAA who made the decision to charge for what are by my definition (I understand not yours, Ron) routine services, and whoever up the chain should have nixed it. I specifically support EAA staff and implementing FAA staff who have no choice in the matter.

Side question...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.... ?? Hal?...other EAA staff?...anyone know?

Up the chain is key. I urge everyone to, and will today myself, contact my Congresscritters (cute, Ron! :-). Are we assuming that EAA is using their political clout in the same way?

Jim

* Just making sure you were really paying attention, all :-)

[FloridaJohn]

Let me try to clarify my points one more time:


The fly-in is a routine event, happening in regular intervals and at a consistent time of the year. The FAA knew about it well in advance and appears to have planned for the event (i.e. NOTAM). They have been doing this for decades and it is clear this event is not a surprise to anyone.
The FAA's mandate is Air Safety. With that many planes converging on one location at the same time, there is a concern for air safety. The FAA should do what is required to fulfill their mandate.
The FAA is now asking for money for doing something they have done for decades without complaint.
The FAA has made no attempt to control their costs. They have not altered their plans at all, but now expect EAA to foot the bill. I believe that if money is an issue, then they should first attempt to lower their expenses before seeking additional income.
It is unclear what would happen if EAA did not pay the FAA. Would they refuse services? If they did, then that would seem to run counter to their mandate, Air Safety.
There are other "events" that happen throughout the year that increase air traffic, like holiday traffic, but the FAA has not charged others for those increased services. It seems that they are unfairly singling out the EAA.
There appears to be no precedent for these charges. How is the price determined? What method was used? What is the procedure for challenging the amount? How is the FAA held accountable by the "customer"?

[rwanttaja]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my earlier post, Ron. The purpose was to say that MY position is that FAA is asking EAA to pay for 'routine' staffing, and that those specific words expressed MY position well.
Thanks, Jim, glad to know it wasn't deliberate. I don't have many buttons, but THAT was one of them. :-)


I define routine as something that happens with regularity, in a cycle, and is expected. The cycle could be hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, Schwinn*, yearly, etc. The fly-in currently meets my criteria. Having been there at other times, I fully concur that the operational levels at KOSH are different the rest of the year than during the fly-in. (I've tried to get into this "Airventure" phraseology, but probably never will.)

My argument is only with the administrator within the FAA who made the decision to charge for what are by my definition (I understand not yours, Ron) routine services, and whoever up the chain should have nixed it. I specifically support EAA staff and implementing FAA staff who have no choice in the matter.

Side question...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.... ?? Hal?...other EAA staff?...anyone know?

Gotcha, and understand your use of the term "routine", now. Your point about FAA budgets was a shrewd one, and I suggest "budgeted" would be a better term than "routine."

This HAD to have been accommodated within the FAA budget before. I did a cursory look through the FAA's 2010 budget (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aba/budgets_brief/media/FY%202010%20President%27s%20Budget%20Submission.pd f)(gad, the things I do for you folks). Searched for "EAA", "Oshkosh", "Airventure," and even "Air Show" and "Special event", and didn't come up with any hits. So it's buried deeply; not surprising when it's probably $500K out of a $9+ billion budget. As such, it's probably "in the noise" as far as overall policy is concerned. It's a Very Big Deal to us, but to the beancounters at the FAA, it's just pocket change.

Ron Wanttaja

[RV8505]

I guess we just have to accept the aviation fuel tax is missued like the automotive gas tax. Spent on projects totally unrelated for which the tax was designed. Now we have to make up for the funds that were raided.

[Jim Rosenow]

Let me try to clarify my points one more time:


The fly-in is a routine event, happening in regular intervals and at a consistent time of the year. The FAA knew about it well in advance and appears to have planned for the event (i.e. NOTAM). They have been doing this for decades and it is clear this event is not a surprise to anyone.
The FAA's mandate is Air Safety. With that many planes converging on one location at the same time, there is a concern for air safety. The FAA should do what is required to fulfill their mandate.
The FAA is now asking for money for doing something they have done for decades without complaint.
The FAA has made no attempt to control their costs. They have not altered their plans at all, but now expect EAA to foot the bill. I believe that if money is an issue, then they should first attempt to lower their expenses before seeking additional income.
It is unclear what would happen if EAA did not pay the FAA. Would they refuse services? If they did, then that would seem to run counter to their mandate, Air Safety.
There are other "events" that happen throughout the year that increase air traffic, like holiday traffic, but the FAA has not charged others for those increased services. It seems that they are unfairly singling out the EAA.
There appears to be no precedent for these charges. How is the price determined? What method was used? What is the procedure for challenging the amount? How is the FAA held accountable by the "customer"?



+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.

Have you discussed with your Congresscritters, yet?

Jim

[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)

[PaulDow]

Should make for an interesting "Meet the Administrator" session this year...If he has the integrity to show up after this.

[Dick Knapinski]

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 (http://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."

[Jim Rosenow]

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.

[TedK]

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!

[Jim Heffelfinger]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EAA_AirVenture_Oshkosh&action=edit&section=15)]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Terminal_Service_Area&action=edit&redlink=1) 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/VideoNetwork/51510400001/AirVenture-air-traffic-controllers-talk-it-up

[Mayhemxpc]

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.

[TedK]

... 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.

[FloridaJohn]

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.

[TedK]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[rwanttaja]

The first question that has to be answered before any 'negotiations' start is, "Is air safety for sale?"
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

[RV8505]

The EAA shouldn't eat the cost of Air Traffic Control . They should institute a surcharge and pass the cost on at the gate, camping, soft drinks and water. Along with the price increases signage to explain why the prices are going up and who to contact at the FAA. Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.

[Floatsflyer]

The EAA shouldn't eat the cost of Air Traffic Control . They should institute a surcharge and pass the cost on at the gate, camping, soft drinks and water. Along with the price increases signage to explain why the prices are going up and who to contact at the FAA. Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.


Too late to apply add-ons for gate admissions. The exhibitors are more likely better equipped to manage a surcharge. Not at all in favour of increases tacked on to food and beverages.

[martymayes]

Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.
Or even 200,000 mad people. But many, like me would probably just find something else to do during the last week of July every summer.

[rwanttaja]

Too late to apply add-ons for gate admissions. The exhibitors are more likely better equipped to manage a surcharge. Not at all in favour of increases tacked on to food and beverages.
But it might be the best way to recoup a sudden last-minute expense.

Actual numbers are hard to come by, here. AFAIK, the actual AMOUNT the FAA is asking for hasn't been released. Let's assume the FAA has requested a nice round $1,000,000. IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay something like $285,000.

(Side note: Little or no furor was raised over SnF having to pay for the same services Oshkosh is being billed for. No doubt this encouraged the FAA to dun AirVenture.)

Sun-N-Fun got a local tourist group to pay some of it, but Florida is SO tourism-business intensive, I suspect the same level of support won't be available.

So, how many people come to AirVenture? The data isn't public. EAA announced an attendance of 500,000 last year, but the way *I* understand it, it doesn't mean a half-million people came to the show. It's basically people-days; basically it's saying they averaged ~72,000 guests per day over the seven days of the show.

But what it does mean that, if they can get each guest to pony up roughly an additional $2 per day, they've got the FAA services covered. That's not really that bad. If they added a surcharge to admission, the rise in a weekly admission would be just $14. They could add a 25-cent surcharge to each meal item and probably make it.

If the amount the FAA's trying to bill for is less than a million (I'm guessing it's actually around $600,000), it's just that much less they have to pass on to attendees.

Ron Wanttaja

[RV8505]

But it might be the best way to recoup a sudden last-minute expense.

Actual numbers are hard to come by, here. AFAIK, the actual AMOUNT the FAA is asking for hasn't been released. Let's assume the FAA has requested a nice round $1,000,000. IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay something like $285,000.

(Side note: Little or no furor was raised over SnF having to pay for the same services Oshkosh is being billed for. No doubt this encouraged the FAA to dun AirVenture.)

Sun-N-Fun got a local tourist group to pay some of it, but Florida is SO tourism-business intensive, I suspect the same level of support won't be available.

So, how many people come to AirVenture? The data isn't public. EAA announced an attendance of 500,000 last year, but the way *I* understand it, it doesn't mean a half-million people came to the show. It's basically people-days; basically it's saying they averaged ~72,000 guests per day over the seven days of the show.

But what it does mean that, if they can get each guest to pony up roughly an additional $2 per day, they've got the FAA services covered. That's not really that bad. If they added a surcharge to admission, the rise in a weekly admission would be just $14. They could add a 25-cent surcharge to each meal item and probably make it.

If the amount the FAA's trying to bill for is less than a million (I'm guessing it's actually around $600,000), it's just that much less they have to pass on to attendees.

Ron Wanttaja

It is not to late to add a surcharge at the gate and have the food vendors add a surcharge as well. 99.9 percent would pay it and then the EAA could have signage explaing the situation. Defacto people would and point the finger at the FAA as the source of their pain! I would also up the rent on the ( Exempt Armed Services) goverment pavalion as well if they do pay rent that is.

[Floatsflyer]

Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.

[rwanttaja]

Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.
Because EAA has contracts with the exhibitors. They can't just tell them, "We're going to charge you XXX % extra for your display space because of the FAA." And I'm sorry, I don't buy off on the "they can handle it better economically" comment. The General Aviation industry is hurting.

Sponsors...well, it'd be nice if they kicked in the extra money needed. That's a delicate process, though. They might well start feeling....unappreciated...if EAA starts asking them for more money. "I've already given you five million dollars, free and clear...and you want MORE???" Never underestimate the ego of a millionaire....

Another way not yet mentioned it to turn this into a pure user fee: Charge all aircraft that use the services (e.g., land at Oshkosh). Around $50-$100 per aircraft should cover the FAA fees. Or just add a fuel surcharge. Could bump up the charges for vehicle parking, too.

Not advocating any of this, you understand. But the FAA has little reason to back down, and it's probable EAA will have to come up with the money from somewhere. Because the short time period involved, EAA is probably going to have to eat it and come up with methods in future years to collect extra money.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kevin O'Halloran]

we could put up some fancy tents on the flight line and charge supid expensive cost for corps to use them
That would bring in a lot of money
Oh yea---the membership didn't like that idea--so NO ONE should bitch if we get hit for extra fees.
Kevin

[Mayhemxpc]

Just because the government sends you a bill, it doesn't mean you have to pay it. I know that this may come as a shock to some of you, but not everything the US Government does passes legal review. But if you accept what it did to you, it can be used as precedent.

Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment, but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn? Gee, I always thought that one of the three universal tenets of "rule of law" was that the laws apply equally to everyone.

[Bill Berson]

Instead of 5% reduction (or whatever) across the board, the government has specifically targeted GA this year.
1) The complete shutdown of T-Birds and Blue Angles has had a dramatic negative effect on all the air shows and GA.
2) The tower closing fiasco was targeted at GA.
3) Now the Tower expense fee at Oshkosh

wonder what is next for GA?

[RV8505]

Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.


We the attendees should ALL pay because it is OUR problem and we ALL should care. This is not the type of problem we can pass the buck onto someone else because this is only the beginning. Adding that extra burden courtesy of the FAA will spur people to take action to protect their own interests.

[rwanttaja]

Just because the government sends you a bill, it doesn't mean you have to pay it. I know that this may come as a shock to some of you, but not everything the US Government does passes legal review. But if you accept what it did to you, it can be used as precedent.

In that case, precedent has already been established: Sun-N-Fun paid for ATC services this year. Had our chance, and we blew it.


Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment, but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn?

All me to split this into two parts:

"Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment"

Certainly. You can send me a contract that demands I be your personal slave for the next five years. I have the option not to sign it, just like EAA has the option of not agreeing to the FAA's terms.

"...but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn?"

Ah, but now we get to the fundamental issue: Did the US Government have a contract with EAA to provide additional controllers to AirVenture 2013 at no cost?

I'm guessing they didn't. If they did, EAA would have already filed an injunction in Federal court, demanding the US Government honor its commitment. Re-read Dick Knapinski's posting (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?3859-FAA-Wants-EAA-To-Pay-Them-To-Staff-Oshkosh-l&p=31094&viewfull=1#post31094). It sounds to me that EAA just worked with the FAA in the past to ensure the FAA had budget allocated for support of AirVenture. He describes the billing as a change in policy.

Remember, when you deal with the USG, the term "contract" as a very specific meaning, and the establishment of a contract requires compliance with a whole passel of laws and the appointment of a platoon of beancounters to monitor it. A "policy" is not a contract, nor is a "gentleman's agreement," nor an exchange of memos nor a grip-and-grin photo. FAA's last minute decision to bill EAA for services previously rendered for free certainly can be characterized as a blackguardly trick, but there's probably no contract involved.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Because EAA has contracts with the exhibitors. They can't just tell them, "We're going to charge you XXX % extra for your display space because of the FAA." And I'm sorry, I don't buy off on the "they can handle it better economically" comment. The General Aviation industry is hurting.

Sponsors...well, it'd be nice if they kicked in the extra money needed. That's a delicate process, though. They might well start feeling....unappreciated...if EAA starts asking them for more money. "I've already given you five million dollars, free and clear...and you want MORE???" Never underestimate the ego of a millionaire....

Another way not yet mentioned it to turn this into a pure user fee: Charge all aircraft that use the services (e.g., land at Oshkosh). Around $50-$100 per aircraft should cover the FAA fees. Or just add a fuel surcharge. Could bump up the charges for vehicle parking, too.

Not advocating any of this, you understand. But the FAA has little reason to back down, and it's probable EAA will have to come up with the money from somewhere. Because the short time period involved, EAA is probably going to have to eat it and come up with methods in future years to collect extra money.

Ron Wanttaja

I have never seen a specific contract between EAA and exhibitors/sponsors but contracts in general have in the event of clauses for purposes of escalation built in. "The GA Industry is hurting." The whole planet is hurting!!

There is an implied contract between ticket buyer and EAA. EAA sets the amount and people pay it in good faith not ever expecting to have it raised or lowered(like any ticket purchase transaction). It's not an agreement that is subject to unilateral action. Thousands have already bought tickets online or whatever. Are you suggesting 2 tiered pricing (for those that will be purchasing in the future).

User Fees??!! I know you aren't advocating them but I thought you and most people on here were dead set against any form of additional user fees in GA so why even mention them as an option.

[rwanttaja]

I have never seen a specific contract between EAA and exhibitors/sponsors but contracts in general have in the event of clauses for purposes of escalation built in.

I know little of contracts, but from a short bit of online research, escalation clauses seem to be primarily focused on physical materials that vary in cost. Basically, something that you can physically reference for the price going higher. For the EAA/Exhibitor contract, there may be an escalation clause for the utilities cost, there may be one for sales tax. Kinda doubt there's one for "cost of FAA services," and really doubt there's one for "We discovered at the last minute we need more money to pay for something unrelated to supplying you an exhibit space."


"The GA Industry is hurting." The whole planet is hurting!!

That's how we'll do it... we'll tell the FAA to send the bill to the WHOLE PLANET!


There is an implied contract between ticket buyer and EAA. EAA sets the amount and people pay it in good faith not ever expecting to have it raised or lowered(like any ticket purchase transaction). It's not an agreement that is subject to unilateral action. Thousands have already bought tickets online or whatever. Are you suggesting 2 tiered pricing (for those that will be purchasing in the future).

Great suggestion! Bump the ticket prices as of, say, 10 June. Those who buy early get a great deal. It'll encourage early ticket sales next year. Volunteerism should surge, too.


User Fees??!! I know you aren't advocating them but I thought you and most people on here were dead set against any form of additional user fees in GA so why even mention them as an option.

Because until you suggested two-tier pricing, the only other suggestions basically involve threatening to hold our breath until the FAA gives in. Maybe the FAA will...for this year...but if not, EAA needs some ideas for ways to get through this. We don't know the status of EAA's coffers; we don't know if there's enough to absorb a $500K-$1M hit for ATC services at the last minute. If there isn't, they're going to need to generate some extra cash really quick. Though we don't know if the FAA is demanding the money in advance...maybe they'll let EAA post-date the check.

Most "user fee" discussions involve something where one gets charged for routine activities. Pay toilets, for instance, or talking to the guy in the tower using the noisy-box. But we're talking about an event where all attendees have to pay anyway. An admission fee IS a user fee; no one who does not use the service (e.g., attendance at the event) has to pay it, and one can avoid paying it by not using the service (e.g., attending the event).

It is also hoped that EAA will not continue to implement extra charges beyond the crisis period; we KNOW that a Government User Fee will go on forever.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

"I know little of contracts..."

I could tell. I am confident that the same condition does not exist with those handling this at EAA HQ.

[dougbush]

FAA is already getting extra funds from us for AirVenture, because we buy fuel to get there and back home and pay Federal tax on that fuel.

[rwanttaja]

"I know little of contracts..."

I could tell. I am confident that the same condition does not exist with those handling this at EAA HQ.
Oh, you cut me to the quick....

The exhibitor application (which becomes the contract) is attached. No sign of any escalation terms, at least to this poor single-celled engineer's brain.

Where's my acorn?

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

Ron Wantaja,

You lastest replies to the last few posts here, including mine, indicate someone getting a lot over the top here to the point where your responses are becoming incoherant and rude. Why don't you just sit back, smoke a few joints, relax and let the EAA staff, who get paid to deal with issues such as this one, do their job. I'm confident they will arrive at a reasonable solution without your many, conflicting suggestions.

[rwanttaja]

Ron Wantaja,

You lastest replies to the last few posts here, including mine, indicate someone getting a lot over the top here to the point where your responses are becoming incoherant and rude. Why don't you just sit back, smoke a few joints, relax and let the EAA staff, who get paid to deal with issues such as this one, do their job. I'm confident they will arrive at a reasonable solution without your many, conflicting suggestions.
If your advice is to let the EAA staff handle the problem...then why did this thread get going at all? This is an important issue that deserves public discussion.

As for trying to get me to cease participation...well, I got sued once, for things I said online, and THAT didn't stop me. In 30 years online, I've signed my real name to every thing I've posted online. I take responsibility for what I say.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. Otherwise, present evidence if you have it, or reasonably-constructed arguments if you don't. Your point about escalation clauses was a good one, but it was a bit too easy to discount. None of us like what the FAA is doing, but just complaining about them isn't going to do anything.

As for the acorn comment...sigh, it's no fun at ALL if one has to explain. But here's a link (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_even_a_blind_pig_finds_an_acorn). I made the acorn comment in response to being accused of not being a lawyer. But when I think back on it, it wasn't really an insult... :-)

Ron Wanttaja
^^^^^^^^^ My real name. You think it was MY idea?

[Frank Giger]

What's wrong with Ron? At least it's not an adjective.

The unseemly part of the whole mess is the "gotcha" factor. Sequestration was telegraphed over a year ago, and effects on Airventure should have been worked out a long time ago. For this year the FAA should bite the bullet - and yes, they can do so, as the funds were committed (and in Federal Budget ways of thinking, already spent) already.

The rules of sequestration, even before Congress amended the FAA's constraints, allowed for the flexibility of travel expenditures for individual events even if it did constrain the whole pot.

For the future, though, there can be a middle ground. For example, the EAA could agree to provide local housing and transportation for the ATC personnel (leaving the FAA on the hook for per diem, salary, and transportation to Oshkosh). Is it unreasonable? Not for an event of the size of Airventure, IMHO.

OTOH, if I were running the political show I'd take the other tact - showing how government services are meaningful and worthy to the average Joe (and why across-the-board cuts aren't always the best answer).

[rwanttaja]

What's wrong with Ron? At least it's not an adjective.

My dear Mr. Giger...you share a first name with one of the most famous and noble characters in aviation fiction. Me, I share a first name with one of the most famous porn stars.

(a first name, and nothing else, let me hasten to add.)


The unseemly part of the whole mess is the "gotcha" factor. Sequestration was telegraphed over a year ago, and effects on Airventure should have been worked out a long time ago.

The impression I got from Dick Knapinski's write-up last week was that the FAA wasn't being too forthcoming about sequestration-related impacts. "EAA had heard some rumblings about some numbers being gathered. It took a trip to DC to ask the FAA's top officials directly whether this was taking place before we got the honest answer. That was about two weeks ago." Probably until that trip, no one was willing to make any sort of statement, and I suspect that was just building EAA's unease. Sometimes, getting answers out of the government is like trying to nail jello to the wall.


For this year the FAA should bite the bullet - and yes, they can do so, as the funds were committed (and in Federal Budget ways of thinking, already spent) already.

The rules of sequestration, even before Congress amended the FAA's constraints, allowed for the flexibility of travel expenditures for individual events even if it did constrain the whole pot.

That's the kind of thing that makes you blink a bit, about this. Yes, sequestration cut ~6% from the FAA's budget. There probably wouldn't have been as much of a controversy if the FAA had cut that percent from the AirVenture support allocation vs. making EAA pay for the whole wad. It'd have been easier for EAA to come up with a last-minute $60,000 vs. $1,000,000.

It could have turned into a positive PR thing for both sides if EAA had then stepped up to make up the shortfall. "EAA and FAA cooperate to ensure the safety of AirVenture" could have been the theme. As you mention, EAA could even have provided partial payment in kind, with lodging and transportation and even meal vouchers for the FAA staff.

But no. The FAA had to try stick EAA with the whole thing.

Makes one wonder if someone at the FAA had it out for EAA, but I tend to go with, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." The sequester has triggered a whole new round of stupidity in the Government... budgets used to be predictable things, where you fought through the spring and summer and eventually knew how much you'd have for the next fiscal year. But the sequester was going to happen then wasn't going to happen, then was going to happen next week then wasn't going to happen for a couple of months. I wonder if people who normally don't get involved in budget issues were dragged in to help, which meant the solutions weren't bounded by traditional practice.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hal Bryan]

FYI, if you disagree with the FAA's actions, we're asking members to ask their Senators to lend their support as well:

http://govt.eaa.org/10203/tell-faa-no-user-fees-support-aviation-events/

[RV8505]

Even a Day at Disney is going up! Disney now $92; Disney World tops $100

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22488499/day-at-disneyland-now-more-than-90#ixzz2VByULv8z

(http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22488499/day-at-disneyland-now-more-than-90)

[Mayhemxpc]

Outstanding Hal, I will be right on it.

[rwanttaja]

FYI, if you disagree with the FAA's actions, we're asking members to ask their Senators to lend their support as well:

http://govt.eaa.org/10203/tell-faa-no-user-fees-support-aviation-events/
Hal, it might be useful if EAA could give us a list of talking points, too. Just being *mad* when we call the Senator's office isn't enough... what are the specific points that best help our cause? Obviously, we don't want a script, but a bullet list of points why the Senator should support us might help some those of us who hem and haw a lot. I'm pretty inarticulate, you know.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hal Bryan]

Hi Ron -

I was pressed for time to at least get the basic link posted while very much on the go this afternoon, hence the quick "drive by" posting. Time is a factor as the letter "closes" tomorrow afternoon.

I believe Tom Charpentier will chime in with more, but you can check out our news story here:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06-03_EAA-members-act-now.asp

For more, and if you choose to use the Rally Congress tool, we've generated a boilerplate letter that you can sign as is or edit as you see fit.

Update: See also Jonathan Harger's post here:

http://www.eaaforums.org/showthread.php?t=3898

[Ylinen]

Here is an idea I have not seen discussed. If the FAA wants to charge the EAA for Air Traffic Control services, I recommend EAA go to the DOD and ask for some Air Force ATC teams to support. They would probably do a better job and need the training anyway. If we are forced to pay for ATC services that we have already been taxed by fuel taxes to fund, I would rather pay to have some Air Force Personal support us and give them a chance to enjoy the event. Some Combat Air Control teams would do an outstanding job.

[rwanttaja]

I believe Tom Charpentier will chime in with more, but you can check out our news story here:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06-03_EAA-members-act-now.asp

For more, and if you choose to use the Rally Congress tool, we've generated a boilerplate letter that you can sign as is or edit as you see fit.

Outstanding, Hal, and my apologies for pushing you at what has to be a very busy time.

One thing I'll suggest to folks is to at least add something personal to the START of the boilerplate letter. This makes it look a bit different from a group mailing. I've attached my own letter to show what I mean.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tom Charpentier]

Thanks Ron, you're absolutely right that a personalized letter almost always goes farther than the boilerplate, and there's a way to edit the email on the Rally Congress page (or members are welcome to call or email their Senators directly). At this point, however, our strategy is "strength in numbers" so any message is better than no message.

As I'm writing this we just surpassed 10,000 emails sent since we went live about eight hours ago (each email is counted separately so that's 5,000 unique petitioners so far). You guys are awesome, keep the emails coming!

Ylinen, thanks for the thought - we're certainly looking at every option and chasing down every lead.

Fingers crossed folks, and we'll keep you updated throughout this process. But no matter what happens, ​see you in Oshkosh!

[Mayhemxpc]

I actually got an email response from Senator Warner's office, acknowledging the email and even addressing the subject material and issues -- but not saying which way he would come down on it. Yes, I have also heard and believe about letters rather than emails. It seems that at least sometimes, those email letters are read.

[steve]

Regarding the letter we sign and send to our employees in DC; any written comments or rants you write after you complete the name address fields are appended to the boilerplate letter, somewhat personalizing the message.

[Bill Berson]

I heard on the news ( and Mark Steyn radio show today) that the IRS has been caught wasting millions on events with extreme hotel bills, perdiem and event contractors that get paid by percentage, which boost their fee when they choose the most expensive hotels (with no regard for taxpayers).

Does the FAA do this?
If details come to light, the public might be alarmed, maybe things will change....

[58boner]

Screw it, cancel the fly in. Just have an air show and charge the general public to attend. That's what it is turning in to anyway. You can park a lot of Cambrys and Civics in the North 40.

[Bill Berson]

Some things could reduce the air traffic peak loads. For example, at Arlington I always arrive at 7:00am to avoid heavy traffic and the tower is closed which allows for no radio sport planes. No radio or early and late evening arrivals at Oshkosh isn't possible, as far I know. This limits arrival time available during the week with air show closure.

A discount could be offered for arrivals several days early. All this could work toward getting by with not much need for additional controllers. (and safer for pilots). I heard a controller say they have had a perfect safety record, but I witnessed at least two crashes on the runway that the controller did not prevent.

I don't see how so many additional controllers can be needed or used anyway. Yeh sure, the airport splits into two sectors, so that means double the number, but how do they need 100 more?

[rwanttaja]

I don't see how so many additional controllers can be needed or used anyway. Yeh sure, the airport splits into two sectors, so that means double the number, but how do they need 100 more?
I've heard a bunch of different numbers; 50 controllers on another post, Wikipedia says 64 controllers (plus 11 support people) and your statement of 100 controllers.

At any given moment, how many positions must be staffed? Wikipedia identifies five working locations...Oshkosh Tower, Fond du Lac tower, Fisk Approach (Ripon) and two mobile departure platforms - MOOCOWs). You say OSH splits into North and South, so that's actually six working locations. Let's say two shifts at North, South, Fisk, the MOOCOWs, and FDL.

Wikipedia says four persons per station at a given time. They're not going to work 7+ days straight, so we have to assume extra crews to permit a day or two off during the week. Let's assume additional staffing to cover when each controller takes his or her 30 minute break every 90 minutes. Let's add two-person overnight shifts at OSH and FDL.

By this rough calculation, it appears that you must have on hand two and a half people for each position that must be staffed. That comes out to 71 people...pretty close to the Wikipedia number. If you assume the four-person shift is sufficient to cover the break times, then it's 53. Still pretty high.

In short, I don't think needing 50-75 controllers is far-fetched, concerning the degree of service being provided

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

As for as the FAA being on a budget cutting plan, well we are only one small airport, but in the last 2 years they have repaved and extended the runway from 7000 ' to 8000' and just now are repaving the entire ramp area, which was fine as it was before. Most of the ramp area is for Gen Av use, rather it is corporate jets.

I believe that the FAA is paying virtually all of this cost which I would guess is $5 million to $10 million.
I know of two Denver area airports and Eagle that built new control towers even though they already had towers.
There is plenty of money when it is being spent on corporate jet facilities. We, that is the EAA just doesn't have the same pull.

[Bill Berson]

I have no idea how many controllers are needed. But I just checked Airnav and found Oshkosh tower normally operates from 0600-2200 (tel:0600-2200) daily (16 hours). Then for Airventure it is open 0800-2000 (tel:0800-2000) (12 hours) and with the air show closure of 3-4 hours (I forget) that means the tower operates about 8 hours per day for Airventure compared with 16 hours normally, or half.

But my point was mostly suggesting ideas to keep the airport open more hours. It doesn't matter how many controllers you have if the airport open time is reduced. Why do they close the airport and restrict morning and evening operations?

[rwanttaja]

I have no idea how many controllers are needed. But I just checked Airnav and found Oshkosh tower normally operates from 0600-2200 (tel:0600-2200) daily (16 hours). Then for Airventure it is open 0800-2000 (tel:0800-2000) (12 hours) and with the air show closure of 3-4 hours (I forget) that means the tower operates about 8 hours per day for Airventure compared with 16 hours normally, or half.

Good points. Would be interesting to see the guidelines the FAA uses to staff the event.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dick Knapinski]

I can add a little clarification about the tower hours. First, thanks to all who urged their senators to sign on the letter regarding the FAA fees. We hope to have the final letter and list of signers (I heard it's about 30) in e-Hotline later today.

Now, about the tower. It is open for air traffic from 0600-1430, then the air show waiver from 1430-1830, then open for air traffic again from 1830-2000. With the number of aircraft parked near the runway, it's preferred by us, FAA and the airport manager not to have aircraft landing or taking off at night, which is why the airport closes from 8pm-6am local time. There have been some rare exceptions (I recall three in the 20+ years I've been on staff), but even those have been discouraged in recent years.

[Bill Berson]

Hi Dick,
Thanks for answering my question. The tower hours are confusing. Page one of the NOTAM says closed 8:00pm-7:00am.
Page 13 says closed 8:00pm-6:00am.

In any case, with civil twilight around 4am and sunrise around 5am, there is a one or two hour time period in the morning where no radio traffic could be introduced with special procedure. I did read the special no radio procedure for Vintage that requires prior arrangement. It would be neat if something could be done for no radio sport pilots. This would increase the participation of the fun "Dick Stark" type airplanes.
I know you guys are busy, but times of upheaval require out of the box thinking, I feel.

[Jim Rosenow]

First, thanks to all who urged their senators to sign on the letter regarding the FAA fees. We hope to have the final letter and list of signers (I heard it's about 30) in e-Hotline later today.

"in e-Hotline"....please elucidate :-) Thanks!

Jim

[Hal Bryan]

"in e-Hotline"....please elucidate :-) Thanks!

Jim

Hi Jim -

That's our weekly electronic newsletter for EAA members:

http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/

[Skyguy]

Hi Dick,
Thanks for answering my question. The tower hours are confusing. Page one of the NOTAM says closed 8:00pm-7:00am.
Page 13 says closed 8:00pm-6:00am.

In any case, with civil twilight around 4am and sunrise around 5am, there is a one or two hour time period in the morning where no radio traffic could be introduced with special procedure. I did read the special no radio procedure for Vintage that requires prior arrangement. It would be neat if something could be done for no radio sport pilots. This would increase the participation of the fun "Dick Stark" type airplanes.
I know you guys are busy, but times of upheaval require out of the box thinking, I feel.

No radio aircraft should buy a cheap hanheld tranceiver and play the radio equiped game to get in.

[WLIU]

It has been a while but the NORDO procedure is not hard to do. Send in your info and follow the procedure. Not aware that it is restricted to one group of attendees. I will say that it is easiest right after the field opens in the morning.

Best of luck,

Wes
N2390B

[Bill Berson]

No radio aircraft should buy a cheap hanheld tranceiver and play the radio equiped game to get in.
Even with a cheap radio, sport pilots are not allowed into any towered airport, let alone Oshkosh.*
I have suggested some alternatives. My other idea was to build offsite temporary grass strips with airplane access on existing roads that are converted to temporary taxiways to Airventure, was my other suggestion.

*a SportPilot can get additional training to qualify for tower operations. But I bet most are still intimidated by Airventure

[scott f]

This has been a great discussion, especially on Ron's part - but I think we may be missing the forrest through the trees here, least from my rather simplistic way of looking at it.

From my point of view anyway, while I love Oshkosh and many of the activties I do with EAA, one of the biggest reasons I belong to EAA is to protect me from user fees (and all the other stupid stuff the FAA may come up with).

If EAA starts paying user fees - then there is no reason to pay them to protect me anymore. After all, why pay a bodyguard that is scared of bullies - Agree with them or not, groups like the NRA actually fight back over these type of issues and what I want..... what I need.... is an aviation group that does the same. And I do honestly mean that, if EAA pays, I quit.

Now some of the issues Ron has been spot on about and I fully realize that telling the FAA to go pound sand would result in some major operational issues. However, I bet in two months time we could hire some people, supplemented by actual volunteers, to do the same for less money. Sure the level of service would be down, arrivals would slow down. People would understand though, because finally we are fighting back. Would we lose some money - you betcha we would, but we would lose that money cause the organization was doing what it is supposed to do.

But - next year when we do it again we will have more time to prepare and we will be better. If we do not draw the line somewhere, this type of stuff will continue and it will only get worse, next what will I be paying for?

Think of it this way, the EAA tells the FAA to stuff it. Then we stick pirate flags all over the grounds to showcase this. At the base of each flag could be a collection jar to fiance both the shortfall of revenue and to pay for a law suit against the FAA for refusing to fulfill it;s safety mission and for what really amounts to extortion against the EAA. I bet we would collect ALOT of money. The theme of the whole convention could be standing up against an out of control government agency. Given everything else going on right now, the publicity for this would be endless. It would be the most interesting Airventure in a long time.

In the end though, We.. the aviation community and the EAA... stop acting like victims. You do have a choice, tell the FAA thanks, but no thanks, we can handle this ourselves. Man up EAA. You exist to protect our rights, not put on an airshow.


PS... if you do pay... and I do quit... think of this. Every year I pay for admission, camping etc despite the fact I volunteer during EAA at Osh and off times during the year. I sure as crud hope they make the FAA people, right up to the Adminstrator pay too. Oh and when I buy gas, what are my fuel taxes going to if EAA is footing the bill for ATC? Do I get them back? Are we charging the FAA G5 landing fees on it's constant shuttle back and forth to DC?

[Mayhemxpc]

Hal, what is the word? I used the link and signed up for the newsletter, but is says two business days until they process it. By that time, I will have learned what EAA did from AOPA!

[Hal Bryan]

Hal, what is the word? I used the link and signed up for the newsletter, but is says two business days until they process it. By that time, I will have learned what EAA did from AOPA!

Here's the story we published today - this is the latest:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06-06_senate-group-tells-FAA-stop-on-OSH-ATC-fees.asp

[Mayhemxpc]

A nice bi-partisan group of Senators. Amazing. Too bad that is only 28. Even sadder that my Senators are not among the signatories. Let us see what happens.

[Jim Rosenow]

Hi Jim -

That's our weekly electronic newsletter for EAA members:

http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/

Thanks, Hal...not sure how I missed that.

[FloridaJohn]

Some new information about the FAA's plans can be found here:

(http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=ec7fffbc-8739-4256-bf01-1db6aaea7981)As Backlash Grows, FAA Is Planning 'Extensive' Special Event User Fees
(http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=ec7fffbc-8739-4256-bf01-1db6aaea7981)
From the article:


Apparently; the FAA is developing a "menu" for basic service fees that starts with events as simple as a grassroots airshow waiver (ostensibly to start at/or around $5000) and to increase as the FAA's role becomes more complex or develops outside "normal operations." Fall events such as the Reno Air Races (which don't require much in the way of FAA 'special' services and may, therefore, escape much of the extra costs), HAI and NBAA conventions are on the bubble... with the NBAA show seen as being particularly 'lucrative' in terms of the fees that FAA expects to levy against the event and the organization.



But... it doesn't stop there.

The FAA has a growing list of public events that require "extra surveillance and operation support" such as the Super Bowl (and smaller such bowl events), major car racing events such as the Indy 500, major golf events such as various PGA contests, horse-racing, the World Series, and more. ANN has been told that the FAA believes that it could eventually recoup between 20 and 30 million dollars with an aggressive push to make special operations "pay their share" (yes, that was actually said--ANN) of the special operations costs that the FAA (and the FAA alone) seems to think are now outside of their immediate responsibility to provide.


Camel's nose, indeed!

[trav8s]

That article says the FAA's COO is J David Grizzle. A quick check of the airmen registry shows only one J. David Grizzle. A student pilot from 2000. So are we to understand that the Chief Operating Official of the FAA isn't even a pilot? Now it all makes sense!! The ineptitude of our government seems to be amazing me more and more every day.

[Jeff Boatright]

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.


100% correct. This is what "smaller government" looks like. Many of you asked for it, and you (and sadly, the rest of us) are getting it.

[Jeff Boatright]

The FAA is not charging for ATC services at AirVenture. They've demanded payment for an extra level of service that a private corporation has requested.

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.

Ron Wanttaja


Exactly so.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - HL Mencken

You asked for spending cuts and shrinking the government, and you're getting 'em good and hard. This is what it looks like. Did you think that just because you're in favor of closing some schools and cutting teacher salaries and cutting unemployment benefits that eventually YOU wouldn't be affected? Just how special of a snowflake do you think you are?

[Jeff Boatright]

We the attendees should ALL pay because it is OUR problem and we ALL should care. This is not the type of problem we can pass the buck onto someone else because this is only the beginning. Adding that extra burden courtesy of the FAA will spur people to take action to protect their own interests.

THAT is an excellent point, and it's actually one of the major, general points to the sequester (I think). If everyone feels some pain, then in theory, we'll all be complaining to our representatives to actually formulate a real budget. Or something like that. ;)

[FloridaJohn]

Or the FAA could actually use some common sense in determining what to cut. So far, their solutions have been to haphazardly cut contract control towers and charge fly-ins for services that have already been paid for.

I am all for the FAA cutting their budget, but holding EAA hostage at the last minute is not one of them. My suggestion would be that they look at all control towers (both contract and FAA), and determine which ones are no longer necessary. See if some current FAA towers could be converted to cheaper contract towers. Stop funding programs that no longer serve any purpose or are ineffective. See if office staff can be reduced.

If they did those few simple things, I believe they would find a lot more money than they can get out of EAA.

Plus, aviation fuel taxes, which we all pay, specifically fund ATC services, so we have already paid in advance and this money does not come out of the general tax fund.

[scott f]

100% correct. This is what "smaller government" looks like. Many of you asked for it, and you (and sadly, the rest of us) are getting it.


100 percent wrong...
1. We already paid for the ATC services with our fuel taxes. Why should EAA pay again for what we already paid for.

2. Generally, when someone sends you a Bill it is because you ordered something. EAA did not request the FAA send an Army of 100 controllers.

3. The Sequester resulted in a 2.7 percent cut to a 5 percent budget increase for the FAA. The FAA budget this year is larger than last. So, to be fair, send 2.7 less controllers, I bet we can all live with that.

4. Smaller government does not equal extorting groups for money that the FAA feels need service. Smaller government means that the FAA provides what it required to safely accomplish its Congressionally mandated safety mission. If WE don;t feel there is enough people, then we pay for the overage. What happened here is that FAA said - we think you need this, now you pay it all.

5. Last point though, Jeff is right about one thing. I think in smaller government terms we are better off without them. So, lets just tell them thanks but no thanks.

[Bill Berson]

I believe the FAA (and perhaps much of government ) is controlled by union leaders. Unions exist to serve their members, not the public.
The FAA obviously has no interest in cutting anything. It is this never ending quest for perks that unions demand.
Unions thrived in private industry until the companies went broke. And now they focus on secure government jobs for their members. But governments simply take longer to go broke.

Government unions were illegal at one time, I think.
My brother was a member of a state government union. He told me the perks were nice, but in his opinion, governments should not be unionized. Nobody is looking out for the taxpayer, the negotiations are completely one sided, so we will continue to see these creative coercive tactics, I am afraid.

[Jeff Boatright]

100 percent wrong...
1. We already paid for the ATC services with our fuel taxes. Why should EAA pay again for what we already paid for.

2. Generally, when someone sends you a Bill it is because you ordered something. EAA did not request the FAA send an Army of 100 controllers.

3. The Sequester resulted in a 2.7 percent cut to a 5 percent budget increase for the FAA. The FAA budget this year is larger than last. So, to be fair, send 2.7 less controllers, I bet we can all live with that.

4. Smaller government does not equal extorting groups for money that the FAA feels need service. Smaller government means that the FAA provides what it required to safely accomplish its Congressionally mandated safety mission. If WE don;t feel there is enough people, then we pay for the overage. What happened here is that FAA said - we think you need this, now you pay it all.

5. Last point though, Jeff is right about one thing. I think in smaller government terms we are better off without them. So, lets just tell them thanks but no thanks.

Nope, I am 100% correct. What we (and many other groups and individuals) are experiencing is EXACTLY what happens with mandated across-the-board cuts.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be working under the assumption that downsizing the government and associated cuts will be done to suit you or me, that it will be done in a way that strikes you and me as being fair and smart. If so, I think you are 100% wrong. Budget cuts like these are messy and the pain is spread around apparently randomly, though it's not random. There is a trend for the politically weak to get nailed first (which indeed has been happening with Medicare and with unemployment insurance). Small but identifiable items, like what FAA budgets for OSH, are easy targets. Here the affected individuals are from generally politically strong groups, but the number of affected individuals is tiny. Easy target. Probably took a nanosecond for an FAA budget wiz to check that box.

Right? Wrong? Fair? Unfair? Efficient? Sloppy? None of those entered into the decision once the sequester started. Cuts are here, low hanging fruit gets picked first.

[scott f]

well I guess we get there from different directions Jeff, but I bet we agree on one thing. It is best not to act like a low hanging fruit.

[Mayhemxpc]

Jeff, At least 28 Senators from both parties disagree with you about their intent for the FAA budget and the provision they made for fully funded ATC operations.

In DoD, we are on a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. Many of the politically appointed leadership (people with "secretary" in their titles), who are otherwise exempt from the furlough, are voluntarily returning 20% of their pay to the Treasury for the same time that the furlough lasts. Although we may not like it, no one that I know is complaining about the furlough. We know that something is necessary. We are trying to be smart about what to cut, where, and when. Is it too much to ask the FAA to do the same?

I do not at all like the Ottoman notion of bureaucrats demanding baksheesh for services, especially when those services are fully funded.

[Bill Greenwood]

Well, as far as cutting items in the budget to save money, we all know how much a part of the overall budget that $500,000 that FAA wants from EAA is.
There are some non believers that might suggest not having the IRS spend all that money on their conventions or the TSA not spend $50 million on new uniforms. Perhaps the Air Force Academy could even do without repaving their roads every year or our airport with the pavement on the ramp that really did not need redoing or the Eagle and Jeffco, could get by with the control towers they already had instead of $millions for new ones. But any sort of logic or thrift or common sense is not the way things are done in our gov.
If there is a big plate of gravy everyone wants a turn at the platter.

And most of all, aren't we lucky that our govt seems to always be able to find a war of two to spend a few trillion $$$$$$$ on.
There are some wimps that think we ought to be spending most of our money on things that actually help people, but every politician knows there really isn't much markup and profit in peace time.

If EAA pays the half million $$, just think of it as our little one percent of the price of the next F35 or whatever the new must have techno hardware is.

[Wrongway Feldman]

This pretty much sums up where all the money has gone





3024


3025

[Jeff Boatright]

well i guess we get there from different directions jeff, but i bet we agree on one thing. It is best not to act like a low hanging fruit.

exactamundo! ;)

[Hal Bryan]

I'll post this link in each of these threads, just to make sure that you all see it:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06-13_no-good-options-in-FAA-ATC-demands.asp

[vaflier]

Hal, with all due respect to you and all of your co workers including Mr Pelton, I have to say a very bad decision has been made. The door to user fees of all kinds has just been opened wide and invites the demise of avaition as we know it. Mr Pelton should have told the FAA in the nicest way possible to shove it. Blackmail and extortion is never acceptable. Give in to it once and you had better be willing to live with it forever. My apreciation to all of you for your hard work and that includes Mr Pelton, but I cannot agree with this decision.

[Wrongway Feldman]

Through out the history of EAA AirVenture convention,
did EAA ever have to cover FAA expenses related to air traffic control services?

I believe the FAA was looking for a easy target to extract money from.
With Jack Pelton, holding the new chairman of the board position and acting
as president and CEO of EAA while a replacement is found since October 2012.
FAA may have thought they could catch EAA in flux. Maybe they did.
Especially springing these last minute expenses on EAA right before their Annual convention.
Sounds like dirty pool to me.

Maybe the best thing to do is fight and pay, so you can live to fight another day.

The United States Post Office has been running in the red for years why can't the FAA?

[Floatsflyer]

Maybe the best thing to do is fight and pay, so you can live to fight another day.

Jack, the BOD and the entire EAA organizational staff have just experienced the classic definition of "between a rock and a hard place." How does one choose amongst a list of nothing but catastrophic choices. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't believe the wisdom of Soloman could have helped.

Perhaps Wrongway has summarized the only common sense solution available. For it does allow EAA to fiscally(it does take big bucks) lead the assault on the FAA on behalf of GA by indeed getting up off the mat, tail between legs, wipe of the blood spatter, but with the ability to fight another day.

[rwanttaja]

Don't forget the wording of EAA's announcement: "EAA today finalized a one-time agreement..."

As Dick's posting said a few pages back, the FAA didn't give EAA a definitive answer on whether they were going to get charged until barely three months before the show. Not really enough time to do anything drastic. Now, this gives them the opportunity to fight hard for 2014, and come up with some alternatives if the FAA stays firm.

With the time they had, the only real alternative would have been to cancel the show. I don't think that would have been in the best interests of EAA, for the hundreds of vendors who count on making serious sales contacts during the show, or for the hundreds of thousands of people for whom this is the high point of their aviation year.

EAA really made the only choice that was possible...but as the news release says, the agreement is ONE TIME. Sure, it sets a precedent, which won't help, but EAA will now have a year to come up with alternate arrangements.

Ron Wanttaja

[TedK]

The United States Post Office has been running in the red for years why can't the FAA?

Who said FAA is running in the Red??

With Fuel Taxes, it looks like FAA actually makes $ from GA. It sure appears to me that GA, particularly private sport GA, is paying more into system than they get. I have no desire to subsidize the nearly bankrupt cash hungry airlines that use most of ATC.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well, this thread has the best discussion on this subject, I read somewhere on one of these threads that the FAA gets 71% of it's funding from the fuel taxes, which means that 29% comes from someplace else. My guess is that is the "general fund". All these "trust funds" are just political speak for more tax revenues and each year the sitting Congress decides what to fund. This year they couldn't decide how to divide the pie, since there are too many folks at the table, so everybody has to take a smaller piece. Some say we already paid for our piece, but it looks like we only paid for 71% of the cost for the piece, but expect the same size slice as last year. The FAA says we'll give you the same size slice but it will cost you $450K up front or you can have the smaller slice without AirVenture. In response to "Wrongway", the whole federal govt is in the red and the fight is and always has been about who gets and who pays. Clearly the 1% are getting more then they need but they have the $$ so they get their way. This is not my "political" position, just looking at the charts.

Joe

[wa6ilt]

Don't forget the wording of EAA's announcement: "EAA today finalized a one-time agreement..."

As Dick's posting said a few pages back, the FAA didn't give EAA a definitive answer on whether they were going to get charged until barely three months before the show. Not really enough time to do anything drastic. Now, this gives them the opportunity to fight hard for 2014, and come up with some alternatives if the FAA stays firm.

With the time they had, the only real alternative would have been to cancel the show. I don't think that would have been in the best interests of EAA, for the hundreds of vendors who count on making serious sales contacts during the show, or for the hundreds of thousands of people for whom this is the high point of their aviation year.

EAA really made the only choice that was possible...but as the news release says, the agreement is ONE TIME. Sure, it sets a precedent, which won't help, but EAA will now have a year to come up with alternate arrangements.

Ron Wanttaja
As the old saying goes, "Once you pay the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane".

[Bill Berson]

Did the FAA send a bill to Arlington?
Arlington is July 11-13 (before Oshkosh), the temperary Arlington tower hours are 8:30-6:30pm with 3 hours closure for the air show. So that's 7 hours per day. They have a simple portable tower set up on the field and a remote approach controller on Friday and Saturday only.

[flibmeister]

Several months ago, I was told (by the FAA guy in charge of such things) that Arlington was going to receive a quote for close to $50,000. However, that was for a five-day tower, with longer hours than their notam indicates. My guess (and that's all it is at this point) is that they curtailed the tower hours of operation to lower the cost and then agreed to pay the bill.

I am the Air Operations chairman for the Copperstate Fly-In, and we're still waiting for a quote from the FAA. But I fully expect it to be in the vicinity of $30,000 for our usual three-day tower. If that is the case, we won't be paying; most likely the airport will just operate non-towered during the event, as it does the rest of the year.

[cub builder]

I am the Air Operations chairman for the Copperstate Fly-In, and we're still waiting for a quote from the FAA. But I fully expect it to be in the vicinity of $30,000 for our usual three-day tower. If that is the case, we won't be paying; most likely the airport will just operate non-towered during the event, as it does the rest of the year.

Bully for you flibmeister!!! Run Copperstate like the Cactus fly in. Much easier to get in and out without the tower. As usual, I'll be there!

-CubBuilder
EAA Chapter 691 President

[flibmeister]

Run Copperstate like the Cactus fly in.


That's the plan, although it does come with some disadvantages. Without the FAA there to absorb responsibility for any incidents, we're going to be more reticent about promoting the Showcase pattern, shortcut patterns for demo or passenger rides, that sort of thing. Not that folks can't do some of that on their own, of course; we just can't sanction it. Better for the average fly-in attendee, but some of our exhibitors may not be happy.

I'll be the guy with the nicest golf cart on the airport (orange Mini convertible). Flag me down and say hello!

[cub builder]

I'll look for you.

Sorry for the thread drift. :)

[Dan]

I was thinking about all this earlier today, and it got me thinking.

Concerts and other big gatherings like football games hire local police officers to provide secutity and crowd control for their events. These private events pay for those services.

I think I have changed my tune to think that we should also be able to fund our services directly. However, and this is critical, we need to pay for the services we need, not inflated inefficient government services.

FAA dollars, and the government in general, are paying for defined benefit pensions and antiquated systems. Employees in the private sector typically have defined contribution pension funds (if they get a pension at all) and are always working to change and improve the systems they are working with. Retirement is not automatic at some age.

If, and only if, we can do something to ensure that we only pay for services rendered and not be sacked with the huge entitlement costs killing our government, I agree that we should pay a fee for our big event...