We reached a settlement agreement with the FAA re: ATC fees for AirVenture

[Hal Bryan]

Here's the link to the full story, including full text of the legal agreements:

http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_eaa-faa-reach-agreement-on-airventure-atc-costs.asp (http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_eaa-faa-reach-agreement-on-airventure-atc-costs.asp)

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Glad to see an agreement that has a future.

[Kevin O'Halloran]

How can the FAA ever show up to Oshkosh as they have in the past ?
I can remember going to a "meet the administrator" question and answer gathering
I came away thinking they were not my "friend" but they were not out to get me either.
If they had the gathering now--people would throw rocks at them
sad to say--it will from now on be a "us versus them"

[flibmeister]

Other than taking the uncertainty out of the situation, what was gained by this settlement? It appears that EAA has agreed to pay, for the next nine years, the same costs for which they were assessed in 2013.

[tspear]

Other than taking the uncertainty out of the situation, what was gained by this settlement? It appears that EAA has agreed to pay, for the next nine years, the same costs for which they were assessed in 2013.

Actually the costs should be a lot lower. The FAA assessment last assumed all ATC staff was paid and required massive overtime. Per this press release, EAA will only have to cover costs for the overages since all staff at the event will now be volunteers.

Tim

[flibmeister]

Actually the costs should be a lot lower. The FAA assessment last assumed all ATC staff was paid and required massive overtime. Per this press release, EAA will only have to cover costs for the overages since all staff at the event will now be volunteers.

Tim

Not true, I'm afraid. The controllers working OSH have always been "volunteers" in the sense that they request such duty (as opposed to being involuntarily assigned to it). They're paid their standard hourly rate and receive time-and-a-half only if they work more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week, just as if they were working at their home facility. There's nothing in the agreement to indicate that's changed.

The amount of overtime used at the event itself is insignificant. However, if a controller is working at OSH, that means there's a hole in the schedule at his home facility-- and if the FAA has to call in overtime at the home facility to fill that hole, that overtime cost is passed on to the event organizer.

After reading the EAA Q&A on the subject (http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_qa-eaa-faa-agreement-on-airventure-atc-services.asp#1) it's clear they expect no cost savings: "The FAA will charge EAA its actual cost for the same elements that were charged for in 2013: travel; backfill overtime (for FAA personnel who fill in for the controllers and others who have come to Oshkosh); supplies; and overhead; all at FAA's standard rates."

I think a better subject for this thread would be, "EAA Folds, re: ATC Fees for Airventure." EAA has chosen to rollover on the issue to insure certainty and stability-- understandable, but it sets a precedent for all such events, even though there's been no fair hearing as to whether the FAA has the right to impose such user fees in the first place.

[TedK]

EAA just agreed to User Fees for GA. You have created a Situation for which there is no return.

I am disgusted that you agreed to a payment agreement with the FAA, worse yet, it was agreed to in Secret negotiations with no opportunity for the membership to provide comment.

The worst part is that we now have no leg to stand on battling user fees.

How could a loss in court have been worse that paying the FAA extortion?

Have you no concept of Principle?

You put survival of your organization over the interests of your membership.

[vaflier]

EAA management has really blown it this time. I will not profess to speak for others but as for me I believe Mr Pelton will if he has any integrity resign immediately . Mr Pelton I would say to you that you and your management team do not speak for me. Any person or organization which is unwilling to stand and fight for a matter of principle as great as this deserves to fail. If fighting this means that Oshkosh needs to be canceled for one or two years in order to win this battle then so be it. It would return stronger than ever. How can the management of EAA go directly against the wishes of so many of its members and expect to prosper. You have made it clear that this organization is all about the money. This is completely and utterly disgusting. The membership of this organization should demand the immediate departure of the senior management staff.

[tspear]

Not true, I'm afraid. The controllers working OSH have always been "volunteers" in the sense that they request such duty (as opposed to being involuntarily assigned to it). They're paid their standard hourly rate and receive time-and-a-half only if they work more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week, just as if they were working at their home facility. There's nothing in the agreement to indicate that's changed.

The amount of overtime used at the event itself is insignificant. However, if a controller is working at OSH, that means there's a hole in the schedule at his home facility-- and if the FAA has to call in overtime at the home facility to fill that hole, that overtime cost is passed on to the event organizer.

After reading the EAA Q&A on the subject (http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_qa-eaa-faa-agreement-on-airventure-atc-services.asp#1) it's clear they expect no cost savings: "The FAA will charge EAA its actual cost for the same elements that were charged for in 2013: travel; backfill overtime (for FAA personnel who fill in for the controllers and others who have come to Oshkosh); supplies; and overhead; all at FAA's standard rates."

I think a better subject for this thread would be, "EAA Folds, re: ATC Fees for Airventure." EAA has chosen to rollover on the issue to insure certainty and stability-- understandable, but it sets a precedent for all such events, even though there's been no fair hearing as to whether the FAA has the right to impose such user fees in the first place.

Well that sucks.
And also makes me question my EAA membership.

Tim

[Ylinen]

I went and read the FAQs. I did not see that the EAA staff investegated contractor services. I talked to Air Boss, Inc at Sebring during the Sport Pilot Expo about whether they could do EAA. The owner said yes. That all of his employees were ex FAA controllers and ALL had done AV. He said he could do it with half the staff and for 1/3 the cost.

See this article: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&ID=0ED42D67-5530-4B8A-851C-C51D20F1BC98

Their service was fantastic. I encourage the EAA board to FIRE the FAA and hire this group. If the FAA fails to give the EAA the NOTAMs they need to do their event, then we should continue to sue.

Hal,
I have a question for you and Pelton. Did the agreement require the FAA administrator to show up at AV all of those years with his staff and face the members in a Townhall and to meet with the members on their concerns? If not, then EAA screwed up.

[Dave Parsley]

Disappointed in the lack of leadership. EAA was placed in a tough spot but this "settlement" is more accurately described as "total capitulation".EAA argues that canceling AirVenture would greatly harm GA. So why did they not use this to our advantage? Threaten to cancel the event, allow the community, industry politicians to rise up in outrage at the potential loss of our SuperBowl. An FAA backdown under the face of overwhelming public pressure would have been a great victory for GA. Instead, our second largest association has meekly accepted user fees. I believe this has harmed GA more than canceling AirVenture for a year would.I can buy the argument there wasn't enough time to create an alternative to the FAA controllers last year using volunteers or contractors. But with more than a year to work on it? The EAA community has demonstrated many times a capability to safely and responsibly stage complex aviation activities. The procedures are already in place and are not rocket science to execute. Wresting control from FAA would have been an empowering move. But again, EAA has simply rolled over. I have it on good authority that EAA won't use volunteer or contract controllers for fear of accident liability coming back to the organization.No one is asking EAA to be reckless, but the complete absence of backbone is worrying. It leaves the distinct impression that EAA is prioritizing its own balance sheet ahead of the wider interest of the community.

[FloridaJohn]

Put me down as another member who would have rather seen Oshkosh cancelled than EAA agreeing to this. They have formalized the same situation that they were willing to fight in court last year. The EAA has willingly opened GA to administratively applied user fees. This will not benefit GA in the long run.

[Floatsflyer]

Since this forum only represents the opinions, comments and viewpoints of only 4.8% of the the total membership--hardly a bellweather for consensus of opinion on this or any other subject--, I'd like to know the following: From, Hal, can you tell us what the consensus is from phone calls and emails to HQ? From all forum users, as I am not on other social media, can you provide a ballpark figure of consensus from all other social media(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) on this subject? These numbers are important.

Questions concerning the 2 Agreements:


Since the 2014 Reimbursable Agreement does not supersede or nullify the 2013 Agreement, why didn't EAA ask for or insist on a repayment of that portion of the almost $450,000 that could be counted as the Discounted amount that's allowed for in the 2014 Agreement? That's a huge amount.

The 2014 Reimbursable Agreement allows for EAA to opt out of the agreement anytime during the Term. However, should the Agreement run its course of 9 years, there is no provision to renew, renegotiate or extend. It just expires. This is quite unusual. What happens after expiration?

And finally to Sean Elliot: Your job description has changed immensely with the added big time oversight duties and responsibilities of these Agreements. Have you ask for a raise?

[TedK]

Since this forum only represents the opinions, comments and viewpoints of only 4.8% of the the total membership--hardly a bellweather for consensus of opinion on this or any other subject--, I'd like to know the following: From, Hal, can you tell us what the consensus is from phone calls and emails to HQ? From all forum users, as I am not on other social media, can you provide a ballpark figure of consensus from all other social media(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) on this subject? These numbers are important.

And finally to Sean Elliot: Your job description has changed immensely with the added big time oversight duties and responsibilities of these Agreements. Have you ask for a raise?

Two points:

Yes please, what about Member Consensus?

It follows naturally that EAA might claim that survival of the Organization is essential to the survival of GA. EAA, please don't go there.

I will, however, give EAA a way out of this that is right up Sean's alley. Victory can still be snatched from the Jaws of Defeat by a Legislative solution that satisfactorily rectifies this situation.

EAA- I'm watching. Let's see how you do on the PNC part of SARA, GAPPA, and a long term legislative overturn of this debacle. You have the opportunity to make the future better. Please do so.

ok, then maybe a raise.

[jjhoneck]

Color me disgusted, disappointed, and angry.

It will be impossible to stop users fees now, thanks to EAA -- the organization I was counting on to save us from double taxation.

I love Oshkosh. This will be my 32nd consecutive trip to Wittman Field. But I would have gladly sacrificed 2014 to make this point .

[Hal Bryan]

Since this forum only represents the opinions, comments and viewpoints of only 4.8% of the the total membership--hardly a bellweather for consensus of opinion on this or any other subject--, I'd like to know the following: From, Hal, can you tell us what the consensus is from phone calls and emails to HQ? From all forum users, as I am not on other social media, can you provide a ballpark figure of consensus from all other social media(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) on this subject? These numbers are important.

Hi Floats -

I can't give you any indication of calls or emails at this point, other than to say that there's been no feedback via any of the (what I'd call "secondary") inboxes to which I personally have access.

I haven't seen any response on Twitter beyond 8 retweets and 2 "favorites."

With respect to Facebook, we've seen feedback in two places - the Facebook plugin below the story on EAA.org and on our Facebook page:

The news story on EAA.org has 269 likes so far and 8 comments which you can read for yourself: http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_eaa-faa-reach-agreement-on-airventure-atc-costs.asp (http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-03-21_eaa-faa-reach-agreement-on-airventure-atc-costs.asp)

The post on our Facebook page has, as of now, 182 likes, 32 shares, and 11 comments. Again, you can read those for yourself (you should be able to view all of the comments without a Facebook login):

https://www.facebook.com/EAAHQ/posts/10153915162100321?stream_ref=10

There have been no wall posts or direct messages via our Facebook page regarding this announcement.



Questions concerning the 2 Agreements:


I don't have the answers to those questions. For anyone who has questions or concerns, I'd urge you to join the webinar presentation next week - Jack Pelton will present live and we expect plenty of time for interactive Q&A. If you can't attend, the webinar will be recorded and published as usual. You can find the details here:

http://www.eaa.org/webinars/ (http://www.eaa.org/webinars/)

Thanks -

Hal

[Floatsflyer]

Hi Hal,

Thanks for the info and for posting the Facebook sites that did allow me to view comments without a login.

If you could keep us apprised and updated of any emails or calls received that would be great.

Because of the time in my timezone and the fact that it's during work hours, I may not be able to join the Webinar, as much as I'd like to. So I'm asking if you could provide Jack with my first 2 questions for inclusion in the Q&A portion, that would be much appreciated. My 3rd question was of course with tongue planted firmly in cheek and an attempt to lighten the mood and extent of the vitriol being expressed.

[Ylinen]

Hal,
Here is my question and feedback for the Webinar. Please pass to Jack.

The contract allows for EAA to find alternate services. Has or will EAA contact Air Boss, Inc Lead by George Cline and see if he is willing to staff the ATC with his Retired FAA Controllers all of whom have worked AV. He has stated he could do AV for 1/2 the staff that FAA will bring and 1/3 the cost and do a better job as his controllers are all trained in VFR operations which current FAA non-Contract controllers are not.

I would rather pay George than give ONE $ to the FAA.

[Eagle Six]

I don't have the answers to those questions. For anyone who has questions or concerns, I'd urge you to join the webinar presentation next week - Jack Pelton will present live and we expect plenty of time for interactive Q&A. If you can't attend, the webinar will be recorded and published as usual. You can find the details here:

http://www.eaa.org/webinars/ (http://www.eaa.org/webinars/)

Thanks -

Hal

Thanks for the headsup, I just happen to be available for the webinar this Tuesday. Hopefully there will be some insight into future success for GA gleamed from the decisions being made by the EAA. Unfortunately, at this point, I'm disappointed with the EAA for signing such agreements. Hopefully this webinar isn't an effort to save face with the members, by closing the door after the horses run off!


Best Regards.......George

[Dave Parsley]

I noticed the agreements were actually signed on March 19th. Oldest PR trick in the book to slip the bad news out on a Friday afternoon.

[Sonex1517]

I cannot believe EAA did this. Unacceptable.

To me this proves what I suspected for years. EAA has completely and totally lost its way, and now has placed their own self interests ahead that of general/sport aviation.

I won't be renewing my membership as a direct result of this fiasco.

[TedK]

​Hal - more questions for Jack and the webcast.

Given that this capitulation may have set a horrible precedent for GA User Fees, and perhaps EAA considered it would be best fought with Airventure fully functioning,...

What will be EAA's Legislative Agenda to achieve a statutory prohibition on User Fees? (This is EAA's chance to redeem themselves)

How will EAA keep the membership informed before the fact, and most importantly, engaged?

[pilotgirlbuf]

I'm seriously appalled by this whole thing. I'm not very sure what to say over this as well. if theres a chance to redeem yourselves, EAA, better do it quick. I'll be thinking about pulling my membership as well, and that is sad. :(

[vaflier]

If Mr Pelton really wants to hear from the membership perhaps he should consider having the webinar at a time that more people could attend. Maybe 8pm CST might be a good time. This would allow the majority of those of us who work a better chance to ask questions and get the facts first hand. Then again I have a concern that the 12 noon time was chosen deliberately to minimize the blowback from such a poor decision. We alteady pay for the FAA through the many taxes we pay on fuel and in general and now we are going to pay them twice. Insanity at best!. We as an organisation must draw a line and say, No further and stand our ground. We must fight for what is right and not back down. If we roll over now we will allowing the camels nose under the tent and will be forever sorry. Raise my dues enough to cover the lost revenue from not having Oshkosh this year and fight the FAA with all we have. I would bet that I am not nearly the only one who feels this way. Since it is clear that it all comes down to revenue for the EAA, you now have an easy way to make it a revenue nuetral decision. Any other excuses for not standing up and fighting this issue ???? Or is it simply a matter of no backbone ?. I am shocked and disgusted by this agreement, and the fact that the membership was given no opportunity to voice thier opinions before it was signed. Mr Pelton, this is not great leadership, it is waving the white flag and groveling.

[Bill]

EAA just agreed to User Fees for GA. You have created a Situation for which there is no return.

I am disgusted that you agreed to a payment agreement with the FAA, worse yet, it was agreed to in Secret negotiations with no opportunity for the membership to provide comment.

The worst part is that we know (sic) have no leg to stand on battling user fees.



Last year Sun and Fun agreed to pay user fees to the FAA for ATC services before EAA did. Sun and Fun set the precedent. EAA just followed unhappily along.

[gbrasch]

I would like to see Mr. Pelton reply to this thread so we as members can be assured he is hearing what is being said here.

[Mike M]

Put me down as another member who would have rather seen Oshkosh cancelled than EAA agreeing to this. They have formalized the same situation that they were willing to fight in court last year. The EAA has willingly opened GA to administratively applied user fees. This will not benefit GA in the long run.

Concur. Copperstate did it right.

[Puertoricoflyer]

I cannot believe EAA did this. Unacceptable.

To me this proves what I suspected for years. EAA has completely and totally lost its way, and now has placed their own self interests ahead that of general/sport aviation.

I won't be renewing my membership as a direct result of this fiasco. I agree this is totally unacceptable. EAA has just legitimized FAA user fees for all of GA, not just Oshkosh, in one fell stroke. This is the typical situation where lack of long range strategic thinking has caused EAA to "win the battle" but "loose the war". Few, if any, activities in GA are larger or more significant that Oshkosh so having the event run by a private contractor would have been a better strategic decision than to accept user fees. Now in Congress, the FAA has a huge "ally" in the user fee debate. They can and will say: "The biggest GA event in the world, which is held here in the US, accepts user fees." An almost insurmountable argument to counter in Congress. You can add me to the list of those that will not be renewing my EAA membership once it expires. :mad:

[Old Timer]

They didn't even "win the battle"

[TedK]

They didn't even "win the battle"

If the criteria was to keep Airventure open, they won their battle.

EAA seems to think keeping Airventure is worth any price. We had this same discussion last year when the FAA demanded payment for Airventure. EAA placed keeping Airventure going over Principle then, indicated they were taking the ethical high ground by going to court, and then once again, folded like a cheap card table.

Now the real question is, how do we win the war?

[Wilfred]

How much did EAA agree to pay for (tax-payer previously paid) employees to come to OSH?

[Infidel]

I really don't believe canceling AV to make a statement to the Feds would do any good and the cancelation would still hurt GA.

I agree EAA has become too Corporate and the "settlement" is wrong. Just recently I decided to become a lifetime member. But now, I think I'll just wing it yearly and see what happens. So sad indeed....

[Floatsflyer]

I really don't believe canceling AV to make a statement to the Feds would do any good and the cancelation would still hurt GA.

What statement would/could be made? We're taking our ball and going home? The FAA would care? Why? You're right, cutting off your nose to spite your face is just a dumb, dumb strategy.....and besides it hurts.

[Puertoricoflyer]

I really don't believe canceling AV to make a statement to the Feds would do any good and the cancelation would still hurt GA.
I agree that it would hurt GA right now but can we afford this short term gain for a long term loss? At some point we have to realize that progress isn't always painless.
If the criteria was to keep Airventure open, they won their battle.

EAA seems to think Keeping Airventure is with any price. We had this discussion last year when the FAA demanded payment for Airventure. EAA placed keeping Airventure going over Principle then, indicated they were taking the ethical high ground by going to court, and then once again, folded like a cheap card table.

Now the real question is, how do we win the war?

That depends on which "war" EAA thinks they are fighting, the Oshkosh war or the bigger User Fee war? EAA can't see that Oshkosh is not a war but just a battleground within the much bigger User Fee war, something this administration clearly understands. That is why they first pressured the smaller air shows (Sun-N-Fun, Copperstate) until one of them caved which gave them better leverage over EAA and Oshkosh. Get the lower hanging fruit first then, when they are in line, you go for the big guys until you subdue them all. Typical divide and conquer strategy. Oshkosh is about making $$$ for EAA not about representing experimenters and our desires. The administration understood this and manipulated the process beautifully. :(

[gbrasch]

Just recently I decided to become a lifetime member. But now, I think I'll just wing it yearly and see what happens. So sad indeed....

The problem with the lifetime membership is you can't quit......

[vaflier]

What statement would/could be made? We're taking our ball and going home? The FAA would care? Why? You're right, cutting off your nose to spite your face is just a dumb, dumb strategy.....and besides it hurts.
I disagree, If Oshkosh was canceled this year when all the money that would be spent in the surrounding areas failed to appear as a result of the FAA trying to rob us just how much hell would be raised by the business community and ultimately by their congress person. How many dollars would go elsewhere as a result, millions perhaps when you consider that every dollar we spend in the hotels, restaraunts, bars, stores and many other places gets spent many times over by employess and business owners within the surrounding area. My guess is we would not have this problem next year as congress would be forced to act to reign in the FAA as a result of the public outcry. It would certainly strenghten our position and at the least increase our bargaining power. There is no down side for the EAA except for the loss of revenue, which is where this decision came from. I stll say stand and fight , raise my dues to offset the loss of income. Have we not seen this before ???, Wakeup people. It is called taxation without representation. Have we turned into a nation of sheeple who are afraid or just plain to lazy to stand up for what is right ?????. I have not forgotten the lessons taught by history , and while I do not propose we take to arms over this , we still need to fight. It is wrong and no amount of politically correct BS from the EAA so called leadership will make it right. I say fight !!!!.

[Eagle Six]

If GA put the cost of ATC services being charged by the FAA, up to a vote of the general tax payer, the fight to have the FAA cover the cost would go down in flames. Maybe it is best to bit the bullet on this one and get as much time as we can on the free ride we have enjoyed for so long. No doubt GA will be faced with more and more user fees in the future. Entering a winner-take-all fight now, could mean we loose a lot sooner, rather than later.


Best Regards.......George

[Infidel]

I disagree, If Oshkosh was canceled this year when all the money that would be spent in the surrounding areas failed to appear as a result of the FAA trying to rob us just how much hell would be raised by the business community and ultimately by their congress person. How many dollars would go elsewhere as a result, millions perhaps when you consider that every dollar we spend in the hotels, restaraunts, bars, stores and many other places gets spent many times over by employess and business owners within the surrounding area. My guess is we would not have this problem next year as congress would be forced to act to reign in the FAA as a result of the public outcry. It would certainly strenghten our position and at the least increase our bargaining power. There is no down side for the EAA except for the loss of revenue, which is where this decision came from. I stll say stand and fight , raise my dues to offset the loss of income. Have we not seen this before ???, Wakeup people. It is called taxation without representation. Have we turned into a nation of sheeple who are afraid or just plain to lazy to stand up for what is right ?????. I have not forgotten the lessons taught by history , and while I do not propose we take to arms over this , we still need to fight. It is wrong and no amount of politically correct BS from the EAA so called leadership will make it right. I say fight !!!!.

Very well said and no argument from me. But getting Congress to accomplish anything "for the people" is becoming a thing of the past. But still, I do my part and try.

[Mayhemxpc]

I disagree, If Oshkosh was canceled this year when all the money that would be spent in the surrounding areas failed to appear as a result of the FAA trying to rob us just how much hell would be raised by the business community and ultimately by their congress person.

I believe that you may labor under the misconception that the current regime cares what the business community, Congress, or the general electorate thinks, or says, or does.

[PaulDow]

What about events that require additional ATC services that aren't made to pay? I thought the Super Bowl doesn't have to pay. What about the Masters?

Oh, that's right. The corporate jet users are likely large political donors. Can't get them upset. As anything in government; follow the money.

[vaflier]

I believe that you may labor under the misconception that the current regime cares what the business community, Congress, or the general electorate thinks, or says, or does.
You may well be right. I do still believe that average people such as ourselves cans still make a difference if we stand together. But first we have to stand up against things that are just plain wrong. I still have hope that the American people can pull together when the need arrises.

[flibmeister]

What about events that require additional ATC services that aren't made to pay? I thought the Super Bowl doesn't have to pay. What about the Masters?

Most events such as the Masters, NASCAR, etc. do pay for their additional ATC services, but for good reason: unlike aviation events, their additional ATC resources are there primarily due to the increase in IFR traffic, not overall volume. The VFR traffic generated by such events is quite manageable, but there would be fairly lengthy IFR delays if only the "normal" ATC system were in place. IOW, with those events, it's not about safety, it's about efficiency-- and NASCAR, the PGA, etc., are more than willing to pay whatever the cost might be to get the corporate jets and turboprops in and out with the least possible delay.

OTOH, in the case of Airventure and other fly-ins, sheer volume is driving the equation, and safety is the primary issue. Given decent weather, the airplanes are going to be there, they can't be flow controlled in the manner that IFR traffic can.

You can hold an event like the Masters without additional ATC services and the only consequence will be inconvenience. The same can't be said for fly-ins-- the additional volume would quickly overwhelm even the best of controllers, so additional personnel and special procedures are implemented to prevent that. Since safety is supposed to be the primary mission of the FAA, they shouldn't be charging extra to provide what is, for the duration of the Fly-In, the minimum acceptable resources that will fulfill that mission.

[TedK]

Hal - another question for Jack and the webcast.


"Will the Administrator come and have a Meet the Administrator session?"

Both Organizations need to work together for the health of GA.

I'd happy to give Mr. Huerta the right seat, I have to fly right past DC enroute OSH.

[Gil]

Oh, that's right. The corporate jet users are likely large political donors. Can't get them upset. As anything in government; follow the money.

I don't think any of the last few federal budget proposals favored corporate aviation... just the opposite.

[Bernie Q]

The EAA just sold out it's members by accepting the FAA extortion.
Now EAA has set the precedent that User Fees are okay.
I'm sorry I just renewed my membership.

[Bernie Q]

I think you will have an answer to what the membership thinks a year from now when membership dives.

[docmirror]

Well, I've been a member for quite a while. I never bothered with the forums, but this event has spurred me to bring my perspective in, not that it's anything special. To steal blatantly from the movies, I think it's important to fight the fights that need fighting, and not just the ones you think you can win. This power and money grab by 'crats from the fed, without mandate is one of the central themes of what's going wrong with the country.

We are becoming far too much like the plutocracies of old Europe, with the minions running the people's lives in the most direct way for the benefit of the ruling classes. Something Alexis de Tocqueville warned of, and here we see it in our own time. We left the ruling class of Europe hundreds of years ago because we thought that republicanism was the better way. Repression of liberty can be carried out in many ways, and fiscal hegemony has to be one of the basest methods of all.

I'm sad that the management of EAA, which has had it's own turmoil recently chose to put the short-sighted benefits of taking from their members at the longer term cost of promoting experimental aviation, and GA. This exorbitant cost will not be paid for by lower income from the staff of EAA, or by the general public, or by some wealthy benefactor, it will be paid for by you, and I, and all future aviation generations. The effects will be serious -- the probable loss of two more planes being built or designed because it just became too expensive to complete. The loss of a new instrument, or radio sale because the cost of this added fee is being tacked on to the final price. The losses are hard to quantify, but they are real, and they will have a negative effect on experimental aviation as a whole.

Finally, there are things that are wrong in a civil society when the 'crats start running things. Make no mistake, this is completely about subjugation and control. It's exercise could have come from a federal mandate not to fly, or it could have come disguised as a financial burden, with the same ultimate goal. Well, I won't be a part of it. I'm not interested in experimental aviation on their terms any more. This is my last year supporting EAA. I've been absent in AOPA since 2009 after more than 30 years of membership, but if membership means grovelling for the scraps of federal support or federal authority then I don't want to be a part of that. The EAA had a chance to go down fighting, and stand by the principles that made aviation great when I was a kid, but they chose poorly, and I say they choose cravenly in an effort to protect their own selfish interests. No thank you, and good bye. When my membership expires, I will mourn the eventual loss of EAA.

[Floatsflyer]

Docmirror,

I don't agree with your sentiments or your conclusion, but I send kudos to you for well thought out and very well expressed comments with historical perspective.

This is NOT about "subjugation and control"-that's a hysterical and paranoid response. It's just about Money and how budget reduced government depts. need to make up deficits with new revenue streams in order to operate in a post budget reduced reality.

As Dylan said, "The times they are a changin'."

[CarlOrton]

OK; how come no one has told us how to fix things? If y'all are so rushing for the exit doors over this FAA scam, I guess it's obvious that everyone believes there is no solution.

All I've read so far has been vitriol directed at EAA management followed by threats and actions to drop your EAA membership.

So what happens? Who's going to step up to even wave a white flag if both organizations are defunct because folks don't like what they do? I've been an AOPA member since 1979 and an EAA member since 2005. I used to donate additional monies to AOPA until they started with the wine sales, etc. But I'm still a member. I donate regularly to the EAA throughout the year because I believe in the overall mission. I will continue my membership and additional donations because this is basically the only game in town.

Folks, if no one is there to provide some support for us, you might as well sell all your planes now. As, if you say, this FAA action is going to open the doors for the death of aviation, then I'd better sell mine now. Remember - first sellers get the highest price! If we all sell our planes, or junk 'em, or whatever, that will effectively send the message to FAA that we mean business! No air traffic, no need for the thousands of airports spread across America. We could probably do with 30 or so major airports. Think of all the FAA controllers and beauracracy that will go down the drain. No staff needed to develop approaches for all those out of the way fields. Probably won't be that great a need for radar, either. With all those "little planes" out of the way, the Big Sky concept should work. And, just to make sure I'm clear, yes, that was sarcasm.

I will remain an EAA, and AOPA member. I don't like that they "folded" (your words), but we need someone there to do *something* for us. Do y'all join just for the advocacy? I didn't - I joined for the people, the local Chapters, the education, and on and on.

If you want to puhish EAA, then by all means come up with a better idea and/or association. I'm sure we'll all join just to be able to stick it to the FAA.

Cancel Oshkosh? C'mon, now, be realistic. Do we really think that the big sponsors will sue the FAA over that? No, the contracts are with EAA. They'll follow the money, since they are in the business of making it. Think of the smaller to mid-sized vendors that will be shut-down. Oshkosh is their Christmas "Black Friday" week. Some of these companies survive only BECAUSE of Oshkosh sales. Yeah, I could survive a year without attending Convention, but doing so would create a horrific cost to the industry in general.

EAA, be more aggressive in solving this issue. Go with the independent contractors if you must. Come up with a workable plan to get buy-in from more members of Congress. We've got to solve it. But I'll still be here for you.

[MEdwards]

Independent ATC contractors have been suggested by many, and some have even mentioned a specific company that does this. It sounds easy, but I wonder how much EAA's insurance for the event would increase if the FAA, which I guess is basically self-insured, wasn't doing ATC. Does anybody have any idea?

[martymayes]

I'm sorry I just renewed my membership.

You are aware membership can be cancelled at any time?

[Jim Rosenow]

Well said docmirror ........

In my opinion, EAA administration just completed the transition from being the Experimental Aircraft Association (which had our convention at Oshkosh), to a membership group attached to 'Airventure'. I think they 'bailed' on the members interests to this point by bowing to the FAA.

Floats...if you don't think it's all about subjegation and control at the federal level...google "Edward Snowden". (tongue firmly in cheek..Don't waste your time on me :-)

Carl...my opinion, it's not any members' job to come up with a solution. That's what I thought we all pay admin for, and again in my opinion, they failed miserably this time.

Quoting the EAA Q&A page.... "EAA member dues won't pay the FAA for air traffic services. The AirVenture budget is completely outside that which is funded by annual dues."

What is missing from that explanation is that EAA volunteers ARE helping pay the FAA for air traffic services...submitted for your consideration....TRULY disassociate 'EAA' and 'Airventure'. Quit pretending it's a 'convention' and let 'Airventure' be the public airshow it has become. The kicker would be, though, a per hour amount for every hour of 'EAA' members' time donated to 'Airventure', gets pulled out of the 'Airventure' bottom line and directly into 'EAA' for advocacy or (what the heck) bribery. That seems a more equitable way to determine which entity is supporting the other. EAA admin...I'm sure the figures are available...input?

Airventure, including the general public, with the associated jet trucks, nightly concerts, huge non-aviation exhibits, top-crust pavilions, etc. hasn't been 'my' convention for some time now and my attendance has reflected that.

I just checked my membership card... "Member Since 1/1/1971"..."Member Through 7/31/2014". It's been a good run. As Carl said, I have many EAA friends, some old, some new. I will miss the connection if I choose not to renew.

Speaking of EAA friends, we lost a good one yesterday. RIP Jim Maroney..your airshow and personality brought me equal joy!

[cub builder]

I read this announcement with a great deal of trepidation, and have taken a couple of days before forming a reply to it.

First the national EAA wanted to stir up the members over this and made a big deal out of how it is illegal, we're gonna sue the government, etc. Then they quietly roll over without saying boo to the membership until it's a done deal. Then the big announcement as if they have accomplished something other than rolling over. Any way you cut it, baloney is still baloney and I don't see any way to put this in a good light. The EAA simply rolled over on us. Along with their self interest in AirVenture, their capitulation also just put every small air show in danger of extinction (except Copperstate who already showed the way without the FAA). It's pretty clear that AirVenture takes precedence over preservation of the freedoms of flight. This action also tells me I can no longer trust the EAA to lobby the FAA and Federal Government on my behalf. In the EAA's eyes, members are to be used for letter writing campaigns, but the EAA is no better than Congress in that they apparently no longer feel constrained by the desires of their constituents.

I've got to do some serious contemplation as to whether I want to support this organization any longer or not. We've got both AOPA and EAA to represent us, and they have become so much alike, they should probably merge. EAA, you have sold your soul and lost your way. At least AOPA seems to know who they are.

CubBuilder

[Bill]

The EAA just sold out it's members by accepting the FAA extortion.
Now EAA has set the precedent that User Fees are okay.
I'm sorry I just renewed my membership.

Read this Sun 'n Fun news release dated 3/25/2013.

"SUN ‘n FUN 2013 will take off as scheduled with official, certified FAA Air Traffic Controllers insuring safe and expeditious handling of all arrivals and departures at Lakeland Linder Airport, April 8-15."

Sun 'n Fun agreed to and paid for ATC services well before EAA and, thus, Sun 'n Fun set the precedent. Prior to making assertions about EAA actions setting precedents, at least get your facts straight.

Last year Copperstate was held successfully without ATC services. Copperstate is much smaller than either Sun n Fun or AirVenture and had already dispensed with their airshow years before this latest imbroglio occurred. I was there and everything appeared to be running just fine for an event of its size without using any ATC services other than those normally provided to aircraft arriving and departing from Casa Grande.

[Hal Bryan]

For those that couldn't attend, here's the link to the recording of Jack's webinar today. I provided Jack and Dick (Knapinski, who served as host/moderator) with a complete list of questions from this thread, and believe he addressed them all.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3390959189001 (http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3390959189001)

[Ylinen]

I watched the EAA Webcast today. I thought Jack did a good job of explaining the reasons he and the board did what they did. The most compelling point for me was that the legal action could not guarantee FAA would send controllers to support the event or issue the weavers that the FAA needs. It is march with an event in August. What else but settle could they do.

Some here seem to want a vote of the members to hold AV or not with or without the FAA. I guess that could be done, but given the number that vote for the board, how many do you think would take the time to do that vote.

I think the agreement allows us to look for other options. Something Jack said they would continue to do for future years. Jack said they had approach contract controllers and none said they could do the event this year.

One thing I hope the EAA does is hold the FAA to the contract. One item is we have to pay Per Diem for the controllers lodging and meals. The Government Per Diem rate for Oshkosh is $83 a day for lodging and $46 for meals and incidentals. I hope we stick to that. Anyone know where they can get a room for $83? I don't so the FAA will have to pay the controllers the difference out of their budget. So there are other ways we can take it to them.

I have another idea for Jack at EAA. When it comes time to settle up with the FAA for Air Venture. He should compute the amount of fuel tax that the members bought on the grounds and were taxed at .17 per gallon and all the gallons bought getting to and returning home to AV and deduct it from the bill. We should not have to pay twice for the same service.

[Kevin O'Halloran]

so where will EAA get the money???
if there is a charge on the planes flying in --it comes to around $40.00 per plane
or do they add $1.00 to each ticket ???
I understand why Jack did what he did-----its just not the flyin--its also about a LOT of good people that work for EAA and would lose their jobs, Its also about a bunch of good people in Oshkosh that depend on Airventure to help them make ends meet through the year. A lot of the vendors could not make it through the year without showing their products at Oshkosh
Lets face it--the FAA screwed us--not Jack. And instead of turning around and screwing a lot of good people--Jack made the call that he felt hurt the least amount of people.. Tough call--took some balls--but I'm going to stand with him on this one.
NOW--if the low life FAA ever drags their tail--and I'm around--going to step on it !!!
AND everytime I talk to my senator and congressman--I'm going to let them know they should gut the pay and retirements of all the head people in the FAA and the administrator should be flying Delta instead of the G3 and cessna jets.
Kevin
PS I will now probably be ramp checked everytime I land

[docmirror]

Explaining why you are a Quisling doesn't mean you aren't a Quisling. Some have a high tolerance for backstabbing, and deflection of the responsibility entrusted to them by the people they supposedly represent. I am not one of those people. 50 minutes of 'it isn't my fault' and 'they did it too' followed by 'it would cost us more' is humiliating. Do what you want - think what you want - use any rationalization you want to get you through the day. Personally, my principles are worth more than that.

[TedK]

What continues to disturb me is that EAA seems to think that the survival of EAA and AV are more important than the principles held by the membership. While I certainly don't wish anything bad on EAA's employees, they are just that. We should not hold AV to assure employment of 180 (I think was Jack's number), and there are plenty of airshow around the states, even the Reading Airshow is back.

Perhaps my military training colors my thinking but I am willing sacrifice some for the greater good of achieving the objective. Mr. Ausman can tell you we had a saying when flying combat, "you have to go out, you don't have to come back." (unashamedly pirated from the USCG). Some things are worth fighting for.

I would like like to think I would have done it differently, but we are where we are, I will cease carping and look for leadership and direction. The question before us now is what exactly are our principles and what are the objectives of EAA? Then how do we propose to achieve those objectives, and where are the lines we will not let others cross? That would make a great discussion with Jack and the board at the theater. It needs to be part of the agenda for the annual meeting.

Forward, with purpose, more aviating.

[orvie6]

Ok, I have read this entire thread and can only suggest that there be some effort on Mr. Pelton, EAA in general, to persue one of the options mentioned by both readers of this thread and Mr. Pelton himself. That is the use of outside contorllers.. From what I have read, Mr. Pelton said that there were not available to work Oshkosh THIS YEAR... What about years to come? I suggest that the powers that be get together and see about hiring the named provider, or others, that will be able to do the job the FAA wants to 'charge extra' for. It is stated that EAA can terminate this agreement, if it finds other providers. Ok, start contacting them, and lets see what we can come up with.
Wayne

[tspear]

Ok, I have read this entire thread and can only suggest that there be some effort on Mr. Pelton, EAA in general, to persue one of the options mentioned by both readers of this thread and Mr. Pelton himself. That is the use of outside contorllers.. From what I have read, Mr. Pelton said that there were not available to work Oshkosh THIS YEAR... What about years to come? I suggest that the powers that be get together and see about hiring the named provider, or others, that will be able to do the job the FAA wants to 'charge extra' for. It is stated that EAA can terminate this agreement, if it finds other providers. Ok, start contacting them, and lets see what we can come up with.
Wayne

Jack actually covered this in the webinar. If you could cobble together enough contract controllers (not likely, no one company has enough staff to pull it off and maintain existing contracts) it will likely cost a lot more. Under the agreement, FAA still pays the controller salaries, EAA pays for back fill overtime and travel related costs. If you use contract controllers, you will have to not only cover the travel costs, but pay the controller salaries.

Tim

[obmaha]

Jack actually covered this in the webinar. If you could cobble together enough contract controllers (not likely, no one company has enough staff to pull it off and maintain existing contracts) it will likely cost a lot more. Under the agreement, FAA still pays the controller salaries, EAA pays for back fill overtime and travel related costs. If you use contract controllers, you will have to not only cover the travel costs, but pay the controller salaries.

Tim

Exactly. Not to mention do you really think the FAA will issue the waivers needed? I respect contract controllers and companies like Air Boss Inc that everyone keeps mentioning. They do great work, but if you really think would you get the same service with them and not the current cadre of controllers you lack any real knowledge of how ATC at airventure works.

[Ylinen]

Exactly. Not to mention do you really think the FAA will issue the waivers needed? I respect contract controllers and companies like Air Boss Inc that everyone keeps mentioning. They do great work, but if you really think would you get the same service with them and not the current cadre of controllers you lack any real knowledge of how ATC at airventure works.

Who do you think the controllers that Air Boss uses are? They are retired FAA Controllers. All of the ones he uses have been Air Venture Controllers. So in reality they would be better as they have MORE experience than the ones he FAA will bring. They are older and wiser. They also are more efficient as they don't have to comply with the UNION BS. The AirBoss CEO said he could do it with 1/2 the personnel the FAA uses and for 1/3 the cost the FAA charged EAA in 2013.

The one outstanding issue is the Liability Insurance. Would the underwriter charge more since the government is not providing the service. How much more and why given the background of the controllers being used.

FAA would still be required to issue the waivers under the contract. The clause for ATC services is the only thing that is being exercised.

I don't know about you, but even if the services in total were a little higher, I would rather pay AirBoss than give one dime to the FAA.

[Dave Stadt]

Jack actually covered this in the webinar. If you could cobble together enough contract controllers (not likely, no one company has enough staff to pull it off and maintain existing contracts) it will likely cost a lot more. Under the agreement, FAA still pays the controller salaries, EAA pays for back fill overtime and travel related costs. If you use contract controllers, you will have to not only cover the travel costs, but pay the controller salaries.

Tim

And a huge increase in liability insurance which EAA would end up paying for either directly or indirectly. This is much more complicated than simply finding controllers to replace the FAA controllers.

[martymayes]

Just curious, does EAA purchase a liability insurance policy for AV or do they simply self-insure the event? Does anyone know?

[orvie6]

"Does anyone know?" I think this is the biggest question in this entire thread!! Do we , as a general membership, really know what all is involved with all aspects of this agreement??? I mean, yea, we are upset because we see this as a start or furtherance of the Government using this as a stepping stone for more restrictions to GA. But, are we aware of all the parameters that are involved here? More than likely, NOT.. Sure, it is upsetting when we 'bow down to the FAA', but with all the other questions this brings up, amount of personnel, insurance, etc., maybe this agreement is not as harmful as we sometimes think. Like we all know, Airventure is one of the largest and longest aviation related events in the world. Perhaps my outlook on this is different because I am in my late 60's and no longer fly as much as I would like, but still think that GA will survive. A lot of our military and commercial airline pilots own GA aircraft. Again, just my opinion.
Wayne

[tspear]

Dave,

I was not going to touch the additional complexities. I figured just covering what Jack stated as an initial high barrier to even begin discussions is a good starting point.

Ylinen,

EAA is already in discussions with AirBoss. This was covered in the webinar, further Jack stated AirBoss cannot provide the staff to do everything the FAA does. They will continue discussions with AirBoss and others, but so far no luck. Second, about half (if I recall correctly) of the fee paid last year will be credited to the EAA agreement.

Wayne,

I think you are correct, I am twenty years behind you but somehow us stubborn pilots will continue to find a way to fly. The problem I see is a lack of interest and high barriers to entry.

Tim

[TedK]

"Does anyone know?" I think this is the biggest question in this entire thread!! Do we , as a general membership, really know what all is involved with all aspects of this agreement??? I mean, yea, we are upset because we see this as a start or furtherance of the Government using this as a stepping stone for more restrictions to GA. But, are we aware of all the parameters that are involved here? More than likely, NOT.. Sure, it is upsetting when we 'bow down to the FAA', but with all the other questions this brings up, amount of personnel, insurance, etc., maybe this agreement is not as harmful as we sometimes think. Like we all know, Airventure is one of the largest and longest aviation related events in the world. Perhaps my outlook on this is different because I am in my late 60's and no longer fly as much as I would like, but still think that GA will survive. A lot of our military and commercial airline pilots own GA aircraft. Again, just my opinion.
Wayne
I unfortunately know way too much about govt contracting having been on both sides of that table since 88. If FAA had a ten most wanted list, I would have made that in 89, but I digress.

IMO, the agreement seems to be a pretty good one but no matter how well crafted a document, what makes it work is good faith and trust. It appears to me that EAA struck a pretty good bargain with the FAA by avoiding direct labor costs and only having to do backfill overtime. The transportation, per diem and misc are relatively small charges, and would have to be paid to both FAA or a private contractor.

Since we now have to pay twice for ATC, it appears to me that paying FAA is likely the best value. They may not be cheapest but they will have an incentive to say yes to waivers etc if we are employing them. If we become penny wise and pound foolish we might get a lower cost contractor but then FAA would have an incentive to nit pick us.

EAA made a decision. Let's see if we can support that good faith and trust so things work.

[orvie6]

Ok, since we as general membership are not aware of all that was involved in this process, I agree with TedK. Lets support this decision and see how things develop in the future. Lord knows how this will end up, but lets support our organization and see what the future does hold.
Wayne

[Ylinen]

I unfortunately know way too much about govt contracting having been on both sides of that table since 88. If FAA had a ten most wanted list, I would have made that in 89, but I digress.

IMO, the agreement seems to be a pretty good one but no matter how well crafted a document, what makes it work is good faith and trust. It appears to me that EAA struck a pretty good bargain with the FAA by avoiding direct labor costs and only having to do backfill overtime. The transportation, per diem and misc are relatively small charges, and would have to be paid to both FAA or a private contractor.

Since we now have to pay twice for ATC, it appears to me that paying FAA is likely the best value. They may not be cheapest but they will have an incentive to say yes to waivers etc if we are employing them. If we become penny wise and pound foolish we might get a lower cost contractor but then FAA would have an incentive to nit pick us.

EAA made a decision. Let's see if we can support that good faith and trust so things work.

As I look up the PerDiem for Oshkosh it is $83 per day for lodging and $46 per day for meals and incidentals. EAA should not pay more than that even though there is no way to get a room at that rate without doubling up.

I believe it was Jack or maybe Dick that said the overtime labor was a small part of the bill.

We should also deduct the amount of fuel tax that we all pay getting to/from AV and all the gas bought on the field. Should not have to pay twice for the same service.

[TedK]

As I look up the PerDiem for Oshkosh it is $83 per day for lodging and $46 per day for meals and incidentals. EAA should not pay more than that even though there is no way to get a room at that rate without doubling up.

I believe it was Jack or maybe Dick that said the overtime labor was a small part of the bill.

We should also deduct the amount of fuel tax that we all pay getting to/from AV and all the gas bought on the field. Should not have to pay twice for the same service.

If we start nit picking and driving to the letter and not the spirit of the agreement, what do you think the other side will do? This will escalate into a death spiral.

Do we want our Pink Shirts tired, kept awake by a snoring roommate and bedbug bites in a fleabag hotel? The Pink Shirts are our guardian angels.

We are better than this, we are Aviators, we take the higher ground, ahem, flight level. Let's set the example and raise FAA to where they should be.

[Jim Rosenow]

If we start nit picking and driving to the letter and not the spirit of the agreement, what do you think the other side will do?

Article 11 of the agreement appears to state clearly what the other side will do. Whether 'Airventure' plays naughty or nice, the FAA Administrator has final say on any interpretation of the agreement, hence any disagreement over it. At least that's how I read it. Your mileage may vary.

Jim

[Eagle Six]

Article 11 of the agreement appears to state clearly what the other side will do. Whether 'Airventure' plays naughty or nice, the FAA Administrator has final say on any interpretation of the agreement, hence any disagreement over it. At least that's how I read it. Your mileage may vary.

Jim

So, the chief hen, on behalf of all hens, signs an agreement with the fox, giving the fox the final word! .....well, the hens can always lean on that good faith thing. Regardless, all the opinions will have no affect on the past......but maybe the future?!?!?!

On the other hand, if we want the services, someone has to pay for it. Maybe it's past time Airventure pays for it's own party.


Best Regards.......George

[obmaha]

[QUOTE=On the other hand, if we want the services, someone has to pay for it. Maybe it's past time Airventure pays for it's own party.
[/QUOTE]

I think there is a lot of validity to this point. But also what I don't see a lot of people talk about and I am curious why is why are people not going to the state for some money? As someone who grew up in Wisconsin, the state makes MILLIONS off of airventure every year. It would make sense to me anyway to lobby for some sort of assistance from the state. I am guessing a temp sales tax increase for the week of airventure might be impossible but there has to be something the state can do to pitch in.

[Eagle Six]

I think there is a lot of validity to this point. But also what I don't see a lot of people talk about and I am curious why is why are people not going to the state for some money? As someone who grew up in Wisconsin, the state makes MILLIONS off of airventure every year. It would make sense to me anyway to lobby for some sort of assistance from the state. I am guessing a temp sales tax increase for the week of airventure might be impossible but there has to be something the state can do to pitch in.

That question was asked in the webinar and the answer was as you state, no funds from the state. Good point.



Best Regards.......George

[TedK]

I think there is a lot of validity to this point. But also what I don't see a lot of people talk about and I am curious why is why are people not going to the state for some money? As someone who grew up in Wisconsin, the state makes MILLIONS off of airventure every year. It would make sense to me anyway to lobby for some sort of assistance from the state. I am guessing a temp sales tax increase for the week of airventure might be impossible but there has to be something the state can do to pitch in.

I get it that OSH-AV is different, and there is certainly no fiscal reason why it couldn't pay for ATC. I'd be OK with that if it were limited to OSH and like events. My fear is that GA will have to swipe the credit card before every flight. The National Air Space, particularly for VFR flight, shouldn't be a toll road.

That is, unless we want to change the lyrics to America the Beautiful...

[jjhoneck]

As I look up the PerDiem for Oshkosh it is $83 per day for lodging and $46 per day for meals and incidentals. EAA should not pay more than that even though there is no way to get a room at that rate without doubling up..

Hello? Is there some reason we can't bunk controllers in tents out in Camp Scholler?

I've slept in a tent at Airventure every year for 31 years. Or are they simply too special to do the same?

I grow weary of hearing how "special" the FAA is, and how important controllers are to AirVenture. These are tax-paid employees of ours, and it's time we reasserted control.

Besides, creating a special "ATC Compound" in Scholler could be a lot of fun for them, if they went into it with the proper attitude.

[TedK]

Hello? Is there some reason we can't bunk controllers in tents out in Camp Scholler?

I've slept in a tent at Airventure every year for 31 years. Or are they simply too special to do the same?

I grow weary of hearing how "special" the FAA is, and how important controllers are to AirVenture. These are tax-paid employees of ours, and it's time we reasserted control.

Besides, creating a special "ATC Compound" in Scholler could be a lot of fun for them, if they went into it with the proper attitude.

No where in our Agreement does it say to do something different than the Govt Travel Regs. Why? Because you could never get them to get the exception from Office of Personnel Management or NATCA.

You want the Feds, then you get it the Fed's way.

We don't have a Contract and EAA is not FAA's client or customer.

The Pink shirted Controllers aren't coming to OSH to party. They have to work HARD and that means we aviators need them well rested.

However, the passengers of N1 should spend the night in Scholler and talk with real GA.

[dougbush]

Please explain the exemptions and waivers that EAA says are needed to get a myriad of aircraft in and out of KOSH in one week, and why it is impossible to hold such a large fly-in there without the exemptions and waivers.

[obmaha]

Please explain the exemptions and waivers that EAA says are needed to get a myriad of aircraft in and out of KOSH in one week, and why it is impossible to hold such a large fly-in there without the exemptions and waivers.


Are you serious?

[PaulDow]

A few obvious items are the ability to land multiple aircraft on the same runway at the same time (colored dots). Converting a taxiway into an active runway, and allowing camping around an active runway too. The Fisk arrival process isn't very standard.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Oshkosh is probably the most exempted aviation activity on the planet for that week. I offer the NOTAM from last year http://www.airventure.org/flying/2013_notam.pdf
The level of training that goes into qualified for working at AV is amazing. There was a video last year(?) that showcased the tiered mentoring system needed to be a "on your own" AV controller.
Take a moment to reflect - would you like to camp and hold down a high stress full-time job for a week? Juggling toilet/shower/dressing time so you can be ready to work at a specific moment. And when you are off duty - have a dynamic party all around you while you try get some quiet "me time" to do it all over again the next day?
I thought so.

[obmaha]

Oshkosh is probably the most exempted aviation activity on the planet for that week. I offer the NOTAM from last year http://www.airventure.org/flying/2013_notam.pdf
The level of training that goes into qualified for working at AV is amazing. There was a video last year(?) that showcased the tiered mentoring system needed to be a "on your own" AV controller.
Take a moment to reflect - would you like to camp and hold down a high stress full-time job for a week? Juggling toilet/shower/dressing time so you can be ready to work at a specific moment. And when you are off duty - have a dynamic party all around you while you try get some quiet "me time" to do it all over again the next day?
I thought so.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2581398423001

[dougbush]

Are you serious?
Yes. I would like to know what specific exemptions and waivers FAA grants for that week and how much each contributes to the volume of landings and take-offs that can be safely accomplished in an hour.

I have flown to AirVenture and am familiar with the notam.

[dougbush]

A few obvious items are...
Does anyone have the whole list?


...to land multiple aircraft on the same runway at the same time (colored dots).
Is that one of them? A tower controller can't normally clear anyone to land until the runway is empty?


Converting a taxiway into an active runway
Isn't that the airport owner's decision?


and allowing camping around an active runway too.
What regulation or rule prohibits landings and take-offs near a campground?



The Fisk arrival process isn't very standard.
Yes, the radio silence and wing rocking is nonstandard, but it's common in Class B & C to send inbound traffic to a waypoint, then assign a runway and route to get there.

[dougbush]

Take a moment to reflect - would you like to camp and hold down a high stress full-time job for a week? Juggling toilet/shower/dressing time so you can be ready to work at a specific moment. And when you are off duty - have a dynamic party all around you while you try get some quiet "me time" to do it all over again the next day?
I thought so.
No, but there are other housing options, and I don't believe controllers are generally prohibited from camping on work nights.

[martymayes]

Take a moment to reflect - would you like to camp and hold down a high stress full-time job for a week? Juggling toilet/shower/dressing time so you can be ready to work at a specific moment. And when you are off duty - have a dynamic party all around you while you try get some quiet "me time" to do it all over again the next day?
I thought so.

Guess they could always elect to not volunteer if working conditions are too harsh.

[Mayhemxpc]

Let's not get spun up about the cost of lodging for the controllers. The government itself determines what the per diem rates are for different areas of the country at different times in the year. These are based on actual survey costs at an agreed rate. That is what the reimbursement rate should be for AirVenture. (For all of Wisconsin in 2014 that is $83/night for lodging and $46/day for meals and incidental expenses.) The Federal Travel Regulations also specify the objective standards for the accomodations. The FAA is required to book the travel and accommodations through the agency's access to an e-travel service, which includes agrees rates between the government and the hotel or airline. If the FAA disagrees with the established per diem rate, then they should take that up with the GSA, not expect the EAA to enter into a contract that violates the Federal Travel Regulations. That said, I don't know that the FAA has expressed any disagreement with that rate.

Personally, I would like the controllers to be well rested.

That said, the Federal travel regulations also forbid a non-federal entity from making cash payments to a federal agency to cover official travel by federal employees. (Federal Acquisition Regulation 304-3.4) (But Rule of Law by the Federal Government doesn't seem to apply much anymore.)