ATC Charges

Saw this in this mornings AvWeb. I would this this helps the EAA case.

The FAA has confirmed to AVweb that the NFL will not have to pay for the extra costs of providing air traffic services in the New York area that result from Sunday's Super Bowl game in New Jersey. In an email to AVweb late Sunday, the agency also indicated that last year's game in New Orleans was without cost to the league for air traffic services. "The FAA requires event sponsors to provide reimbursement when the FAA has to move equipment, personnel or other resources to support the event because those resources are not available at the event location, as was the case with Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis in 2011," the FAA said in a statement. "The FAA generally can support most events in major urban areas with existing FAA resources." EAA has launched court action to recoup about $450,000 in fees assessed by the FAA for expenses related to air traffic services for AirVenture 2013. EAA is expected to have a statement Monday. While the manpower and equipment to handle the extra 1,100 aircraft landing and taking off at New York area airports over the weekend may already be in place, there is no question that handling all that traffic in a compressed period of time required a major extra effort, as outlined by both the FAA in an internal memo (PDF) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association in a news release (PDF) earlier this week.
NATCA says extra shifts are being worked at facilities in the area. “We are staffing at full capacity; we have all controllers on duty and plan to have them work overtime," Edmund Granton, the NATCA rep in Teterboro, said in NATCA's statement. "Our membership here at Teterboro Tower has been working tirelessly in preparation for the big game.” NATCA also notes that a midnight shift was added at Farmingdale tower, which normally closes at 11 p.m. In her memo to staff, the FAA's Acting Air Traffic Organization COO Teri Bristol says up to 140 FAA staff will be dedicated to moving Super Bowl traffic. "Our work is helping enable access for all aircraft, keep delays to a minimum and ensure event security as well," she wrote in her memo to staff.

There is another aspect to the cost factor of all that corporate air traffic which is mostly jets. They always file and fly on IFR fight plans, it doesn't matter if they are coming to Aspen and there is not a cloud in the state, like now, or going into some gloomy, polluted, east coast big city. They always need or want the extra services, the centers, radar, approach controllers, tower controllers, ground controllers, etc. And they are not charged directly for these services, it is paid for by taxpayers just like multimillion dollar football and baseball stadiums are paid for by taxpayers, not the NFL or the teams.
When most EAA members fly into Oshkosh, McCleland excepted, they fly in vfr, and don't need or even want someone to part the air ahead of them of the masses. The costs impact of our traffic is much less.
By the way, you often hear about how dangerous it is to fly into Aspen, because of the steep approach that is required. Yes it is true that if you fly the published vor approach it comes over a 13,000 foot mountain about 10 miles away, and the localizer approach is similar, but I land there a hundred times a year, and I have only done a real imc approach twice. If you move about 1 mile to the west , and come in visually, the ground is actually lower than the 7800 foot runway elevation. Of course in bad imc conditions, there is danger all around. if you fly the ifr approach, it requires not only good tracking of the localizer or vor, but also some good flying to land after seeing the runway.

Bill I might have to try this on the simulator. I know its not like being there and doing it but as close as i will ever come. I remember living in Summit County Colorado and hearing about crashes that have happened in that area. I was not into flying then, to busy working and raising a child by myself to do anything like flying.

Tony

Quote:

---

If you move about 1 mile to the west , and come in visually, the ground is actually lower than the 7800 foot runway elevation.

---

Which explains why they had a corporate jet a few years back smash into the ground that was rising towards the runway threshold. To quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much".