EAA's Extraordinary Lack of Leadership

June 13, 2013

In a stunning announcement today the EAA acknowledged that it agreed to pay the FAA $450,000 for the Air Traffic Control services it will provide at AirVenture.

EAA’s agreement with the FAA comes on the same day of the deadline set by 28 U.S. Senators, that insisted the FAA stop with its user fee demand and provide a formal response back to the Senators. Now, with EAA’s agreement in hand, the FAA can authoritatively state that the issue has been settled by mutual agreement, and though not perfect, provides for certainty in these difficult budgetary times and lays the groundwork for cooperation in the future (or some other B.S. to that effect – just watch).

Today EAA betrayed the interests of its Members and all of General Aviation. It blackened the eyes of the 28 Senators that were prepared to fight this issue on our behalf (I suspect they will now be hesitant to back the EAA on future issues). EAA’s agreement cements the foundation for similar, and new User Fees, which the FAA can simply demand on a whim (this one was dreamed up and implemented in just weeks).

The EAA is and will be “spinning” this as a problem with the FAA. I’ll state this is first, a problem with EAA. It is an extraordinary lack of leadership, from one of the largest voices in aviation, on the most critical issue facing General Aviation. From the Board of Directors, to the President and the next layer down, these people must be replaced. As Members, we can make this happen!

As EAA Members we can change course by:
1.) Simply quitting (not a great option, why let EAA flounder), or
2.) Run for the Board of Directors (or via social media campaign/write in candidate), or
3.) Agree upon the candidates and Vote. Get Every Member You Know to Vote.

Change from within EAA may take time, but it can happen. What happened today should never happen again. Ever.

So, if you agree with me, how can you help?



Mike Hongisto
President - EAA Chapter 1221
hongistomichael@aol.com

Yes, a tough spot, Airventure right around the corner. It may be a little late to try to revamp ATC to safely handle air traffic this year. If it has to be done for the show to go on, so be it. I'd also get a study group going for what to do next year. That $450,000 is a good amount of cash. Maybe there's a private option that would work, retired ATC, whatever. This would be against the backdrop of large Federal spending deficits that can't continue & the push for more 'user fees'.

It looks to me like the EAA leadership was forced to make a choice. Are they about AirVenture, Inc, or promoting and protecting general aviation? They chose AirVenture, Inc and forever sullied the EAA logo as "The First to Pay" for user fees in the USA.

Incredibly saddening.

I am truly curious: does the EAA membership understand that what constitutes wastefraudandabuse is based on the perspective of the persons or groups making the judgement? "Cutting big government down to size" means, exactly, cutting programs with major dollars in them - such as the FAA - and imposing user fees for what were once deemed universally-funded public services. There isn't enough wastefraudandabuse in /other people's/ programs to make a significant dent in the federal budget, nor enough payments to 'moochers' to make a significant difference. /Everyone's/ programs, including the ones we like, will be affected by the sequester and the House majority's drive to cut "big government". Not only is it hypocritical to complain when it is our preferred programs that feel the bite, but it is also a bit blind not to realize that for 99% of the citizens of the United States federal support for general aviation IS a form of wastefraudandabuse.

'Don't cut me; don't cut thee: cut that fellow's program behind that tree'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sphealey

I am truly curious: does the EAA membership understand that what constitutes wastefraudandabuse is based on the perspective of the persons or groups making the judgement? "Cutting big government down to size" means, exactly, cutting programs with major dollars in them - such as the FAA - and imposing user fees for what were once deemed universally-funded public services. There isn't enough wastefraudandabuse in /other people's/ programs to make a significant dent in the federal budget, nor enough payments to 'moochers' to make a significant difference. /Everyone's/ programs, including the ones we like, will be affected by the sequester and the House majority's drive to cut "big government". Not only is it hypocritical to complain when it is our preferred programs that feel the bite, but it is also a bit blind not to realize that for 99% of the citizens of the United States federal support for general aviation IS a form of wastefraudandabuse.

'Don't cut me; don't cut thee: cut that fellow's program behind that tree'.

---

Obviously you don't run a business or pay much in taxes yourself. The outrage I feel in this matter isn't so much with the EAA as it is in this government's selective cost cutting designed to hurt the groups which are most vocal against big government. A lot more old fashioned get it done attitude and a lot less waste, fraud, and abuse IS the right answer. Waste, in this case is NOT using the FAA to do what it is supposed to do! Waste is things like 50 million in parties for the IRS while extorting extra funds from the EAA! To offer explanation for this over bloated government by suggesting that we (the EAA) needs to pay "it's fair share" so to speak is obsurd to all but the serious cool aid drinkers.

" There isn't enough wastefraudandabuse in /other people's/ programs"

I was under the obvious misguided impression that I pay my aviation fuel taxes and I get ATC services and support for Sun-N-Fun and OSH in return. If my aviation fuel taxes are not returning that value to me then I will support either cutting the FAA budget or reducing the aviation fuel tax.

Frankly, I expect to get no benefit from the over cost and behind schedule Nexgen program just like the much heralded Microwave Landing System turned out to be a big bust. So lets cut the FAA development budget and move the money to ATC operations.

Why are none of the folks who think user fees are a good idea also in favor of cutting the aviation fuel tax? Are those idividuals ignorant of the promise that was the rationale for that tax?

And have all of the folks who complain about EAA sent an e-mail to their Senators and Representative asking for Congress to step in? Complaining is easy. Actually doing something is work.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Well said Wes!,

The subject of this blog is off base, we don't have enough facts to make a critical judgement on EAA's decision. The timing of this is right out of the "Meigs" playbook!

Joe
:P

I am stunned and dismayed that EAA caved-in and agreed to FAA extortion prior to letting FAA respond to the Senate letter. You ask us to mobilize Congress, we do, and then you don't wait for FAA to respond to the Senate letter?!?

Please explain to the membership why you had to agree to FAA in advance of FAA answering to Senate.

I understand that many are upset at Pelton. I will wait to allow him to explain his strategy going forward and how he intends to respond in full.

my understanding is there was more to the decision than just controllers. The FAA grants waivers to certain rules to conduct the event.

i like that EAA forced the two payments. Now they have some leverage as well.

we as an organization have to decide how much civil disobedience we are willing to do and at what cost. There are few options to fight the FAA as they control our flying and there are limited appeal process. Remember Bob Hover's medical event.

i would like us to find some way to,express our objection hopefully in a humorist way.

I agree. I am not surprised that they paid. They really didn't have much of a choice due to this being sprung on them right before the show. Canceling the show as much as people like to spout that idea just isn't and option.

What bugs me though is the timimg. Why pay the day before the FAA has to respond to congress? Why go to the trouble of asking us to write our representatives if you are just going to undermine their letter those 28 senators sent supporting EAA in this fight? Do you really think they are going to stand up and fight for us again next year after what you just did?

I think EAA needs to expain to its membership what is really going on. I believe that most of its members will swallow the pill of having to pay this year due to the timing of the request but what we won't stand for is being told one thing while doing something completely contradictory in the background.

Keith

I think the timing is related to the fact that with just over a month out, EAA needed to move on with planning. That doesn't mean that Congressional intervention can't happen and the fee request dropped. IMO, the problem in not a lack of EAA leadership. EAA was put into a damned if we do, damned if we don't position. They have no leverage to force the FAA to do anything and as stated earlier, cancelling AirVenture really isn't an option. So realistically there were ever only 2 choices: pay or hold OSH without ATC. Can you imagine the fallout had there been a mid-air over RIPON without controllers present in today's political environment?

In any event, I'm seeing lots of posts here and on other websites castigating EAA. So for those lamenting a lack of leadership, what would you have done different? If your answer is simply I wouldn't have paid, then I call BS.

The EAA should have simply said " OK, don't show up" then put out a new notice, we will have no tower this year.

I think Jack Pelton is an exceptional leader and is volunteering without pay. I think he and the Board have made the right decision for this year, because of timing. We will live to fight another day!

If it were only the tower ATC that was the issue, maybe they could have said we will take care of it ourselves. But, the other big part of the issue was all the permitting that is done to use the airport and airspace that would not be approved without the extortion payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

I think the timing is related to the fact that with just over a month out, EAA needed to move on with planning. That doesn't mean that Congressional intervention can't happen and the fee request dropped. IMO, the problem in not a lack of EAA leadership. EAA was put into a damned if we do, damned if we don't position. They have no leverage to force the FAA to do anything and as stated earlier, cancelling AirVenture really isn't an option. So realistically there were ever only 2 choices: pay or hold OSH without ATC. Can you imagine the fallout had there been a mid-air over RIPON without controllers present in today's political environment?

In any event, I'm seeing lots of posts here and on other websites castigating EAA. So for those lamenting a lack of leadership, what would you have done different? If your answer is simply I wouldn't have paid, then I call BS.

---

What else could the EAA have done? Plenty.

But first, by announcing early in the process that “we’ll pay if we have to” is devastating to negotiating your position. Talk about a basic mistake. Let’s also ignore the bungled attempt to seek relief from the US Senate. That’s been partially addressed elsewhere.

The EAA could have sought an Emergency Injunction from a Federal Court Compelling the FAA to provide ATC service by;
a.) Showing a stoppage of ATC service would cause irreparable harm to EAA,
b.) That the Court granting an Emergency injunction is in the Public Interest,
c.) The EAA would likely prevail in its position based on merit, and,
d.) The FAA would not be harmed in a delay of payment, if so required.

It would be common curtsey to provide the defendant with say, 48 hours notice prior to filing the motion in Federal Court. This would provide a final chance of negotiated settlement, and absent that, this would mark the beginnings of a legal challenge to the FAA’s authority to direct bill indirect users of the airspace system for ATC services.

Long ago the EAA has become a large enough business to justify the legal, political and lobbying resources to defend itself against unjust actions. These resources were obviously absent further demonstrating the lack of leadership in running a multi-million dollar organization.



Mike Hongisto
President - EAA Chapter 1221

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Hongisto

What else could the EAA have done? Plenty.

But first, by announcing early in the process that “we’ll pay if we have to” is devastating to negotiating your position. Talk about a basic mistake. Let’s also ignore the bungled attempt to seek relief from the US Senate. That’s been partially addressed elsewhere.

The EAA could have sought an Emergency Injunction from a Federal Court Compelling the FAA to provide ATC service by;
a.) Showing a stoppage of ATC service would cause irreparable harm to EAA,
b.) That the Court granting an Emergency injunction is in the Public Interest,
c.) The EAA would likely prevail in its position based on merit, and,
d.) The FAA would not be harmed in a delay of payment, if so required.

It would be common curtsey to provide the defendant with say, 48 hours notice prior to filing the motion in Federal Court. This would provide a final chance of negotiated settlement, and absent that, this would mark the beginnings of a legal challenge to the FAA’s authority to direct bill indirect users of the airspace system for ATC services.

Long ago the EAA has become a large enough business to justify the legal, political and lobbying resources to defend itself against unjust actions. These resources were obviously absent further demonstrating the lack of leadership in running a multi-million dollar organization.



Mike Hongisto
President - EAA Chapter 1221

---

What negotiating postion? Do you think that anyone outside of our little flying communtiy and the State of Wisconsin really give 2 cents if AirVenture happens or not? Cancelling AirVenture is a hollow threat to the FAA. A court injunction -- gimme a break. It's an airshow, albeit an important one to us and vital to EAA's operating budget, but it's still a week long airplane fest and not vital to the transportion interests of the nation. AirVenture goes away and the airlines go on their merry way none the wiser. User fees get implemented and the airlines go on their merry way indifferent to any impact on GA. Impact commercial air travel and the govenment will take notice because like or or not that's what matters to the Feds . Inconvience a few aviation buffs and airplane owners and no one is going to bat an eyelash. We can pontificate here amongst ourselves on the internet all we want, but that is not going to change reality. Neither would EAA throwing what would amount to a temper tantrum.

Look I think this is a raw deal and don't like it either. Hell as a DoD employee, I get to experience my own private sequestration hell in a few weeks when our mandatory furloughs start. But blaming EAA for not doing enough simply doesn't fly in my book and I was one of the early guys calling for Hightower's head on a pike.

You guys need to direct your emotions at our elected officials who got us in this mess to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZRider

I think [Jack Pelton] and the Board have made the right decision for this year, because of timing. We will live to fight another day!

---

I agree.

It is significant that the Senators' letter did not address just AirVenture but repeatedly referred to " and other major aviation events across the country." We've read elsewhere on this board about the FAA's apparent intent to impose these user fees all over the place. And we've heard first or second hand from people at Sun n Fun, Arlington and Copperstate who are directly aware of the FAA's charging them for service.

The EAA has bought (literally, unfortunately) us some breathing room. This issue is no longer about AirVenture. We now need to redirect the argument toward the FAA's imposition of user fees when the Congress has repeatedly for decades expressed its clear opposition to user fees for ATC services. An airshow in Wisconsin frankly isn't worthy of a Congressional investigation. The FAA's flaunting of Congress' intent is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Downey

The EAA should have simply said " OK, don't show up" then put out a new notice, we will have no tower this year.

---

That makes no sense. The FAA owns the tower and airspace. How could EAA determine there would be no tower and how could EAA put out a 'notice' there would be no tower when they have no control over the airspace or the tower. EAA made the only decision that makes sense. No one likes it but better to live to fight another day than cancel AirVenture which would severely impact the resources needed to continue the fight.

I have to wonder if this isn't the camel's nose under the tent so to speak. A buddy of mine is going to a tail dragger sort of convention this month. His preparation and excitement factor is similar to mine when I get ready to go to Osh in the summer. It sounds awesome, low key etc. I wonder if many of us will begin seeking new venues? Will the cost begin to outweigh the benefits of attending? Maybe we won't care next time when they are going to shut down more towers. Perhaps we will be disbursing to events less orchestrated and more personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Stadt

That makes no sense. The FAA owns the tower and airspace. How could EAA determine there would be no tower and how could EAA put out a 'notice' there would be no tower when they have no control over the airspace or the tower. EAA made the only decision that makes sense. No one likes it but better to live to fight another day than cancel AirVenture which would severely impact the resources needed to continue the fight.

---

Todd makes sense to me. FAA planned to close the tower. That Class D reverts to Class G. Read the NOTAM, do what it says, be courteous. No tower, big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

Todd makes sense to me. FAA planned to close the tower. That Class D reverts to Class G. Read the NOTAM, do what it says, be courteous. No tower, big deal.

---

FAA would change that in a heart beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

It looks to me like the EAA leadership was forced to make a choice. Are they about AirVenture, Inc, or promoting and protecting general aviation? They chose AirVenture, Inc and forever sullied the EAA logo as "The First to Pay" for user fees in the USA.

Incredibly saddening.

---

Wrong, Sun N Fun was first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Downey

The EAA should have simply said " OK, don't show up" then put out a new notice, we will have no tower this year.

---

And the FAA would cancel all the waivers that are required for people and aircraft in the safety zones which would eliminate most of the camping and showplane areas. The "old-timers" would get their wish, the show would be dramatically smaller!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

Todd makes sense to me. FAA planned to close the tower. That Class D reverts to Class G. Read the NOTAM, do what it says, be courteous. No tower, big deal.

---

Since the FAA has delayed closing of any control towers until after the end of this fiscal year, the Oshkosh Class D will continue with, presumably, the current staffing levels. So there will be no reversion to Class G and, absent the EAA payment for extra controllers, the normal staff would only allow the level of traffic into and outof Oshkosh that they could safely handle. AirVenture would be decimated.

Perhaps one of the older members, or an EAA staffer can answer my wife's question. She seems to recall back in the mists of the OSH event's early history, the FAA controllers actually volunteered their time, took vacation time, and maybe even took care of their own housing, to participate in the fly-in operations. Was that the case or did we just misunderstand?

The fly in has hundreds of volunteers. If the ATC staff used to be actual volunteers, what changed their participation into a government junket?

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

Perhaps one of the older members, or an EAA staffer can answer my wife's question. She seems to recall back in the mists of the OSH event's early history, the FAA controllers actually volunteered their time, took vacation time, and maybe even took care of their own housing, to participate in the fly-in operations. Was that the case or did we just misunderstand?

The fly in has hundreds of volunteers. If the ATC staff used to be actual volunteers, what changed their participation into a government junket?

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

---

As far as I remember it was they vouluntered for a paying assignment at Oshkosh.

What would a lawsuit over this do to the EAA/FAA relationship? I think it would likely cause irreparable damage which would cause more harm than benefit to general aviation. Because of the reasonably good relationship, the FAA tended to listen to EAA on various subjects. I think that would likely end if EAA brought legal action.

I don't like the fees either and think this is typical bureaucratic chickenschiess on the part of the FAA but at the same time, EAA has a great deal at stake. The FAA, not so much.