FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[Jim Rosenow]

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

[MADean]

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

"Yes, with additional training."

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

[FloridaJohn]

Then AirVenture would get the standard amount of service that would be available on any given day.

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

[RV8505]

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

+1

[rwanttaja]

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

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

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

Ron Wanttaja

[FloridaJohn]

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

So 5% of all registered airplanes are going to converge at a single airport. This has been happening for 43 consecutive years. The FAA has been informed and is aware of this year's date. The FAA is operating a control tower at that airport. The FAA has defined a Class D airspace around the airport. The FAA fails to staff for this known influx of air traffic. An accident happens, and the FAA has no responsibility? It seems to me they have taken over the responsibility of the airspace/airport when they made this a controlled airfield.

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

[martymayes]

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

[FloridaJohn]

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

Excellent point. The Airventure NOTAM is an FAA publication and has already been released for this year's event. Is the FAA really going to back down from the procedure (with the attendant staffing requirements) that they themselves drew up?

[rwanttaja]

Excellent point. The Airventure NOTAM is an FAA publication and has already been released for this year's event. Is the FAA really going to back down from the procedure (with the attendant staffing requirements) that they themselves drew up?

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

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

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