Colorado: KDRO temporary tower

[denverpilot]

Apparently the FAA can afford temporary towers for unscheduled firefighting activity, but can't afford tower controllers for the world's largest fly-in that's on the calendar every year.

Retardedness aside...

Heads-up Colorado folks. Temporary tower at KDRO.

Oh, and the NOTAM was first received here from the Colorado Division of Aeronautics, not the FAA notification system. Maybe they're too broke to use that system too. :shrug:

-----

NOTAM: DRO Temporary Air Traffic Control Tower
NOTAM DRO 06/006

Due to increased air traffic resulting from aerial firefighting activity in the vicinity of Durango, CO, a temporary air traffic control tower will be utilized beginning Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 0830L. The tower will be operational 0830L-2030L daily until further notice. This NOTAM is current as of Friday, June 28th, 2013 19:12:00 UTC.

DRO Tower Frequencies
Tower: 128.05
Ground: 127.10
UNICOM: 122.8
ASOS: 120.625

 

[bnt83]

Well isn't that kind of a kick in the nuts....

 

[PilotAlan]

I have a strong feeling the FAA will be charging the Forest Service for the costs of the tower.

And if not, seriously, if that's not a reasonable cost for the FAA to absorb (maintaining ATC for large volumes of firefighting operations), then what is? I don't see this as comparable to Oshkosh at all.
Just to be clear, I do think the Oshkosh thing is a bunch of BS.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Apparently the FAA can afford temporary towers for unscheduled firefighting activity, but can't afford tower controllers for the world's largest fly-in that's on the calendar every year.

Retardedness aside...

That's kind of a weird thing to say, Nate. The OSH thing is stupid politics but comparing hundreds of homes and thousands of acres of public land being lost in your own back yard to a voluntary convention?

 

[dukeblue219]

Count me as someone who thinks that's a reasonable allocation of limited resources. Are you really suggesting that a voluntary gathering of a club is higher priority than fighting forest fires that threaten people's homes?

If a private club throws a party big enough to require police assistance for security and traffic directing, they usually foot the bill. I sure wouldn't complain that my city was using the police to direct traffic around a burning building instead of at my private party, even if it is a taxpayer-funded resource. Why is OSH any different, other than that we all want something for free?

 

[denverpilot]

That's kind of a weird thing to say, Nate. The OSH thing is stupid politics but comparing hundreds of homes and thousands of acres of public land being lost in your own back yard to a voluntary convention?

Air traffic is air traffic. The job is to handle air traffic, period. The service is paid for by fuel taxes.

(Alan, who cares if FAA charges Interior? Those both come out of our collective pockets. Interior or Forest should be ****ed. FAA has a funding stream from fuel taxes and charges them? For us "end users" it really doesn't matter. We're paying for the extra Accountants to shuffle paper between agencies plus the costs of the temporary services.)

FAA will bend over backward for airline hubs politically, and those are "voluntary" too. Guess they should charge 'em. If that's the system they want.

The reality is, society seems to think a giant GA event is "non-standard" when it's anything but, and it's convenient to pretend the funding system to run the air traffic system isn't sufficient to handle that core service for such "voluntary" events.

 

[dukeblue219]

(Alan, who cares if FAA charges Interior? Those both come out of our collective pockets. Interior or Forest should be ****ed. FAA has a funding stream from fuel taxes and charges them? For us "end users" it really doesn't matter. We're paying for the extra Accountants to shuffle paper between agencies plus the costs of the temporary services.)

Sorry, but that's just how the government works, and it makes sense. It's not about the FAA "charging them." Yes, they receive some of their funding from fuel taxes, but they make a budget and account for all their income and estimated expenses. Just because a sudden need pops up mid year doesn't mean the fuel tax revenue will magically cover it.

The FAA gets a certain amount of funding. The Forestry service gets a certain amount of funding. If Forestry suddenly needs extra air traffic control services, they have to transfer funds to the FAA to cover it unless the FAA is otherwise funded to provide such service in their budget (i.e. a line item for fire fighting services). Otherwise the FAA will be shorthanded somewhere else. It's way more efficient than having the Forestry service hire their own controllers. It happens in every government agency and in every large multi-divisional corporation. One division/agency transfers to another to perform a service for them if they can do it better and cheaper.

 

[denverpilot]

Sorry, but that's just how the government works, and it makes sense. It's not about the FAA "charging them." Yes, they receive some of their funding from fuel taxes, but they make a budget and account for all their income and estimated expenses. Just because a sudden need pops up mid year doesn't mean the fuel tax revenue will magically cover it.

Oh really? Congress voted upon a complete Federal balanced budget and approved it?

(What repercussions of going over budget would any rogue agency have, other than political? How about while claiming they were providing essential safety services? On Meet the Press?)

If the fuel tax revenue does not "cut it", do they shut down? The sequestration political BS doesn't count since, especially FAA played that perfectly and didn't announce the closing of some Podunk offices, but when right straight for the jugular of the public... ATC services... Control Towers... And the public revolted...

Where again is this fanciful world where government stays within their budget?