EAA's side of the story...

F

flibmeister

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
117
Display Name
Display name:
flibmeister
In all the discussion about the FAA's demands for reimbursement of ATC expenses at Oshkosh, one thing missing has been EAA's side of the story.
Today, Dick Knapinski of EAA made the post below in the EAA forums.

"In April, Congress give special permission to FAA to move money within its budget for air traffic services because of the air traffic tower and controllers issue. FAA officials contacted at the time and asked specifically about AirVenture operations assured EAA it would be “business as usual.”

On May 13, in a personal conversation with EAA Chairman Jack Pelton and EAA VP Advocacy and Safety Sean Elliott in Washington, D.C., FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and COO David Grizzle laid out this ultimatum:


  1. EAA will sign a contract and pay the fees
  2. Failure to do so means FAA will not give EAA the air traffic staff and waivers (including the NOTAM) needed to bring in all the airplanes for the event
  3. EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field or with retired/volunteer controllers
  4. If EAA doesn’t sign the contract in a rapid fashion, FAA won’t send the controllers
The initial contract called for a payment of $479,000 (eventually reduced to $447,000). Mr. Grizzle and FAA representatives contacted EAA on a nearly daily basis at the end of May demanding that contract be signed or no controllers would be scheduled for Oshkosh, citing a 60-day advance notice. U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, who represents Oshkosh in the House, asked FAA a list of very specific questions regarding FAA’s assessment and was basically told by Mr. Grizzle that FAA’s position would not change.

Afterward, Senators began circulating a letter to FAA demanding answers to this new policy and calling the sudden charges “unacceptable.” The Senate originally required a response by June 7, but delays in completing the letter in the Senate moved the response date to no later than June 13. FAA demanded a signed contract prior to that date or would not schedule controllers.

As far as we know, as of June 19 the Senators have yet to receive an official response.

Using contract tower controllers was also studied, but FAA’s current contract tower agreement with Wittman Regional Airport includes language that states that the contract tower crew will not operate the tower during AirVenture week."
 
How does the FAA have the authority to demand that the field not operate uncontrolled?
 
They, along with much of our govt, are simply out of control. :mad: :mad:
 
SkyHog said:
How does the FAA have the authority to demand that the field not operate uncontrolled?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? If I were planning to fly to Oshkosh this year (I'm not) and I heard the field was going to be uncontrolled, there is no f'in way I'd fly in. That's mid air mayhem right there. I'm sure the same opinion would be held by many of the professional, classic and warbird owners too. Without planes flying in, Oshkosh isn't the big show anymore.

The FAA and Obama (who seems to have it in for GA) know this.
 
I'd be willing to bet a month's pay this edict came from the very top. Make it hurt!
 
No waivers or Notam without paying, hmm, how much does it cost the FAA to renew a waiver and refile a Notam? Bunch of Oklahoma Nazis. The EAA should find/buy a friendly senator and introduce legislation to privatize all of the FAA.
 
Note, the letter does not say the FAA would prohibit AirVenture without a tower, they just "EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field"

My guess is that comes more from insurance providers than the FAA...the underwriters might just be saying "No tower, no coverage", the the liability exposure would be incredible.
 
EAAs insurance or some sort of FAA insurance? How would EAA insurance get the FAA to write demands? Didn't think the FAA had insurance seeing as they have all the money in the country for lawyers when needed.
JeffDG said:
Note, the letter does not say the FAA would prohibit AirVenture without a tower, they just "EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field"

My guess is that comes more from insurance providers than the FAA...the underwriters might just be saying "No tower, no coverage", the the liability exposure would be incredible.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
EAAs insurance or some sort of FAA insurance? How would EAA insurance get the FAA to write demands? Didn't think the FAA had insurance seeing as they have all the money in the country for lawyers when needed.
Click to expand...

Read the note. EAA never said that the FAA said they couldn't do it uncontrolled, only that the EAA could not do it uncontrolled.

If their insurance carrier said "If you don't have a tower, we won't cover you." and the FAA said "You pay a bazzilion dollars or no tower", then they have to pay the bazillion dollars to the FAA, run without insurance, or not run the event. If their risk tollerance is anything this side of insane, then the option of going without insurance would be out, so suddenly, the option is pay for the tower or cancel the event.
 
JeffDG said:
Note, the letter does not say the FAA would prohibit AirVenture without a tower, they just "EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field".
Click to expand...

Those bullet points, including #3, were prefaced this way: "FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and COO David Grizzle laid out this ultimatum:"

It was the FAA that said the EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field, not insurance companies.
 
JeffDG said:
Read the note. EAA never said that the FAA said they couldn't do it uncontrolled, only that the EAA could not do it uncontrolled.
Click to expand...

I read the note and the four points follow "Heurta and Grizzle laid out this ultimatum" which means to me they said all of it. I suppose it could mean Heurta and Grizzle said 1, 2, and 4 which seems like something the FAA can do with the result of the EAA assuming 3 but it isn't written that way. :dunno:

Cheers
 
That is the way I read it, straight up gov't extortion, no regard to what insurance companies may require.
Jim_R said:
Those bullet points, including #3, were prefaced this way: "FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and COO David Grizzle laid out this ultimatum:"

It was the FAA that said the EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field, not insurance companies.
Click to expand...
 
X3 Skier said:
I read the note and the four points follow "Heurta and Grizzle laid out this ultimatum" which means to me they said all of it. I suppose it could mean Heurta and Grizzle said 1, 2, and 4 which seems like something the FAA can do with the result of the EAA assuming 3 but it isn't written that way. :dunno:

Cheers
Click to expand...

The phrasing, to me, looks carefully constructed to imply the FAA said "Pay us or no event" but does not actually say that.

The FAA can say:
  • Pay us or no controllers
  • We will not permit volunteer/retired controllers to man a legal tower
  • We will not issue a NOTAM with special air traffic rules without our controllers running things

But if a couple thousand planes want to show up an an uncontrolled field on their own initiative, the FAA cannot say "Nope, can't do that".
 
JeffDG said:
The phrasing, to me, looks carefully constructed to imply the FAA said "Pay us or no event" but does not actually say that.

The FAA can say:
  • Pay us or no controllers
  • We will not permit volunteer/retired controllers to man a legal tower
  • We will not issue a NOTAM with special air traffic rules without our controllers running things

But if a couple thousand planes want to show up an an uncontrolled field on their own initiative, the FAA cannot say "Nope, can't do that".
Click to expand...

So the EAA lied when they reported what Huerta and Grizzle said in an ultimatum?:confused:

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
So the EAA lied when they reported what Huerta and Grizzle said in an ultimatum?:confused:

Cheers
Click to expand...
No. The FAA issued an ultimatum, but their phrasing is not at all clear that the FAA said they could not run AirVenture from an uncontrolled field.
 
JeffDG said:
No. The FAA issued an ultimatum, but their phrasing is not at all clear that the FAA said they could not run AirVenture from an uncontrolled field.
Click to expand...

What is unclear about "3. EAA is not allowed to run the event as an uncontrolled field or with retired/volunteer controllers"

Cheers
 
JeffDG said:
No. The FAA issued an ultimatum, but their phrasing is not at all clear that the FAA said they could not run AirVenture from an uncontrolled field.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's quite clear Jeff.
 
More parsing on this thread than when Clinton got caught.
 
AirVenture is not a sudden, unexpected expense. It is part of the FAA's routine business.

If this year EAA had asked for some additional service that would cost more, then perhaps the FAA could require payment for that new and additional service, or merely refuse to provide the additional service.
 
I say cancel it for a year, it will really suck for Aviation in the short run, but I believe that the local Mayor, Wisconsin State Governor/Represenative/Congress and every company that lost income/tax money will be calling all of their connections in Washington and this wouldn't happen again. How many company's are there that make big money from Oshkosh? That has to be a lot of tax dollars missed that the State of Wisconsin sits on.
 
That's not a viable option under any circumstances.

VanDy said:
I say cancel it for a year, it will really suck for Aviation in the short run, but I believe that the local Mayor, Wisconsin State Governor/Represenative/Congress and every company that lost income/tax money will be calling all of their connections in Washington and this wouldn't happen again. How many company's are there that make big money from Oshkosh? That has to be a lot of tax dollars missed that the State of Wisconsin sits on.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
That's not a viable option under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be educated in the matter, but I understand that it wouldn't be easy, especially with the event being right around the corner. But could you give me a cliff notes version of why?
 
VanDy said:
I don't claim to be educated in the matter, but I understand that it wouldn't be easy, especially with the event being right around the corner. But could you give me a cliff notes version of why?
Click to expand...

You think the EAA supports itself on dues? The organization would probably implode if Oshkosh didn't happen. In many ways it really is the Enormous Airshow Association.
 
The FAA administer has been gaming the system since day one looking a way to show his agency is so darned special that it should somehow be given relief from the results of the gutless do nothing boneheads in congress.

First he said, "I'll close 200 towers" That failed when people said "Fine, close them."
OK we'll leave those open and disrupt airline traffic by reducing the force at the tracons and centers. Problem is not too many people understand that either.

Expect things like this Airventure extortion to be further played out whenever they think they can get some political traction out of it.
 
Too much on the table to let it de-rail over such a relatively small expense.

VanDy said:
I don't claim to be educated in the matter, but I understand that it wouldn't be easy, especially with the event being right around the corner. But could you give me a cliff notes version of why?
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
You think the EAA supports itself on dues? The organization would probably implode if Oshkosh didn't happen. In many ways it really is the Enormous Airshow Association.
Click to expand...

i never thought about that, good point.

flyingron said:
The FAA administer has been gaming the system since day one looking a way to show his agency is so darned special that it should somehow be given relief from the results of the gutless do nothing boneheads in congress.

First he said, "I'll close 200 towers" That failed when people said "Fine, close them."
OK we'll leave those open and disrupt airline traffic by reducing the force at the tracons and centers. Problem is not too many people understand that either.

Expect things like this Airventure extortion to be further played out whenever they think they can get some political traction out of it.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

wabower said:
Too much on the table to let it de-rail over such a relatively small expense.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, I just hope that the EAA has a game plan and that it doesn't spill over to the folks who can't afford it, like these guys:
http://www.fathersdayflyin.com/
although they seemed to have made due with options they had.

The 47th Annual Father’s Day Fly-In has been cancelled this year only due to the cost for the FAA to staff our temporary tower. An Airport Appreciation Day will be held instead on Saturday, June 15th from 9 AM until 4 PM only. The Boy Scouts will hold their annual Pancake Breakfast.


guess its time to renew my membership.
 
flyingron said:
The FAA administer has been gaming the system since day one looking a way to show his agency is so darned special that it should somehow be given relief from the results of the gutless do nothing boneheads in congress.

First he said, "I'll close 200 towers" That failed when people said "Fine, close them."
OK we'll leave those open and disrupt airline traffic by reducing the force at the tracons and centers. Problem is not too many people understand that either.

Expect things like this Airventure extortion to be further played out whenever they think they can get some political traction out of it.
Click to expand...

Well said. And I'd include passive-aggressive payback for the Pilot's Bill of Rights.
 
Its so simple, I don't understand why they don't just post something like this:

"The FAA will not be staffing our towers. Also, we can't "host a fly-in." That said, if you make it out that day, even though there's no fly-in, there will be plenty of booths set up, dots on the runways, and lots of airplane parking."

Same for the father's day fly in - "The FAA has revoked our temporary tower. That's too bad, but you can still make use of the airport as you would have. We won't call it a fly-in, but you can still come and participate as you normally would have."

That's how you say "**** YOU" to the FAA.
 
No airshow waivers, but yeah paying up just means they will pay double next year. All the little air shows are screwed. Why should I join an advocacy organization that won't even stand up for itself?
SkyHog said:
Its so simple, I don't understand why they don't just post something like this:

"The FAA will not be staffing our towers. Also, we can't "host a fly-in." That said, if you make it out that day, even though there's no fly-in, there will be plenty of booths set up, dots on the runways, and lots of airplane parking."

Same for the father's day fly in - "The FAA has revoked our temporary tower. That's too bad, but you can still make use of the airport as you would have. We won't call it a fly-in, but you can still come and participate as you normally would have."

That's how you say "**** YOU" to the FAA.
Click to expand...
 
The part that really upsets me about this is that we already pay for this tower service through the tax dollars generated from AvGas taxes. Can you imagine the tax dollars the government is already getting from 10,000 airplanes flying back and forth to Oshkosh? It would be nice if the EAA could say we just won't have AirVenture this year and you (the Govt) will just miss out on all those gas tax dollars. I wonder what consequences that would create for the FAA? I don't know. Realistically I know it is not feasible for EAA to just cancel AirVenture, but it really upsets me that the FAA can hold them (and ultimately us) hostage for these extra user fees. :(
 
10,000 airplanes burning 200 gallons of fuel* roundtrip paying 19.4 cents per gallon in tax = 388,000.00

* that is about what I burn flying a 182 from DC to Osh. YMMV but I'm thinking it's not a bad number
 
I vote they should cancel the 'official' Airventure. Call it something else, have the owner of the airport close the tower for that week, let the owner of the airport issue the NOTAM whether it comes through FAA channels or not, I don't care.

The FAA is the modern day American Taliban. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Yes, I said it. If some people don't want to fly into Whittman cause it will be too dangerous, I strongly encourage them to stay away. The FAA is not the arbiter of how we run our business, just the traffic advisor. EAA made a mistake, they should just get rid of the FAA, and lose the airshow and wavier for ops for a year. Deal with it, or just cancel the whole thing this year and let the chips fall.

When the hostage-takers don't get what they want, lets make everyone lose. This is a capitalist system, and the only thing anyone understands is MONEY.
 
docmirror said:
I vote they should cancel the 'official' Airventure. Call it something else, have the owner of the airport close the tower for that week, let the owner of the airport issue the NOTAM whether it comes through FAA channels or not, I don't care.

The FAA is the modern day American Taliban. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Yes, I said it. If some people don't want to fly into Whittman cause it will be too dangerous, I strongly encourage them to stay away. The FAA is not the arbiter of how we run our business, just the traffic advisor. EAA made a mistake, they should just get rid of the FAA, and lose the airshow and wavier for ops for a year. Deal with it, or just cancel the whole thing this year and let the chips fall.

When the hostage-takers don't get what they want, lets make everyone lose. This is a capitalist system, and the only thing anyone understands is MONEY.
Click to expand...

Vendors spend years to get prime locations, spend a lot of money to have a presence at the show. many would never come back. Oshkosh would never be the same, EAA as you know it would cease to exist. Many might be alright with that, but obviously high level EAA leadership is not.
 
Time to place bets: What will next years FAA bill be for Oshkosh? Bonus bet: What extra services are the FAA going to decide they need to provide and EAA needs to pay for?
I love safety.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Time to place bets: What will next years FAA bill be for Oshkosh? Bonus bet: What extra services are the FAA going to decide they need to provide and EAA needs to pay for?
I love safety.
Click to expand...

Gonna depend whether the Dems think they can pick up Wisconsin seats in the House next November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top