EAA's side of the story...

What email address can I send some hate mail and a cancellation notice to AOPA at? They were completely silent on this matter and will not support an advocacy group that does not advocate.
 
DavidWhite said:
I'd also like I point out that under the Bush regime nothing like this ever happened.
Click to expand...

You are indeed factually correct. I might tremulously point out that it was the administration of Bush the Younger that started the no-fly zone around our capital and all those nifty VIP TFRs.
 
Yeah for clinton someone crashed a cessna on his front lawn and there were no new rules written. What a man, give him a cigar.
 
jtheune said:
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
Click to expand...

Are you postulating that they will use no other ATC services than those provided at OSH?

Not defending the extortion...just challenging you supposition if that is indeed it.
 
timwinters said:
Are you postulating that they will use no other ATC services than those provided at OSH?

Not defending the extortion...just challenging you supposition if that is indeed it.
Click to expand...

Good question.

FAA contends that they have extraordinary expense and must be paid for OSH; I would contend (and I'd be right) that there is a substantial credit due for all the taxes generated solely because OSH occurs.
 
The difference here is that we are already paying for this service with our gas taxes and the FAA is just wanting to charge us again for what we have already paid for. And they are doing it in a very underhanded and less the ethical manner. Other government programs are not directly funded quite like aviation through the gas tax.
 
Are you confident that the income from aviation gas taxes are adequate to fully fund all FAA Operations?

Do you have the data?
 
Last edited:
You mean that money they collect to provide a system we don't need and don't want?

Dean V said:
If you pay a gas tax, you just know its enough. Even though GA has been subsidized by the passenger ticket tax for decades.
Click to expand...
 
timwinters said:
Are you postulating that they will use no other ATC services than those provided at OSH?

Not defending the extortion...just challenging you supposition if that is indeed it.
Click to expand...

While some may use services enroute, for most GA flights those services are not needed or used.
 
Of course we could have paid for the controllers by keeping 0.6% of the bonuses being paid to the IRS. ;)
 
How do you use it?

Dean V said:
No, I mean the the money they collect for a system you don't need or want. There are plenty of us in GA that want and need the system we have.
Click to expand...
 
Noted. It's obviously guys like you who screw it up for the rest of us.

Dean V said:
I use about every aspect of the system including, weather, monitored navaids, charting, tested and published approaches, aircraft certification, regulation enforcement, ATC services, airport improvements, ect.
Click to expand...
 
Dean V said:
I use about every aspect of the system including, weather, monitored navaids, charting, tested and published approaches, aircraft certification, regulation enforcement, ATC services, airport improvements, ect.
Click to expand...

Then you should pay more then the guys flying nordo airplanes out of their backyards.
 
Maybe I am being a little naive here. If my memory serves me Air Venture lasts about a week. Add a few days before, and a few days after and you need the tower for 14 days. 10 controllers per day at 50 dollars an hour 24 hours a day for 2 weeks is $168,000(10*24*50*14). Where is the other 300,000 that the FAA is asking for. The tower is already there, and so there is no additional cost for that. Notam, etc cannot cost too much. So where is the extra cost. Accomadations, and food bills cannot be too much.

I am sure I am missing something, but it seems to me that EAA is paying the FAA a lot more than it is costing the FAA, and if I remember correctly there are laws that state the FAA cannot make a profit off of anything it sells.
 
Pilots based in Appleton would disagree.

Dean V said:
You could just get a plane with a mogas STC and pay zero aviation fuel taxes. Of course if you are flying to AirVenture you are no longer a "I only use my backyard" guy.
Click to expand...
 
Dean V said:
I really enjoy these FAA/EAA discussions. Congress and the President agreed to cut spending and everyone thinks all the services except the ones they want should be cut. Many of the idiot senators who supported these cuts are the same idiots wriiting the FAA complaining about them and demanding explainations.

Add to that list the idiot EAA officials who are soliciting the idiot senators to complain on EAA's behalf.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be blunt but you just don't get it. It's not about the money, whether it were $100 or 5 mil. It's about the control. The FAA admin said that if you don't pay, there will be no Airventure. This is why I keep preaching liberty to people, cause they just don't understand that no matter what we do, we need their 'authority' or 'permission' to hold this event.

Suppose the EAA had told them to go fornicate a circular mobile pastry. Then, sure as there are feds watching this forum, the FAA would rescind all the LOAs for the performers. It would also withdraw the waviers needed to exceed the 250Kt barrier, and several other FAR restrictions. So, maybe the EAA then says 'fine, we'll do without that stuff, and we'll still have a good time'. Next, you know what the admin will do. In a heartbeat - he would slap a 30NM SFC - UNL TFR right over KOSH for the whole month of July if needed. And you know what? The petulant, little ***** in the WH would prolly promote him to sec of trans for his effort!

You no longer have control over your own movements. The FAA decides when, where, how, who, and why. If they want to bust you then you get busted. Let's say the EAA then says 'well, fine we're going to hold a party, and everyone will fly in anyway, and violate the TFR'. What's the FAA gonna do? You know! They will have every controller, FSDO, and office wank out there handing out violations to everyone. Heck, they might even enforce it with military hardware.

You can't win! This has NOTHING to do with the money! It's totalitarianism at it's best, and you all voted for it. Remember, N Korea has a perfect GA safety record. :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
douglas393 said:
Maybe I am being a little naive here. If my memory serves me Air Venture lasts about a week. Add a few days before, and a few days after and you need the tower for 14 days. 10 controllers per day at 50 dollars an hour 24 hours a day for 2 weeks is $168,000(10*24*50*14). Where is the other 300,000 that the FAA is asking for. The tower is already there, and so there is no additional cost for that. Notam, etc cannot cost too much. So where is the extra cost. Accomadations, and food bills cannot be too much.

I am sure I am missing something, but it seems to me that EAA is paying the FAA a lot more than it is costing the FAA, and if I remember correctly there are laws that state the FAA cannot make a profit off of anything it sells.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the specifics of all the money the FAA is asking for, but I suspect transportation would be included. Also, the per diem rates, assuming each of the FAA employees are staying in Appleton, are $82/day for lodging and $46/day for meals and incidentals.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120
 
douglas393 said:
Maybe I am being a little naive here. If my memory serves me Air Venture lasts about a week. Add a few days before, and a few days after and you need the tower for 14 days. 10 controllers per day at 50 dollars an hour 24 hours a day for 2 weeks is $168,000(10*24*50*14).
Click to expand...

Your figures are a tad off, here's a more realistic view, based on what they're trying to charge me for my event:

Average controller pay is closer to $70 per hour, and EAA is being charged overtime rates, so that's comes out to $105 per hour. Note, the controllers working OSH are NOT getting that OT-- they're getting paid straight time. But the FAA theory is that, for every shift a controller works at OSH, somebody must be called in back home on overtime to cover his shift.

Oshkosh is seven days long, add in two travel days and a training day, that's ten days. However, two of those days will be days off, so the FAA is probably charging EAA for eight shifts per controller assigned. Published reports indicate they generally use around 60 controllers.

So:

$105 per hour times 8 hours per day = $840

Add the cost of travel, meals, lodging, etc., and you're in the vicinity of $1000, per controller, per shift-- or, $8000 for the 8 shifts a controller would work during the event.

$8000 times 60 controllers = $480,000


Please note, I'm not defending any of this, just giving an example of where the numbers are coming from.
 
Last edited:
The real worry here is the FAA has unilaterally levied a tax in the form of a user fee. This started with Oshkosh, but given the level of public indebtedness any Federal agency can truly claim to be out of money at any time, since they all effectively are. How soon will all of us be charged a user fee for the "use" of FAA services, whether we use them or not? How soon do other Federal agencies pick up this banner, and start charging for the services they are supposed to be carrying out? How long before we truly have pay to play government, where you have to pay official bribes (which is all a user fee is anyway) to obtain any sort of government service. This is how things work in third world countries, you don't want it here.
 
Dean V said:
No, I mean the the money they collect for a system you don't need or want. There are plenty of us in GA that want and need the system we have.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point, Dean; the air traffic control system, as it is constituted today, is designed almost entirely around the requirements of the airline industry; if general aviation were to cease operating today, the majority of the ATC system would, and would have to, remain in operation as it is currently constituted. The entire purpose of having a system of air traffic control which is funded as it is today, is to provide the infrastructure for aviation to operate, with reasonable safety. When (as seems to be the trend) this essential safety function is corrupted through the use of "user fees" (of whatever character), it is the beginning of the end of aviation for anyone, other than the very wealthy and the airlines.

Perhaps the worst part of this current problem is that the FAA waited until Airventure was imminent, until there was nothing that could be done to effectively resolve this issue other than caving into the demand under duress. It is dishonest, dishonorable, and an unfortunate example of the arrogance with which the bureaucratic state regards its subjects (not "citizens," subjects).

steingar said:
The real worry here is the FAA has unilaterally levied a tax in the form of a user fee. This started with Oshkosh, but given the level of public indebtedness any Federal agency can truly claim to be out of money at any time, since they all effectively are. How soon will all of us be charged a user fee for the "use" of FAA services, whether we use them or not? How soon do other Federal agencies pick up this banner, and start charging for the services they are supposed to be carrying out? How long before we truly have pay to play government, where you have to pay official bribes (which is all a user fee is anyway) to obtain any sort of government service. This is how things work in third world countries, you don't want it here.
Click to expand...


You have hit the nail on the head here. Perhaps we have gone past the "tipping point," after which the governmental machine and its bureaucracy, and the people who operate it, genuinely and earnestly believe that we, the citizens, exist to serve them, and not the other way around.

This, and things like this, are the stuff of revolution.
 
SCCutler said:
This, and things like this, are the stuff of revolution.
Click to expand...

While I have to agree with you, I shudder to think about such an event. I prefer the thought of a real "kick the bums out" campaign, where we fire the whole of Congress. Everyone, just to let them know who's in charge. If every incumbent of every stripe lost one election, these guys would start listening in a big hurry.
 
steingar said:
While I have to agree with you, I shudder to think about such an event. I prefer the thought of a real "kick the bums out" campaign, where we fire the whole of Congress. Everyone, just to let them know who's in charge. If every incumbent of every stripe lost one election, these guys would start listening in a big hurry.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't work, the b'crats run the country now. They ain't up for election.
 
steingar said:
While I have to agree with you, I shudder to think about such an event. I prefer the thought of a real "kick the bums out" campaign, where we fire the whole of Congress. Everyone, just to let them know who's in charge. If every incumbent of every stripe lost one election, these guys would start listening in a big hurry.
Click to expand...


Maybe some day our ballots will state Democrat, Republican and No one. I night check the no one slot. Actually I kind of do that now, when neither candidate is a choice I am comfortable with I don't vote for either.
 
There won't be a revolution, unfortunately. We are rapidly disarming ourselves, and by and large, our society is too lazy and lethargic to stand up for anything.

If anyone did try to start it, before he even got any backing, he'd be stopped by the government.

Lets say, for example, that tomorrow, I grabbed my guns, and my family, and decided to make a stand....what's the over/under on people turning it into a "Crazy guy with gun" story? I doubt you'd see a bunch of people join.

Nope - we will never overthrow this government - it already has too much power, and that's why they're acting the way they are. The day they succeed in taking away everyone's guns for sure is the day there's no return. As it stands right now, we have a path toward return, but we don't have the personnel that cares.
 
If there was a revolution it wouldn't be on the state run news or partially state run interwebs. For all we know some have recently started shooting, they ain't going to tell us.
SkyHog said:
There won't be a revolution, unfortunately. We are rapidly disarming ourselves, and by and large, our society is too lazy and lethargic to stand up for anything.

If anyone did try to start it, before he even got any backing, he'd be stopped by the government.

Lets say, for example, that tomorrow, I grabbed my guns, and my family, and decided to make a stand....what's the over/under on people turning it into a "Crazy guy with gun" story? I doubt you'd see a bunch of people join.

Nope - we will never overthrow this government - it already has too much power, and that's why they're acting the way they are. The day they succeed in taking away everyone's guns for sure is the day there's no return. As it stands right now, we have a path toward return, but we don't have the personnel that cares.
Click to expand...
 
What is the rest of the EAA side of the Airventure story?

I'm an EAA member and 2 time Osh participant but really don't understand the setup. My assumption is that Airventure is a profit making event for someone. I guess the EAA is a tax exempt organization so that someone may or may not be the EAA.

Then the question in my mind is who makes money on Airventure and why wouldn't paying the FAA to staff up ATC be reasonable?

I don't want my ox gored either but unless the whole thing is some kind of charitable event, not sure how I argue for extra tax payer support. is it a charitable event or something?

What is clearly unreasonable is the short notice given the history. Seems like a 12 month notice would be reasonable for budgetary reasons though I'm not sure the bill is all that disruptive given the scale of the event.
 
EAA is a not for profit association, just like the Red Cross or your local church. It has to abide by the same rules.
 
Bill Watson said:
Much snippage and numbers added...

1) Then the question in my mind is who makes money on Airventure and why wouldn't paying the FAA to staff up ATC be reasonable?


2) What is clearly unreasonable is the short notice given the history. Seems like a 12 month notice would be reasonable for budgetary reasons though I'm not sure the bill is all that disruptive given the scale of the event.
Click to expand...

In answer to Q1, that is a valid question, and if a law was passed mandating user fees for special events, presumably EAA would need to pay. However, until a law changes, I don't see that the FAA has the legal status to require an organization to pay for a service (ATC) that is generally provided as part of the FAA's safety mandate. Allowing bureaucracies to arbitrarily decide who and when to charge for what is a huge pandora's box that extends way beyond the FAA. Imagine if your local Sheriff's office unilaterally decided to charge you $20 for going to the mall or the local HS football game due to "crowd control and traffic expenses"...

In answer to Q2, you're correct, but this was a seemingly intentional choice by the bureaucracy to prevent the EAA and the aviation community as a whole from having time to mount an effective campaign against the fee. Total BS...
 
kyleb said:
In answer to Q1, that is a valid question, and if a law was passed mandating user fees for special events, presumably EAA would need to pay. However, until a law changes, I don't see that the FAA has the legal status to require an organization to pay for a service (ATC) that is generally provided as part of the FAA's safety mandate. Allowing bureaucracies to arbitrarily decide who and when to charge for what is a huge pandora's box that extends way beyond the FAA. Imagine if your local Sheriff's office unilaterally decided to charge you $20 for going to the mall or the local HS football game due to "crowd control and traffic expenses"...

In answer to Q2, you're correct, but this was a seemingly intentional choice by the bureaucracy to prevent the EAA and the aviation community as a whole from having time to mount an effective campaign against the fee. Total BS...
Click to expand...
Points well made.

I do believe that local law enforcement organization routinely charge for 'special events'. They won't charge for taking you to the mall but they will charge for a covering a giant rally of some sort on public or private land. I don't know that federal agencies ever do that but by simply saying "ATC services will be contracted out to XYZ and EAA will need to negotiate with XYZ for any fees involved, I'm thinking it looks like any other Federally sanctioned, locally run event. I'm shooting from the hip here but seems like I've seen all this before.
 
Bill Watson said:
Points well made.

I do believe that local law enforcement organization routinely charge for 'special events'. They won't charge for taking you to the mall but they will charge for a covering a giant rally of some sort on public or private land. I don't know that federal agencies ever do that but by simply saying "ATC services will be contracted out to XYZ and EAA will need to negotiate with XYZ for any fees involved, I'm thinking it looks like any other Federally sanctioned, locally run event. I'm shooting from the hip here but seems like I've seen all this before.
Click to expand...

If an event is private and otherwise legally held, the police can't prevent you from holding the event if you choose to not ask them for help in security or traffic control. It has been claimed by some that the FAA would in fact prohibit such an aviation event by closing the airspace or imposing onerous restrictions if they cannot get their bit of Danegeld.
 
Personally, let them take the money from the budget used for Air Force 1 and 2 and all the planes used by the politicians of both parties....damm TFRs. OK, I shouldn't get started on politics but it seems GA has a target on its back....sorry if I offended anyone.
 
EppyGA said:
Of course we could have paid for the controllers by keeping 0.6% of the bonuses being paid to the IRS. ;)
Click to expand...

OK, being a CPA the IRS folks are not too happy about the sequester because some of them are being furloughed (allegedly). It is taking much longer to get answers to sort out taxpayer issues.

FAA working folks (not the higher ups) are being furloughed (so I was told - no firsthand knowledge)

It seems the only ones who are getting paid and not furloughed are the politicians. It seems to me that they should not get paid until they straighten out their mess. After all, we would be fired if we did not do our work....right?

To me, it is wrong to pull something critical to safety of taxpayers (for Oshkosh and all towers for that matter) when those in charge, i.e. the politicians are getting paid and doing nothing. We should send tea bags with a note proclaiming the date "December 16, 1773" on it to remind those politicians about taxation without representation....

Just saying....
 
asgcpa said:
We should send tea bags with a note proclaiming the date "December 16, 1773" on it to remind those politicians about taxation without representation....

Just saying....
Click to expand...

you terrorist. congress just passed the anti protest law(iirc 2 out 535 voted against) good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top